Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You might remember the case in Slidell, LA, where the ACLU filed suit on behalf of a local resident over a picture of Jesus with a Bible verse under it in a city courthouse. They ended up changing the display so that it includes 15 other historical lawgivers prior to the case going to court, which the judge allowed and concluded did not violate the establishment clause. In a ruling this week, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the initial cause of action and granted the plaintiff reimbursement for legal fees and nominal damages. The judge ruled that the initial display was unconstitutional and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment stating so, which then allows him, as the prevailing party, to have his legal fees reimbursed by the defendants, in this case the city of Slidell. This is the correct outcome. No citizen should have to pay to force the government to abide by the constitution.
Comments
Posted by: Bob Munck | April 19, 2008 11:03 AM
Hopefully, no citizen will pay with their lives or their liberty to get the government to follow the constitution, but if those two Democratic candidates don't stop giving McCain ammunition, that might happen before long.
Posted by: BaldApe | April 19, 2008 11:18 AM
My guess is that they will cheat on this 'compromise' by subsequently removing one by one the blasphemous lawgivers until The One True Jebus remains.
Maybe the right counter is to lobby for the inclusion of other lawgivers -- Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il, Allah, Mohammad, and Confucius.
Posted by: Bill the Cat | April 19, 2008 1:01 PM
How long before the so-called Christian right claims this a victory? Headline to read: "Jesus Kept in Slidell Courthouse!"
Posted by: sirhcton | April 19, 2008 2:13 PM
Great news! I will think about this the next time I drive through Slidell.
Posted by: vjack | April 19, 2008 2:32 PM
"Hopefully, not citizen will pay with their lives or their liberty to get the government to follow the constitution, but if those two Democratic candidates don't stop giving McCain ammunition, that might happen before long."
I am no McCain fan, but what the heck is that sentence supposed to mean?
Posted by: daniel rotter | April 19, 2008 3:43 PM
What laws did Jesus give society? Sure, he had a lot of feel good stuff like "Do unto others." But actual laws, or even things that have been since codified into laws? I can't think of any.
Posted by: Narc | April 20, 2008 12:34 AM
I thought Jesus was a rabbi, a sensei, a guru, a teacher (after all "discipulus" means "student"). Not a law-giver at all. Moses maybe, but not Jesus. -DJ
PS Jesus didn't think much of his followers, calling them children, but they reciprocated calling him "domine" - slave driver.
"Dominus et servi sed discipulus et MAGISTER". It's a bit doggy but you get what I mean.
Posted by: DingoJack | April 20, 2008 2:58 AM
DJ: Jesus' followers never called him a slave driver, which in any case, is the most perjorative translation of Domine. The word could be used in any situation where there was a distinction of rank between two people. But they didn't use it because they spoke Greek and Aramaic.
Posted by: kehrsam | April 20, 2008 7:26 AM
Kehrsam - Yep, just trying to get a rise (and it worked).
Domine can mean master of a house, an owner of slaves, the overseer of slaves and the like, I agree. Magister meant a master of a ship, the controller of a faction, a master of a school (Ludus) etc. with the idea of NOT having absolute control over the lives (or daeths) of their charges. I suspect that the disciples called Jesus this (if indeed they did) in the sense of giving thier lives WILLINGLY to the cause.
Bethlehem was a Roman market town, I suspect a lot of folks could (and did) speak Latin, many did as it was a kind of linga Franca of it's rime (plus their political masters probably instisted) along with many others including Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic. Amongst themselves my guess is they used the last. Rmember also that Matthew was a tax-farmer and he'd HAVE to had known at a LITTLE Latin- :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | April 20, 2008 8:26 AM
Maybe next week I will take a ride over to Slidell (it's less than 50 miles) and photograph the actual display at the courthouse to see what it looks like and what "lawgivers" are featured. Of course, the local religionists are already claiming victory as the picture of Jesus is still there and in the central location. They are ignoring the fact that they lost the case and that damages and attorney's fees were awarded to the ACLU. One of the lawyers for the city is threatening to appeal the decision and we will see if the mayor and the judge let him do that. Such an appeal will, of course, mean more taxpayers' money wasted, but these guys don't seem to care about that. I wish that they could be sued personally for reckless malfeasance in office. Has there ever been such a case?
I have some qualms about how the national ACLU is being run these days, but I sent a check for $100 to the Louisiana ACLU with a note congratulating them on this particular case. That's how I have been giving lately-- locally and specifically.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 20, 2008 2:16 PM