The United States Supreme Court made two rulings today that decided on the constitutionality of the display of the 10 Commandments. In one case, they declared the display permissible under the constitution, in the other, they ruled that the display violated the separation of church and state and was not permissible.
Both decisions were decided by scant 5-4 majorities. The bottom line appears to be that each case will be decided on an individual basis depending on the specific facts. It almost guarantees that additional cases will come before the Supreme Court in the future.
The first case involved a display in courthouses in Kentucky. The justices ruled that the display of the 10 Commandments was unconstitutional.
'The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.
'When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,' he said.
Joining Suter in the majority were justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sandra Day O'Connor.
Justice Antonin Scalia was joined by Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Anthony Kennedy in the dissent. Scalia wrote, 'In the court's view , the impermissible motive was apparent from the initial displays of the Ten Commandments all by themselves: When that occurs: the Court says, a religious object is unmistakable,' he wrote. 'Surely that cannot be.'
'The Commandments have a proper place in our civil history,' Scalia wrote.
The case before the court began with the ACLU sued after two counties in Kentucky hung framed copies of the 10 Commandments in their courthouses. After the lawsuit was filed, other documents were added to the display to celebrate America's 'Christian heritage.' After a federal court shot down that display, a new one was erected which surrounded the 10 Commandments with the Star-Spangled Banner and the Bill of Rights to emphasize their role in 'our system of law and government.' That, too, was defeated by a federal court for being a 'sham' to promote the religious intent behind the 10 Commandments.
The second case involved a display on the grounds of the Texas legislature. The six foot high monument was one of 17 historical displays on the grounds.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, writing for the majority in the Texas case said, 'Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious – they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance,' Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the majority.
However, Rehnquist added, 'simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.'
Justice John Paul Stevens in the dissent noted that the monument proclaims in large letters , 'I AM the LORD thy God.'
Stevens wrote, 'The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state. The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God.'
More cases on the separation of church and state will almost certainly be before the court in the near future due to today's two rulings which make each individual case subject to judicial review. It further underscores the importance of future Supreme Court nominees in titling the balance of power in the court between liberals and conservatives.
