Supreme Court Rules Against America In Ten Commandments Displays

In an anxiously awaited ruling announced Monday, the United States Supreme Court said that public displays of the Ten Commandments cross the line between church and state. In another close vote, 5-4, the justices said the displays in two Kentucky courthouses must be taken down. However, the ruling will not prohibit all displays in government buildings or courtrooms. The court said that some displays, such as the one in their own courtroom, are permissible if they are displayed in a neutral context, to honor the legal history of the United States. In the ruling, Justice David Souter said, "The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion." Souter was joined in his opinion by the other liberals on the court, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor provided the swing vote. But in a contrasting vote Monday, the Supreme Court ruled additionally that displays of the Ten Commandments are allowed on government land in Texas. The court found that a 6-foot tall granite monument located on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol can remain in place, saying that it does not cross the line between church and state. Justice Stephen Breyer, normally part of the liberal bloc of the court, voted with the liberals in the Kentucky case but joined with the conservative justices in favor of the Texas display.

Opponents in both cases, the Texas monument and the Kentucky courthouse displays, say that they are an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Defenders of the displays say that such monuments do not establish or support religion, but simply acknowledge the nation’s legal heritage, since America was founded on the basis of religious principles. Monday’s ruling was the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of the Ten Commandments in more than 25 years. The overall consensus of the court in both rulings was that displays of the Ten Commandments on government property are not inherently unconstitutional, but each case must be examined individually to determine whether a display crosses the line and exhibits governmental promotion of religion.

The two contrasting decisions are a clear indicator of how deeply divided the court was on the issue of public displays of the Ten Commandments. In a biting dissent in the courthouse case, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the liberal bloc of the court for ruling that the Kentucky courthouses must remove their displays. "What distinguishes the rule of law from the dictatorship of a shifting Supreme Court majority is the absolutely indispensable requirement that judicial opinions be grounded in consistently applied principle," Scalia wrote. Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined Scalia in the majority decision that allowed the Texas monument to remain. "Of course the Ten Commandments are religious—they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument therefore has religious significance. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment clause," said Rehnquist.

In a country where prisons are overcrowded, families are in crisis, children are over-medicated, and undeserving celebrities are worshiped, is it really such a horrible thing to have the Ten Commandments displayed in public? What’s wrong with a courthouse display admonishing people not to kill, steal, commit adultery, or bear false witness? And if a person doesn’t particularly agree with the commandments about honoring the Sabbath and not taking the name of the Lord in vain, why can’t they just skim over the ones they don't like, or look the other way? If Americans can stand in a grocery line and ignore tabloid headlines screaming about whether or not Brad and Jennifer will get back together—information that cannot benefit a single person who passes through the line—then why can’t they just ignore a display that may potentially be an inspiring, cautionary reminder that could actually help improve people’s lives? The Supreme Court is supposed to deeply scrutinize the law and interpret it according to its original intentions. This country was founded by a group of God-fearing men; our Pledge of Allegiance to this country says "One nation under God," and our money even says "In God We Trust." According to an AP-Ipsos poll taken in February, a vast majority of Americans (76%) support public displays of the Ten Commandments, and only 23% oppose them. Apparently Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer were part of that 23%.