article: 10 Commandments Frustrate Court
Some people are trying to argue it's perfectly acceptable to laud Christianity inside, outside, and around government buildings and institutions while others try to argue that the Ten Commandments is being used as a purely historical and not at all religious symbol. Right! Sadly, it looks like the Supreme Court justices are trying to find ways to justify the marriage of government and religion.
10 Commandments Frustrate Court
The New York Sun [link]
by Luiza Ch. Savage
Thursday, March 3, 2005
WASHINGTON - A national debate over the public display of the Ten Commandments came to a combative head yesterday as Supreme Court justices considered whether displays of the decalogue on government property violate the Constitution's prohibition against the establishment of religion.
Several justices expressed frustration with the difficulty of distinguishing when such displays - which number in the thousands across the country - amount to an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion, and when they merely "acknowledge" an aspect of the nation's history.
There appeared to be as many interpretations of the tablets' meanings as there were judges and lawyers in the courtroom. The arguments ranged from Justice Scalia's assertion that the tablets are a profoundly religious, yet constitutionally acceptable, "symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God," to the arguments by some lawyers that they are merely a secular and historical artifact.
During the two-hour hearing, which opened with the divine supplication, "God save the United States and this honorable court," the court heard two separate cases. In one, a Texas man, Thomas Van Orden, is seeking the removal of a 6-foot-high granite monument that has stood on the Texas Capitol grounds for more than 40 years. In the other, a Kentucky county asked the court to protect a framed display of the commandments in a county courthouse.
The issues are a "very delicate matter" that could easily offend people, Justice Breyer cautioned as the argument unfolded.
Outside, several hundred believers marched in rings around the court building in a blistering wind, praying for divine intervention in the case.
A Duke law professor and lawyer for Mr. Van Orden, Erwin Chemerinsky, began the hearing by arguing that the tablets impart a profoundly religious meaning: that there is a single God who has set out laws for man to obey.
But Justice Scalia, who expressed his strong support for the displays throughout the hearing, immediately interrupted to note that many religious expressions permeate American political life and are not considered unconstitutional. The Congress opens sessions with prayer, and the president referred to one God in his Thanksgiving proclamation, he noted. Surely those practices are no less religious, he told Mr. Chemerinsky.
Displays of the tablets are acceptable as long as governments do not "proselytize" unto their citizens, Justice Scalia said.
Justice Kennedy also appeared critical of Mr. Chemerinsky's arguments, stating at one point that the "obsessive concern with any mention of religion" seemed "hostile to religion." He suggested at one point that the removal of the monument might be "asking religious people to surrender their beliefs."
Other justices saw vexing complexity in distinguishing the displays that impermissibly endorse religion.
"It's so hard to draw that line," Justice O'Connor said at one point.
Justice Breyer bemoaned the difficulty of finding a "satisfactory test" to apply to all displays, noting that America is a "religious nation" that has made a constitutional commitment to secularism.
While a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union asked the judges to declare that all displays of the Ten Commandments are presumed to be an endorsement of religion, Justice Breyer said there may be no way to deal with the issue except on "a case by case basis."
Justice Ginsburg noted, for example, that while legislatures may open sessions with prayer, the top court had struck down prayers in school. "Doesn't the venue count?" she asked.
Lawyers arguing in favor of the displays pointed out that the legal wrangling took place beneath a carved frieze on the courtroom wall that depicts Moses bearing the tablets.
Lawyers opposing the displays noted that the Biblical figure was shown as part of a procession of historical lawgivers, including the prophet Mohamed, and the Babylonian king Hammurabi.
Justice Ginsburg noted that the frieze above the courtroom showed only the sixth through tenth commandments - which give humans instruction on how to treat one another, rather than on how to worship God.
In the same vein, Justice Souter noted that the Austin display was surrounded by 16 other monuments to war heroes and others. The only thing the monuments had in common, he said, was that they were presented as objects that should be "venerated."
The status of Ten Commandments monuments exploded into a national debate in 2003 after the Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy Moore, was removed from the bench after refusing to remove a large monument to the Commandments from the rotunda of his courthouse.
The high court declined to hear appeals by the judge.
Yesterday, a lawyer for Texas, Greg Abbot, contended that such a stand alone display would "cross the line" in a way the Austin exhibit does not. He argued that the Ten Commandments are a "historically recognized symbol of law" and stressed that the monument was a gift to the state from a community organization, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, that has stood for more than 40 years without controversy.
Religion was "not the driving force" behind the monument, he said.
Justice Scalia interjected: "If you are watering it down to say it is a secular message, then I can't agree with you."
Mr. Abbot responded that the display sends both a secular and religious message.
Justice Scalia said of the display, "It's a profoundly religious message, but it's shared by a vast majority of the American people." The nonbelieving minority should be tolerant of the majority belief that "government comes from God," he said. "Turn your eyes away if this is such a big deal to you," Justice Scalia told Mr. Chereminsky.
Mr. Chereminsky responded that under the Constitution, government cannot make its citizens into "insiders" and "outsiders" based on religion.
Justice Stevens raised the possibility of the state placing a disclaimer on the display stating that it was not endorsing religion, but Mr. Chereminsky responded that it would remain "clear to the reasonable observer" that the government was in fact endorsing religion.
Justice O'Connor noted that the district court found a secular purpose in the Austin display. She also asked whether the State of Texas did not have an interest in preserving the historic monument.
In the case of the Kentucky display, lawyer Mathew Staver argued on behalf of McCreary County that its intent was to present the Commandments as a "unique symbol of law" and to highlight its "historical nature."
The county had originally displayed the Commandments on their own in the courtroom, but after a Constitutional challenge, the county surrounded the display with other documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the national motto "In God We Trust," and others purporting to show that they were part of the nation's heritage.
The alleged secular purpose of the display is a "sham," argued a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, David Friedman. He noted that the council passed a resolution describing the Ten Commandments as the foundation of the American legal system.
Justice Souter said he saw little reason to conclude the intent behind the display had changed.
But Justice Scalia sparred with Mr. Friedman, saying, "All it stands for is that the moral order is ordained by God.
"I don't think they are saying that particular commandments are the basis of the Declaration of Independence. That's idiotic," Justice Scalia said.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, did not attend the hearing, but he reserved the right to participate in the decision based on written briefs and transcripts of the oral argument, Justice Stevens said.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
Outside the Supreme Court, a Baptist pastor who traveled 13 hours by bus from Tennessee, Kermit Phillips, asked God to uphold the displays, which he said honor "part of the foundation of our country."
He was confident that his entreaties had been heard, he said.
"God always hears our prayers," he said. However, "He doesn't always answer them the way we want."
"Justice Ginsburg noted that the frieze above the courtroom showed only the sixth through tenth commandments - which give humans instruction on how to treat one another, rather than on how to worship God." Now that's something I hadn't known! Makes you think the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments was left out on purpose, doesn't it? Yes, indeed.
We can debate over how intimate religion and politics have gotten in the past or even how intimate those two are now in this country, but, regardless of all of that, when tradition or the status quo and doing what's right and fair and proper are at odds, we need to be willing to scrap tradition and take a stand against the status quo in favor of justice and equality. We all know no one religion represents this entire nation. There's no good reason to misrepresent the truth.
10 Commandments Frustrate Court
The New York Sun [link]
by Luiza Ch. Savage
Thursday, March 3, 2005
WASHINGTON - A national debate over the public display of the Ten Commandments came to a combative head yesterday as Supreme Court justices considered whether displays of the decalogue on government property violate the Constitution's prohibition against the establishment of religion.
Several justices expressed frustration with the difficulty of distinguishing when such displays - which number in the thousands across the country - amount to an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion, and when they merely "acknowledge" an aspect of the nation's history.
There appeared to be as many interpretations of the tablets' meanings as there were judges and lawyers in the courtroom. The arguments ranged from Justice Scalia's assertion that the tablets are a profoundly religious, yet constitutionally acceptable, "symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God," to the arguments by some lawyers that they are merely a secular and historical artifact.
During the two-hour hearing, which opened with the divine supplication, "God save the United States and this honorable court," the court heard two separate cases. In one, a Texas man, Thomas Van Orden, is seeking the removal of a 6-foot-high granite monument that has stood on the Texas Capitol grounds for more than 40 years. In the other, a Kentucky county asked the court to protect a framed display of the commandments in a county courthouse.
The issues are a "very delicate matter" that could easily offend people, Justice Breyer cautioned as the argument unfolded.
Outside, several hundred believers marched in rings around the court building in a blistering wind, praying for divine intervention in the case.
A Duke law professor and lawyer for Mr. Van Orden, Erwin Chemerinsky, began the hearing by arguing that the tablets impart a profoundly religious meaning: that there is a single God who has set out laws for man to obey.
But Justice Scalia, who expressed his strong support for the displays throughout the hearing, immediately interrupted to note that many religious expressions permeate American political life and are not considered unconstitutional. The Congress opens sessions with prayer, and the president referred to one God in his Thanksgiving proclamation, he noted. Surely those practices are no less religious, he told Mr. Chemerinsky.
Displays of the tablets are acceptable as long as governments do not "proselytize" unto their citizens, Justice Scalia said.
Justice Kennedy also appeared critical of Mr. Chemerinsky's arguments, stating at one point that the "obsessive concern with any mention of religion" seemed "hostile to religion." He suggested at one point that the removal of the monument might be "asking religious people to surrender their beliefs."
Other justices saw vexing complexity in distinguishing the displays that impermissibly endorse religion.
"It's so hard to draw that line," Justice O'Connor said at one point.
Justice Breyer bemoaned the difficulty of finding a "satisfactory test" to apply to all displays, noting that America is a "religious nation" that has made a constitutional commitment to secularism.
While a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union asked the judges to declare that all displays of the Ten Commandments are presumed to be an endorsement of religion, Justice Breyer said there may be no way to deal with the issue except on "a case by case basis."
Justice Ginsburg noted, for example, that while legislatures may open sessions with prayer, the top court had struck down prayers in school. "Doesn't the venue count?" she asked.
Lawyers arguing in favor of the displays pointed out that the legal wrangling took place beneath a carved frieze on the courtroom wall that depicts Moses bearing the tablets.
Lawyers opposing the displays noted that the Biblical figure was shown as part of a procession of historical lawgivers, including the prophet Mohamed, and the Babylonian king Hammurabi.
Justice Ginsburg noted that the frieze above the courtroom showed only the sixth through tenth commandments - which give humans instruction on how to treat one another, rather than on how to worship God.
In the same vein, Justice Souter noted that the Austin display was surrounded by 16 other monuments to war heroes and others. The only thing the monuments had in common, he said, was that they were presented as objects that should be "venerated."
The status of Ten Commandments monuments exploded into a national debate in 2003 after the Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy Moore, was removed from the bench after refusing to remove a large monument to the Commandments from the rotunda of his courthouse.
The high court declined to hear appeals by the judge.
Yesterday, a lawyer for Texas, Greg Abbot, contended that such a stand alone display would "cross the line" in a way the Austin exhibit does not. He argued that the Ten Commandments are a "historically recognized symbol of law" and stressed that the monument was a gift to the state from a community organization, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, that has stood for more than 40 years without controversy.
Religion was "not the driving force" behind the monument, he said.
Justice Scalia interjected: "If you are watering it down to say it is a secular message, then I can't agree with you."
Mr. Abbot responded that the display sends both a secular and religious message.
Justice Scalia said of the display, "It's a profoundly religious message, but it's shared by a vast majority of the American people." The nonbelieving minority should be tolerant of the majority belief that "government comes from God," he said. "Turn your eyes away if this is such a big deal to you," Justice Scalia told Mr. Chereminsky.
Mr. Chereminsky responded that under the Constitution, government cannot make its citizens into "insiders" and "outsiders" based on religion.
Justice Stevens raised the possibility of the state placing a disclaimer on the display stating that it was not endorsing religion, but Mr. Chereminsky responded that it would remain "clear to the reasonable observer" that the government was in fact endorsing religion.
Justice O'Connor noted that the district court found a secular purpose in the Austin display. She also asked whether the State of Texas did not have an interest in preserving the historic monument.
In the case of the Kentucky display, lawyer Mathew Staver argued on behalf of McCreary County that its intent was to present the Commandments as a "unique symbol of law" and to highlight its "historical nature."
The county had originally displayed the Commandments on their own in the courtroom, but after a Constitutional challenge, the county surrounded the display with other documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the national motto "In God We Trust," and others purporting to show that they were part of the nation's heritage.
The alleged secular purpose of the display is a "sham," argued a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, David Friedman. He noted that the council passed a resolution describing the Ten Commandments as the foundation of the American legal system.
Justice Souter said he saw little reason to conclude the intent behind the display had changed.
But Justice Scalia sparred with Mr. Friedman, saying, "All it stands for is that the moral order is ordained by God.
"I don't think they are saying that particular commandments are the basis of the Declaration of Independence. That's idiotic," Justice Scalia said.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, did not attend the hearing, but he reserved the right to participate in the decision based on written briefs and transcripts of the oral argument, Justice Stevens said.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
Outside the Supreme Court, a Baptist pastor who traveled 13 hours by bus from Tennessee, Kermit Phillips, asked God to uphold the displays, which he said honor "part of the foundation of our country."
He was confident that his entreaties had been heard, he said.
"God always hears our prayers," he said. However, "He doesn't always answer them the way we want."
"Justice Ginsburg noted that the frieze above the courtroom showed only the sixth through tenth commandments - which give humans instruction on how to treat one another, rather than on how to worship God." Now that's something I hadn't known! Makes you think the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments was left out on purpose, doesn't it? Yes, indeed.
We can debate over how intimate religion and politics have gotten in the past or even how intimate those two are now in this country, but, regardless of all of that, when tradition or the status quo and doing what's right and fair and proper are at odds, we need to be willing to scrap tradition and take a stand against the status quo in favor of justice and equality. We all know no one religion represents this entire nation. There's no good reason to misrepresent the truth.