[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 26 (Tuesday, March 8, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H991-H992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           IN DEFENSE OF THE POSTING OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, last week a few of us had the opportunity 
to attend the opening arguments at the United States Supreme Court for 
two cases about the public display of the Ten Commandments.
  These cases are very interesting because not only are they 
specifically about the Ten Commandments, but in a larger sense, they 
are about the long-running dispute over the so-called separation of 
church and state. I say so-called, because there is not one word in the 
Constitution that mentions this alleged separation of church and state.
  And for over 150 years, the Supreme Court barely referenced this 
infamous phrase at all. The establishment clause of the first amendment 
provides that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
of religion.'' For over 150 years, this was commonly understood to mean 
that the Federal Government cannot establish a national religion as the 
English did with the Anglican Church.
  But ever since cases like Everson in 1947; Engel, 1961; Lemon, 1971; 
and Wiseman in 1992, a handful of judges have interpreted the first 
amendment's establishment clause, misinterpreted, I might add in my 
view, to exclude more and more expressions of religion from the public 
square.
  Now we are at the point where children are not allowed to pray in 
public schools. The mildest nonsectarian invocations are forbidden at 
public events, the Boy Scouts are ostracized for mentioning God in 
their oath, and even the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of 
Allegiance are under fire.
  Perhaps these Ten Commandments cases will be the turning point in the 
legal war against religion. We need to have a commonsense approach 
towards the relationship between religion and the State. That is why I 
was particularly interested to hear Justice Scalia's take on this case.
  He was his usual straightforward and honest self in his questions. He 
asked the ACLU lawyer, ``If a legislature can open its session with the 
public present with a prayer, why can it not, in the same building, 
post the Ten Commandments?'' He also called the Ten Commandments ``a 
symbol of the fact that Government derives its authority from God, 
which seems to me an appropriate symbol to put on Government grounds.''
  Justice Scalia also logically noted that those who oppose the Ten 
Commandments on public grounds would ``also think that Thanksgiving 
proclamations are also unconstitutional, which were recommended by the 
very first Congress, the same Congress that proposed the first 
amendments.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that the American people care about 
deeply. In fact, according to a recent AP poll, 76 percent of Americans 
support these religious displays, which Justice Scalia alluded to when 
he said the Ten Commandments send ``a profoundly religious message, but 
it is a profoundly religious message believed in by a vast majority of 
the American people.''
  The irony of the Supreme Court hearing on these cases last week and 
of the outright hostility that the Court has displayed against religion 
in recent years is that above the head of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court is a concrete display of the Ten Commandments.
  And close to these commandments is a marble sculptured relief of 
Moses himself, the great lawgiver. And let us not forget that at the 
beginning of each session at the Court, the crier opens with the 
proclamation: ``God save the United States and this Honorable Court.''
  I agree with Justice Scalia and with the vast majority of the 
American people. In fact, to quote former Supreme Court Justice William 
O. Douglas: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a 
supreme being.'' That is why I have introduced legislation to display 
the Ten Commandments in the Capitol.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Ten Commandments are 
a historical document that contains moral, ethical, and legal truisms 
that any person of any religion or even an atheist can recognize and 
appreciate. They present a concise set of values that represent the 
moral background of this Nation and our common view on right and wrong.
  I believe that they promote a commitment to decency, which is why I 
have them hanging in my office. We start off every day with prayer and 
the Pledge of Allegiance. Over the Speaker's rostrum it is posted, ``In 
God we Trust.''
  There are statues and representations of religious figures scattered 
throughout the Capitol and House buildings. Posting the Ten 
Commandments would fit right in and would merely serve to remind 
Members that

[[Page H992]]

we have the responsibility as lawmakers to be as fair and just as 
possible. Certainly a reminder of God's law would be appropriate as we 
consider the Nation's laws.

                          ____________________