By Mark David Blum, Esq.

In preparation for the 2008 Presidential election, the right wing religious Christian crazies have dropped a six ton piece of bait on the front steps of the Court House in Dixie County, Florida. Doing so will obviously draw national ire. Yes indeed; ignoring the Alabama situation and capitalizing on the chaos of conflicting Supreme Court Decisions in the past years, Christians pray for a case before the Courts in hopes the Bush activist Court will back up a Christian nation. No other explanation exists for why Christians insist on using symbols born in Judaism as being Christian hallmarks, or why Christians insist on pushing religious symbols into the public square where they people will be offended.

First of all, there is no such thing as ‘The Ten Commandments’. In fact, outside the Bible, there is no historical record whatsoever to substantiate the existence of Moses or the Exodus. But-for a single reference in the second book of the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments do not exist.

But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose they do …

Suppose all those years ago, some white dude who looked a lot like Charlton Heston climbed up Mt. Sinai (which does exist) and receive an engraved rock with just ten rules by which all mankind was to live. How simple life would be.

For God to give such a gift would be a great surprise since mankind could not even follow God’s one simple law all those eons earlier; something about not eating an apple. Suddenly, God demanded humanity to follow ten rules. For purposes of this discussion, let’s just assume that these ‘tablets’ are the root and basis for all law as we know it.

There still is no such thing as the Ten Commandments. The original tablets were last seen in the custody of Solomon and supposedly stolen by one of his sons and stashed in a small church in what is now Ethiopia. Though they contained the word of God, these tablets are now long gone from the face of the earth.

Anything we see today can be nothing more than an artist’s rendition of how the artist perceives the Ten Commandments. Whether in a court house in Arkansas or on the wall in a post office in North Syracuse, the Ten Commandments we know and love today are just the subjective images of the maker. They are not real.

So, I say again; there is no such thing as the Ten Commandments.

Then why is the United States Supreme Court constantly involved in this discussion?

The best explanation comes from a laundry room in an apartment building I once lived in. In my building, the laundry room was downstairs and shared by all. One day I came in and noticed a large wooden cross hanging on the wall. I took it down. Next time I went down there, it was back up again. I took it down again. This game went on for a while until I found out that my opponent was none other than my catholic bride.

A cross in the laundry did not offend me. I did not feel oppressed by the presence of Jesus. In fact, I hardly noticed Jesus at all. If I did, I would have asked him to call me upstairs when the machine stopped instead of me having to run up and down every so often.

That cross in the laundry room was no different than the monument that cost a State Supreme Court judge his job nor is it any different from the crèche that is placed in the public square in Syracuse every holiday season. Each is the same thing. Each is art.

These depictions of the Ten Commandments are just artist’s visions. They are the thoughts, images, and symbolism of a religious event – the giving of the law to Man by God. When I look at them, I see simplistic attempt by a weak artist to come up with a symbol for “The Law”; as one finds on the exterior wall of the Law School at Syracuse University. How I see these images, however, is not how you would see them. To someone else, these artist depictions could represent the most sacred of moments. Another might see the piece as being profane.

That is the role of art: To provoke and make you think.

Distinguishing the two recent and apparently conflicting cases before the Supreme Court last two terms was the question of intent behind the monument. Not even the most brilliant and astute among us can recognize the difference between creating a religious environment and presenting secular art with a religious theme. Art with a religious theme is a question of taste, not law. Religious expression by the State, in art or otherwise, is illegal. It is simply too subjective of a question to pose whether something is a religious environment or a secular one laden with religious art.

The Supreme Court said “intent” is the litmus test whether something is art or religion. A new legal standard has been created where “equal time” is evidence of secular intent. This is the deciding factor between the two cases that were presented to the Court.

“The counties’ manifest objective may be dispositive of the constitutional enquiry, and that the development of the presentation should be considered when determining its purpose … scrutinizing purpose does make practical sense, as in Establishment Clause analysis, where an understand¬ing of official objective emerges from readily discoverable fact, without any judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts.”

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not resolve the issue and in fact, just confused the situation. Nationwide, religionists are coming from all directions trying to coerce government into being more religion oriented and to incorporate religion into secular society. Look no further than all our morality laws such as gambling, prostitution, drugs, blue laws, and gay marriage.

The danger created by the decision is that a government can create a lie that its’ intent is secular but in reality the quiet unspoken intent is to bring out God into civil society. That ‘intent’ cannot be readily discerned and with all the other rules in play today, government action will be presumed to legitimate. So long as a government body passes a “resolution” saying it is an ethics discussion, then that makes it fair under the new rules. Civil ethics and religious dogma, though at times concur, do not travel the same pathways are not the same discussion.

Maybe if just once, the majority of the Supreme Court were to carry their laundry down a flight of stairs, they might be able to truly understand what it is that people are complaining about.

It is not about secular intent. It is about being of one religion and having to enter a public building and see ornaments and art promoting and honoring another religion. Being a Jew, I already have a life long (and well deserved) distrust of most things “Christian”. Going down into my laundry room reminded me in a very hard way that some wounds and irrational fears will always exist. Jews Christians and Muslims will go into eternity distrusting and fearing the other. We may all be able to live together and get along, but inside of each of us, lies a certain element of question that will probably never go away.

So while a County Legislature’s intent may indeed be honorable, what they do not understand is no matter how innocent are their intentions, people are going to be hurt. They are going to be offended. People are going to feel less secure and safe in society. This is a sad commentary on our society but it is indeed true. The overwhelming majority of this nation claim allegiance to one Christian sect or another. Anything ‘Christian’ injected in society is readily accepted by the majority. Those who oppose it are deemed whiners.

But none of that is relevant to the Constitution. Our Founders did not give a damn whether people’s sensibilities were offended. These guys had just taken up arms against the established government and behaved very offensive. Their concern was a greater one; to prevent the church from injecting any control over civil society. Also, they worried about the State interfering with the Church but that was a settlement with those people who fled Europe’s freedoms to find greater religious persecution here.

The Supreme Court seems more focused on sensibilities than on law. Theirs are decisions that made people’s feelings and intentions the relevant factor. Thomas Jefferson and others made it clear in their writings and speeches: The wall between church and state is absolute. “How it makes you feel” was never part of the calculus. Neither was the reason why the State crossed that line.

Our laws of trespass are more strict. If you step across a property line onto someone else’s property … it doesn’t matter if your act was innocent or even if you caused no damage. You are civilly liable; period. But when the State crosses over the wall between church and state, the Supreme Court says “how does that make you feel?”

I don’t accept that.

Just as I did not accept the cross in the laundry room.

Intentions be damned.

Such is Mr. Jefferson’s wall.