Tuesday, June 28, 2005

The Supreme Court said WHAT?

From FOXNEWS.COM, we read today that the Supreme Court made some rulings in its final session and preceded to confuse us all:
A divided Supreme Court ruled today that displaying the Ten Commandments on government land is not a violation of the Constitution as long as the intent is historic and not religious. The court found that a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol was a legitimate tribute to the nation's legal history, but the court found that two framed copies of Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion and therefore violated the Constitution.
Did you get that? A display of the Ten Commandments on the front lawn is OK but a framed copy of the same Ten Commandments is verboten inside. How does that make sense to anyone? Would it be OK if you had some other framed historical documents beside the Commandments?

We're truly not very far from going off that deep end everyone is talking about!

2 comments:

Chuck said...

I know I couldn't be the only one...

verboten

adj : excluded from use or mention; "forbidden fruit"; "in our house dancing and playing cards were out"; "a taboo subject"

Mike Cline said...

Thanks Chuck, you da man.