I can't believe people are still wasting so much time and talent-- (obviously very articulate and intelligent people)--trying to have the 10 Commandments removed from courthouses.

(I'll have to say that I won't be taking up Google's wonderful offer of 10 Commandments bumper stickers and yard signs--even with same day shipping and low cost-- (did anybody else get that at the bottom of the Reply to Thread on this thread?),-- severely tempting though such an offer is. Gee, I could be the first one on my block.   In fact, there is no doubt I would be.)

Time and talent are so needed elsewhere, whether to push for a rise in the minimum wage (a development which would actually help a lot of people, rather than be an intellectual exercise) or to try to stop drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or try to ensure judges will not be removed for "exceeding their authority"--or any number of other, more pressing priorities than removing plaques from courtrooms.

There are so many good causes. This is not one.

It is a classic lousy idea from a political standpoint--we should actually be trying to make common cause with the foot soldiers of the Religious Right--by appealing to them on the basis of pocketbook issues--like raising the minimum wage.

This is not a slippery-slope situation, nor the opening wedge in Taliban America, overheated rhetoric to the contrary. There are far better places to fight the good fight for the Establishment Clause.

But if you insist on pushing it, it's fairly evident how the Supreme Court is likely to decide---and all we say here will be "a tale told by an idiot......"

Carol has indeed given the crux of the Schempp decision--no surprise there.

However, each case is different. In seeking to divine what the current Court is likely to say on this case, there are other tea leaves (in the same decision), which Carol, for her own inscrutable reasons, has not mentioned.

Indications of the Court's likely stance are clearly given in the concurring opinion (to the Schempp decision), cited by Dave and me--see Dave's 11th citation (posting of 18 April 2005 1:22 PM).

In addition, the actual opinion of the Court itself in the Schempp decision (not just a concurring opinion) also sought to draw distinctions relevant here.

The Abington school officials' last argument, in an attempt to justify school prayer, was that if school prayer were eliminated, the Court would have to declare unconstitutional every vestige of "co-operation or accomodation between religion and government" . The Court was at pains to deny that this was so--"For not every involvement of religion in public life violates the Establishment Clause."

For many reasons the Court felt that chaplains at military establishments and prisons were fine. Specifically they felt this because there was no element of coercion.

Similarly, there is no element of coercion in sitting in a courtroom with a plaque of the 10 Commandments--you must just co-exist with it.

They felt that "invocational prayers in legislative chambers, state or federal", were also fine.

They also noted approvingly an earlier decision "McGowan vs Maryland"--"the Establishment Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions".

They continued-- (remember this is part of the decision itself, not a concurring opinion)---"This rationale suggests that the use of the motto "In God We Trust" on currency, on documents and public buildings and the like may not offend the clause."..."The truth is that we have simply interwoven the motto so deeply into the fabric of our civil polity that its present use may well not present that type of involvement which the First Amendment prohibits".

(Continuing) "This general principle might also serve to insulate the various patriotic exercises and activities used in the public schools and elsewhere, which, whatever may have been their origins no longer have a religious purpose or meaning. The reference to divinity in the revised pledge of allegiance, for instance, may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded "under God". Thus reciting the pledge may be no more of a religious exercise than the reading aloud of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which contains an allusion to the same historical fact".

So--we can forget about trying to delete "under God" from the Pledge.

Regarding the 10 Commandments, Robomatic put it wonderfully well:---"Whether or not you are of the faiths that espouse them, they represent the elegant simplicity which can hold together a complex society".

I would add that the 10 Commandments can easily be justified in a courthouse from a historical perspective---as one of the codes of conduct which form part of the background of American jurisprudence. Obviously the Koran and other candidates of that nature cannot be justified in a courtroom on that basis.

This has been a fascinating debate, but we really should end it--especially considering the influence (already noted) that our words are likely to have on the Court.