The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week on the separation of church and state. This division, which has historically been controversial, has found the ISU community falling on both sides of the issue.

The Court heard arguments for two separate cases March 2 regarding the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

Members of the ISU community are split on which direction they believe the court should take.

“If I were on the bench, I would call it a memorial and a protected right under non-establishment laws,” says Tony Hill, graduate student in chemical engineering and staff member for The Rock, a Christian organization.

“The attempts to remove the monument are based solely on religion,” he says. “They need other reasons besides religious or anti-religious.”

Hill says he believes this because he, like many others, sees the Ten Commandments displays as historic symbolism of a Judeo-Christian law code that influenced the law structure of this country.

He says he also, however, can see how the displays can be interpreted as religious favoritism, making people uncomfortable.

Hill says he is placing his faith in the Supreme Court to make a decision that is most fair to all Americans.

Erica Carnes, senior in political science, believes that allowing these displays to remain would not represent what is best for Americans.

“It’s directly related to the Bible, to a body of religion,” she says. “It’s not all-encompassing to everyone’s beliefs.”

Carnes, vice president of the ISU Democrats, thinks religion and politics have become too closely related.

“I believe that the display of these types of things is in direct conflict with the separation of church and state,” she says.

Robert Baum, associate professor of religious studies, is also concerned about the involvement of separation of church and state in this issue.

Baum says the context within which the commandments are displayed greatly matters.

“To display them as a part of the national body of law is inappropriate,” Baum says.

Baum says, however, that including them in a display of great texts of history would be acceptable. He says American laws are based on English common law and the U.S. Constitution, not on any one religious doctrine.

“People are influenced by the Ten Commandments, but that’s not a formal part of our law,” Baum says.

Paul Donlevy, senior in food science and treasurer of the InterVarsity Christian group, is also leaning toward supporting the removal of the artifacts, but more out of frustration.

“It obviously angers too many people, so just take them down to shut everybody up,” Donlevy says.

“If the government is going to promote any one religion, it should promote all,” he says. “But then again, it should promote none. All or nothing.”

Joe Knepper, president of the ISU College Republicans and senior in industrial technology, would not mind if the government supported all or a large amount of different religions through such displays.

“I would not be upset if they put a giant Buddha next to it,” Knepper says.

Knepper thinks that most religions are morally similar and that these displays are meant to show this morality’s influence on our laws rather than to encourage belief in a particular faith.

“You can’t deny the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments. But by simply displaying the Ten Commandments, they’re not promoting one religion over the other,” he says

Catherine Luria, treasurer of the Atheist and Agnostic Society and senior in animal ecology, doesn’t agree.

“While some of the morals that we have today can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian religions, that doesn’t mean that we need to have excerpts on display in public buildings,” Luria says.