Haven’t we already gone through this again and again and again and again?
Evidently we have to go through another “again.”
At a ceremonial signing today of a bill that would place a Ten Commandments monument on the [Kentucky] Capitol grounds, Gov. Ernie Fletcher said he would be willing to consider displaying other religious artifacts if they, too, had significant impact on this country’s heritage, culture and law. Fletcher justified the controversial monument by saying it is “an integral part of our history and an integral part of our law.”
Please note to me where — except for the prohibitions on killing, bearing false witness (narrowly defined), and stealing (none of which are particularly unique to Judaic law) — the Decalogue is an “integral part” of Kentucky’s law?
House Bill 277, sponsored by Rep. Rick Nelson, D-Middlesboro, allows the return to Frankfort of a Ten Commandments monument that had been given to the state by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The legislation also allows schools and local governments to post the Ten Commandments as part of historical displays and requires the posting of “In God We Trust” on the wall in the House of Representatives, behind the speaker’s stand. The Senate also plans to put the national motto on its wall.
Swell. “If we call it historical, it must be okay.” Reminds me of the pre-Raphaelite artists during the Victorian Age who got away with painting nudes by making it “classical.”
Fletcher did not know when the monument would be put on the Capitol grounds. David Friedman, general counsel for the Kentucky chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the state runs the risk of contempt of court if it places the monument before getting a federal injunction lifted that forbids it.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year ordered McCreary and Pulaski counties to remove Ten Commandments displays because their purpose was primarily religious. But the justices let stand a monument at the Texas Capitol, saying it was part of a secular display.
The Kentucky monument would be flanked by a marker listing its legislative and judicial history.
The Texas case, though, seemed to be decided based on the monument having been in place since 1961. The Kentucky memorial doesn’t have that same sort of history (it was donated to the state in ’71, sat at a distance until ’80. and only became controversial when it was decided to place it front-and-center at the capitol in ’00).
The Supremes have been unsympathetic to made-up historical arguments, or use of the Ten Commandments in “historic” displays that are pretty much clearly being set up to display the Decalogue. Maybe Kentucky feels the change on the SCOTUS will give them a better shot.
I hope not.
(via Les)