Comments on: Supreme Court Takes New Ten Commandments Case

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:39:34 +0000

Unlike Judge McConnell, I long for the day when all this utter foolishness is on public display for the world’s citizenry to inspect. Maybe this perspective will promote a revelation on the superstition and stupidity that now passes for religion. It is sort of a divine Ripley’s Believe-It-Or-Not Museum where one leaves not full of wonder at the world, but astounded at the gullibility of its inhabitants.

By: deeply worried

deeply worried — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:23:44 +0000

Well if the Court follows the reasoning it adopted in the Texas case, then the fact that the FOE monument has been sitting there for 30+ years will count for a kind of de-sacralization notion. The monument is there by custom and because it is a decalogue can be construed as a general kind of heritage display.

A display of the Summum principles (or my favorite, a 10-foot Golden Buddha) would be very different and I do think the Court will over-rule the 10th Circuit. It is a chance for them to give a little more dicta on the implications of the Van Orden decision.

Or so speaks this dunce. Mespo? Jay? JT?

I note that Jay Sekulow has been involved in this case.

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:19:54 +0000

I would love to see a riotous display of as many religions as well as secular ethical principles allowed wherever authoirities deem it necessary to present the 10 commandments in a public place. Every year my neighbor erects a giant, in your face menorah and I love seeing it. I think the multi faith and secular displays would spark many interesting, if heated, discussions.

This is where the rubber meets the road. Conservative religious people who want prayer in schools, for example, have never wanted anyone praying to gods, goddesses or the flying spaghetti monster. It does make clear that they wish precisely for a state sponsored religion, theirs.