First Amendment
New Motives May Save Ten Commandments Displays
Posted Aug 8, 2008 7:53 AM CST
By Molly McDonough
After years of wrangling and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court over the courthouse displays featuring the Ten Commandments, a federal judge has agreed to allow two Kentucky counties to argue how their motives for displaying the Commandments, while initially religious, are now purely secular.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer B. Coffman in one breath issued a ruling this week making permanent the temporary injunction against the Commandments alongside historical documents, the Courier-Journal ports. But Coffman also said she would allow the counties to explain how their motives have now changed.
If those arguments are successful, the Commandments, which would be part of a Foundations of American Law and Government display, could go back up.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
J.D.
Aug 8, 2008 8:36 AM CST
Of course the Ten Commandments are part of our foundation and law. Judeo-Christian ideals are inseparable from our legal standards.
Flag this comment
Kenneth G. Galica
Aug 8, 2008 9:10 AM CST
Absolutely true JD.
Flag this comment
P
Aug 8, 2008 9:46 AM CST
But which Ten Commandments? The Jewish version is different from the Catholic version which is different from the “Protestant” version. How can you pick one version and not have a religious effect of establishing a religion?
Flag this comment
J.D.
Aug 8, 2008 11:01 AM CST
/\ Therein lies the genius. We’ve never “picked one” and we don’t have to.
I’d focus on the second prong of the Lemon test: the gov’t action must not either advance or inhibit religion.
It’s almost as if the religion-haters (i.e. haters of America’s founding principles) are trying to get the government to inhibit religion.
That’s an angle rarely discussed.
Flag this comment
Neil
Aug 8, 2008 7:17 PM CST
When will religion begin to pay its fair share of taxes? Before adding another Lear Jet to the stable?. As for “America’s founding principles” do you include slavery and woman’s sufferage? Just askin…
Flag this comment
df
Aug 9, 2008 12:09 AM CST
As someone who is reasonably public (not prosletyzing, just not keeping it secret!) about my religious beliefs with e.g. coworkers, I find it particularly disturbing (and hypocritical) when some of those who believe themselves to be particularly moral because of their religious beliefs have no problem lying (which by most interpretations runs afoul of one of the Ten Commandments!) about what their motive is in situations like this. That’s my perception of the Kentucky counties’ arguments, anyway.
Like those who lose a fight over teaching creationism instead of evolution and then “rebrand” it, arguing that they’re now teaching the problems with Darwinian evolution instead of creationism.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.