The Adventist Review online newsletter (AR In Touch) reports on a decision by an American court that the display of the Ten Commandments is constitutional. It’s not something I’ve followed much – it’s really just a bunch of silly people trying to inflict a revisionist “history” on the reasonable American.
The article, interestingly, mentions the concept of a “reasonable person” – to my surprise. My gut feeling about this issue is that the decisions being made on things like this do not take the “reasonable person” into account at all – the courts just do what seems to be a nice thing at the time. Some snippets from Judge Suhrheinrich:
“A reasonable observer would not view this display as an attempt by Mercer County to establish religion. Instead, he would view it for what it is: an acknowledgment of history.”
“If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto [“In God we trust”].”
The ACLU “does not embody the reasonable person,” [Judge Richard Suhrheinrich] said.
The main article is at the Baptist Press website; also reported via the Adventist Review website.
