In a recent Supreme Court case ruling, a public display of the Ten Commandments was deemed inappropriate in Kentucky. In contrast, it was maintained that another display of the Ten Commandments in Texas was still constitutional. On the surface, such a paradoxical pair of rulings begs the question: how valid are the Supreme Court's judgments in a continually dividing world of interpretation? Upon closer examination, one may find that these two cases do in fact rightly uphold both the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Journey back to your days in school and recall the first time you read the words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. It is firmly stated in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and that all are entitled to "certain unalienable rights" including "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." In parallel, as written in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, one of these rights of liberty is freedom of religion, press, and expression. This recent event has caused many to criticize the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the terms of the Constitution and thus violating the people's right to freedom of religion and expression. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia responds negatively to the Kentucky ruling, "How can this court possibly assert that the '1st amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and non-religion'? ... Who says so? Surely not the words of the Constitution. Surely not the history and traditions that reflect our society's constant understanding of those words."1 This statement can yet be countered.

It is true that history reflects many religious influences on the American people. However, the modern world has long outgrown its once great dependency on religion. That is why government neutrality between religion and non-religion is even more important now. We are a people who have greatly expanded our horizons and now embrace an increasingly diverse world of culture and religion. Although a large population of Americans believe in some monotheistic religion, that offers no right for government to put up displays for conspicuously religious purposes. There is a fine line between church and state as there is a fine line as to what constitutes crossing the line between church and state. This line may have blurred over time and the approval of the Texas displays may seem hypocritical, but there is a difference when a historical display goes unthreatened for centuries and when a new display immediately poses a threat. The Declaration of Independence even states that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes…" The same concept may be applied to the Texas displays. What makes the Texas displays appropriate is its historical value among other great monuments within the same vicinity. What makes the Kentucky displays inappropriate is its representation of a state's favoring of a particular religion. America may have been founded by religious men, but it is the belief in liberty, not God, that drives all Americans.

To conclude, freedom of religion is not violated in this ruling. It is in fact protected. When a branch of government suddenly displays a religious document within public view, it is a message to the people that the religion is superior with only its widespread practice as an excuse. It is an unofficial establishment of religion. Although the state of Kentucky has not directly violated the first amendment in the establishment of an actual law, it has crossed the line between church and state. What needs work now, is the clarification of freedom of religion and the extent to which freedom of expression may be permitted.

1. Quotation from Savage, David G. "Justices Limit Public Display of Religion." Los Angeles Times. 28 June 2005. Newspaper online. Available from http://www.latimes.com. Internet. Accessed 1 July 2005.

Melisa Le Tran Chiem was a senior at McKinley High School when she entered this competition. Her hobbies include drawing and painting and tennis.

A Fresh Perspective is a project of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. Submit proposed articles to mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com