Everyone knows the Supreme Court will hear arguments today on the constitutionality of government support for the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. I won’t bother reciting the many reasons this is a no-brainer (though I did write a top-10 list on the subject a few years ago), but I will respond to a ridiculous argument that’s been floating around quite a bit lately, which many people may not fully understand.
One of the more common defenses of late for state-sponsored religious displays is the notion that the Supreme Court itself features the Ten Commandments in its chamber.
State Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Catholic who keeps a photograph in his office showing him meeting Pope John Paul II, will defend the Texas monument…. Abbott noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s marble courtroom also has a carving of Moses holding the tablets of the Ten Commandments.
Similarly, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, emphasized this angle in talking to the New York Times, saying, “Does the Supreme Court now issue an opinion that requires a sandblaster to come in? I think not.”
Abbott, Sekulow, and all the others who’ve been making this argument in the media sound like they have a point. If the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, can display the Decalogue in its courtroom, why would there be a problem with Commandments displays at local courthouses and city halls nationwide?
But anyone who’s been in the Supreme Court chamber knows these guys are intentionally trying to deceive. The Ten Commandments aren’t on display in the high court chamber and they know it. They’re telling a small part of the story in the hopes that people won’t know the difference.
Here’s the real story: there’s a frieze just below the ceiling in the court’s main chamber that depicts the evolution of the law over the past several centuries. As part of the decorative horizontal band, there’s a depiction of Moses cradling two tablets, which is obviously meant to represent the Ten Commandments.
Does this mean the Commandments are “on display” in the chamber? Of course not. The text of the Decalogue isn’t even part of the frieze. When someone walks by a courthouse with a Commandments display, the very first thing they see is a state-sponsored monument that says, “I am the Lord thy God; Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” At the Supreme Court, not so much.
More importantly, Moses is hardly the only figure on the display.
Also included are Confucius, Mohammad, the Old Testament’s Solomon and Hammurabi, founder of the ancient Babylonian Empire. (Ironically, Hammurabi is depicted being given his famous law code by Shamash, the Babylonian sun god, meaning that the sole depiction of a deity at the high court is a Pagan god.)
The frieze also contains non-religious figures who shaped the law, such as Napoleon, Charlemagne and ancient Greek and Roman figures. The clear purpose of the frieze is to educate about how the law developed, not endorse religion or state that U.S. law is based on a specific religious code.
In fact, I find Mohammad’s presence on the frieze particularly interesting, since Christian conservatives point to the display as proof that the government can promote a Christian religious text. If the Supreme Court’s frieze paves the way for state-sponsored support of Christianity because Moses is depicted, wouldn’t it necessarily also suggest the need for government support for Islam because is Mohammad is there too?