Courting Commandments | Suite101.com

There's a battle brewing in Austin, Texas. No, not funding for education or giving a capital murder jury the option of recommending life without parole, although they are part of a capitol clash. I'm referring to a Ten Commandments monument display. The fact that it's there is being played out in a building where Moses is pictured holding the much-discussed, but perhaps little-known, and followed, Biblical directive. Of course, Moses has company, as he's just part of the larger mosaic decorating the Supreme Court building.

The arguments being tossed about in the High Court, are familiar. On one side, the challenger to the monument's display embraces the stance that the Ten Commandments, roosting alone, is divisive, because it transmits a religious message. The other side claims that Austin's display "commemorates history," and that "it's small" and hasn't caused a ruckus until now. The Supremes' decision should come down by term's end, but in the meantime, what fun it is to mull the possibilities. By the way, the Texas case isn't the only one before the Court involving the separation of church and state. Two Kentucky courthouses hold documents containing the Commandments, then they were sued and officials promptly added some other stuff to make things less overtly religious. Humph.

An interesting question to me, is why this largely Christian assertion - for the record, I am one, albeit, I'm a New Testament girl - should be out there in the first place. Honestly, what's the point? As far as I can tell, the rationale behind the Commandments is to follow them, should you choose to. Do they need to be posted, publicly, in order to do as they say? Pick up your Bible, read to your heart's content. After all, we have neighbors who walk down different paths of faith, adhere to a different religion. Should their beliefs be ignored simply because they're in the minority? Hasn't history already taught us a valuable lesson about eroding minority rights in this country? We'd do well to heed the transformation.

There are numerous instances throughout history that 'believers' point out as examples of the religious principles they assert as a foundation for this country's existence. Well, what matters, really, is how that last bastion of constitutional law interprets part of its own bible - the First Amendment's mandate that church and state remain separate.

To be sure, over the years, the Court has rendered decisions that allow for religious symbols on public property. Nativity scenes and Menorahs, standing proud during the holdiay season, are examples. The High Ones have even issued a guideline for determining whether or not the Constitution has been violated: "would a reasonable observer believe that the government is sanctioning a religion or that the display is secular?"

For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Gina D. Gipson's U.S. Supreme Court topic, please visit the Discussions page.