Supreme Court bars Ten Commandments at courthouses
Check out this blurb in the CNN.com story about the recent Supreme Court ruling on the ten commandments…
The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case left themselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses — like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they’re portrayed neutrally in order to honor the nation’s legal history.
I wish they would have defined what a neutral portrayal is! If I notice something but don’t really think about it and move on, does that mean it is neutral? What if someone else sees that same display and contemplates its significance, is it no longer neutral? And what if someone (for example, Barry Lynn) sees it and is offended? Does that one person being offended mean it is not a neutral portrayal? What if someone sees it and declares it to be a flock of seagulls that is chasing them and won’t leave them alone? If we are going to focus on feelings over the truth of reality, then what’s the difference? Seriously, I’ve seen a trend lately: it’s ok to share Biblical truth - as long as you deny the nature of that truth in the process - thereby not sharing Biblical truth at all.
Also, does their statement about honoring ‘the nation’s legal history’ mean that acknowledging God is something that they did at one time but no longer do?