.....Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's use of Commandments imagery was a regular theme. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed to the frieze on the south wall of the courtroom, which depicts Moses with eight other ancient lawgivers. The tablets of Moses are tilted so only the second five Commandments, all secular rules, such as ''Thou shalt not kill," are visible. Religious rules, such as ''Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," are hidden.

Ginsberg asked whether an inscription of the secular rules without the tablets would be acceptable on government property. Chemerinsky said they would be since those rules are also found in Texas statutes. That led Justice Antonin Scalia to interrupt with a scoff: ''Who are you kidding? Everyone knows these come from the Ten Commandments."

Scalia, a devout Catholic, also took issue with the argument by Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas that the display from that state serves a secular function. Scalia denounced the idea of ''watering down" the religious message of the Ten Commandments, which he said was ''government derives its authority from God," and suggested that it would be a ''Pyrrhic victory" if Texas won on those grounds.

Atheists should ''turn your eyes away if it's such a big deal to you," he added.

Full story: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/03/03/justices_weigh_commandments_case/

'government derives its authority from God


In a DEMOCRACY, government derives it's authority from the people.

The type of government that Scalia is describing here is the type modelled by our friends the Taliban and Al-quieda.

<rant removed>

What's really sad, is that most of these "commandments" are not even followed by our government. So why they're being displayed in a courthouse that ignores most of them, and bends the others to serve it's masters, I have no idea.

What's really sad, is that most of these "commandments" are not even followed by our government. So why they're being displayed in a courthouse that ignores most of them, and bends the others to serve it's masters, I have no idea.

The Big 10 aren't even followed much by those who most profess to follow them.  I think you hit the pulse of why there is so much resistance to religious doctrine and imagery in this country: Those who promote it.
When you have right-wing thugs such as Bush, Scalia, RickSantorum, Judge Roy Moore, William Bennet, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Dr. james Dobson pushing for more religion, sensible people say "Whoah!!"
Everybody who has the strength of character to see that the leaders of the Religious Right are not themselves men and women of spiritual integrity does not like them shoving ole timey 'ligion at the people.
What kind of person prays for the Rapture in hopes that he will reeled up to heaven and all you sinners who didn't listen to him pound the gospel will burn in hell?  Nobody who values logic and liberty would want to let a person like that make decisions on things like school curricula, reproductive health, media content, and social policies.  No way!!!  Furthermore, we don't want bigoted devotees of a perverted rendition of Christianity to sit on our judicial benches.  Uh-uh, honey, no way Jose!
I have long theorized that the theo-phobia apparent on the Left comes from the profound scariness of Religious Right activists!
Now, if the Dalai Lama was up for a Supreme Court appointment, I would still be against it.  The Dalai Lama bears a more appealling brand of spirituality to me, but I don't want court justices whose primary motivation in life is religious.

I think that courthouses should put up the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do what ye will"  ;D





Cat

...but the ideas in the Ten Commandments are pretty much universal...

The ideas may be but the TC are not, they are specifically Christian.

US courts should be expected to judge fairly based on US law, not biblical law.
Given the different laws accredited by different religions, US courts should not take sides, either in reality or appearance.
The courts shouldn't display Biblical images for the same reason they shouldn't display party political posters, state/national flags (unless their own) or any other media that might suggest a bias toward a group of people.  All people are covered under US law and will all be treated with the same respect.

.....Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's use of Commandments imagery was a regular theme. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed to the frieze on the south wall of the courtroom, which depicts Moses with eight other ancient lawgivers. The tablets of Moses are tilted so only the second five Commandments, all secular rules, such as ''Thou shalt not kill," are visible. Religious rules, such as ''Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," are hidden.

Ginsberg asked whether an inscription of the secular rules without the tablets would be acceptable on government property. Chemerinsky said they would be since those rules are also found in Texas statutes. That led Justice Antonin Scalia to interrupt with a scoff: ''Who are you kidding? Everyone knows these come from the Ten Commandments."

Scalia, a devout Catholic, also took issue with the argument by Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas that the display from that state serves a secular function. Scalia denounced the idea of ''watering down" the religious message of the Ten Commandments, which he said was ''government derives its authority from God," and suggested that it would be a ''Pyrrhic victory" if Texas won on those grounds.

Atheists should ''turn your eyes away if it's such a big deal to you," he added.

Full story: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/03/03/justices_weigh_commandments_case/



NO!!!! Scalia got it wrong!!!!!!!!!!  Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and from no where else.  If not,  we would have to conclude that every government that exists is sanctioned by God.  That would include Saddam Hussain's, Adolph Hitler's...etc.  It would also make revolution, any revolution the equivelant of blasphomy.  If that is the case, than not only the US, but every republic in the western hemispher (with the exception of Canada) is guilty of blasphomy.  You want to defend that?

To me, its not relevant if leaders always follow good principles as long as they believe in them.  I don't always treat people with respect, becuase I'm human, but that's still a principle I believe in.  I don't think that makes me a hypocrite.  You see what I mean?


I beg to differ.  It does matter, especially when they tout themselves as holie than thou.  The revelations of Henry Hyde's "youthful indiscretions" sure made him look foolish as he ranted against Clinton's.  And Newt also tride to set himself up as some paragon of virtue.  It not that I demand perfection - no one can achieve that - but I do demand tolerance for the failings of others in the hope that my failings will be tolerated. You admit that you have failings, so you are not a hypocrite because you can't always live up to your own standards.  I assume that means that you are also willing to accept that others also may not be able to do so, if their standards are high enough.  For we "commoners" it really isn't that difficult, but those who aspire to lead, especially on the basis of their moral superiority, should always be suspect.  See what I mean?

I think that courthouses should put up the Wiccan Rede: "An it harm none, do what ye will"   ;D



I think Aleister Crowley and Anton LaVey would have made dandy Supreme Court justices, don't you?
;)

Scalia will most likely be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  At least, I hope he is.

Scalia will most likely be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  At least, I hope he is.

And I hope a pitbull will be appointed to oversee the cat rehab center!
:D

And I hope a pitbull will be appointed to oversee the cat rehab center!
:D


;D  He has more qualifications for that job than baby boy Scalia has for his job. 

Scalia will most likely be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  At least, I hope he is.


Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he got the nomination.  It would surprise me if Pat Leahy and the democrates let it go through.  I guess, though, that kind of nomination would be Bush's idea of bi-partisanship.

As far as I'm conserned, anyone who believes in "government by God" needs to read the declaration of independance, along with a ton of other "secular humanist" enlightenment writings, like Montesque's The Rule of Law for starters, and John Locke's Two Treaties on CIVIL Government (got it right this time D  ;)).  Maybe you should read them too.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if he got the nomination.  It would surprise me if Pat Leahy and the democrates let it go through.  I guess, though, that kind of nomination would be Bush's idea of bi-partisanship.

As far as I'm conserned, anyone who believes in "government by God" needs to read the declaration of independance, along with a ton of other "secular humanist" enlightenment writings, like Montesque's The Rule of Law for starters, and John Locke's Two Treaties on CIVIL Government (got it right this time D  ;)).  Maybe you should read them too.

I think I read Montesque and Locke in HS long ago.  I should read them again I remember so little.

There is no bi-partisanship when it comes to the Bush Administration.  It's rubberstamp everything the Exuctive Branch tells you to, OR get called obstructionist.

The Ten Commandments is a bunch of crap.  Nothing protects animals or women really.  It's all about Man. 

The Ten Commandments is a bunch of crap.  Nothing protects animals or women really.  It's all about Man. 


When people say "man" most people mean "mankind."

The Ten Commandments is a bunch of crap. Nothing protects animals or women really. It's all about Man.





When people say "man" most people mean "mankind."


That may be the case today, but during biblical times?  Women were considered chattle, just like your hourse or cow.  That was certainly the case during our own colonial period and well after the revolution.  Did you ever wonder where the "rule of thumb" came from?  You could beat your wife with a stick as long as it was no thicker than your thumb.  While I know you wouldn't, I would suggest Fredrich Engles's book on the origins of the family and private property (I know, ou don't read books by f...ing commies).