Looks like the religious right can begin their outrage now -- fucking activist judges... :lol: :

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ten_commandments[/url]

[quote]"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.[/quote]

Re: Victory for the Establishment Clause

[quote=toasty]Looks like the religious right can begin their outrage now -- fucking activist judges... :lol: :

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050627/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_ten_commandments[/url]

[quote]"The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

"When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality," he said.[/quote][/quote]

What will get lost in the hysteria from the Dobson-types is that the Court split the deal on this one...they ruled against one display and in favor of another display. What people can't quite seem to comprehend is that the key legal question (rightly or wrongly) is not the display itself, but the context in which it is erected and displayed.

agreed, and these holdings are expressly limited to their facts, but the thing that really makes me happy is that they are a recognition of the concept of separation of church and state -- a concept that seems to have gotten lost over the last couple of years. The RR has behaved with such a sense of entitlement since Bush got reelected, it is nice to see something making it clear that they do not have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want, that there are limitations...

Re: Victory for the Establishment Clause

The biggest shame of all of this is that both the Dobson-types and the Barry Lynn-types spend so much time fighting over where/when/how the 10 C. can be displayed, all of the underlying messages contained in the commandments get lost in the fight. Regardless of from whence they derive, they are, by and large, good directives for life.

oh shit. I guess this was predictable given that the decisions did make it an individualised inquiry on each display:

[b]Christian Groups Plan More Monuments[/b]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701583.html?referrer=email[/url]

Re: Victory for the Establishment Clause

i woudl find it really histerical if the catholic/christian church in america, as a whole, bought up every peice up land surrounding the courts thorughout this place and put up 50 foot high plaques of the commandments. :P

but the sadictic fuck in me really shines when people get pissed off, so takke it as you will.

Re: Victory for the Establishment Clause

[quote=pacific493]Regardless of from whence they derive, they are, by and large, good directives for life.[/quote]

Yeah, I suppose. Except that one about not doing anything on the sabbath. Sometimes, I've just got shit I've got to do. I'd hate to show up at the Pearly Gates only to be denied entry because I only had time to mow my lawn on Sunday.

Not that I like doing work over the weekend, but how about 9 commandments and 1 guideline?

[quote=toasty]oh shit. I guess this was predictable given that the decisions did make it an individualised inquiry on each display:

[b]Christian Groups Plan More Monuments[/b]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701583.html?referrer=email[/url][/quote]

dude...they make great pissing spots when you're desperately looking for a toilet after leaving the club with a gut full of beer! I say install the motherfuckers, as many as you can, preferrably in bar/club zones... :D

[quote=toasty]oh shit. I guess this was predictable given that the decisions did make it an individualised inquiry on each display:

[b]Christian Groups Plan More Monuments[/b]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701583.html?referrer=email[/url][/quote]

Perhaps they miss the point that context is everything...a bunch of christian groups rushing to erect 10 C. monuments on gov't property after the ruling probably isn't going to fall on the "historical" side of establishment clause equation.