Monday, June 27, 2005

The Supreme Court Bans the Ten Commandments
OK, so they didn't actually—but that's what all of the AP headlines would lead you to believe. Instead of "Court Bans Ten Commandments in 2 Locations," we get the impression that they've gone full steam ahead. That's fine; headlines are rarely as accurate as I'd like.

But this bothers me more:

The decision was the first of two seeking to mediate the bitter culture war over religion's place in public life. In it, the court declined to prohibit all displays in court buildings or on government property.
The decision declined to prohibit all displays? "Declined," to me, implies a missed opportunity, which would in turn imply pretty strongly that the author of this piece expected them to take that step.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this—who knows?


Wes said...

There's actually a bill in Congress that will prohibit the Federal courts (and the Supreme Court) from hearing anymore cases like this. S.520 is the Senate version and H.R.1070 is the House version. Write your Congressmen and tell them to sponsor these bills.

RFTR said...

Absolutely not!

I may believe that religious displays are fine on public ground (I do), but I also believe in an independent judiciary. Congress should not be telling a court that it cannot hear a specific case—it's up to the court to decide that.