Contemplating the Court on Commandments
Q: The Supreme Court this week ruled that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are not inherently unconstitutional. In essence, the justices ruled 5 to 4 in two cases that each case of alleged governmental promotion of religion by displaying the Ten Commandments needs to be examined on its own. In one case, they ruled that the Ten Commandments could not be displayed, because they go too far in endorsing religion. In another other, they ruled that it could be, on historical grounds. The decision has brought criticism on the grounds that a case-by-case look is not a principle that can be applied consistently. Observers also say it doesn't settle the role of religion in society. What do you think of the court's decision?
A:The court skirted the bigger issue and gave a ruling that the Ten Commandments may be displayed inconspicuously among other documents and monuments.
Coincidently, God and religion were inconspicuously placed among other news items that captured the nation's attention this week. President Bush spoke to us, called for the continuance of the war and ended his words with "God bless you all." At the same time, we were introduced to the bigger war, the "War of the Worlds," and we were given a dose of Scientology along with the review of Tom Cruise acting.
In essence, the Supreme Court followed the patterns of society.
This weekend, we celebrate the founding of this incredible country, the United States of America. The name of our country invokes something in each of our souls. Our country was founded on a dream and continues to define itself as it evolves through a process. God was not something etched in stone back in 1776; neither was religion. The Founding Fathers had a notion that God was the underlying force for what we refer to as liberty, peace and freedom. These terms are not abstract, nor can they be placed inconspicuously in the corners of our lives.
I wish the court had ruled more decisively. But my greater desire is that we as a society can not be afraid of these terms that point us to our ideals.
Words are etched in stone, but our challenge is to etch them in our hearts.
FATHER VAZKEN MOVSESIAN
Armenian Church Youth Ministries
In Context:
As we have previously mentioned, the cardinal principle which Baha'is must follow is obedience to the government prevailing in any land in which we reside.
Whatever is the law with respect to the display of the Ten Commandments is what it is.
Revealed religions preceded these Ten Commandments, which became the basis for the law in the world, so it cannot be said that without them we have no religion.
They openly burn the American flag in this country without penalty, and most of the citizenry cannot recite the Pledge of Allegiance let alone sing the National Anthem, so why get so excited over the display of The Ten Commandments.
The role of religion in this country will not be affected by the way and where of the display of the Ten Commandments.
The core of religious faith is that mystical feeling which unites man with God.
BARBARA CRAMER
Secretary
Baha'i Faith, Glendale
I think the Supreme Court's two conflicting decisions guarantee more court cases on the subject. They've not given clear guidelines.
Those who favor a melding of evangelical Christianity into our government will argue such displays merely honor history. Those who believe in secular government will push for removal.
Neither display is appropriate, because putting the Ten Commandments in government buildings or on government land clearly violates the separation of church and state. Only in museums along with artifacts of other faiths would such displays be appropriate in the U.S.
The best document to enshrine in a courthouse or government building is the Bill of Rights. It, the Constitution, the other amendments and the body of law supporting individual rights are what makes our nation unique.
Christians can promote the Ten Commandments by following them.
SHARON WEISMAN
Atheist
Glendale
As I recall, the Supreme Court was originally designed to be the final word on sticky, sometimes controversial, legal issues. The two decisions the Court handed down this week concerning the display of the Ten Commandments in governmental buildings constitute anything but a "final word."
It is embarrassing to our entire judicial process that a clear-cut decision on this issue was not made by the Court. Its decision to allow the commandments to be displayed in Texas and not in Kentucky opens the door to confusion and continued controversy.
I think Americans deserve more from the Supreme Court.
You can bet that the court's indecision will lead to more and more "religious" displays cropping up all over the country in public places. After all, doing so will only require a statement indicating that "This display is not meant to be construed as religious in nature" -- when everyone will know it is just that and nothing more -- an openly religious display.
Someday a Supreme Court with some courage will make a definitive stand on this issue. Until then, we are left with every possibility for misunderstanding and confusion. Maybe an 11th commandment is needed for the Court: "Thou shalt not confuse the people."
THE REV. THOMAS E. WITHERSPOON
Unity Church of the Valley
La Crescenta
Most of the time, I consider myself a staunch defender of the wall of separation between church and state. In fact, I even belong to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
However, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, and I agree with the idea that each case is a situation unto itself. The fact that the Court ruled in favor in the Texas case and ruled against in the Kentucky case points to exactly how complicated the whole issue of the church-state relationship is. A case can be made that America was founded on religious principles ... but a case can also be made that those very religious principles allow for each one of us to worship -- or not worship! -- as each of us sees fit. The Founding Fathers, many of whom were believers (not all: Thomas Paine was an atheist!), wanted to create a nation, which had no "official" religion, such as "Anglican" England or "Catholic" France. Still, they recognized the importance of religious belief among the citizenry, and they weren't about to insist on no religion. Such a stance would have been "un-American", because they felt that each of us had the freedom to choose without governmental interference one way or the other. So the wall of separation between church and state is actually a tightrope, and it remains a very difficult, yet important task for the Court -- and all of us -- to navigate.
THE REV. SKIP LINDEMAN
Congregational Church of the Lighted Window
United Church of Christ
La Cañada Flintridge
In my opinion, religion in society has become a very sticky issue. I am saddened that our country, founded on freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc., is now being challenged on a daily basis in the court system of what might or might not be allowed.
Freedom is freedom. The Constitution and the Ten Commandments are both simple guidelines incorporating truth and justice into daily life. Why complicate such perfection?
THE REV. ALICE PARSONS ZULLI
Director of Bereavement Support and Services
Glendale Adventist Medical Center
Here we go again! As we hear about two new lawsuits having to do with Ten Commandment displays in public, is there any surprise that the ACLU is behind at least one?
Why do they work so hard to eradicate every vestige of our nation's religious heritage, the very catalyst of American cultural excellence? Be it Commandments, a crèche, or a Christianly suggestive anything, you can bet the ACLU will be suing to erase it from memory, much like they threatened to against our own county if the cross image did not immediately get removed from our historic seal.
Why is this? Is it because there is such worry that biblical things might influence somebody toward an actual experience with God, or at the very least, to morality? It can't be because it in any way violates the Constitution. Regarding religion, the First Amendment limits government from making laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Kentucky and Texas weren't prohibiting the truthful display of the religious foundation for law in America, and the Supreme Court ruled not to prohibit Texas, on the one hand, but sided with the ACLU on the other.
The justices have only exacerbated our problem of giving faith its due in this nation, which pledges allegiance to the very one who personally etched his law into stone tablets, the like of which some may, or may not, be prohibited from displaying and valuing.
THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM,
SENIOR PASTOR
Light on the Corner
Montrose
This clear-cut issue should have been resolved once and for all instead of leaving the courts open for nit-picking, case-by-case judgments. If they don't violate the constitution, as the court ruled, then let the monuments stand wherever they are.
It's inconsistent to base our laws on the moral principles set forth in the Ten Commandments and then ban displaying them, especially in the very places we create our laws and make judgments on the basis of them. Let's stop acting like we're the ones who invented law and morality. We didn't. God did.
To apply this issue in a personal way, we are reminded to honor God for all of the blessings he has given us. He has given us national freedom. For most who will read this, he has provided the necessities of life, to the extent that we have abundance to share with those who lack. And for everyone who wishes to receive them, he offers forgiveness, hope, unfailing love and eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ, his Son.
PASTOR JON BARTA
Valley Baptist Church
Burbank
The Establishment Clause (wall of separation between Church and State) was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.
Its intent was not to cleanse society of religion and establish a secular country. On the contrary, we see that members of the first Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to spend federal dollars on specific religious causes. They understood the important role of religion in society.
The benefit of the separation of church and state in the United States is immeasurable. An excellent example would be the respite of the Jewish people from a long history of government-sponsored religious persecution, most notoriously by the Spanish Crown and the Inquisition.
Upon the establishment of this great country, George Washington himself visited the Touro Synagogue in Newport, R.I. After his visit, he sent his famous letter in which he declared that the United States of America "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance." He concludes his letter by stating "may the children of the stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants ... and there shall be none to make him afraid."
The separation of church and state is one of the essential principles of this country. However, I feel that in many instances it has been misrepresented. Government should not support nor eradicate religion. A benign reference to the historical origins of U.S. law, namely the Ten Commandments, does not, in my opinion, threaten the separation of church and state.
In conclusion, it is clear that the Ten Commandments can be presented in many ways; some will violate the Establishment Clause, while others will not. I feel that the Supreme Court was correct in ruling that every case needs to be examined and decided upon its merits or lack thereof. No two situations are the same.
RABBI SIMCHA BACKMAN
Chabad Jewish Center
Glendale