The best way the U.S. Supreme Court could decide the two cases about displays of the Ten Commandments that it heard this past March would be to uphold the one in Texas and strike down the one in Kentucky.
So contended Rabbi David N. Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, to more than 60 people attending on Tuesday the spring event of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation’s Benjamin Cardozo Society.
Saperstein spoke about “The Eroding Wall Separating Church and State: What the Ten Commandments Case Tells Us.” High Court decisions are expected by the end of this month in these two contentious cases, which were argued on the same day last March.
In analyzing likely results, Saperstein said it would “be disastrous” for church-state separation if both displays were upheld. However, if the court deems both displays unconstitutional — which he considers “the best outcome” — proposals for constitutional amendments would likely arise immediately in Congress, he said.
And given the current political climate, “we don’t know what would happen” to such proposed amendments, he said.
The cases involve different kinds of Ten Commandments displays, and the arguments turn on the contexts of the displays.
The one in Texas involves a monument from 1961 that stands outdoors between the state’s capitol and supreme court buildings — in isolation from other monuments, according to opponents; while defenders say that the monument stands close enough to other monuments and thereby displays the diversity of Texas history and culture.
In Kentucky, the case involves more recently mounted displays inside two county courthouses that, proponents say, include the commandments with other “historical” items like the Magna Carta and the lyrics to “The Star Spangled Banner.”
The American Civil Liberties Union’s Kentucky chapter, however, contends that the displays featured only religious texts until the lawsuit was filed, when the secular items were added, showing that the intent behind the displays was to promote religion.
Saperstein, who is also an attorney, devoted most of his remarks to analyzing the historical background and legal doctrines at issue in the cases. But he also said he feels “troubled on a religious basis” and “offended” by how some of the practices and issues “trivialize religion.”
He said he admits it is constitutional to have the phrase “In God we trust” put on U.S. dollar bills, but wonders, “Has anybody used a dollar bill differently because it has ‘In God we trust’ on it?”
In fact, he contended this is an example of “taking the name of God in vain,” which violates what Jews regard as the third of the Ten Commandments.
Similarly, he said, “If we inscribe the Ten Commandments on our hearts and minds, it can make a difference in our lives. But if they are reduced to visual Muzak” by displays like the ones at legal issue, “they will do as much for morality as the Gideon Bibles placed in hotel rooms.”
He also criticized claims, such as “If only the Ten Commandments had been posted” in Colorado’s Columbine High School, the April 1999 murder/suicide rampage there wouldn’t have happened.
“America needs to find real answers to real problems,” Saperstein said.
And he blasted the “myth” that insistence on church-state separation is “anti-religion,” when in fact, he contended, it has “allowed diversity of religion” to flourish in the United States.
“To tear down the [church-state separation] wall in the name of religion would be a bitter betrayal,” he said.
The event was sponsored by the Milwaukee Jewish Federation’s Cardozo Society, whose purpose is “to celebrate the legal profession’s commitment to the principals” of the federation, in cooperation with the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations and the Metropolitan Council of Reform Congregations.
Loading ...