Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,718,124 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

High court agrees to hear Commandments, prisoner cases.


The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review three cases raising important religious liberty issues.

On Oct. 12, the justices accepted two lawsuits dealing with government display of the Ten Commandments Ten Commandments or Decalogue [Gr.,=ten words], in the Bible, the summary of divine law given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai. They have a paramount place in the ethical system in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  and a third case challenging a federal law that requires prisons to respect the religious freedom of inmates.

The Commandments conflicts, which will be heard early next year, involve displays in Texas and Kentucky.

One case challenges a Commandments monument that has stood on the state capitol grounds Captiol Grounds is a former baseball ground located in Washington, D.C.. The ground was home to the Washington Nationals of the Union Association in 1884.  in Austin, Texas, since 1961. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the display in Van Orden v. Perry Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, involving whether a government-sponsored display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. , saying the monument contained a "nonsectarian version" of the Decalogue and noting that it had gone unchallenged for many years.

The Kentucky case deals with more recent Commandments displays at courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in McCreary, v. ACLU ACLU: see American Civil Liberties Union.  that the posters were unconstitutional in part because of their "blatantly religious" content.

The Supreme Court also announced it would hear a challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub.L. 106-274, 42 U.S.C.  2000cc-1 et seq. (RLUIPA) is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please, as well as making it easier , a 2000 law that requires states to accommodate prisoners' religious needs unless corrections officials can show a compelling reason not to, such as security concerns.

The case comes from Ohio, where prisoners who belong to minority religions say they have been denied access to religious literature and ceremonial items. The 6th Circuit invalidated the law in Cutter v. Wilkinson Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005)[1], is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on May 31, 2005, which holds that under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), prisoners in facilities that accept federal , saying it promoted religion at government expense.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Americans United for Separation of Church and State
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:In The Capital
Publication:Church & State
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Nov 1, 2004
Words:248
Previous Article:On the religion beat in the news media: happy trails, Dave!(Perspective)(Editorial)
Next Article:Supreme Court refuses Catholic charities case.(In The Capital)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. Appeals Court: SELF INCRIMINATION RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE SELF-INCRIMINATION.
U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE-HEARING PAROLE-DUE PROCESS PAROLE-REVOCATION.(Brief Article)
'Commandments Judge' fails at high court, but testifies in Congress.(People & Events)
Religious liberty: Supreme Court agrees to consider federal religious liberty law.
America: it's not just for Christians any more (and never really was).(Editorial)
Singleton v. Norris.(CIVIL RIGHTS)(Brief Article)
Singleton v. Norris.(habeas corpus petition)(Brief Article)
Singleton v. Norris.(MEDICAL CARE)(Brief Article)
Singleton v. Norris.(MENTAL PROBLEMS (PRISONER))(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles