Book
2nd December 2010, 08:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoG2uhxeN6E
:oo--> WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO THEN READ THE FOLLOWING:
Supreme Court Decision on Religious Monument 'Disappointing'
New York, NY, April 28, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called the Supreme Court's decision in Salazar v. Buono "a disappointing ruling that will have little impact."
The case asked – but did not answer – whether the government may transfer a small piece of land in the middle of a public park to private control merely to protect the religious monument that stands on it. In its amicus brief, ADL urged the Court to find the cross display unconstitutional.
Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, issued the following statement:
We are disappointed by the Court's action, but this is not a case destined to have much impact on religious freedom. The unique facts and the splintered, technical nature of the decision provide minimal guidance on the broader issue of the display of religious symbols on public property. This case will only add to the confusion surrounding what the First Amendment allows, requires and prohibits.
One troubling aspect of this decision is that the plurality drew far-reaching theological conclusions when it determined that the cross has some universal meaning beyond Christianity. This claim should be equally as offensive to Christians and non-Christians.
Linky (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/5745_33.htm)
:oo--> WATCH THIS SHORT VIDEO THEN READ THE FOLLOWING:
Supreme Court Decision on Religious Monument 'Disappointing'
New York, NY, April 28, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called the Supreme Court's decision in Salazar v. Buono "a disappointing ruling that will have little impact."
The case asked – but did not answer – whether the government may transfer a small piece of land in the middle of a public park to private control merely to protect the religious monument that stands on it. In its amicus brief, ADL urged the Court to find the cross display unconstitutional.
Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, issued the following statement:
We are disappointed by the Court's action, but this is not a case destined to have much impact on religious freedom. The unique facts and the splintered, technical nature of the decision provide minimal guidance on the broader issue of the display of religious symbols on public property. This case will only add to the confusion surrounding what the First Amendment allows, requires and prohibits.
One troubling aspect of this decision is that the plurality drew far-reaching theological conclusions when it determined that the cross has some universal meaning beyond Christianity. This claim should be equally as offensive to Christians and non-Christians.
Linky (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/5745_33.htm)