The Ten Commandments: Legal, if they’re not religious
Why the courts said ‘no’ to religious symbols
When the word came down, said Charles Lane in The Washington Post, evangelicals wept and bowed in prayer. Civil libertarians celebrated and waved placards. Both sides claimed victories, yet both were disappointed. In conflicting rulings, a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court this week weighed in on one of the hottest flash points in the nation's culture wars: the Ten Commandments. By a 5–4 vote, the court allowed a 6-foot granite monument of the Commandments to remain standing on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. But by the same margin, the justices said that gold-framed copies of Moses' laws inside two Kentucky courthouses amounted to 'œa state endorsement of religion'—and thus violated the First Amendment.
In the end, said Joan Biskupic in USA Today, the court found that context and intent are critical. The Texas tablets were donated in 1961 by a private civic group. Since then, they've been joined by 37 other symbols representing the history of Western civilization, including two Stars of David, an eagle grasping an American flag, and an eye inside a pyramid. The net effect of this tableau, the justices found, 'œwas not religious.' By contrast, the Kentucky legislators who hung the Commandments in McCreary County courthouses in 1999 had openly announced their desire to promote respect for Judeo-Christian values. That, said the justices, crossed the line into endorsement of a specific faith.
In other words, said John Podhoretz in the New York Post, public displays of religious symbols are fine if they're not…religious. What kind of 'œwitless' reasoning is that? Taken together, these two decisions are 'œnonsense on stilts.' They're also proof that President Bush needs to fill future Supreme Court vacancies with true conservatives, said The Washington Times in an editorial. The current court, dominated by liberal secularists, has taken yet another step 'œtoward the banishing of religion from the public square.' As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent, the majority's insistence that the Ten Commandments be displayed merely as historical documents is an affront to this country's Judeo-Christian heritage, and 'œratchets up this court's hostility to religion.'
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Your complaint is with the Founders, not this court, said John Nichols in The Nation. Having seen the violence and discrimination sectarian differences wrought in Europe, the authors of the Constitution deliberately created a wall between church and state. The court's decisions affirm that pandering politicians can't use the Commandments, 'œor any other statement of religious principle, as a battering ram' against that constitutional wall. It's a pity, though, that the court permitted the Texas tablets to stand, said The New York Times in an editorial. That was clearly a concession to the religious right, which is clamoring for government endorsement of the 'œmajority' religion—that is, Christianity. But as the country 'œgrows more religiously diverse,' the court's attempt at compromise may actually backfire, creating 'œmore religious strife, not less.'
George Will
The Washington Post
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
5 decidedly droll cartoons about the Democratic doom
Cartoons Artists take on the art of emoting, new directions, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Juror #2: Clint Eastwood's 'cleverly constructed' courtroom drama is 'rock solid'
The Week Recommends Nicholas Hoult stars in 'morally complex' film about a juror on a high-profile murder case
By The Week UK Published
-
Explore a timeless corner of Spain by bike
The Week Recommends Take a 'dawdling route through the back-country' far from the tourism hotspots
By The Week UK Published
-
Voting: Should ex-felons regain the right to cast ballots?
feature Attorney General Eric Holder denounced state laws that restrict convicted felons from voting after they’re released from jail.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Gun control: Has Newtown already been forgotten?
feature Three months after Newtown, meaningful gun-control legislation seems doomed to failure.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Gay marriage: How will the Supreme Court rule?
feature In March, the court will consider challenges to the constitutionality of both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
The Supreme Court: Did Obama try to bully the justices?
feature The president's public caution to the Supreme Court unleashed a flurry of opinion.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Health care: Will the Supreme Court judge fairly?
feature Before last week’s Supreme Court hearings, most legal experts assumed the health-care law would be upheld.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Obama: Did his appointments violate the Constitution?
feature The President's recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board have raised the ire of Republicans, who say the Senate was not really in recess.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
The death penalty: Was an innocent man executed?
feature In Georgia, Troy Davis was executed for the 1989 shooting of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail, in spite of recanted testimony.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Guns: Would tougher laws have prevented a massacre?
feature Since Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were gunned down in 1968, more than a million Americans have died of gunshots, in crimes, accidents, and suicides.
By The Week Staff Last updated