Ten Commandments
I know I've vowed to stick to what I know, but I just can't help it:
A fractured Supreme Court on Monday, struggling to define a constitutional framework for the government display of religious symbols, upheld a six-foot-high Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol while ruling that framed copies of the Commandments on the walls of two Kentucky courthouses were unconstitutional.Is this really the best use of our highest courts time? To dissect out tiny differences between displays of the Ten Commandments to decide which are and are not legal? If the decision is such a fine thing, couldn't someone else, like say legislators elected by citizens make these distinctions?
posted by Dr. Andy @ 8:29 PM
2 Comments:
The reason we don't leave this up to the states is because this leads to tyranny by the majority.
Example: local town is dominated by fundamentalist Christians and the local school board decides to teach their religion in school.
I, for one, am happy to have at least one branch of the government that will keep religion from being forced on us.
I don't necessarily disagree, although I'm pretty agnostic on the whole issue.
My point is that the court isn't really protecting you in the way you'd like either. If public displays of the 10 Commandments on public property are prohibited then so be it. But if they are allowed in certain circumstances, but not other quite similar ones, I think the Supreme Court can find better uses for its time.
Post a Comment
<< Home