In two separate decisions Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could be displayed on government grounds but only when the display does not promote a specific religious agenda.

The rulings do not set a definitive precedent and mean that the fate of such displays will be decided on a case-by-case basis. The rulings are the first on the Ten Commandments in 25 years and indicate that the context in which religious materials are displayed could play a determining role in future cases.

"Context is everything," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a lead attorney in one of the two cases. "If there is an overall display of sources of law, the Ten Commandments can be there."

For instance, the Supreme Court's courtroom frieze, which depicts Moses holding the sacred tablets, was deemed acceptable under the decision because it's displayed in a neutral manner with other things upon which law is based.Displays presented in an overly religious manner wouldn't be supported under the rulings.

Both cases caused sharp divides among the nine justices, and both resulted in 5-4 rulings.

In one, Van Orden v. Perry, Chemerinsky advocated that the positioning of a granite monument of the Commandments near the Texas state Capitol was unconstitutional. The court decided that the display could remain because it was one of 16 others, which put the Ten Commandments in the context of both religion and government.

In the other case, McCreary County v. ACLU, the court ruled that framed copies in two Kentucky courthouses went too far in endorsing religion and should be removed.

State and federal lawmakers are still analyzing the decisions, but some already have come out strongly against the Kentucky ruling. U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., described the ruling as another attempt by courts to dissociate secular law from religious principle and said it would lead to costly litigation.

"Any state that has the Ten Commandments displayed will be subject to a lawsuit that will cost thousands of dollars," he said. "What the Supreme Court has done today is a disservice to our country."

Republican state Rep. John Graham Altman of Charleston suggested that some of the Supreme Court justices be removed from the bench as a result of the ruling.

"We don't follow the Code of Hammurabi. We follow the Ten Commandments," he said. "They just can't turn their backs on 500 years of history and heritage."

Separation of church and state advocates viewed the rulings as a victory but not a major change. Rob Boston, a spokesperson for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, described the decisions as a relief and said he expects the culture wars issue to resurface both in Congress and eventually at the Supreme Court.

"We're always worried that when a case like this comes up, it will overturn past separation of church and state decisions," he said.

"We could see the issue reopened in a few years."

The last time the Supreme Court ruled on the Ten Commandments was 1980, when the court decided that they could not be displayed in public schools. That decision has continued to rile many who feel that the government has done too much to separate the religious and secular worlds.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he thinks this stems from 60 years of misinterpreting the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

"Our heritage is steeped in a strong relationship with the Almighty. The establishment clause prevents the government from interfering with that relationship," he said. "The idea that a prayer at a high school football game violates the establishment clause is absolutely absurd."

People on both sides of the debate now anxiously await the time when new justices will be elevated to the Supreme Court. Turnover there could mean a new direction, and both sides remain unsure what direction that will be.

Charles Haynes , director of education at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., said that if the court's decision is any indication, the current direction is a negative one.

"It tears the country apart," he said. "It's not good for the First Amendment."

Real compromise has been elusive because those on the extreme sides of this debate are unwilling to make deals, Haynes said.

Those who advocate separation of church and state don't want to acknowledge the value of teaching religious history in terms of how it has affected the history of law in the United States. On the other hand, he said, Ten Commandments advocates fail to admit that the connection between modern-day law and ancient religious law is a distant one that doesn't deserve the emphasis that, say, English common law might.

"The Ten Commandments movement, they don't want a history lesson," Haynes said.

"They want a lesson on who we are as a people."

The decisions' lack of clear definition didn't surprise or upset others nearly as much as it did Haynes or DeMint. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn said he agreed with the Supreme Court's move to limit the display of the Ten Commandments in public and described the open-ended nature of the decision in positive terms.

"That's par for the course with the Supreme Court," he said. "They've always split hairs when they could."

---

Michael Gartland can be contacted at 937-5902 or mgartland@postandcourier.com.