The Court Battles Have Only Just Begun

Yesterdays split decision by the court on the Ten Commandments have done nothing to quell future litigation. By the Courts refusal to draw a clear objective line of what and what is not constitutional (instead, it is relying on subjective intent), the Supreme Court has unleashed a flurry of activity on both sides of the argument.

Christian Groups Plan More Monuments

I have never been adverse to the display of the Ten Commandments when done for historic purpose. It is, without question, an important building block of our legal foundation. But, so are the Twelve Tables and The Code of Hammurabi. In fact, much of the Ten Commandments were lifted from Babylonian Law. If you want to display the Ten Commandments as a historical monument, at least be true to history.

What disturbs me, though, is that because the Ten Commandments are not outright banned from public grounds, it can open up a new can of worms. If we are to be true to the constitution and neither promote, nor restrict religion, we must now open up public grounds for all display of religion, regardless to how disdainful it may be. This is shown by the controversy in Idaho where a monument to the Ten Commandments sits almost alone at the state capital. It was of no consequence for years:

By all accounts, the Boise monument went virtually unnoticed for decades until it came to the attention of the Rev. Fred Phelps, a Kansas minister who travels the country inveighing against homosexuality. Phelps argued that if Boise allowed one religious display on its property, it must allow him to erect a monument declaring that Matthew Shepard, a gay man murdered in a hate crime in Wyoming 1998, is "burning in hell." [1]

Sometimes, what seems as a small victory for some is actually a larger victory for others.

A little more on the estemed Rev. Fred Phelps from the anit-defamation league. I really wonder who will be burning in hell.