Recently in Ten Commandments Category

Barry, I believe the Supreme Court ultimately will conclude that the plaintiff did not have legal standing here - that this challenge was legally flawed from the very start. 

 

Merely being 'offended' does not give the plaintiff a legal green light to go to court to challenge this memorial. As you know, just because the 'standing' issue did not receive a lot of attention during oral argument does not mean the Justices are ignoring it.  They won't and in the end I believe our side will carry the day on this issue.

 

Second issue: the Establishment Clause question.  Does the placement of a cross on what was once public land - but now private land - constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause?  I believe the answer is 'no' and I am hopeful that's what a majority of the court will determine. 

Ok, Barry - looks like we won't agree on the Ten Commandments and what we consider to be the proper and constitutional displays present in Judge DeWeese's courtroom.

 

Let's try this one. 

 

A federal district court in New Hampshire has issued a decision upholding the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by students in school and has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

 

The suit was filed in 2007 against two New Hampshire public school districts and Congress on behalf of several parents and students who objected to the voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in school.  Specifically, the lawsuit challenged the addition of the words "under God" in 1954 in the Pledge and the practice of reciting the Pledge in public schools as a patriotic exercise.

Jay, a few thoughts:

The Ten Commandments, as you and Judge DeWeese seem to believe, don't represent an "absolute," any more than the allegedly "relativist" proposals which seem to upset you. It's impossible to claim the Ten Commandments aren't open to interpretation.

For example, would there be an exception to "Thou shall not kill," for those who do so in self defense? What about "Thou shalt not commit adultery?"  Should we give it the Twenty-First Century meaning, or revert to its original meaning: sex with a married woman (single women OK) or by a married woman? Our mutual friend Alan Dershowitz has done some wonderful writing about this over the years.

What the Ten Commandments does is provide us with a generalized sense of right or wrong . But there are many different versions and interpretations of the Decalogue. It's just as morally "absolute" or "relative" as the Humanist Manifesto.

Barry, I want to offer my congratulations to you and your family.  I'm sure your son's wedding was, indeed, a great celebration.

 

I want to take a moment to discuss a topic you and I have debated from time to time - the constitutional role of displaying the Ten Commandments.   As you know, ABC News is focusing on the Ten Commandments - an issue that always seems to be in the legal spotlight thanks to you and your colleagues.  Case in point:  Ohio - where we represent Judge James DeWeese of Richland County, Ohio who has been sued repeatedly by the ACLU - this time for a poster he placed in his courtroom called "Philosophies of Law in Conflict."

 

The poster is divided into two sections.  The first is titled "Moral Absolutes," the second "Moral Relatives."  To illustrate the meaning of these two clashing moral concepts, Judge DeWeese quotes texts which support each one: for moral absolutes, the Ten Commandments; for moral relativism, the Humanist Manifestos and other sources.