So the Supreme Court handed down two rulings last week on the subject of the Ten Commandments on government property. But as I'm sure most of you have heard by now, the rulings were, to say the least, inconclusive.
That's the polite way of saying that the Supremes have their heads up their collective asses. Again. The rulings pretty much contradicted each other.
On the one hand, they ruled that individual displays of the Ten C's should not be automatically assumed to mingle church and state, but be examined on a case-by-case basis to see whether it amounts to a governmental promotion of religion. On the other hand, they ruled that a six-foot tall Decalogue on the grounds of the Texas capitol was just hunky dory!
I'm loathe to agree with Antonin Scalia on anything, but he had a good point when he said, "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle." Of course, Scalia believes that the separation of church and state is bullshit, so we don't see eye-to-eye on which direction that consistently applied principle should lean.
Now, all this brings to mind a situation we had back in Utah when I lived there. There was a protest made regarding a display of the Decalogue on government grounds, and the courts initially said, "Hey… there's nothing wrong with this. If a religious group wants to put stuff here, that's okie-dokie!" Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. The court changed its tune quickly when a rather wacky religious group called Summum demanded permission to erect a monument that featured their… um… unusual principles on it. The courts realized that to allow one but not another wasn't quite kosher.
I predict that we will see other such cases, on a larger level, due to the Supreme Court's recent confusion… er… decision. Keep watching, kids! It'll be fun!
