In the next few weeks the Supreme Court will rule on two important cases regarding whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property. The argument in the two cases, recently heard by the Supreme Court, was revealing because it shows how perverted America’s First Amendment jurisprudence has become.

The first case involves a 22 acre park in the Texas Capitol, where a monument displaying the Ten Commandments sits among 16 other displays. The second case involves two Kentucky courthouses which display the Ten Commandments along with nine other non-religious documents—all of them showing the historical origins of American law.

Speaking with his customary candor, Justice Antonin Scalia said during the oral argument that he couldn’t see what was unconstitutional about either the Texas or the Kentucky displays of the Ten Commandments. They were, he said, “a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God.” Scalia of course was relying on the clear statement in the Declaration of Independence that the source of our “inalienable rights” is none other than “our Creator.”

The most revealing exchange in the argument came when Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general, described the Ten Commandments as a “recognized symbol of law” and defended the Old Testament display as having the secular goal of “recognizing historical influences” on the American legal system.

Justice Scalia burst in to say, “You’re watering it down to say the only message is a secular message. I can’t agree with you. Our laws come from God. If you don’t believe it (the Ten Commandments display) sends that message, you’re kidding yourself.” Scalia ended his comments by warning Abbott, “I would consider it a Pyrrhic victory for you to win on the grounds you’re arguing.”

Scalia’s warning raises an interesting question. Why were the defenders of the Ten Commandments forced into a bizarre attempt to deny the religious significance of a document that, in Jewish and Christian belief, was handed down to Moses by God Himself? The reason is that there is line of recent Supreme Court precedents insisting that displays on public property may only pass constitutional muster if they have a primarily secular purpose.

Was this what the American founders intended when they approved the Bill of Rights forbidding an “establishment of religion” but also guaranteeing “the free exercise thereof”?

Not at all.

In reality the founders wanted to avoid importing to America the religious conflicts that had virtually destroyed Europe. They wanted to keep the national government from endorsing a particular religion. They did not, however, oppose state governments from establishing a state religion, as indeed several did. Nor did the founders have any problem with public acknowledgments of God as the source of equality and rights.

In the past half-century, however, the Supreme Court has been in the grip of a radical secularism intent on abolishing all traces of religion from the public square. This secular agenda invokes Jefferson’s “wall of separation” between church and state even though Jefferson never understood this distinction in the way that today’s activistic secularists do.

The only hope of stopping the effort to completely eradicate religion from the public sphere is the “swing votes” of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy. These two justices seem to take the unusual position that religious displays on public property are acceptable as long as they are not really religious.

Thus O’Connor speculated that maybe the Ten Commandments display in Texas, which has been around since 1861, is ancient enough so that it may be viewed as historical rather than religious. Apparently in O’Connor’s view, religious texts lose their authority and significance if they are really old.

At another point in the proceedings, O’Connor wondered whether the Ten Commandments may be permissible given the fact that the Supreme Court begins each session with a prayer. The problem with this line of speculation, often invoked to justify the Ten Commandments, is that it can equally be used to argue, “Good point. Once we outlaw the Ten Commandments we should next consider getting rid of prayers that begin each Supreme Court session.”

Given the triumph of radical secularist jurisprudence, the advocates for Jewish and Christian displays like the Ten Commandments are forced to make the implausible case that God’s commandments aren’t really religious.

It seems like a losing battle. Only when the Supreme Court is reconstituted to read the Constitution as it was intended by its framers can we hope that the nation will give due public acknowledgement to the source of its sovereignty and its laws, the Creator.

Bono leverages his star power to bring aid to the developing world

Bono bridges political divides adeptly. He masterfully draws the circle large enough to make room for members on both ends of the political spectrum to respond to the plight of the poor world wide.

Irish singer Bono, an activist on debt relief and AIDS, is a possible candidate for the post of World Bank's President, according to US Treasury Secretary John Snow.

"He's somebody I admire. He does a lot of good in this world of economic development," Snow said yesterday.

Most people know him as a rock star. He's in a way a rock star of the development world, too. He understands the give-and-take of development. He's a very pragmatic, effective and idealistic person," Snow said, according to Business Week.

His faith figures into his lyrics and his activism alike as reflected in his comments on the back of the recently published book by Jim Wallis titled: God’s Politics.

The Left mocks the Right, the Right knows it's right. Two ugly traits. How far should we go to try to understand each other's point of view? Maybe the distance covered on the cross is a clue. Bono

"Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery"

Boeing Chief Fired Over Sex Scandal

Boeing's ouster of its CEO, Harry Stonecipher, (because of an extramarital relationship with a Boeing employee) may signal a new corporate culture. But it begs the question, Upon what does a company assert that adultery is not acceptable?

In fact, some companies are enacting "zero tolerance" on anything that even approaches a conflict of interest. "It does not mean the ethical policy says, 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' says business ethicist Ron Berenheim. But the board is saying, 'You acted like a dummy, get out of here.'"

Are You "Heteronormative"?

When accusations of intolerance mask hypersensitivity

What do Jada Pinkett Smith and Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard University, have in common?

They both managed to offend students in speeches made on Harvard’s campus last month!

Pinkett Smith was on the campus to receive the "Artist of the Year Award" from the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations. During her speech she made comments about relationships by referencing her own experience as wife of super star Will Smith. Her comments offended some students who felt that the references to her own marriage were heteronormative.

"After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard. Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.

In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA—and developed in coordination with the Foundation—the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue."

Click here to read: Harvard student editorial: Sensitivity Towards the Sensitive

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.