The Ten Commandments: Are They To Be or Not To Be?
Lee YanceySupreme Court Cases:
McCreary County, Kentucky vs. ACLU (2005) — involved a courthouse display that began by featuring only the Ten Commandments and then was changed to include other founding documents. The Supreme Court found that the display in Kentucky was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Van Orden vs. Perry (2005) — involved a monument of the Commandments on the grounds between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that the monument did not violate that same constitutional clause. Four of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices found that the monument was passive and that its dual significance for religion and government complied with constitutional requirements. A fifth justice, Justice Breyer, reasoned that because there had not been a challenge to the monument during its 40-year history it did not result in establishment of religion.
Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1971) — Since this decision, the Supreme Court has required a secular purpose for government action challenged under the Establishment Clause.
At the end of last month, the 27th of June, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down two decisions concerning the fates of two Ten Commandments Displays, one in Kentucky and the other in Texas. They ruled that one was unconstitutional and the other was allowable. The Court relied on the secular purpose requirement from Lemon vs. Kurtzman in McCreary but determined that it did not apply in Van Orden. The inconsistency of the Court leaves no viable standard to determine what is and what is not the establishment of religion. The Court implied that any new display of the Ten Commandments could be considered a violation of the First Amendment. Existing displays would be “grandfathered in” and fall under the secular purpose heading of Lemon.
The Supreme Court would benefit by looking at what the founders meant when they wrote that government could not establish religion. Thomas Jefferson, who made the phrase “separation of church and state” famous, approved church services to be held in the War Department and Treasury building; he ordered the Marine Corps Band to play in worship services at the U.S. Capitol; and he signed all documents “in the year of our Lord Christ.” Since its inception, Congress has opened each day with prayer and has always rejected the idea that paid chaplains violated the first amendment. There is no possible way that our founding fathers would find the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse to be a government establishment of religion.
Religious symbols are located throughout Washington, D.C. Moses and the Ten Commandments are found in the Capitol, in the National Archives, in the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the Library of Congress. These representations have been accepted throughout U.S. history without challenge. According to Justice Scalia, some in the Supreme Court are bent on ridding our government of all hints of religion. If they are successful, the result could look similar to secular France or Communist Cuba. The Court is trying to force religion into a closet saying it has no place in the public square.
Since the announcement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, there has been much speculation as to the views of the justice who takes her place on the highest court in the land. She has been the swing vote on many moral and social issues usually leaning to the left. Let us pray that President Bush will appoint Justices who will find the Law and rule accordingly, instead of participating in lawmaking themselves.