c. 2005 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The call “God save this honorable court” will echo throughout the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2, just as it does every time the court’s marshall convenes a session for the nine justices.

But this time those words will uniquely resonate because the court is scheduled to hear arguments about an issue addressing God, government and the display of what many people consider heaven’s essential set of instructions for humanity.

Two cases _ Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary v. American Civil Liberties Union _ both ask essentially the same question: Can the Ten Commandments grace public property without overstepping the First Amendment boundary that prohibits government from endorsing religion?

More than 55 amicus briefs have been filed on both sides of the issue, highlighting the fact that this isn’t just a technical legal battle but also a stark divide in American society. The filers range from the Anti-Defamation League to the Baptist Joint Committee, from the Foundation for Moral Law to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The cases come at a crucial time. Lower courts across the country have been swept by litigation pertaining to religious symbolism:

_ In Los Angeles, a cross was removed from a county seal after a lawsuit was filed.

_ In San Francisco, a federal court is being sued for depicting the Ten Commandments on their official court seal.

_ In Washington, an atheist tried to prevent President Bush from having prayer offered at his inaugural.

_ And in Alabama, former State Chief Justice Roy Moore was forced out of office after refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument in the state judicial building.

The nation is in need of clear guidance as courts are wildly divergent in their interpretation of what religious symbols are allowed in the public square.

While the high court has dealt with the issue of such symbolism in public schools, this is the first time it will take on the issue of religious symbolism outside of the school context. Outside the court, emotions are running high.

“The Ten Commandments are religious teachings of the Judeo-Christian religion,” said Ellen Johnson, president of the American Atheists. “They don’t belong on public property. Nobody’s beliefs belong on public property.”

But John Eastman from the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence sees no problem with displaying the commandments. In fact, he thinks that any affront to such displays amounts to an “impermissible hostility toward religion.”

“Everybody keeps talking about the Ten Commandments as if they were a Christian symbol,” Eastman said. “They forget that two of the world’s major three religions all agree with this thing. Even Islam has a set of commandments that are darn similar.”

Others who support allowing religious symbolism on public buildings say the Ten Commandments have been an integral part of American history.

“The notion that we are somehow forcing people to accept this religion by acknowledging our historical jurisprudence of our law is stretching the truth,” Eastman said.

These opposing views are mirrored in the lower courts, which have come to opposite conclusions in the cases the high court will consider.

In Van Orden, the plaintiff asked the state of Texas to remove from the grounds of the state Capitol a 6-foot granite monument on which are etched the Ten Commandments. The legal question centers on whether the monument is of historical significance and therefore not violating the separation of church and state.

Thomas Van Orden argued that although the monument was accepted as a gift from a nonreligious organization _ The Fraternal Order of Eagles -_ it was displayed “for the purpose of promoting the Commandments as a personal code of conduct for youths,” which he said goes against the First Amendment. The monument is one of thousands of identical monuments donated in the 1960s by the Order of Eagles to promote morality among delinquent youth.

Both the federal district court and the appeals court rejected the First Amendment claim, reasoning that neutrality “does not demand that the state be blind to the pervasive presence of strongly held views about religion with myriad faiths and doctrines.” The monument was allowed to stay.

In McCreary, the courts came to the opposite conclusion, saying that the religious symbols in dispute violated the separation of church and state. The issue was whether framed copies of the Ten Commandments displayed in county courthouses and schools in Kentucky violated the Constitution. Both the district court and the appeals court said the displays were an impermissible endorsement of religion.

(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)

Perhaps the most common argument against displays of religious symbolism in public places is that it violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against the federal government endorsing one religion over another.

In addition, opponents argue there is no legitimate secular purpose for displaying religious symbols like the commandments. For members of non-Judeo-Christian religions, this principle is paramount.

“Certainly the Ten Commandments are part of the American history and the fact that the founding fathers were predominantly Christian,” said Suhag Shukla, legal council for the Hindu American Foundation. “But I think the founding fathers were extremely careful when they framed the Constitution. They came to the United States fleeing religious persecution.”

Some Judeo-Christian religous groups also hope the court will rule against the commandments.

“While the Ten Commandments have important religious meaning for Christians, they also symbolize Christianity’s rejection of other principles of Jewish law,” noted a brief filed by members of the Anti-Defamation League and the Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College.

Those arguing in favor of retaining the commandments on public buildings are just as forceful.

They say the commandments have played an integral part in shaping our history and legal traditions. They also say that the founding fathers never intended to completely bar religion from public places.

“Our country is built on the idea that all ideas are welcome,” said Kelly Shackelford, attorney with the Liberty Legal Institute, a religious freedom organization that filed an amicus brief for the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

“(We can’t have) the religious KGB sniffing around, trying to figure out which monuments in our history have religious elements and bulldozing those that do. Under this sort of approach, what’s next? Will they go to the National Museum of Art and rip down all of the Renaissance paintings? Or will they prevent the symphony halls from (performing) Handel’s Messiah?”

Beyond the First Amendment debate, there are those concerned with the practicalities of stripping religious icons from the thousands of monuments, plaques, documents and buildings across the country.

“We are going to be shocked if they start ripping down monuments like the one here in Texas,” said Shackelford. “If they do, I think the consequences are going to be huge.”

MO/JL END RNS