Religion Neutral State of Religious Citizens in the Eyes of the US Supreme Court

Abstract

Extremism and extremists are present everywhere and at all times, however, moderation remains a way of regulating even the most sensitive areas of public life such as the relationship between Church and State. In all discussions on the presence of religion in the public sphere, it should be remembered that the very same persons are both the citizens and the believers and, therefore, they are subject to both political and religious covenants. The neutrality of the state seems to be an interesting proposition, if one takes account of the judicature of the Supreme Court of the United States.

There are many reasons why the constitutional system of the United States provides interesting examples for discussing the protection of religious freedom. The arguments which have been raised in the legal debate before the Supreme Court over the last 70 years can prove to be instructive, and not only when the case in question relates to regulations in a multicultural and multi-religious society.

The author focuses on two rulings of the Supreme Court: Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County, Kentucky v. American Civil Liberties Union - which were both delivered on the same day, i.e. 27 June 2005. In each of the cases, the Court had to examine the constitutionality of a public display of the Ten Commandments. In both cases there was a 5 to 4 decision, although the sentence in each case differed. Justice Stephen G. Breyer held the swing vote.

After the cases had been decided, two of the justices of the Supreme Court were replaced within a year. The newly-appointed justices are both conservative Republicans, but the Senate hearings showed that they are also moderate and experienced lawyers. The author not only discusses the arguments raised in the cases relating to the public display of the Ten Commandments, but he also considers possible changes in the judicature given a change in the composition of the court.