What is it about Kentucky?
The courthouse in Jackson County should have to take town several copies of the Ten Commandments because they are an improper governmental endorsement of religion, a federal lawsuit argues.
The lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and a county resident, Eugene Phillips Jr., seeks a ruling that nine copies of the biblical laws on the courthouse walls in McKee are unconstitutional. It also seeks an injunction ordering the county to take down the copies.
The lawsuit is the latest fight over copies of the Ten Commandments in government buildings in Kentucky, which has been a key battleground on the issue.
Maybe they just don’t have phones in Appalachia. Or newspapers. Or literacy. Because if anyone in charge of running courthouses in Kentucky would bother to talk to anyone else in charge of running courthouses in Kentucky, then they would learn that you can’t paper the walls with nine — count ‘em, nine — Decalogues by themselves. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
What you can do is dilute and debase the religion you claim to celebrate by insisting that the Ten Commandments aren’t “religious” at all, but merely one among a collection of “important historical symbols and figures.” “Historical” (i.e., not “religious”), “important” — but no more important than Hammurabi’s Code or Magna Carta (understandable, given the pesky fact that only four Commandments have anything remotely resembling an analogue to secular law). Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
It never ceases to amaze me how incapable theocrats are of recognizing the inherent contradiction behind their relentless quest to turn courthouses (and schools and … ) into churches. By stripping the Ten Commandments of its uniqueness, the theocrats actually hurt their own cause (i.e., the erosion of the Wall of Separation). Better a Decalogue be deemed puny enough for a courthouse rather than too sacred for a courthouse?
That, in their view, somehow advances Christianity?
More:
[Judge-Executive William O.] Smith said he had not seen a copy of the lawsuit but that most county residents would support keeping the Ten Commandments displayed in the courthouse.
Exactly the point — to anyone who understands the First and Fourteenth Amendments (which this “Judge-Executive” clearly does not). The First Amendment was designed precisely to frustrate “most” people (i.e., the majoritarian mob) and to protect the rest of us — all the way to Eugene Phillips Jr. — even if he is only “one negative person.”
(Via Religion Clause.)
Previously:
–On the Dixie County Decalogue
–“Jesus Judge” Does a George Wallace Impersonation
–Activist Legislators: Better Five Wasteful Monuments Go Up…
–“One Negative Person”
–B.A.T. Archives: One Nation, Under A Generic Monotheistic Deity
–What Part of “Establishment” is Unclear?
–CRS Recommendation: The Law of Church and State
