Too bad the mofos would probably be sacrificing gays for the most part.

Where IS everyone? Good lord, the comments are so scant I'm even doing it now. Well, PD don't let that discourage you. I guess most folks, except staffers, are on vacation. The members certainly seem to be ...

Gotta love SCOTUS. What's their moto? No government without total confusion?

As for the Statesman:
As Samuel Butler said, "The most important service rendered by the press is having educated people to approach printed matter with distrust." Except PD that is!

Today, David Van Os, candidate for Texas Attorney General released this statement to the press:

On June 27, 2005, the US Supreme Court handed down two decisions that reaffirm Constitutional separation of church and state. In both decisions, the prevailing opinion of the Court held that the First Amendment to the US Constitution requires such separation. David Van Os, speaking from his San Antonio law office, expressed agreement with the Court’s action, but with reservations about Attorney General Greg Abbott’s descriptions of the Court’s decisions.

“It is regrettable that Mr. Abbott, for purely political reasons, has chosen to misconstrue the court’s action in his public comments. While the Attorney General claims the Court ‘upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds as a constitutional acknowledgment of religion’, that is not a faithful or accurate reflection of the Supreme Court’s ruling”, Van Os observed.

Mr. Van Os points out that the Court’s ruling, while permitting Texas to continue the display of the Ten Commandments monument on the capitol grounds, specifically upheld the separation of church and state. Van Os calls attention to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in which he notes that the First Amendment has two faces:

“One face looks to the past in acknowledgement of our Nation’s heritage, while the other looks to the present in demanding a separation between church and state.”

Van Os further points out that the reason the Court permitted the continued display of the monument was specifically that it was erected for secular purposes rather than for advancing religion. He noted, “Greg Abbott’s description of the ruling overstates the case by a long shot.”

Van Os also notes that although Attorney General Abbott speaks of a majority opinion, there was no majority opinion. There was a 4-4 tie between Chief Justice Rehnquist and the dissenting justices. Justice Breyer delivered the deciding 5th vote in a separate opinion giving his separate reasons in what he termed “a borderline case.”

The broader Kentucky case involved a highly publicized instance in which the Ten Commandments were posted in the McCreary County Courthouse. The Court held this display clearly intended to promote one set of religious beliefs and as such was contrary to the intent of the First Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice David Souter closes his opinion by noting:

“the divisiveness of religion in current public life is inescapable. This is no time to deny the prudence of understanding the Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment] to require the Government to stay neutral on religious belief, which is reserved for the conscience of the individual.”

Van Os further explained his support for the Court’s action by commenting; “The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of the separation of church and state in our Constitutional system.” He added that, “The highest duty of the office of Texas Attorney General is to protect the Constitutional rights and liberties of all Texans; a duty I will be honored to uphold in that office.”

Well at least Van Os can count.

It is quite interesting that Abbott seems to consider the Ten Commandents equivalent to Aztec Religion. What is that line about "No Other Gods?" But then a marble Monument is somewhat of a Graven Image any way isn't it?

Maybe watered down faith is all the Religious Right has to sell.

Since the Monument was originally erected at the instigation of Mr. DeMille in order to promote his movie version of the Commandments, Abbott's publicity stunt may well have been historically appropriate.

It's only protestants that have a problem with graven images. Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholics do it all the time. Personally, I think people should be more offended by the confederate memorial on the lawn.

ehhh...dont really care about this ruling, pussy-footin around the issue is all it is...i actually kinda prefer keeping that 6 foot tablet on the lawn of the capitol...also, while we all realize PinkDome is an exceptionally intelligent person, i wouldn't say that his opinion on Aztecs is the same as Abbott's.