Supreme Court ruling on 10 Commandments display

CNNWashington PostUSA TodaySo the courts opinion on this issue seems to be it depends. Do you agree with the courts decision that there are certain circumstances where a religious display should be considered historical and therefore permissible as a government sponsored display, or do you find any religious reference to be a violation of the Establishment Clause and all should be removed?

I think that certain religious displays in public buildings are of historical value and should not be removed or covered up.

Sure. There can be many places where religion is mentioned that are historic in nature and in fact, essential. It is impossible to understand for example, the Mayflower compact or the migrations of the Mormons or Acadians without bringing in religion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I guess I am trying to figure out just in what context displaying the ten commandments could be considered a historical display.American law is basically a continuation of English law, which owes its historical origins to old Germanic customs and Roman laws, both being pagan in origin. The same can be said for continental European law, except with more emphasis on Roman precedents.The ten commandments are a relatively minor portion of ancient Jewish Law, which had more to do with the ritual separation of the Hebrew people from the pagan tribes around them than with a codification of civil law.

I agree. Although I was a bit surprised at the decision, I expected all displays to be removed. Being split as it was ensures a steady stream of cases since each one must be decided individually. So the debate will continue.

quote:

---

"Split decisions make people go and fight again", said Barry Lynn, head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization which has been fighting this particular fight for decades.

---

With regards to the Texas display, here were some of the arguments:

quote:

---

Among 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the capitol is a 6-foot high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The state accepted the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eagles and defended it as a tribute to the Eagles rather than as an endorsement of religion.

​

In evaluating its constitutionality, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said that traditional tests such as religious purpose are not useful "in dealing with the sort of passive monument that Texas has erected."

​

Instead, he said, "our analysis is driven both by the nature of the monument and our Nation's history," which includes numerous governmental acknowledgements of the role of religion in the "foundations and successes" of the nation, among them a frieze at the U.S. Supreme Court itself that includes a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments.

​

Writing for a 5-4 court, he said the Texas display was part of an "unbroken history of official acknowledgements by all three branches of government of religion's role in American life."

​

"Of course," Rehnquist wrote, "the Ten Commandments are religious--they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. . . . But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning. . . . "

---