First Amendment
New Motives May Save Ten Commandments Displays
Posted Aug 8, 2008, 07:53 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in one breath issued a ruling this week making permanent the temporary injunction against the Commandments alongside historical documents, the Courier-Journal ports.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.
Related Stories
- Woman Who Created Fictional MySpace Boy Testifies on Motive
Nov 21, 2008, 06:40 am CST - Police Bribed Judge to Get Search Warrant, Ex-Chicago Cop Testifies
Nov 20, 2008, 03:49 pm CST - 5 Gitmo Detainees Held Unlawfully, Federal Judge Says
Nov 20, 2008, 01:30 pm CST - Prognosticators Dissect Calif. Supremes’ Vote to Review Prop 8
Nov 20, 2008, 06:15 am CST
Related Topics
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Comments
Posted by J.D. - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 4 hours, 11 minutes ago
Of course the Ten Commandments are part of our foundation and law. Judeo-Christian ideals are inseparable from our legal standards.
Posted by Kenneth G. Galica - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 37 minutes ago
Absolutely true JD.
Posted by P - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 3 hours, 1 minute ago
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?
Posted by J.D. - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
/\ 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.
Posted by Neil - 3 months, 2 weeks, 17 hours, 30 minutes ago
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…
Posted by df - 3 months, 2 weeks, 12 hours, 38 minutes ago
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.