US Supreme Court v. Ten Commandments
Please keep in mind, I don't care much for politics, and so this will be the extremely rare post on political matters. Thing is this decision has been in the works for a long time and will be quite influential to US History in the very recent years to come.
This morning, the US Supreme Court (ahem, a politically driven institution, mainly evidenced by the ever present activism on the part of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former leader in the ACLU, presiding and ruling in cases that are ACLU v. whoever...hmmm), ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in certain court buildings in Kentucky. The traditional reasoning was given, that the First Amendment prohibits government from promoting one religion over another. This particular case is somewhat limited in scope, as the decision allows for a case-by-case look at the placing of the Ten Commandments. Some are allowed for historic purposes, others not for being strictly religious. The Supremem Court even made clear in their decision that the statue of Moses on their building will stay. So, instead of a blanket "No," cases will be reviewed individually.
Well, first off, let me tell you that I am for separation of Church and State. Historically, a state run Church does not work; just look at the Netherlands with their Atheist pastors. A Church run state also fails. Why? Man. I believe the Church should separate herself from any government influence, and from any political dealings. Especially in the US, I wish the Church would take a step back and analyze what is going on. I keep going back to the 501(3)(c) designation churches accept so they can have a tax break. Is that the right thing to do? Anyway...
While I am for separation of Church and State, I cannot stand poorly constructed historic arguments. The First Amendment of the US Constitution does not prohibit government from promoting one religion over another. Justice Souter wrote for the majority decision, stating, "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The First Amendment doesn't say that at all, but that argument falls into the argument of strict v. loose constructionism. The First Amendment says that government will not establish any one religion in the state. The point was to not have the situation they had in England and other countries at the time, where the Church and State were one and the same. You get corruption of both the political sphere as well as the religious sphere. The government is never going to be nuetral; as I understand there is still prayer before congress opens for a daily session.
Well, we will shortly see how this pans out historically. I am keeping my eyes and ears perked for the outcry and spin (oh, yes, Christians can spin, too) from the Christian community. I'll keep you posted with some of the more rediculous ones; at least in my opinion.
Remember...Soli Deo Gloria
Addendum: I just heard the Supreme Court ruled a Ten Commandments monument could stay outside of a Texas court building, on the property.
This morning, the US Supreme Court (ahem, a politically driven institution, mainly evidenced by the ever present activism on the part of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former leader in the ACLU, presiding and ruling in cases that are ACLU v. whoever...hmmm), ruled 5-4 that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed in certain court buildings in Kentucky. The traditional reasoning was given, that the First Amendment prohibits government from promoting one religion over another. This particular case is somewhat limited in scope, as the decision allows for a case-by-case look at the placing of the Ten Commandments. Some are allowed for historic purposes, others not for being strictly religious. The Supremem Court even made clear in their decision that the statue of Moses on their building will stay. So, instead of a blanket "No," cases will be reviewed individually.
Well, first off, let me tell you that I am for separation of Church and State. Historically, a state run Church does not work; just look at the Netherlands with their Atheist pastors. A Church run state also fails. Why? Man. I believe the Church should separate herself from any government influence, and from any political dealings. Especially in the US, I wish the Church would take a step back and analyze what is going on. I keep going back to the 501(3)(c) designation churches accept so they can have a tax break. Is that the right thing to do? Anyway...
While I am for separation of Church and State, I cannot stand poorly constructed historic arguments. The First Amendment of the US Constitution does not prohibit government from promoting one religion over another. Justice Souter wrote for the majority decision, stating, "The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The First Amendment doesn't say that at all, but that argument falls into the argument of strict v. loose constructionism. The First Amendment says that government will not establish any one religion in the state. The point was to not have the situation they had in England and other countries at the time, where the Church and State were one and the same. You get corruption of both the political sphere as well as the religious sphere. The government is never going to be nuetral; as I understand there is still prayer before congress opens for a daily session.
Well, we will shortly see how this pans out historically. I am keeping my eyes and ears perked for the outcry and spin (oh, yes, Christians can spin, too) from the Christian community. I'll keep you posted with some of the more rediculous ones; at least in my opinion.
Remember...Soli Deo Gloria
Addendum: I just heard the Supreme Court ruled a Ten Commandments monument could stay outside of a Texas court building, on the property.
posted by Eddie at
7:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home