more on the ten commandments ...

the us supreme court today rejected judge moore's appeal requesting a stay of the order to remove the 'monument' of the ten commandments from the judicial center.

I still stand by my earlier thoughts, that a monument of the ten commandments is essentially art, and it has a constitutional pupose in being allowed to remain as an example of an ancient legal system.

however, I'm much disturbed by the arguments moore gave on the early show:

"This case is not about a monument.It's not about politics or religion. It's about the acknowledgment of God."

okay. I've only been in law school for three days, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is not exactly the way you want to frame your argument if you want the supreme court to even consider you.

and it gets even worse!!! he goes on to say,

"We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God. For [the judge] to say 'I can't say who God is' is to disestablish the justice system of this state."

disestablish????? oft misused word, and just to be sure that I understand exactly what he is saying....I'll look it up in my 'funk n wagnall's' :

disestablishment: the act of a state in sundering the relationships between it and its established church.

okay. just a point of historical clarity here. didn't we (the US) 'sunder' our relationship between ouselves and the established church (church of england) back in 1776??? since then, there has not been an established church in the united states. separation of church and state, remember?

again, not language that is going to perk the Court's ear...

so the msnbc article (see link above) gives us a picture of the monument. I hadn't seen it before so I really had no idea the 'design' of it.

firstly, the book part....okay. that's nice and creative. I like the sort of 'dictionary stand' look to it.

but...as I try to look closer, I can't quite tell whether they inscribed the monument with the ten commandments in hebrew. if not, that is seriously problematic for me, but that is just my personal preference.

what bothers me most is the 'plaque' on the front...

"The laws of nature and of nature's god"

I'm not bothered by the words for what they say. I might say that I am inclined to agree. but the plaque invoking 'nature's god' seems to be the problem...because I think it could be considered as an endorsement of a particular religion.

I can't even begin to read the teeny tiny print around the sides, but if it has even one quote from the bible or makes any dogmatic assertions, I am inclined to agree that it should be removed.

so the monument is going to end up in his office????

this is just hilarious. can you imagine, coming to a guy's office and seeing a 5300 pound statue there? would you lean on it???