9th Circuit Court Upholds Ten Commandments

Posted on March 27, 2008

Flying pig moment: The infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court actually gets one right!

The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. “Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.

She noted that the Everett monument does not have nearby benches or evening lighting and is surrounded by trees and that impair its viewing. Such a setting prevents a visitor from concluding that the monument has been placed in a sacred space on public grounds.

The monument was donated in 1959 by a national civic organization that distributed more than 150 such monuments to cities across the country.

The notion that these monuments commemorating the Judio-Christian rooted symbol of law is somehow establishing a religion or even imposing one is absurd to begin with. Any precident from a faulty decision to follow this ridiculous argument is flawed to begin with. I find it rather silly that the lack of lighting and the view being obscurred by surrounding trees was even a consideration in this decision, however the I can’t complain about the final outcome other than the possibility future decisions may be influenced from precident set here by such silly reasoning.

The Washington monolith shares its property with only one war memorial, and attorneys had hoped the difference would be enough for a new verdict.

“Religious items displayed by themselves are generally impermissible,” said Ayesha Khan of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “This monument stands pretty much alone, and in that context, it presents a religious message.”

But the 9th Circuit panel said it did not agree, especially because no complaints were received for more than 30 years after the monument was erected.

I am glad to see that the fact no complaints were ever made against the monument taken into account in the argument. Far too often this kind of reasoning is ignored. However, even if there were complaints, it wouldn’t be reason for the monument’s removal. Its also a flawed argument made by Americans United that for some reason it should be removed just because it stands alone. Surrounding one symbol of law by other secular symbols doesn’t take away the meaning of the first symbol at all, and requiring this to be done is an over-sensitive and silly argument. I especially find it silly when I hear people arguing that the ten commandments standing alone sends a message that only Christians are welcome. I think the justice system has actual flaws that many of these stupid organizations should worry more about with the possibility of injustice than whether a donated memorial to the ten commandments offends someone or not. All and all…good on the 9th Circuit for making this decision.

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News, Uncategorized