Reply With Quote
What I don't understand is how these pieces of stone really effect anything. I know what the basic laws of the land are and I personally, don't need the Ten Commandments to tell me that.
Waste of money and time that could be better spent.
This morning the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in two cases concerning the cons utionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments. One case involves a monument outside of the Texas Captial in Austin; the other involves a framed display inside a Kentucky courthouse. Both have been challenged on Establishment Clause grounds.
Interesting to read here that according to those who heard the arguments, it appears from this morning's questions that the Court seems likely to decide the two cases differently, based on the factual distinctions between the displays, rather than articulating a clear rule to decide the issue. It would be similar to the fact-sensitive determinations the Court made in the mid-1980's in the "Creche cases," Lynch v. Donnelly and County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which involved the cons utionality of public Christmas displays.
It seems that the Texas monument will likely pass cons utional muster, likely because it has a historical genesis and is not overtly religious -- it is not intended to suggest that the Christian beliefs are the sole basis for governmental action. On the other hand, it seems that the Kentucky monument may be in question, because the County that erected the display expressly provided that the display was intended to show that "Jesus Christ was the Prince of Ethics." (for some reason, it strikes me as curious to use the Ten Commandments as proof if that was their intention).
They are interesting cons utional questions and might have some effects beyond these individual cases.
What I don't understand is how these pieces of stone really effect anything. I know what the basic laws of the land are and I personally, don't need the Ten Commandments to tell me that.
Waste of money and time that could be better spent.
It should be left up to the states. Hate that people in BFE have so much influence on local customs and traditions.
I concur.
The Supreme Court Justices seem to have found a possible work-around the First Amendment's establishment clause this time, but these cases and those like them are just nonsense. No one is against the public display of the Ten Commandments, but just not on public property. This has been a waste of huge amounts time and money so that traditionalists can figuratively stick it to secularists and 'liberals'. Nothing more, nothing less.
they haven't harmed anyone in the years and years that they've been up... the libs are the ones wasting government money fighting this ..
https://apnews.com/article/texas-ten...91d575578824ebDALLAS (AP) — Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday in a victory for conservatives who have long sought to incorporate more religion into classrooms.
The 9-8 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a boost to backers of similar laws in Arkansas and Louisiana. Opponents have argued that hanging the Ten Commandments in classrooms proselytizes to students and amounts to religious indoctrination by the government.
In a lengthy majority opinion, the conservative-leaning appeals court in New Orleans rejected those arguments in Texas, saying the requirement does not step on the rights of parents or students.
“No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin,” the ruling says.
Backwards Texas trying to see just how much further back we can go
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions