June 27, 2005

So it's okay for the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public lands -- but not in courtrooms? That confusing thought must have some people shaking their heads in reaction to today's rulings announced by the U.S. Supreme Court as it closed out its term.

In identical 5-4 votes, the high court has ruled that because the Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky courthouses were motivated by a religious purpose, they are unconstitutional -- but that a monument on the capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, that contains the Decalogue may remain. Both majority opinions cite the Establishment Clause -- the so-called "separation of church and state" -- in their decisions.

Writing for the majority in the Kentucky cases, Justice David Souter wrote that "when the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment Clause value of official religious neutrality." Only "neutral" displays -- in historical context, for example -- are permissible, said the court. Joining Souter in the ruling against the Kentucky displays were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer, and Sandra Day O'Connor..

Stating the majority opinion in the Texas case, Chief Justice William Rehnquist recognized the obvious "religious" nature of the Ten Commandments -- and has no problem with it. He wrote that "of course" the Ten Commandments are religious, and therefore the Texas monument "has religious significance."

"[But] simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," he added.

Attorneys React

Pro-family attorneys are using words like "ominous" and "dangerous" to describe the possible fallout over the fractured nature of the decisions handed down in the two Ten Commandments cases. Pat Trueman with the Family Research Council, while acknowledging the split decision offers a "bit of positive," says it is unfortunate that the court is basically saying that a religious display that contains the Ten Commandments or otherwise "is okay so long as you are not honoring God."

Trueman says the Kentucky decision is particularly ominous because of what it has established. "Religion and non-religion are on equal footing -- and that's dangerous," he adds.

Trueman's comrade at FRC offers a biblical metaphor. "The court came down somewhere between Mount Sinai and the golden calf," says FRC president Tony Perkins. "The one case, in Texas, saying the display was okay; but in the other case showing a growing hostility -- not neutrality, but hostility -- toward religion, in particular Christianity."