Supreme Court To Rule On Ten Commandments. Do You Trust Them?

[DistressedAmerican]

There was a time that I'd have been happy to see a 10 commandments case make it to the high court. Sadly, these days I fear that it will only further erode the separation of church and state at a time that religious extremism is just breeding more religious extremism.

Although, Bush is poised to put Scalia in as Chief Justice then make it a right wing two-fer by finding another strict constructionist to replace him. Rumor is he thinks ASHCROFT would be good on the bench! Now may well be better than later.

So what do YOU think? Is there any chance they will rule AGAINST the commandments display? Should they? Am I just oversensitive because I am an atheist?

Any chance the dem leadership would even stand up to Ashcroft IF nominated? With the recent track record on appointments, I fear not.



=================================================

-snip-
Supreme Court to weigh Commandments cases
75 percent of Americans support such displays, according to poll

Bill Haber / AP file
A moving crew uses a bar to lift one end of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, Ala., in August 2003.
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:59 p.m. ET March 1, 2005WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has been asked to settle conflicting rulings about whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed at courthouses and on other government property, but there is little ambiguity about the issue among the public.

An Associated Press poll found 76 percent of Americans say such displays ought to be allowed.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court was to consider whether a 6-foot granite Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol and two similar displays at Kentucky courthouses cross the line of separation between church and state.
-end snip-

[Scooter24]

1. I have this gut feeling

that they will rule in favor of the display, but under certain circumstanses I'm sure they will outline.

If they ruled completely against the display, I will be truly shocked and we should be prepared to deal with the fallout from the right.

[mopaul]

2. the 10 cmmdmts are a non issue, like burning the flag, abortion, etc.

a flame issue, red meat for the animals who vote for bush.

the commandments are really irrelevant, and oh so quaint and antiquated, like the geneva convention.

[bowens43]

8. I wish you were right, but IMO you're not.

This is VERY important. This is another small step toward the theocracy. The wall that separates church and state is being slowly but systematically dismantled. This is MAJOR. You may consider the 10 commandments to be irrelevant but the fundamentalist movement in this country thinks otherwise. Because politicians will not risk being seen as 'anti-god' they will work to enact the fundi agenda. Just look at Hillary, she is bending over backwards to kiss the ass of the christian right. every small step makes them bolder and louder.

[SpiralHawk]

18. This will be a landmark decision

in the culture war launched and agressively pursued these last 20 years or more by the rabid, fear-filled, tragically repressed, and thus, consequently, perverted Radical Right.


"Darkness at the break of Noon
Eclipses both the Sun and the Moon"
- B. Dylan

[DistressedAmerican]

21. Not to pick a bone with Mopaul but, I agree.

As an atheist I do not believe in the public financing or endorsement for ANY religion. It is not the government's job to explicitly or implicitly endorse anyone's religion over another (or none). I do not believe in faith based government. It gets us bans on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage etc. Let's not forget war in the name of God!

That goes for "In God we Trust" on our money as well. I do not trust in God, not anyone's.

Old but still applicable...

[frankly_fedup2]

3. No, I agree with you. I'm more of an agnostic than an atheist; however,

no other religion has the Ten Commandments in their beliefs.

I have and do go to church on occasion . . . always searching for that faith I just cannot seem to find. I envy those that have no doubts, no questions, but they have found the faith in themselves.

The right say we have "In God We Trust" on our money. That has nothing to do with Christianity. All religions have a God. That is a weak debate. We sing "God Bless America." Same thing.

Not everyone in this country is "Christian." Having the Ten Commandments displayed in Government buildings is biased.

However, the great one supports this law to be passed by the Supreme Court.

What's next? Are we going to have MANDATORY church everyday? Will we only be allowed to study the "Christian" faith? What about the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists (just to name a few) in this country. If we let the Ten Commandments be placed in every government office, then we will have to allow something that represents every faith.

I cannot grasp why they cannot grasp this. I'm in awe of the ignorance of some of our educated leaders.

[DistressedAmerican]

6. I Predict A 24 Hour Leave It To Beaver Network For Folks Who Want

To Believe it really is 1950! Beats most reality TV. I'll give you that!

[BlueEyedSon]

12. Not all religions have a god (in the judeoxtian style), and some have many

The word "god" does not belong on the money, in the pledge, etc. But that is too big a fight to have now.

[fasttense]

4. They will rule in favor of the display.

Not only that, they will require that every time you pass it, you must bow down in honor.

[mopaul]

5. Shadrack, Meshak, Abednigo......i won't worship your craven idol

it's in the good book.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. UUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

9. My prediction: the 10 Commandments will stay b/c of SC will equate

the display with Christmas creches on public property. The TC will be seen as "historical", "ceremonial", and (dare I say it?)"legal" b/c of their rules. And the SC will either find that there are other displays that will "blunt" the religious message or will open up courthouses to "equal access" expression of all religions and all messages in the name of the First Amendment.

I'm looking at the SC precedence of the Establishment Clause since Renquist took control, and the above cases will have a lot of influence.

One thing I am sure about: if the SC does rule in favor of the TC in front of court houses, Roy Moore will have his slab on a cart, gassed up and ready to move it back into the Alabama Supreme Court five minutes later.

[DistressedAmerican]

11. I HAte It When Assholes Like That Get Their Way!

Especially At The Federal level!

[Inland]

19. More evidence that politics is bad for religion, too.

Nothing like seeing them disavow their symbols in order to put them on the lawn.

I once sat in church for a sermon about how those evil judges ruled that the creche wasn't a religious symbol. Father was so incensed. But of course, the ruling came because churchmen took the oath and swore it was so in order to get wider display.

More evidence getting religion involved in politics is bad for religion. Now, like any other conservative goal, be it invading Iraq or gutting social security, there is a script of things that every rightie understands must be said (and is is understood to be false) in order to ram an issue through.

[DistressedAmerican]

28. Frankly, It Hasn't Worked Out That Well In England Over The Years

When church ans state are combined, belief is always put at the service of the goverment's goals. Keep them far apart!

[ben_packard]

10. Just for clarification...

Am i correct in thinking the ruling would ALLOW for such a display rather than demand it?

[DistressedAmerican]

13. So Far...

[H2O Man]

14. What does that clarify?

Has it ever been raised as an issue?

[no_hypocrisy]

17. Yes, it's permission, not directive.

On the other hand, if Congress or a state legislature passed a law DIRECTING the display of the TC, that would be a new case for the SC.

[ben_packard]

25. Thanks for the info NT

[H2O Man]

15. I am religious.

In fact, my religious beliefs are more important to me than my political beliefs. Yet I am fully able to exercise my religious belief system within the context of the Constitution, which clearly and without any doubt draws the line between church and state. If the right-wing destroys that distinction, it will pose a serious threat not only to those who are not religious, but to many of us who are, but who do not share the right-wing interpretation of the bible.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. We Need More Christians Like You!

Keep working from the inside. Teach tolerance and some concern for the poor and you are good in my book.
:pals:

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. No. I don't trust them.

I think the ruling yesterday was nothing more than a bone for liberals. They tossed us ONE to make us believe they are actually "fair and balanced", but they DID put that bastard/idiot/warmonger/asshole/sob/moran in office and LOOK AT WHAT HE'S DONE and is trying to do! We will have the 10 commandments in public places and our children will soon be required to PRAY IN SCHOOL.

KEEP YOUR THEOCRACY OFF MY DEMOCRACY! (my new bumper sticker ;))

[Vinca]

20. My first thought was it's a no brainer, they'll be in favor of

keeping the 10 commandments in public places. Then it occurred to me, that might open the door for other religions to bring their symbols into prominent display and the fundies wouldn't like that. Should be interesting.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. If They Do Green Light It, I Hope Everyone And Their Mother Demands

Inclusion Too!

[justsomegirl]

22. I hope I hope

I'm hopeful they will say OK for public display, but not on government property.

Some of my friends call me Pollyanna, however.

[Padraig18]

23. My gut instinct is that they'll rule against their display.

I could well be wrong, but that's how I'd bet, if I were in Las Vegas.

[Skip Intro]

26. If Christian scripture can be displayed, why not Muslim, Buddist, Satanic,

Why would the US government favor and promote one religious excerpt and not allow another?

They act as if there is only one religion.

What a pandora's box is being opened.

Ultimately, all religions must be allowed to display their "commandments" or "rules" etc, or none must be allowed. Otherwise, the government is in direct violation of its own constitution, yes?

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Unfortunatly It Is Up To The Supremes To Make Such Calls!

[tigereye]

29. well who would you rather have make those calls?

think carefully now, considering the election. :)

[DistressedAmerican]

30. A More Progressive Court Of The Future.

Not the institution I have an issue with. It is its members.

[tigereye]

31. but there have always been differences on the court

and several of the members appointed by Reps, granted more "moderate
reps than the current crop, have often surprised us and their appointees with their ability to be independent. Souter is an interesting example of that. I don't think we will have the Warren Court again, but you never know. I think the law and it's interpretations are so complex, that we can't really ever know, nor should we, in a way, how things will play out. O'Connor has strangely been the line that the Reps have not been able to cross with the limited scope of some of her judicial arguments ( on choice, at least), from what I have read. And that is rather ironic.

[DistressedAmerican]

32. I Will Give You That. I Marveled At The Near Mythic Neutrality Of The

court for years. That neutrality seemed to come to a dramatic halt with the 5 to 4 split on Bush v. Gore. It has been leaning farther and farther to the right of late. The prospects of it getting worse in the near term are high.

Forget Social Security. The crisis is with the court.

We let it be close. Fortunately, for all of us it wasn't up to the court again!