|
Another "ruling" (actually, a combination of two) that simply astounds me is what they have to say about the 10 commandments being displayed on public property and in court houses. Rule one way or the other, but make a consistent ruling.
Apparently, on public property is OK, but in a courthouse, unless inside the Supreme Court chamber itself, is not OK. The court seems to expect to be able to discover the reason and motivation behind the display. If the display is there because it is a historical document, fine. If the display is there because of a representation of specific religious beliefs, then not fine. Is not a document simply a document and the reader reads into the words what they choose in terms of meaning? How can the court claim to know the intent? So the intent in the Supreme Court building is not religious, so they can keep theirs, but in Tennessee (or Texas - I keep confusing the two cases) it is for religious purposes, so it is not OK?
This court is making some rulings that are worrisome to me. Honestly, I could see arguments on both sides of the ten commandments, so a ruling either way would not have been shocking to me. But to rule as they did......I simply do not understand it.
|