Everyone knows the Supreme Court ruled that one kind of Ten Commandments display on government property is unconstitutional, but that another kind is acceptable. But no one—including the Supreme Court itself—seems to be able to explain why.

"Commandments may be displayed in state capitols but not in courthouses," said a National Council of Churches press release—wrongly. But cnn initially made the same mistake.

So guess which display won approval: Was it the six-foot granite monolith inscribed with a Christian Chi-Rho symbol and "I AM the LORD thy God" in extra-large letters? Or was it the framed paper copy of Exodus 20:3-17 from the King James Version displayed along with the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and other items—along with the explanation that "The Ten Commandments have profoundly influenced the formation of Western legal thought"?

That the Supreme Court found the first display (in Texas) acceptable and the second (in Kentucky) unacceptable perfectly illustrates the near-total lack of consistency in church-state rules.

In fact, right now there are no rules. "Establishment Clause doctrine lacks the comfort of categorical absolutes," the five-justice majority ruled in the Kentucky case (McCreary County v. ACLU). "Tradeoffs are inevitable, and an elegant interpretive rule to draw the line in all the multifarious situations is not [to] be had."

It sounds "enlightened" and nuanced, but the decisions don't even agree on the basics. In McCreary, the Court ruled, "the government may not favor … religion over irreligion." In the Texas case (Van Orden v. Perry) the same day, the Court ruled, "we … do not adhere to the principle that the Establishment Clause bars ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.

July/August
Subscribe to CT and get one year free.
Read These Next
Also in this Issue
Christian Dalits Fight Bias Subscriber Access Only
Seek benefits withheld by government.
Current IssueDo We Need a Stronger Word for 'Faith'?
Do We Need a Stronger Word for 'Faith'? Subscriber Access Only
Why theologian Matthew Bates would have evangelicals profess ‘allegiance’ to Christ.
RecommendedBernie Sanders Attacks Wheaton Grad’s Stance on Salvation
In Christ Alone: Bernie Sanders Attacks Wheaton Grad’s Stance on Salvation
Trump appointee hearing turns into a religious test for office.
TrendingKay Warren: 'We Were in Marital Hell'
Kay Warren: 'We Were in Marital Hell'
Through God's work in our lives, we've beaten the odds that divorce would be the outcome of our ill-advised union.
Editor's PickThe Refugee Ban Is Back, But Church Connections Might Trump It
The Refugee Ban Is Back, But Church Connections Might Trump It
World Relief wants clarification over today’s big Supreme Court decision.
Christianity Today
Broken Tablets
hide thisAugust August

In the Magazine

August 2005

To continue reading, subscribe now for full print and digital access.