The 5-4 decision, first of two seeking to mediate the conflict over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays -- like their own courtroom frieze -- would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.
"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.
UPDATE: And the second case goes the other way. It makes sense, but I can't explain why until after class, which I've got to run to.
পোস্টগুলি
১৪টি মন্তব্য:
I haven't read the cases but the wires on the reasoning makes sense. It seems reasonable that someone should not be able to put up displays of the ten commandments with the intent that they be religious displays first rather than something else. This is obviously a fine line.
However, the problem with the Ten Commandments as an example of a religious display is that it is so classic that it does not really seem religious. The Ten Commandments are more of a historical document. If I saw a copy of the Ten Commandments somewhere my first reaction is not a religious one. The only people who are offended by displays of the Commandments are those who make money from being offended (such as the ACLU).
After seeing the second case, this appears to be a loss for the ACLU secular side. We will heve to see the details of the second case. However, the ACLU basically wants to ban relgion from all aspects of public life. They have failed in their effort. Christmas lights and decorations are safe (for the time being).
What is going on with the Court. These decisions appear at odds with each other.
The Court is dysfunctional at best. We need Howard Dean on the Court to give it some clarity.
i guess the crosses at arlington will remain for a while
Christmas trees, lights, and decorations????
sloanasaurus - Woops! Just saw your post about xmas lights and decorations.
Don't we have much bigger problems to worry about rather than offending the 4% of people in the USA who don't believe in God?
Why do we, as a country, bend over backwards to please such a small number of people? If they are here from another country, then why don't they go back to that country where they feel comfortable?
Am I being too harsh?
JLP
AllThingsFinancial
Easiest answer: replace ten commandments displays with a very simple Golden Rule display: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Seems to cover the bases quite nicely, and frankly, it's a message our legislators should pay more attention to.
That ain't a taco I see standing there by the Mexico Civil War monument, and that ain't a Druid's oak by Robert Kennedy's grave either, both of which the tax dole is used by the families when it comes to trimming during mowing season and cleaning off the bird poop. Some folks might surmise upon viewing RFK's cross that you have to be Catholic to have Presidential aspirations.
sami,
I say take it to the people. Let the people vote as to whether or not they want to allow the Ten Commandments to be posted wherever.
Why all the sudden are people so worked up about this?
JLP
AllThingsFinancial
Where does it say that the Government is not supposed to "have a preference for, or favor, a religion?" This is quite a different concept than "establishing" a religion.
I see government figures blabbering about how they are religious all the time. Bill Clinton never missed a chance to be seen attending church. They have Christmas trees and lights all over the capitol and White House. They have crosses strewn across Arlington Cemetery all implying that our Government recognizes that its citizens died for God and Country, not just Country.
Our government will favor Christianity for the rest of its existence. However, favoring a religion doesn't mean having an established church or outlawing another religion.
I agree with you that it could reach a point where "favoring" would be the same as "establishing." For example, if the government only allowed tax exempt status to Churches (Christian) I think that would be the kind of favoring that equals establishment even though the government is not actually penalizing or forcing citizens to attend church over another religion or non-religion.
Just offending the easily- offended, however, is not enough to justify a violation of the establishment clause.
No, I wouldn't classify that group as being offended.
However, I get your point. I would say that groups opposed to the teaching of sex education of any kind in schools fall into the easily offended class.
Reading Stevens' dissent, I was immediately struck by his decision to quote, at the beginning of his opinion, the Ten Commandments as written on the monolith his opinion would have removed. Was he just being cute? Something like, "I'm allowed to display the 10 Commandments here, in this public and quasi-official setting, because I'm performing an analysis on the text and context that would prevent future similar displays from upsetting non-Christians."
If there is a genuine concern on the part of the dissenters, however, for those non-believers forced to walk past displays of religious texts, shouldn't that concern have compelled them to think twice about publishing lengthy excerpts of those texts on Supreme Court stationary?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন