This is Carl Anderson's first year in the South Carolina House, representing Georgetown. He's been representing God a lot longer, as a Methodist minister. So it's no surprise that he supports a bill that would allow the display of the Ten Commandments on state property, as long as they're displayed with other documents of historical significance or that helped shape the U.S. governmental or legal systems.

"It would make a difference," Rep. Anderson says of displaying the Ten Commandments. "It would remind some folks. And then we have our children. Our children visit the Statehouse and other public buildings regularly. And it would enhance to them, it's a reminder for us to know that, you know, these words have been spoken by God."

The bill came up Tuesday afternoon in the House, but several members demanded debate on the bill. That moves it to the contested calendar, so it might come up for debate and a vote Wednesday.

What's surprising is one of the people who will vote against the bill. Just like Rep. Anderson, Rep. Joe Neal is a Democrat and a minister. Rep. Neal is a Baptist pastor, but he's against the bill.

"I think it's a false issue," Rep. Neal says. "I think that the intent of the Ten Commandments and the word of God was for those words to be written in our hearts, not in a monument. And I would much rather see us spend our time and our efforts trying to get people to believe the Ten Commandments rather than simply put up a monument."

Supporters of the bill say it simply follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and would therefore not cause any legal problems, since the Commandments would be displayed along with other secular documents.

But constitutional law professor Eldon Wedlock, of the University of South Carolina's School of Law, says he thinks the bill would be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruling in question dealt with a city's Christmas display, he says. It included a Nativity scene, but the Supreme Court ruled that, since Hanukah symbols and secular items like Santa Claus and elves were also on display, the city's intent was not to promote a particular religion.

Professor Wedlock says this bill clearly starts out with the sole intention of displaying the Ten Commandments, a religious purpose. He says the Supreme Court looks at the reasons why something is done, and he thinks this wouldn't pass muster.

Rep. Neal thinks the Constitution is clear. "I think it's a wonderful instrument that provided some distinctions between church and state," he says. "I don't want the state in the church's business, and I don't want the church in the state's."