CNN Crossfire - Jay Sekulow Debates Barry Lynn on Ten Commandments

CNN CROSSFIRE
March 2, 2005
Debate over Ten Commandments

The battle over the Ten Commandments goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. Do displays of the commandments belong on public property?

ANNOUNCER: CROSSFIRE. On the left, Paul Begala; on the right, Robert Novak.

In the CROSSFIRE: The battle over the Ten Commandments goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue, do displays of the commandments belong on public property? In Texas, a homeless man wants a huge granite monument off the grounds of the State Capitol. In Kentucky, the commandments hang next to other historic documents that helped build American law and government. Demonstrators warn the wrong ruling could force changes to memorials and public spaces all over America. Should the commandments stay or go?

Today on CROSSFIRE.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ANNOUNCER: Live from the George Washington University, Paul Begala and Robert Novak.

(APPLAUSE)

ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Welcome to CROSSFIRE.

The battle over where we can acknowledge the Ten Commandments' role in U.S. law and history is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court. Most people don't think there's anything wrong with displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, but nobody knows what the Supremes will do, as they claim to find invisible writing in the Constitution.

PAUL BEGALA, CO-HOST: Well, how about these very visible words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of the religion"? And do conservatives really believe that churches are doing such a poor job that government now has to start preaching religion?

That's debate today in the CROSSFIRE.

NOVAK: The battle over posting the Ten Commandments on public property is now in the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices heard arguments today over a monument, a big monument, on the grounds of the State Capitol in Texas and displays of commandments posted in county buildings in Kentucky.

Today in the CROSSFIRE over religion and government property, the Reverend Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United For Separation of Church and State, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center For Law and Justice.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: Guys, to see you both.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Welcome back.

Jay, you are one of the foremost experts in this body of law. And so, I want to begin by looking at I guess what Al Gore would call the controlling legal authority.

JAY SEKULOW, CHIEF COUNSEL, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Sure.

BEGALA: It's not the first time the Supreme Court has looked at the Ten Commandments.

SEKULOW: No.

BEGALA: There was a case in Kentucky where they were posting them in schools.

And here's what the court ruled in 1980, Stone vs. Graham: "The preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day."

The court has already ruled on this. Why...

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: Well, look, the court granted review, though.

I mean, here you had a situation where you had two cases that were argued. And the court obviously wanted to relook at it. It's interesting. That is an accurate quote from Stone v. Graham, but one thing I think Barry would agree with, not a lot of discussion today about Stone vs. Graham. It was mentioned one time.

BEGALA: Interesting.

SEKULOW: What is interesting...

BEGALA: But conservatives don't seem to want to believe in continuing stare decisis, as they say in Latin...

SEKULOW: Well, no.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Continuing the precedents of the court, is that the problem?

SEKULOW: Well, no. I think what you had was, the court seriously is relooking at how do we evaluate church-state relations when it comes to government symbolism?

You know, last year, it was the Pledge of Allegiance. They didn't really hit that. Here, what you've got is, look, to deny that the Ten Commandments is a religious text is ridiculous. And Justice Scalia said that.

BEGALA: OK.

SEKULOW: It clearly is a religious text. But it does have a secular implication. And the fact is, if you look at why these are distributed, the court -- and there's about 3,000 or 4,000 of these monuments throughout the country, these Fraternal Order of Eagles monuments.

The court is faced, Paul, with a real dilemma here. And that is, if they order them to go, they literally bulldoze them away and remove them, or remove them physically from the site. And the court just did not seem, in that particular case, to want to go there.

NOVAK: You are shaking -- you are shaking your head. And I will let you...

SEKULOW: He always does.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: I will let you explain -- I will let you explain what you are shaking your head about. But, Barry Lynn, it's hard for me to understand things. Of course, this is a court that somehow found in the Constitution this week that you can't execute people who are juveniles.

BARRY LYNN, EXEC. DIRECTOR, AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE: Yes.

NOVAK: I looked all over the Supreme Court -- the Constitution. I couldn't find it. But we're not going to debate that.

I want to ask, do you really think you'll get a majority of this court to say that these monuments that have been around for 40 years are unconstitutional?

LYNN: Yes, absolutely.

I don't think there's any doubt that, for the same reason that you can't put up the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky schoolroom, you also can't put it up on a courthouse lawn or in a courthouse. Obviously, if we all agree that these are religious documents, and if we agree that the state of Texas and the state of Kentucky only put up the symbols, the words of a single religion, that is the Judeo- Christian faiths, isn't it obvious that they are promoting one religion over others?

And isn't that obviously inconsistent with the idea in the Constitution that we treat all religions, as well as nonreligious people, equally? Nobody is putting up any Buddhist documents or any statues to Madeline Murray O'Hare.

NOVAK: Let me -- let...

SEKULOW: But those aren't uniquely symbols of law. And that's the difference.

You know, the Ten Commandments is almost like if you -- when you see the tablets themselves, forgetting the verbiage that is on them for a moment, just if you see the tablets, we know what they are generally. It's rules of law. It's rules of conduct.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: ... religious rule.

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: Absolutely, but they have had a big impact on secular law. No one denies that.

LYNN: Of course they do. They have -- there's no connection, Bob and Jay, between the Ten Commandments and the writing of the United States Constitution. NOVAK: All right, let me -- let me -- let me just -- let me just quote to you Arthur Goldberg. You have heard of him.

LYNN: Of course I have.

NOVAK: He was a Supreme Court justice. In 1963, a long time ago, he said this: "Neither government, nor this court, the Supreme Court, can or should ignore the significance of the fact that many of our legal, political and personal values derive historically from religious teachings."

Do you deny that?

LYNN: What I'm denying is that the secular law of this country -- and it's not just me -- Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter, famous letter, to John Adams, where he said, you know, the Bible is not the basis for the civil law in our country.

Think about this. We don't have any civil laws against blasphemy. We don't have any laws in the judicial system that say you have to believe in only one God, which is the way most people would read the Ten Commandments, all versions of it. We don't make it unlawful to covet our neighbor's SUVs. If we did that, almost every one of us would be in a federal penitentiary now.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: We don't do that. Well, except us Prius owners. We wouldn't go.

But, Bob, there's no connection between at least four or five of these commandments and anything in the secular law. These states have chosen to take the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, the King James version, not the Catholic version, which is dramatically different, not the Orthodox Jewish position on the commandments. And so they are making not just nonbelievers and Hindus and Buddhists feel like second-class citizens, but even Catholics and Jews.

NOVAK: Doesn't make me feel like a -- make me feel like a...

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: Well, these monuments were put up by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: To promote a movie.

SEKULOW: Actually...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Cecil B. DeMille made a film in 1956.

(CROSSTALK) SEKULOW: There's no doubt it. I mean...

BEGALA: This was a Hollywood promotional stunt.

SEKULOW: And it was...

BEGALA: It was. That's how they got there.

SEKULOW: It was a promotional stunt that took place.

Look, the evidence -- I have argued 12 of these cases. and just evidence is clear. Originally, these were going to be pieces of paper that a judge wanted to give out. And DeMille said, well, you know, I have got this movie going on. They used to send actually Yul Brynner...

BEGALA: And Charlton Heston, sure.

SEKULOW: And Charlton Heston -- would actually show up at some of the bigger events.

LYNN: Did Heston have a gun at the time?

SEKULOW: I always argued, that's the secular purpose. There was a secular purpose, movie promotion.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: It shows how degrading this whole thing is, because when you have these symbols that were first considered and put up because of a promotion of a movie...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Well, how about to promote "The Passion of the Christ," we put up crucifix?

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: I'm a Catholic. I believe that Christ died for my sins. Do I have a right to promote Mel Gibson's movie?

SEKULOW: Privately, you do.

BEGALA: Put a crucifix up in front of every courthouse?

SEKULOW: No, you don't.

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: Well, isn't that the same thing?

SEKULOW: No. The difference is that this universal symbol of law is seen in the Ten Commandments. There's no doubt about that. You can't deny that history. You don't see that with the crucifix. They didn't post the Sermon on the Mount here. (CROSSTALK)

LYNN: What universal symbol is, "I am the lord, your God?"

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Wait a minute.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: We have to take a -- wait a minute. We have to take a break.

LYNN: Why do you think it's up to the Supreme Court?

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: ... get to do that.

(BELL RINGING)

NOVAK: Just ahead, I will tell you why the Supreme Court might not be the best place to consider the Ten Commandments issues.

And is al Qaeda plotting to attack New York's Grand Central Terminal? Wolf Blitzer has the latest right after this break.

(APPLAUSE)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington.

Coming at the top of the hour. A discovery in Spain raising concerns about a possible terror attack against Grand Central Terminal. We'll talk live with New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.

Martha Stewart gets out of prison Friday. We'll preview her plans for a comeback.

And Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee lost more than 100 pounds. What's his secret? He has an amazing story to share with our viewers.

All those stories, much more, only minutes away on "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."

Now back to CROSSFIRE.

BEGALA: Thank you, Wolf. We look forward to your report at the top of the hour.

Here at CROSSFIRE, we're asking the question, does placing the Ten Commandments on the government property violate the Constitution's ban on the government establishing a religion? That question was before the Supreme Court this morning. It is in the CROSSFIRE this afternoon.

Still with us, Jay Sekulow of the American Center For Law and Justice and the Reverend Barry Lynn from Americans United For Separation of Church and State.

NOVAK: Barry Lynn, I have a very difficult question for you. In the Supreme Court chamber -- you may not know this -- there is an image of the Ten Commandments, with Hebrew writing visible on them. So, it's not the Protestant.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Now, tell me, is it possible for the justice to be objective in deciding this case with that thing standing there? Or should they tear down that image of the Ten Commandments?

LYNN: No, actually, they are not going to have to sandblast that image off the Supreme Court, nor are they going to have to use bulldozers to come and take away...

NOVAK: Why not?

LYNN: Because there's a genuine historical significance to that frieze, the stone carvings on the Supreme Court.

NOVAK: Oh, you are pandering to the Supremes.

LYNN: No, no, no. Fourteen other figures, including Napoleon, Hammurabi, a couple of Roman emperors, as well as Moses. You can't read -- and even if you can read Hebrew, you can't read much of the Ten Commandments out of it.

NOVAK: You are pandering to the court to get a good decision.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: No, I would never pander to the court.

But there is a serious difference. And that is, we're not sandblasting. We're not bulldozing anything away. We are going to take those, in the event that we win -- and I believe we will -- those Ten Commandment displays can be respectfully moved to a sacred ground, like the church lawn, the synagogue lawn, where they belong, and not in this court, where they don't belong.

BEGALA: And I can tell you where they are going to go.

(APPLAUSE)

BEGALA: They are going to go to Protestant churches.

I have a problem with this. The government has preferred a religion here, Jay.

SEKULOW: Well...

BEGALA: There are three versions of the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20, Exodus 34, Deuteronomy 5.

SEKULOW: More than that, actually, but go ahead.

BEGALA: Well, there's five by some readings.

SEKULOW: Right.

BEGALA: There's at least three major ones.

SEKULOW: Right.

BEGALA: The Catholics', Jews' and Protestants'. They are different.

SEKULOW: Right.

BEGALA: The government has preferred Protestantism here. Isn't that a violation of the Constitution?

SEKULOW: No.

BEGALA: Why?

SEKULOW: Because, first of all, this was the Eagles. The Fraternal Order of Eagles was who gave these monuments. They are not a religious organization. In fact, they tried to come up with what they called their...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: But it's government property. The government...

SEKULOW: Well, the government accepted the gift, yes.

BEGALA: Right.

SEKULOW: And governments did around the country. No one denies that.

LYNN: And it is the Protestant version.

BEGALA: It is the Protestant version.

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: On those, it is. I mean, there are others there are not. And, clearly, what you saw at the Supreme Court today engraved in the marble, the only text you can see is the Hebrew text. None of the other law...

(CROSSTALK)

BEGALA: But, like in the Texas case, it's actually Exodus 20, the Protestant version.

SEKULOW: It is. But, you know, the issue that is going to come -- that is before the court and what they're going to decide is, does the fact that let's -- and there was some discussion about this issue of the versions. But it was not a big discussion. We thought it was going to be huge, actually, Paul. It wasn't. And I think part of that was, the court is put in a vice, so to speak, of, they have got to write an opinion very carefully, because the last thing the court needs right now is starting to have these removals of Ten Commandment monuments, whether you do it respectfully or not, and assuming they would, because forget what is inside the chamber.

There are 13 other depictions of the Ten Commandments throughout the Supreme Court. You just walk across the street to the Library of Congress.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: And none of them are remotely like the one that we're talking about today.

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: This isn't the religious right. This is the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

LYNN: No. As a matter of fact, the reason we're having this battle is because, sadly, of the so-called religious right.

That is to say that there are Christians...

SEKULOW: They didn't put these up.

LYNN: Excuse me.

There are Christians in this country who have decided this is another front in a culture war in America.

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: It's you and the ACLU who have brought the lawsuits. These monuments have been there for 40 years, put up by the Fraternal Order of Eagles.

(CROSSTALK)

SEKULOW: I have been defending. You have been prosecuting.

LYNN: The last one in Kentucky was put up just a couple of years ago, wasn't it?

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: It's another -- this is a continuing effort. And, by the way, you want to put them up in every schoolhouse in the country as well.

(CROSSTALK)

LYNN: That's the agenda.

NOVAK: That's the last -- that's the last word.

Thank you, Barry Lynn.

LYNN: Thank you.

NOVAK: Thank you, Jay Sekulow.