The Supreme Court today issued it’s long-anticipated ruling in McCreary County vs. ACLU which dealt with whether displaying the 10 Commandments in a public building such as a courthouse is constitutional.
While the display was disallowed in the case before the Court, the justices determined that some displays (such as the one in their own court) are constitutional while others are not. The Court, rather than providing a clear guideline for such displays, said that they needed to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
This will probably continue to be a contentious issue until the Court provides clear guidelines on what constitutes an appropriate display under the Establishment Clause. It’s a safe assumption the ACLU use this ruling as a springboard for intimidating other governments to remove their 10 Commandments displays.
Hat tip: Stones Cry Out
My understanding (from NPR ;) is that it allows such displays if part of a historical display, but if it is not historical, then it is promoting religion. I think I agree with this position.
But I am not entirely comfortable with it. On one hand, I agree – I mean, if we can put up the judeo-christian commandments, why can't the growing number of Muslims put up a shrine on the courthouse lawn? The influence of the bible on the historical moorings of our culture and government are undeniable (well, unless you are a liberal revisionist ;), so they should definitely be included as part of our historical remembrance. But where do you draw the line with religious displays that voice some people's *current* convictions?
I am NOT comfortable with this ruling because it is a bit hypocritical – we should not only acknowledge the historicity of the bible's influence, but we should acknowledge our CURRENT need for humility and reverence for the law of the one true God. I mean, why did the framers do it? Was it just a historical thing for them? No. They allowed their *living* faith to influence and be expressed in their public and governmental suppositions and laws. We too should fear and obey God in our public life.
However, I do agree with those like Frederick Clarkson who argue well that the framers really did want a secular government. Not one that is antagonistic to religion, but one that does not require membership nor supresses others. But isn't promoting the Judeo-Christian view tantabmout to supressing other views?
In the end, we will need a nuanced, balanced position, which I think the court has begun. However, Xians should still be just as active in politics and public discourse, and in moral legislation. To me, moral legislation is not religious if it reflects the laws of nature and nature's God, and can be supported by a naturalistic ethic (e.g. it is bad for society, it harms people or the environment, etc.).
But this is a complex issue.