In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Supreme Court To Rule on 10 Commendments Cases

Does the display of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse consistute an unconstitutional government establishment of religion? Well, the phrase “I am the Lord thy God” does a bang up job of that.

My courthouse has no such sign, but there is a mobile nativity scene carried on the back of one man’s pickup truck every Christmas parked in front of the courthouse, initially a protest against the county’s decision to remove the nativity scene from the courthouse lawn. However, this is an expression of his own religion, carried out on his own time using his own money. He neither represents me nor my government the way that a state-sponsored slab of rock declaring who or what my god consists of does when plunked down in front of the courthouse.

What is the importance of displaying the Ten Commandments in front of a legal building?

Supporters of keeping the monument on the Capitol grounds say the traditions of Western law are rooted in the Ten Commandments. America can’t scrub the role of religion from its history, said Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Legal Institute, which defends religious freedoms and First Amendment rights and filed briefs in support of keeping the monument.

“What they’re really advocating on the other side is a religious cleansing from our history,” Shackelford said. “It should be treated with respect as our part of history, not some new form of pornography that has to be banned from our public arena.”

…Van Orden acknowledges the role religion has played in law but believes most people view the Ten Commandments from a religious perspective, not a historical one.

State Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Catholic who keeps a photograph in his office showing him meeting Pope John Paul II, will defend the Texas monument. “I hope and believe the United States Supreme Court is not going to force agnosticism upon the people of this state and this country,” Abbott said. “The First Amendment was never intended to remove all religious expression from the public square.” Abbott noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s marble courtroom also has a carving of Moses holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments.

Van Orden rejects that comparison, noting the carving also shows other historical lawgivers, including Hammurabi, Confucius and Muhammed, as well as the secular figures Napoleon and Caesar Augustus.

Alternative methods of finding ways to continue the Ten Commandments displays have surfaced. One such method includes sectioning off a piece of courthouse property to be rented or sold to the highest bidder. But no one can guarantee that the group who wins such an auction is one that will continue a Biblical display. How would we feel if, for example, the highest bidder was a company wishing to display a billboard? Perhaps an enterprising attorney who wishes to advertise his or her services on the property? Perhaps a clever atheist who chooses to set up a hot dog stand?

The Assertive Atheist takes another look at the Ten Commandments. The American Atheist wonders what would happen if we not only allowed the displays of the Commandments, but also honored the Biblical punishments that accompany them.


3 thoughts on Supreme Court To Rule on 10 Commendments Cases

  1. My calculations on the old site found that only one-fourth of the Commandments (about 2.5) have any analogue in modern law. I think there’s more legal correlation in the Code of Hammurabi or Bazooka Joe gum wrappers.

    I will admit that the phrase “force agnosticism” by our dim-bulb Attorney General was at least unintentionally funny.

  2. It’s been a while since I darkened the door of a church or studied my catechism, but my recollection of the commandments is that one of the more prominent says “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

    How, exactly, is that to be viewed in any way other than a direct endorsement of a particular religion?

  3. Our law is not based on the Ten Commandments, Mosaic law or Christian law. Its based on Anglo-Saxon commin law. We have no law mandating the Sabbath, forbidding the speaking of the Lord’s name, making adultery or coveting your neighbor’s ox illegal.

    The dispute is not about the Commandments, its about the courhouse lawn, the schoolhouse wall. These folks are saying, “This lawn, this wall, belongs to us, and we will put anything on it that we please. If it offends you, you can leave.”

    The confederate flag on the capitol, the prayer on the public address system are about who owns and controls the flagpole and the microphone. “We are in control here and you have nothing to say about it.” That’s why they fight, not for the ideas, but for ownership and control.

    Nobody who knows andything about the Bible, the Christian faith OR the law can say that our law is based on the commandments when only three out of ten have anything remotely parallel in American law. (Stealing, murder, false swearing)

Comments are currently closed.