As It Should Be -- A State-Sanctified Church

[LyricalReckoner]

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court hears the case of McCreary County v. ACLU, a case about the Ten Commandments posted in a county courthouse. While the focus is on the outcome of the case, the real action is occurring in slow motion (for now).

In the next few years, President Bush is expected to be able to nominate as many as three new justices of the Supreme Court.

The result could be that Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia move away from the fringe of the court’s reasoning, to the center of it. In time, they could become the voice of the court, particularly when it comes to Establishment Clause cases like McCreary.

Take a peek into the future. Here’s the link to it:

http://www.misterthorne.org/ESSAYS/as_it_should_be.htm

Enjoy!

[Petra]

The Ten Commandments cracks me up. I find it completely absurd that people who worship the Ten Commandments do so at an idolitous level. (Is "idolitous" a word? I don't think it is, but it should be.) Turning the Ten Commandments into an idol is against the Ten Commandments.

Also, those states which are the hottest on the Ten Commandments are generally also states that are for the death penalty. Clearly, the death penalty is against the Ten Commandments.


Etcetera...


Oh, PS - Welcome, LyricalReckoner.

[Shake]

Here is one of my favorite (bookmarked) articles about the decalogue and how it doesn't jive with the American form of government.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by lunachick

(Is "idolitous" a word? I don't think it is, but it should be.)

Idolatrous?

http://www.google.com/search?q=idolitous gives exactly one hit! Until these posts get indexed...

[freemonkey]

I happened to catch the news story on ABC World News Tonight.... Peter Jennings mentioned a poll that said something like 72% of those polled said they supported the 10 Commandments monuments in public, and did not see it as a violation of church and sate, while 64% were against similar Muslim monuments.

Sorry, I don't have a link to that poll, still looking.

[Ensign Steve]

That's cuz the US was founded on Christian values. duh.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by Shake

Here is one of my favorite (bookmarked) articles about the decalogue and how it doesn't jive with the American form of government.

jibe

[Shake]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

jibe

Yeah, that too. I should have just said it doesn't "mix" or "fit" or something. Perhaps I should have said it is, "antithetical to American government." Ah well, whatever.

[Petra]

Jive works for me, Shake - it dances better or something, so never mind Ms. Pedant over there.


Good link you posted, too - I bookmarked it myself.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LyricalReckoner

The result could be that Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia move away from the fringe of the court’s reasoning, to the center of it.

Strangely enough, Thomas and Scalia have some pretty significant doctrinal differences with regard to Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Trouble is, their different approaches will lead them to the same conclusion, namely that all the displays at issue in these cases are A-OK.

Scalia accepts the proposition that the Establishment Clause applies to state and local governments, but doesn't think the clause does much beyond prohibiting states from setting up their own official churches. Thomas has lately developed a view -- first announced in the school vouchers case and later expanded upon in the Pledge of Allegiance case -- that the EC doesn't apply to state or local government at all because the clause (a) was only intended to prevent federal interference with state establishments of religion and (b) doesn't embody any individual right that can be "incorporated" via the Fourteenth Amendment.

Anyone who's interested in how the arguments went can read Lyle Denniston's account here and Dahlia Lithwick's write-up here. Just a couple of quick observations:

1) Matt Staver is a bigger douchebag than I realized, and that's sayin' sumpthin'! How anyone can stand before the Supreme Court of the United States and contend, presumably with a straight face, that the Ten COmmandments have "minimal religious content" is WAY the hell beyond me.

2) Props to Scalia who, commenting on the Kentucky counties' position that the 10C are the moral foundation for the Declaration of Independence, said that "If that's what it meant, that's idiotic. You can't get the Declaration of Independence out of the Ten Commandments."

Straight-out-of-the-ass prediction: We'll see a badly fractured decision with no majority rationale that upholds the 10C monument in the Texas case (Van Orden v. Perry) and shoots down all the 10C displays at issue in the Kentucky case (McCreary), both by 5-4 votes. Establishment Clause jurisprudence will be left more badly muddled than ever.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Jive works for me, Shake - it dances better or something, so never mind Ms. Pedant over there.

Well... It would make more sense if the word "jibe", rather than "jive" had been used.