Supreme Court weighs Commandments cases

updated 11:39 a.m. ET March 3, 2005

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments on whether Ten Commandments displays on government property unconstitutionally entangle church and state, a cultural battle that has splintered lower courts for more than two decades.

The Bush administration, via acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, argued against a strict First Amendment wall between church and state.

Ten Commandments displays should be allowed on government property because they pay tribute to America’s religious and legal history, he argued in court. “The idea of having a fence around the Ten Commandments to make clear the state has nothing to do with it, I think that is bending it too far,” said

David Friedman, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who is challenging courthouse displays in Kentucky, countered: “An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system ... that is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that’s endorsement.”

In their comments and questions from the bench, justices were reluctant to adopt a blanket ban on such displays. They struggled to formulate a clear constitutional rule that could determine the fate of thousands of religious symbols on public property around the country, including one in their own courtroom featuring Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that legislative proclamations and prayer invoking God’s name are permissible. “I don’t see why the one is good and the other is bad,” he said.

In the high court’s first confrontation with the Ten Commandments issue in a quarter-century, a case from Texas also was being argued.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a lawyer representing a man who seeks its removal, told the justices the display is a “religious symbol.” The prominence of the display on the capitol grounds and the fact that so many of the commandments deal with God “does promote religion,” he maintained.

Ten Commandments monuments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country. At issue is whether they violate the First Amendment ban on any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” or simply represent a secular tribute to America’s legal heritage.

The question has sparked dozens of heated legal battles, including one in Alabama by Roy Moore. He lost his job as chief justice a year ago after defying a federal order to remove a 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument he had installed in the state courthouse.

About two dozen demonstrators earlier gathered in front of the Supreme Court in the icy cold for rallies following a candlelight vigil by supporters of the displays.

“I don’t think government should be in the business of morality,” said David Condo, of Beltsville, Md., as protesters wrapped in parkas, scarves and ear muffs marched nearby. “I’d rather brave the elements on a cold morning than start on a slippery slope to theocracy.”

Another demonstrator, the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said most Americans support public display of the Ten Commandments.

“The court should be very careful to respect the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the American people,” said Mahoney. “The Ten Commandments do not divide Americans; they unite Americans.”

More than 50 groups have filed “friend-of-the-court” briefs weighing in on the issue.

Broader implications
While the cases strictly involve Ten Commandments displays, a broad ruling could define the proper place of religion in public life — from use of religious music in a school concert to students’ recitation of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Bush administration, which sided with a California school district last year to keep “God” in the Pledge, is now joining Texas and Kentucky officials to back the Ten Commandments displays.

“Countless monuments, medallions, plaques, sculptures, seals, frescoes, and friezes — including, of course, the Supreme Court’s own courtroom frieze — commemorate the Decalogue. Nothing in the Constitution requires these historic artifacts to be chiseled away or erased,” writes Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in his court filing.

Chemerinsky, in his filing, countered: “The government’s symbolic endorsement of religion is most obvious from the content of the monument itself. In large letters, the monument proclaims ’I AM the LORD thy God.”’

MORE FROM U.S. NEWS

U.S. news Section Front

Governors pledge fight on global warming Grass lawns shrink in Calif. drought 27 horses killed in blaze at western Ky. stable Winter forecast: Warm, wet in central U.S.   Officer in Oswald photo can't escape history McDonald's courts moms as emissaries   Dead teen's Web behavior a focus in trial Commuter, freight train collide; few injuries Inmates break out of cells for sex Analysis: States fail to police Amber Alerts U.S. news Section Front   Add U.S. news headlines to your news reader: