[log p]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I still like the idea of swearing on the U.S. Constitution. It's kinda like you're up against the entire country, and they're saying, "Don't even THINK of f#&king with us. UNDERSTAND?!!!"

as opposed to being up against the judeo-christian God, who in his wrath says "taketh not an oath, lest you taketh an oath that hath been lendeth to thou, and in the taking of the oath, thou mayst swear to the swearing that thou oathest"...or something to that effect...fie upon thee, vengence!

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Well what if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

How can I possibly believe in a god who can't even speak modern english?

[log p]

Originally Posted by Avinash_Tyagi

Well what if you don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god?

then my respect for you has just doubled...i believe aliens are the creators, personally...im founding a cult...with focus points on the clitoris and watching M*A*S*H re-runs to find enlightenment

[Intrepid Homoludens]

FYI, there's an audio news file that gives more specific info on this controversy:

Slate's Supreme Court Dispatches: Ten Commandments

, National Public Radio

Day to Day, March 2, 2005 · Arguments begin Wednesday in two cases before the Supreme Court on whether it is constitutional to display the Ten Commandments on government property. NPR's Madeleine Brand talks with Slate legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick about Wednesday's hearing.

Basically the two arguments, particularly in the case in Kentucky, are that the two county courthouses that posted the Ten Commendments did so clearly not only for religious purproses, but to promote the idea that the U.S. is a Christian country. The courthouses tried to rectify it by bringing up the Magna Carta and the Declaration Of Independence after the accusation, making it look even more so that the state was endorsing religion. Against this is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argued that these clearly are religious symbols no matter how you try to hide them, they have expressly religious messages, and when the government sets up these kinds of monuments they are endorsing them as such.

Supporters of the Kentucky monument include a private defense lawyer assigned to the case and the Bush administration. Their defense is that the monument is a secular symbol, it may look religious, but it's really a secular foundation for a secular law, therefore it should be taken as an inspiration for the country's laws.

The U.S. Supreme court is confused over the whole thing, they don't know what criteria to use in determining who's right. So now they're trying to figure out a new way of handling this.

[Sage]

I wasn't aware of the Kentucky case.
Here in Alabama (Deep, deep, South), we have a similar brouhaha going on because a certain judge paid for a Ten Commandments monument out of his own pocket and had it installed in the State Courthouse one night while no-one was there. When everyone came to work the next day, "poof!", a big ol' monument was right there in the main entry hall. It has since been removed, as has the judge, but it remains a hot-button topic around here.