| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
The Washington Post headline—‘High Court Disallows Ten Commandments in Courthouses’—tries to make the most of the Court’s decision from the point of view of the Left. But in fact it is equally correct to say ‘High Court Allows Ten Commandments in Courthouses:’
Sending dual signals in ruling on the separation of church and state for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments _ like their own courtroom frieze _ are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
In effect, the court said it was taking the position that issues of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses should be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
That’s a huge loss for the ACLU. It means:
What’s more, the Ten Commandments and other religious displays are specifically allowed on government grounds:
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land…
...”Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause,” [Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist] said.
It’s a huge relief to get a favorable ruling on this from the Supreme Court.