http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...hurch-qna_x.htm
Not first church and state dispute
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
The controversy over a Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery is the latest dispute over public displays of religious symbols. Here are some questions in the debate:
Q: Why does the U.S. Constitution require the separation of church and state?
A: The First Amendment guarantees both the free exercise of religion and the separation of church and state. The second part of that guarantee, which is at issue in the Alabama case, does not require absolute separation of church and state. Courts have interpreted it to bar government actions that plainly endorse religion and have no secular purpose. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom is derived largely from when the American colonists were trying to escape religious persecution in England and tolerance was a primary concern when the Bill of Rights was written in 1789.
Q: Why have federal courts ruled that displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings are unconstitutional?
A: Courts have ruled that certain prominent displays violate the First Amendment by advancing religion and forcing people who are doing government business to come in contact with a religious message.
Q: But why have courts said that some religious displays are legal in other circumstances?
A: The Supreme Court has stressed the importance of the context of a display or reference to God. For example, in a 1989 case, it upheld the display of a menorah at a city-county building because it was part of a larger display of holiday symbols, including a Christmas tree. But it forbade a Nativity scene that stood alone at a courthouse.
Q: Why does a federal judge have jurisdiction over an action by a state judge, as in the Alabama case?
A: Those who challenged the Ten Commandments monument alleged that it violated the U.S. Constitution. Federal courts are the arbiters of the U.S. Constitution.
Q: Why hasn't the Supreme Court intervened in the Alabama case?
A: In 1980, the Supreme Court struck down a law in Kentucky that ordered schools to post the Ten Commandments. Since then, it has declined to intervene in local disputes over public displays of the Commandments. In April, the court let stand a federal appeals court ruling that a Ten Commandments monument outside Kentucky's Capitol would be unconstitutional.
Q: Is it true the Ten Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court? Why can the Supreme Court have them and not the courthouse in Alabama?
A: A frieze in the justices' courtroom includes a depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments, and the Commandments are a recurring theme in ornamental brass gates and other architectural touches at the marble building. But the message is arguably secular, because Moses and the Commandments appear with other lawgivers of history, including Napoleon, Solomon and Charlemagne.
Q: If the Ten Commandments are forbidden in some circumstances, why has it been customary to have witnesses swear to tell the truth while placing their hand on the Bible?
A: They do not have to swear on the Bible. The Supreme Court has ruled that government may not require a person to swear to any belief he or she does not hold. Witnesses have the option of affirming that they will tell the truth, without reference to the Bible or God.
Q: Why is "In God we trust" allowed on U.S. currency?
A: Not every government reference to God violates the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court has not ruled directly on "In God we trust" on currency, but lower federal courts have said it is not unconstitutional.
Q: What happened to the federal court ruling in California that said the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because of its reference to "under God"?
A: It is on appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices are likely to announce this fall whether they will hear the appeal. The Bush administration has urged the justices to take up the case, likening the phrase "under God" in the Pledge to "In God we trust" on currency.
