Ten Commandments rulings leave both sides unhappy

Charlie Gale displays a Ten Commandments sign in front of his business, Just TV’s and Freedom Guns and Ammo on White Horse Road. Patrick Collard/Staff e-mail this story print this story Related Online extra • Timeline of Ten Commandments court decisions • Learn more about the Supreme Court Previous coverage • People speak up about Commandments Related Web site • Read the ruling in Van Orden v. Perry (Texas) • Read the ruling in McCreary County v. ACLU (Kentucky) Click on the help icons for information on these links and any programs needed to open them.

_____Top stories_____

The decisions did little toward resolving the controversy over religious expression in government settings, experts said.

"Obviously no line has been drawn in terms of how these cases are going to be judged," said Suhag Shukla, legal counsel for the Hindu American Foundation, which had argued that both displays were unconstitutional. "It's going to be on a fact-by-fact basis."

Both cases were decided by votes of 5-4, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer making the difference in each.

The decision in the Texas case gives new fuel to legislative efforts to allow such a monument on the statehouse grounds in South Carolina.

"It gives a little legs to that possibility," said state Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, co-author of a bill that would open the way for such a display. The bill ended the legislative session in the Senate judiciary committee.

He called the court's split decision "the same old schizophrenia" and said, "The black robes have gone crazy."

Reaction on the street was divided, as were the rulings.

Charlie Gale, owner of a TV repair and gun shop on White Horse Road, said the court seemed to be applying "a double standard." He has posted the Commandments in front of his business as a statement of religious freedom in a country where he believes Christians are increasingly persecuted for their faith.

"I think they won't be satisfied until they take religion away from the whole country," Gale said of the court. "If you're a Hindu or a Muslim, you could probably get away with a statue."

"I believe everybody has a right to express their religion if it be in the courthouse or not," he said.

But Rosalind Posada, a resident of Los Angeles who was visiting family in Greenville, said it's inappropriate for the government to post religious rules.

"I think it should be up to every family and individual, not enforced by the government," she said.

The Rev. Jerry White, president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention and pastor of Riverside Baptist Church in Greer, said he was "grieved" at the decision against the courthouse display. He expects the state's largest denomination to take up a resolution at its annual meeting this fall supporting public display of the Commandments.

"I think it's part of our history, it's part of who we are as a country, and I think when we start removing them we start taking away some of what has made us what we are," he said.

The rulings, the court's first major statement on the Commandments in 25 years, noted that the monument in Texas, which has been there since 1961, is one among many on the statehouse grounds and doesn't draw attention as being more important than the others. The Commandments posted in two courthouses in Kentucky were framed in glass cases, at first by themselves, and then with other documents after complaints were made.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which litigated the cases, claimed victory but vowed to keep a close watch on attempts to put up a monument on the South Carolina statehouse grounds.

"If they put up a display that contains the actual text of the Ten Commandments and I had a plaintiff, I would be willing to sue," said Denyse Williams executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina.

Rick Hahnenberg, president of the Upstate chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also hailed the decision as "a win for church-state relations" while acknowledging that the controversy is far from over.

"At this point in time, even though there's some fuzziness, I think the court has spoken that the Ten Commandments is a sacred text and government can't promote religion," he said.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, in a press conference in Greenville on Monday, said he sees the displays as constitutionally protected freedom of religious expression.

"The idea that God should be driven out of the public square is not only not constitutionally required, I think it's dangerous for the country," he said.

Political and legal experts said the rulings shouldn't be considered as applying to any other specific displays of the Decalogue.

"I think either side can claim victory, but it's clear that the court is very much in the middle," said Clemson University political scientist William Lasser, an expert on the Constitution.

The close votes on the cases underscore the importance of future appointments to the high court, said Laura Olson, a Clemson political science professor who specializes in religion and politics.

"The fact that this was split means that the court in a sense reserves for itself the right to further discern when these sorts of displays are acceptable and when they are not," she said.

"If the court had struck down the Texas monument there would have been absolute outrage," she said.

The rulings point out the irony of posting "in-your-face" displays of a religious document while overlooking the underlying religious principle, said Dick Berger, vice-chairman of Greenville Faith Communities United and a member of Beth Israel Jewish Synagogue.

That principle, he said, is common to all religions and ethical codes: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"That's the top rule," he said. "All the others come from that — even the Ten Commandments.

Staff writer Nan Lundeen contributed to this report.