Again, I don't understand all the hoo-ha over this. To me it's just the Right's excuse to keep condemning the SC until they load it with people that are of "christian" values and will decide everything along party lines. And that is bullshit. Because party should never enter into the interpretation of the Constitution, nor should religion.
The SC DID NOT say, "government buildings could not display the 10 Commandments"... they said in effect that the 10 Commandments should not be held as a religious symbol but as an historical symbol in GOVERNMENT buildings. NOWHERE DO I READ PRIVATE PROPERTY (I.E. BUSINESSES) IS TO BE HELD TO THIS STANDARD.
Quote:
The 5-4 decision in the Kentucky case, first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life, took a case-by-case approach to this vexing issue. In the decision, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
The justices left themselves legal wiggle room on this issue, however, saying that some displays - like their own courtroom frieze - would be permissible if they're portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history.
But framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion, the court held.
"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.
|
WTF is wrong with that statement???? Freedom of religion, no state endorsed religion.... obviously Ky. was endorsing a Judeo-Christian religious philosophy and using other items as such. It was wrong.
However, the SC states that as historical elemants they can be hung.
What is so wrong with that? Is the Right so far up Pat Robertson and company's arses that freedom of religion and freedom from religion are integral parts of our Constitution and cases like this should have rulings like this?