Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Angakuk
The debate over the display of the 10 Commandments is a case in point. There appear to be two opposing extreme positions.
1. The 10 Commandments ought to be displayed because they are the foundation of the American judicial system and this demonstrates that the nation is a nation founded on and dedicated to Christian principles.
2. The 10 Commandments ought not to be displayed because doing so amounts to an establishment of religion by endorsing position #1.
It seems that the Supreme Court has, reasonably I think, rejected both extremes and chosen a position in the middle ground. That is, that, under certain circumstances and conditions, a display of the 10 Commandments, on public property, may reflect the historical importance of the 10 Commandments within a context which includes other significant historical influences. Where such conditions are met, the display may be allowed. Where such conditions are not met, the display may not be allowed.
Now that seems to me to be a fair and balanced position.
Angakuk
|
Angakuk,
Your analysis is, by and large, correct. The "circumstances and conditions" have to do with purposes for which the display is made.
The state has no business promoting religion, or endorsing or promoting a particular religion or religions. If the purpose of a display is to promote religion (e.g., to demonstrate that "this is a Christian nation,") then the display is illegitimate and violates the Establishment Clause.
If the display is to show, "here are several sources which show the historical importance of law for human beings," and the display includes the 10C's, among others, then the purpose is secular -- to show the importance of law, and its sources, through history. Such a display does not violate the Establishment Clause.
You did a good job, Ang.
#784