i just found out that you can read the transcripts of the oral arguments brought before the supreme court. i find this absolutely fascinating; we have access to listen in to some of the most insightful and intelligent legal minds. i just finished reading the oral arguments from the case van orden v. perry where the supreme court discussed the constitutionality of a monument on state property depicting moses holding the ten commandments.

i found it interesting how clearly the petitioner, mr. chemerinsky, stated his objection to the ten commandments. the issue was not with the behavioral portions that reflect the current laws such as 'do not kill', 'do not steal' etc., but with the fact that the ten commandments claim an exclusive mono-theism: "...if you look at these commandments, it's that God has claimed that he is the only God, prohibiting idolatry, prohibiting graven images, prohibiting taking the name of the Lord and God in vain. (p.5 l.16-20)"

maybe this clear understanding and rejection of the ten commandments shouldn't surprise me. i suppose it does surprise me because 1) i feel that many christians i know haven't stopped to examine the meaning and implications of the first of these commonly quoted commandments and 2) this man who does understand their implications rejects the consequences of them.

the discovery of these direct transcripts was a welcome relief from hearing the filtered sound bytes about the case long after it was over.

i tried sharing these ideas at school today. mostly people's eyes glazed over in boredom. i think as soon as you start talking about reading transcripts from the supreme court people automatically assume that it will be confusing and boring. if you're actually still reading this you should see for yourself.