US Court upholds 10 Commandments on public land

[packsaddle]

I try to start each of my lectures with some extraordinary event or fact having to do with the topic (water). This often is historical and sometimes it has to do with a disaster. But when Heston recently died, I showed them a clip of him parting the Red Sea. I tried to communicate how mind-blowing those meager special effects were way back when the movie was first released but I'm afraid that by today's standards, it was mostly a snoozer. Some things just don't stand the test of time.

You can spot my home because of my prominent display of the only commandment that matters, "Whatever you say, dear."

Your turn, Vicki.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Gold Winger]

Back then, movies had plots that were supported by special effects, now the plot is only there to provide a reason for the FX.

 

My last comments were zapped. I guess that pointing out that "facts" aren't accurate just isn't allowed anymore.

 

 

[evmori]

The mods have been busy wielding the (This message has been edited by a staff member.)!

 

Facts are accurate GW. Maybe just not as relevant.

[FScouter]

The "fact" is that disparaging comments about other forum members is not Scoutlike and not permitted. We moderators are able to prune out the negative attack portion of a post, but in the case of habitual offenders it's a lot easier to delete the entire post.

[Hunt]

This is an example of how weak cases can distort the law. Here, it was very poor strategy to go after a 50-year-old monument that nobody had complained about. It seems petty and ridiculous to do that, but the court isn't going to decide (overtly) on that basis. Instead, the court will make some half-hearted argument about how it isn't a "sacred space," etc., which will just muddle up the next case where there really is a contemporary effort to give state support to religion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I disagree, Hunt. Some religious displays have been upheld *because* "nobody complained for 50 years," which implies that "old enough" constitutional violations magically become constitutional, and will only insure that every single possible violation will be challenged as soon as possible. Saying a lack of lawsuits makes something legal will only encourage lawsuits.

[Hunt]

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that the monument is legal. Indeed, I think the proper legal decision would probably have been that the monument has an obvious religious purpose and was illegally placed on public land. My point is that opponents of such monuments should use some common sense in deciding what cases to bring. When they sue over a monument in a remote location which nobody has complained about in 50 years, they run the risk that a court will decide that their claims are petty and a waste of court time, and the result will be bad law. That's what happened in this case.

[evmori]

I would hazard a guess most cases like these have th courts going "not another one"!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

If they don't complain, the 10 commandments stay up anyway; with a complaint, at least there's a chance for a ruling that the 10 commandments really are religious and shouldn't be there.

 

The upcoming summum case should be interesting.

[CubsRgr8]

Summum? Please elaborate. Thanks.

[Hunt]

"If they don't complain, the 10 commandments stay up anyway; with a complaint, at least there's a chance for a ruling that the 10 commandments really are religious and shouldn't be there."

 

But the downside risk is that they create a bad precedent for a later case where it matters more, and that's what happened here. That's always the danger in cases like this--for example, with Newdow's challenge to "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, there was the danger that the Supreme Court would find that not only was it permissible, but that even broader prayers, etc., were permissible.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

But using that standard leads to no challenges. It's never a "good time." When Loving v. Virginia said that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional, two-thirds of the public were against interracial marriage.

 

Besides which, nobody gets to control what other people do; even if everyone else thinks e.g. Newdow's timing is inopportune, neither you nor I nor anyone else can prevent him from filing such lawsuits. At best, all the theocratic side can do is try to undermine civil rights by trying to pass legislation to remove things like 'under god' from judicial review, and I think that would only inflame the situation even further.

 

The summum case is Summum v. City of Ogden, Utah

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4022.htm

Basically, Ogden put up a 10 commandments monument on public property, and members of the Summum religion want their seven aphorisms also put up. So far, the summums are winning, as the city can't decide to promote some religions' tenets and not others.

[TheScout]

What is Summum? LOL. Can we write if off as a cult?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The government can't "write off" religions as cults, no. That pesky first amendment again.