October 12, 2004

Supreme Court to Hear Cases on Displaying Ten Commandments

ASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — The Supreme Court put itself today in the center of an emotional and politically charged issue as it agreed to hear cases from Texas and Kentucky on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land and buildings.

The justices will try to resolve a conflict between two federal appeals courts that cover seven states, from the Canadian border to the Deep South, with widely differing social and political histories.

In the Texas case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the State Capitol, in Austin. A three-judge panel of the court ruled unanimously on Nov. 12, 2003, that the monument, erected in 1961, commemorated Texas history and that it was not intended to favor one religion over another, in violation of the Constitution.

In the Kentucky case, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reached a different conclusion, ruling on Dec. 18, 2003, that officials were wrong in hanging framed copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski Counties.

Conflicts between the circuit courts often propel cases to the Supreme Court. In 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. More recently, there has been an increase in legal battles on issues related to the Ten Commandments, so it was not particularly surprising that the justices took the cases from Texas and Kentucky. They are, respectively, Van Orden v. Perry, 03-1500, and McCreary County v. the American Civil Liberties Union, 03-1693.

The Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, has jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi; the Sixth Circuit, based in Cincinnati, has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan.

The Texas case involves a six-foot red granite monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1961. The organization donated many such monuments to American communities several decades ago — and many of them have spawned legal battles over the place of religion in American life.

The Texas plaintiff, Thomas Van Orden, asked a federal district court to order the state to remove the monument. The district court refused, finding that the monument was not in violation of the First Amendment.

"History matters here," the Fifth Circuit declared, in an opinion by Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham. "For 42 years, the monument has stood in Austin without the filing of any legal complaint. This quiescence is remarkable for Travis County, the seat of state government and the home of the University of Texas, whose campus is a stone's throw away from the Capitol Grounds. This court is well aware that Travis County is not lacking in persons willing and able to seek judicial relief from perceived interference with constitutional rights."

The court found that the Texas legislators who accepted the monument in 1961 had a purpose more secular than religious, and that the Ten Commandments monument was as appropriate as, say, a monument at the Capitol to the dead of the Alamo.

In the Kentucky case, the district court concluded that the displays in the county courthouses did violate the First Amendment, and it ordered them removed. The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court, in a 2-to-1 ruling written by Judge Eric L. Clay.

"When distilled to their essence, the courthouse displays demonstrate that defendants intend to convey the bald assertion that the Ten Commandments formed the foundation of American legal tradition," Judge Clay wrote.

"The displays do not present a passive symbol of religion like a creche, which, when accompanied by secular reminders of the holiday season, has come to be associated more with the public celebration of Christmas, rather than that holiday's religious origins," he went on. "Defendants had to exercise special care to present the Ten Commandments objectively and as an integral part of a non-religious message. As discussed above, defendants failed in this endeavor."

The dissenter, Judge James L. Ryan, noted that the Ten Commandments were displayed with the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and other documents of great historic importance.

"The influence of religion upon American law and government is a fact of American history and politics that has been widely recognized by scholars, jurists, legislators, presidents and, not least, the Founders themselves," Judge Ryan wrote.

However the Supreme Court resolves the conflict between the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, there will probably be more cases involving the intersections of history and personal belief.

The justices declined recently to consider an appeal from Alabama's former chief justice, Roy Moore, who was unseated after defying a federal order to dismantle a Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the State Supreme Court.

Three years ago, the United States Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display in front of the municipal building in Elkhart, Ind. In declining to take that case, the Supreme Court refused to review a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago holding that the monument, also donated by the Eagles, was an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Now that the court has taken the Texas and Kentucky cases, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State said today he hopes the justices will declare government displays of religious documents and symbols unconstitutional.

"It's clear that the Ten Commandments is a religious document," he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Its display is appropriate in houses of worship but not at the seat of government."

Escrito por Luiz J. Marquart às 21h07
[] [envie esta mensagem]



EGW tinha razão na dieta de frutas e verduras

 

Fruit, veggies linked to heart health Cancer risk link uncertain WASHINGTON (AP) -- A multiyear study involving more than 100,000 participants provides added support that eating lots of fruit and vegetables is good for the heart. But the analysis failed to show similar benefits for cancer, a result that prompted the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which published the study Tuesday, to raise questions about its findings. The report supports the American Heart Association's recommendations to consume at least five servings of fruit and vegetables per day, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health. But for cancer, the report said, "The protective effect of fruit and vegetable intake may have been overstated." The research team studied 71,910 females in the Nurse's Health study and 37,725 males in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. The research began in the mid-1980s and the report followed the participants until 1998. They found participants who ate five or more servings of fruit and vegetables daily had a slightly decreased risk of heart disease, but there was no statistically significant difference in cancer rates. The researchers provided several possible explanations for that result, while the journal published an editorial suggesting potential sources of error. It may be that cancer risk is increased only in people who eat few fruits and vegetables, the researchers said. Since most of the study participants -- nurses and other health professionals -- tended to include fruit and vegetables in their diets, no protective association would have been noticeable. Another possibility, the authors said, is that it takes longer for cancer to develop than heart disease, so it may take longer for a protective association from higher fruit and vegetable consumption to show up. In addition, they said, the overall finding does not preclude protective effects of some specific vegetables. For example, they found that eating cruciferous vegetables -- such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and watercress -- was associated with lower rates of cancer in males who smoked and didn't use multivitamins. They also had found a lower rate of bladder cancer in men who ate more cruciferous vegetables. Fruits were more strongly associated with reduced heart disease than vegetables, the researchers said. Among vegetables, those most closely related to better heart health were green leafy vegetables. In an editorial in the same issue of the journal, Dr. Arthur Schatzkin and Victor Kipnis of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, contend it "remains an open question" whether eating fruits and vegetables provides cancer protection. Errors in collecting the data could obscure a cancer reduction associated with eating fruit and vegetables, Schatzkin said. Even a modest degree of protection could translate into many lives, "since everybody eats," he said. "Our whole point was, look, we know we're dealing with a certain amount of error in measuring what people eat, and that error is enough to make a modest association disappear," Schatzkin said in a telephone interview. The questionnaire method used to collect data on eating habits is subject to error, Schatzkin and Kipnis wrote. They also questioned statistical methods used, noting that the researchers adjusted for several other factors such as total energy intake, smoking, alcohol use and taking vitamins, which also may be subject to error. "In other words, the evidence is simply inadequate at this time to determine whether fruit and vegetable intake confers modest protection against cancer," Schatzkin and Kipnis concluded. The research was funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health and the Florida Department of Citrus. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Escrito por Luiz J. Marquart às 20h41
[] [envie esta mensagem]




[ ver mensagens anteriores ]