The March 3 editorial "Commandments in Context" said, "Ten Commandments displays patently offend the First Amendment when they put state power behind the promulgation of religious values."
The First Amendment forbids Congress from making a "law respecting a federal establishment of religion." Indeed, the 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from interfering in intrastate affairs not mentioned in the Constitution, which include what a state or county wishes to display in its courthouse. The purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that a religious organization is not on the same level as, or above, the government. It does not imply that the government must be totally secular. The two most prominent anti-religion governments I can think of are Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany.
George Washington, in his farewell address, said, "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.
"The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, 'Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?' "
MICHAEL P. CASSIDY
Arlington
•
I agree with the March 3 editorial that whether a display of religious imagery is problematic depends largely on its context. But I don't agree that the Texas display "just isn't a big problem" because it's been on the state capitol grounds for roughly 40 years. By that logic, people should have been expected to get over the Confederate symbols on many Southern state flags.
I visited Austin with some friends last year, and as we strolled the capitol grounds we came across the Ten Commandments display now being argued in the Supreme Court. Granted, most of us are lawyers, but we were surprised that the display was there. It's not part of something non-religious such as a frieze depicting historical events. It's an expression of religious sentiment that can be viewed as a stand-alone monument to a specific faith, and it's sitting on state property. That violates the First Amendment.
The display should be moved not because people may find it offensive -- after all, only a few yards away is Texas's perfectly justified memorial to Confederate war dead -- but because it reasonably can be construed as a state endorsement of a religious belief.
ANDREW J. SCHAEFER
Chicago
•
Questions of law aside, if the Bush administration prevails, what version of the Ten Commandments will be used? Will it be from Exodus or Deuteronomy? Will it be Jewish, Protestant or Catholic? What language -- Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English? And why stop with Ten Commandments when there are actually 613?
If these sound like questions that belong on the religion page, then I have made my point. The answers to these questions are based on religious doctrine, which is exactly what the separation doctrine is all about.
MITCHELL A. LEVIN
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
