a slight glimmer of sanity...

[lagilman]

another blurb from the AP wire:

No Ten Commandments in Courthouse
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer.


WASHINGTON - A split Supreme Court struck down Ten Commandments displays in courthouses Monday, ruling that two exhibits in Kentucky cross the line between separation of church and state because they promote a religious message.

The 5-4 decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property. Justices left legal wiggle room, 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.

Comments

(through FriendsFriends)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Given that the commandments aren't even universal - some mainstream christian denominations have translations that differ significantly (let alone the Jewish version) that continuing to post them would probably inevitably lead to someone getting sued from posting the "wrong" commandments... it's really just as well.

Re: (through FriendsFriends)

[lagilman]

Its also disheartening but not unexpected that the courthouses have tried to get around it by framing the commandments as "part of America's Christian heritage," which has so far slipped by relatively unchallenged.

I wonder if, were a Jew or a Pagan or an agnostic to be tried in one of those courthouses, they could ask for a mistrial (or at elast a change of venue) because of established pro-Christian biases?

[paleologa.livejournal.com]

No Ten Commandments in Courthouse

But the Supremes say it's still ok for religious displays "on government land," which could be interpreted as right outside the courthouse doors, no?

They're obviously taking the cautious route, but...meh.

In another interesting development, they have also ruled that "Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally...rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod." (NY Times)

Re: (through FriendsFriends)

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

I don't know. At some point, I would have expected someone to try. But I would also expect it to get tossed, unless the judge or prosecutors said particularly bigoted things. Not just posting commandments..

There's a really fuzzy line where the "Commandments" as part of other examples of lawgiving (Hammurabi's code, Solon, etc...) are probably plausible. Like if it's just two blank tablets, or in hebraic script. But beyond that...

America clearly does have a Christian Heritage, but "Christian" heritage wasn't supposed to be the point. Heck, the framers of the constitution all got ripped by the theologians of their day for not creating a "christian" document.

Re: (through FriendsFriends)

[lagilman]

Heck, the framers of the constitution all got ripped by the theologians of their day for not creating a "christian" document.


Yeah and verily, somewhere, Tom Jefferson is bitching mightily about the muck we've made of it all...

[lagilman]

In another interesting development, they have also ruled that "Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally...rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod


As a copyright-holder who makes her living off said copyrights, I am cautiously pleased by that one.