---

Rulings should not
stifle religious freedom

THE ISSUE The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing religious symbols on public property under certain circumstances.

PUBLIC officials and religious leaders might puzzle over two rulings yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court on the separation of church and state. They might conclude that religious displays on public property are permissible within a historical context, but further disputes in lower courts are likely. That should not discourage public officials, such as Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona, from speaking freely and celebrating their faith wherever they wish.

The high court ordered that exhibits of the Ten Commandments must be removed from courthouses in two Kentucky counties, but a Ten Commandments monolith can continue to exist with 16 other sculptures on the 22-acre grounds of the Texas state capitol. Justice Stephen G. Beyer was the swing vote, siding with the majority in both 5-4 decisions; he called the Texas case "borderline."

The difference in the two rulings has to do with context and purpose. In Kentucky, the Ten Commandments initially were displayed by themselves. Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority that other historical documents were added as "litigation" tactics only after the American Civil Liberties Union complained.

"An observer would probably suspect the counties of reaching for any way to keep a religious documents on the walls," Souter wrote.

Souter explained that religious symbols can be legally included in a government display on law or history. He pointed out that the Supreme Court's own walls are adorned with a frieze depicting Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside friezes of 17 other lawgivers.

The two decisions should not disturb past rulings in Hawaii. In 1982, a federal judge ordered the removal of a large, illuminated cross at Camp H.M. Smith on Halawa Heights. A large cross was removed from Schofield Barracks land at Kolekole Pass following a lawsuit by a citizens group in 1997. Those were displays of clear sectarian purpose and should not be resurrected by the government on public land.

The rulings also should not interfere with elected officials' right to openly embrace religion. In 1999, Hawaii's attorney general issued an opinion upholding then-Sen. David Matsuura's posting of an image of a fish, a symbol of Christianity, on his office door in the state Capitol. The posting was obviously a personal expression of faith, not a violation of the Constitution's clause prohibiting the government's establishment of religion.

Nor should the rulings deter Aiona from appearing before church groups to convey his message that "Hawaii belongs to Jesus." A lawyer and former judge, the state's No. 2 official understands the establishment clause and says no one else in the Capitol has "any greater respect for our system of laws." The political risk of focusing on his Christianity in Hawaii's multifaith society remains to be seen.

---

---

---