The Supremes and the Ten Commandments

It's been a real shock to read reports of the argumentation in front of the Supreme Court this week. If you know the facts, there can be no question that the Founding Fathers would disapprove (see my post 'Washington Roasts in Hell'). But most of the justices are coming across as apologists for the posting of religious monuments on civil property. Whether it's to preserve the Texas monument because it's more than 40 years old, and therefore a valuable relic (O'Connor), or the question of why a non-Christian couldn't just look the other way when passing by (Kennedy), they're trying every excuse. Kennedy didn't even say 'non-Christian,' he said 'atheist.' A telling remark in itself. He isn't even thinking about Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, agnostics, Hindus, or anyone else. It's just an age-old struggle between the faithful and those notorious bugaboos of the right, 'atheists.'

Meanwhile, protesters outside the court gave the lie to all of these arguments by holding pray-ins on the steps. Here's what one Bible fan had to say:

"Johnny Horton, a 45-year-old visual specialist for the United States Military at WestPoint, said all the controversy over the Ten Commandments is overblown. Horton said the Ten Commandments should be allowed to stand on government property, especially courthouses.

"If you look at every law from the beginning of time, every law that we now use was based on a foundation from the bible," Horton said."We should be looking at whether or not the laws are fair and is everyone on trial being treated fairly in our justice system."

This is, of course, an embarrassingly ignorant statement. Hammurabi's Code predates the Bible by centuries, and the Bablylonian ruler appears on the walls of the Supreme Court.

Here's what it comes down to: the Ten Commandments are religious. The aim of the Founding Fathers was to prevent government from endorsing any particular religion. Government buildings are not appropriate venues for promoting religion.

Make no bones about it, though-- when Bush has his chance to appoint a judge or two, we're going to be looking at a court that opposes evolution, opposes reproductive freedom, and promotes governmentally supported religion (see my post 'Stop Reactionary Judicial Appointments'). We have to start fighting, people, or deal with a nation that's more like medieval Europe than modern America.