- The Washington Times - Saturday, June 9, 2001

Here we go again. The Supreme Court doesnt want to get into deciding what to do with the Ten Commandments. These are the same Ten Commandments that most of our laws are based upon, but at least six of the Supremes believe they violate the principle of the separation of church and state. The case revolves around a granite marker that bears the Commandments and has been in place in front of a city building for more than 40 years. Two city residents have sued to get rid of it.

What is interesting is the lower courts turned down the request. Are we to believe that lower courts are more in tune with the people than our Supremes? Naturally, the American Civil Liberties Union is supporting the two people who are upset by the presence of the commandments. Why they have to look at them, or even think about them, is not addressed. The court, acting like a grade-school teacher, is punishing the entire class because of the actions of a few rabble-rousers.

The separation of church and state battle has been going on for years. In this case, it would seem that the citizens of Elkhart, Ind., where the Commandments are displayed, could simply vote on the matter. If the majority of the people felt comfortable with displaying the Commandments, that should reason enough to keep them on the lawn. After all, the Supreme Court uses the same "majority rules" concept that built this country. Or are we to believe that a majority of five should cancel out the will of the majority of the people?

How can we be against commandments, or rules, or whatever you want to call them, that forbid us from killing, stealing and committing adultery? How long is it going to be before the government refuses to recognize Christmas as a holiday? Will the Supremes come in to work that day in protest? I don´t think so. We are looking at hypocritical Supreme Court decisions, and their credibility is suffering. We already say Yuletide instead of Christmas, and the Easter Bunny gets more press than the Crucifixion.

As long as our national motto is "In God We Trust," it´s hard to understand what we mean by separation. Granted, government should not preach, but to pretend we have a true separation of church and state with our motto on every dollar bill is preposterous. Our Founding Fathers mentioned God in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. They even mention our Creator endowing us with certain rights. I suppose the Supremes would prefer the word Creator mean Mom and Pop.

Isn´t it strange how every time we have a serious national crisis, the president asks us to pray for a solution? We have a chaplain in the Senate and the House. We recognize churches as tax-free institutions. What kind of separation is that? It looks like a little togetherness is all right, but we don´t want to overdo it by displaying Commandments in schools, where they are needed most. The court tells us we can´t mention God in schools, but it´s OK to pass out condoms. These people need to get it together.

Dick Boland is a nationally syndicated columnist.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide