Tablets On Trial

Religious or historical displays? U.S. Supreme Court
to rule on Ten Commandments.

MATTHEW E. BERGER
Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Washington
re the Ten Commandments a historical doc-
ument or a religious symbol?

A

That's one of the questions that will be before
the U.S. Supreme Court when it hears two cases
early next month on the public display of the
Decalogue on government property. The central
issue is whether states and municipalities can
acknowledge the Ten Commandments as the root
of American law without endorsing faiths that fol-
low their teachings.
Several Jewish groups have weighed in on the
cases, with most opposing displays that they feel
endorse Judeo-Christian values — and even push a
Protestant message over Jewish and Catholic inter-
pretations of the Ten Commandments.
A coalition of Orthodox groups has taken an
opposing tack, saying that religious symbols also can
have secular meaning and that the Ten
Commandments' role in modern legal codes should
be acknowledged.
The court's decision is expected to have a great
impact on the growing debate about the role of reli-
gion in government and society. Approval of com-
mandment displays could lead to a proliferation of
similar displays, while rejection could spark a back-
lash similar to what was seen, beginning in 2002,
against the removal of "under God" from the Pledge
of Allegiance.
"The cases pending have a larger meaning," said
Marc Stern, counsel for the American Jewish
Congress. "They are viewed as part of the cultural
war" and the question of "to what extent the gov-
ernment can recognize and pay homage to religion's
special status in. society."
The court is scheduled to hear both Van Orden v.
Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky on
March 2. The Van Orden case concerns a Ten
Commandments display situated between the Texas
State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court in
Austin, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.
The display also has several religious symbols within
it, including two Stars of David.
In McCreary County, a printed display of the Ten
Commandments is one of nine documents adorning
courthouse walls in two Kentucky counties, part of
a display on "The Foundations of American Law
and Government."
In both cases, opponents argue that any display of
the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional because
it inherently means endorsing one religion over
another by the choice of text, and slighting religions
that don't believe in the Decalogue.

Opponents also claim there is no secular purpose to
a display of the Decalogue on government property.
Defenders claim the secular purpose is to
acknowledge the Ten Commandments' role as the
basis of American law. Further, they say the display
does not endorse religion but merely acknowledges
it, similar to acts of ceremonial deism, and liken
the displays to museums that allow religious sym-
bols or works.
The two cases may seem similar, but the Supreme
Court could rule that stand-alone displays of the
Ten Commandments are unconstitutional while
broader displays, like the one in Kentucky, are legal.
Indeed, the court invalidated a Kentucky law
requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in
public schools in 1980, ruling that there was not
sufficient secular cause for it. But it has allowed pri-
vately funded religious displays, such as Chanukah
menorahs and nativity scenes, on religious property.
Both displays in the cases now before the court
were government-funded.

Jewish Response

Many Jewish groups traditionally have opposed any
infringement on the separation of church and state,
and have been wary about all but the most bland
references to God in government.
A coalition of Jewish groups — including the
Reform movement, the American Jewish Congress,
the American Jewish Committee, the Jewish
Council for Public Affairs and Hadassah — has filed
a brief arguing that displays of the Ten
Commandments inherently imply a specific perspec-
tive on the biblical story and therefore are sectarian
statements.
"The selection was motivated not by a desire to
reflect history," Stern said. "It bespeaks an intention
to get religion in there somehow, some way."
The issue gets more complicated because Jews and
Christians have fundamental differences about what
belongs on the two stone tablets, and most public
displays follow the Protestant tradition.
The Jewish version of the Ten Commandments is
made up of 13 sentences; Christian variations of the
Decalogue include 17 sentences. In the Jewish ver-
sion, the first line is "I the Lord am your God who
brought you out of the land of Egypt, the house of
bondage." That second phrase does not appear in
the Christian text, and some Jews see its omission as
a rejection of Jewish tenets — or, at least, an implic-
it endorsement of a particular religious tradition.
In a separate brief, the Anti-Defamation League
said that by selecting specific wording for the dis-
plays, "government is proclaiming a message, not
inviting a discussion."
But a group of Orthodox organizations, under the
auspices of the National Jewish Coalition on Law and

A Ten Commandments display situated between the
Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court in
Austin.

Public Affairs, argues that the displays should not be
disqualified just because they have religious content.
"It's recognition that the Ten Commandments has
a certain historical significance," said Nathan Lewin,
the brief's author. "They may have been Judeo-
Christian, but in Western civilizations they had a
very important role to play."
Orthodox groups traditionally have supported
public displays of religion, believing Jewish assimila-
tion is a larger threat than government support for
Christianity.
All involved hope the cases will help clarify the
line of acceptable displays of religious symbols and
affirmations.
Last year, the court chose not to rule on the merits
of the term "Under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance. Statements of ceremonial deism, such as
"In God We Trust," are seen as a generic recognition
of God that incorporates the religious traditions of
most faiths.
Many Jewish groups did not oppose the language,
deeming it benign and encompassing most faiths'
religious traditions. The Anti-Defamation League
was the only Jewish group to oppose the pledge
reference, a reversal of previous statements on the
issue. 171

JN

2/24
2005

25