| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Court to politicians: Thou shalt not promote religion |
| 2005-06-29 |
| In a case from Kentucky, a fractured Supreme Court ruled Monday that local officials can't promote their favorite religion by loudly nailing the Ten Commandments to the courthouse wall. Yet in a case from Texas, the same court said it's OK if a private group donates the Commandments to what has become a diverse array of monuments around the state Capitol. Confused? That's understandable. The two decisions produced eight opinions on separation of church and state from the nine justices. Even so, the most important message - and a significant one - is this: Those holding the levers of power may not use government as a vehicle to advance their religion. Whether a particular display on public property is constitutional depends on its purpose and the motives of those who put it there. In the context of U.S. history, that makes sense. The court slapped down two Kentucky counties where, despite a later smokescreen, officials were clearly motivated by religious activism in posting the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. "Government may not favor one religion over another, or religion over irreligion," the high court said, repeating the vital principle underlying most of its church-state decisions for a half-century. There's good reason for that, rooted in the nation's earliest days. Though many settlers came here seeking freedom of religion for themselves, more than a few saw nothing wrong in oppressing those with differing beliefs. In Massachusetts, religious dissenters were literally driven into the wilderness. Two of them founded what became Rhode Island, one of the first colonies to offer true religious freedom. Against that backdrop, and with a concern for minimizing power struggles over religion, the Founders wrote the ban on "establishment of religion" into the Bill of Rights. At the same time, the nation has a long history of tolerating casual references to religion and religious figures - particularly within a broader context. At the Supreme Court itself, Moses holding tablets representing the commandments looks down on the justices at work. But Moses is just one of 18 historic lawgivers portrayed, including Confucius and Mohammed. Thus Justice Stephen Breyer, part of the majority that rejected the Kentucky displays, also provided the critical fifth vote allowing a donated Ten Commandments monument to remain on the grounds of the Texas Capitol. It was part of a Fraternal Order of Eagles campaign in 1961 against juvenile delinquency. Breyer rationalized that while the Commandments are clearly religious in nature, they are among 38 historic and cultural markers around the Capitol - and had gone unchallenged for nearly two generations. Most important, he called the Texas example a borderline case, signaling that those crusading for more direct government involvement in religion won't get his support. Even in its divisions, the court redrew the important boundary: Government doesn't have to reject religion, but it can't be used as an instrument of religion. Given the expectation of changes to come on the court, this is unlikely to be its final word on exactly where that boundary lies. |
| Posted by:Spavirt Pheng6042 |
| #2 A very careful middle path needs to be taken here. For every unfair effort to supress religion in the US, there is, and has in past been many more, efforts to foist religion on the unwilling. I, for one, want a judge who follows the *law*, rather than one who either does what his shaman says, or what his "heart" says. "He is innocent because he attends my church", is just as offensive as "he is guilty because his kind are always guilty." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-06-29 13:54 |
| #1 It's all about context, therefore the Supremes have set themselves up as art critics. The question they left open is "How many non-Judeochristian items does it take in an art installation to sufficiently 'dilute' the impact of the Ten Commandments?" May God bless this honorable court... |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-06-29 08:09 |