Pious display.

When U.S. Rep. Melvin Watt was a youngster, religion was never far from his door.

"I had the fortune," said the North Carolina Democrat, "of being born and reared in a house that adjoined the churchyard of the Mount Olive Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, N.C., the church that I happen to be still a member of." He grew up, he added, "with a full understanding of what the Ten Commandments said and trying to honor those Commandments."

"Imagine the surprise yesterday," Watt told his House colleagues, "when I received a phone call and had a message waiting for me when I arrived in Washington saying that somebody wanted to talk to me about a resolution that was coming to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in support of the Ten Commandments. I thought surely this must be a mistake. I thought the Ten Commandments were to be supported or not supported in a religious context, not in the halls of the Congress of the United States."

But it was no mistake. In March Republican members of Congress, with the support of the GOP leadership, engineered a surprise resolution onto the House calendar endorsing the posting of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and other government buildings.

Introduced by U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), House Concurrent Resolution 31 expressed the sense of Congress that "the Ten Commandments are a declaration of fundamental principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just society" and insisted that "public display, including display in government offices and courthouses, of the Ten Commandments should be permitted."

In its preamble, the non-binding measure praised Aderholt constituent Roy S. Moore, an Alabama circuit court judge who says he will not take down a Ten Commandments plaque posted on the wall of his Gadsden courtroom or discontinue prayers before jury proceedings. Moore has been ordered by another state court to drop the religious practices because of the separation of church and state. (The order, won by the Alabama affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, is on hold pending an appeal.)

Members of Congress apparently decided to wade into the controversy in response to an escalating right-wing crusade against "judicial activism." Religious Right operatives and their allies are campaigning hard against judges who uphold abortion rights, gay rights and church-state separation.

The March 4 debate on the House floor was heated and wide-ranging, with both supporters and opponents of the resolution vying for the religious, legal and political high ground.

Aderholt, arguing that "our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles," insisted, "The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of Western civilization and the basis of our legal system here in America. To exclude a display of the Ten Commandments because it suggests an establishment of religion is not consistent with our nation's heritage, let alone common sense itself. This nation was founded on religious traditions that are an integral part of the fabric of American cultural, political and societal life."

Aderholt's views were seconded by a string of Republican congressmen. U.S. Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla.), chair of the House Constitution Subcommittee, said Congress should "acknowledge that the Ten Commandments are the foundation for the legal order in the United States and throughout Western civilization."

Canady noted that depictions of Moses and the Ten Commandments are found among the decorations in both the House and the Supreme Court.

U.S. Rep. John Hostettler (R-Ind.) said government must be based on absolutes and cited Lex Rex, a 1644 work by Scottish theorist Samuel Rutherford. "Like it or not," said Hostettler, "the historical fact of the matter is that the absolutes upon which most of the law of this country is derived, everything from the right to own property to the criminal codes, are rooted in the Bible."

U.S. Rep. Cliff Steams (R-Fla.) said, "We are a Judeo-Christian society. It is time we rose in support of it." Quoting Presbyterian preacher John Knox, Steams insisted that Congress must "preserve the religious principles on which our nation was founded." Pointing to the display of the national motto, "In God We Trust," on currency and in the House chamber, he praised the "traditional cooperation of church and state."

U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.) accused opponents of the resolution of "doing historical cartwheels, trying to rewrite history as radical revisionists have been doing for the past 30 years."

But it was Scarborough and his allies who were rewriting history, church-state experts charged. During the debate, Scarborough and several other members of Congress recited an alleged quote from James Madison in support of the Aderholt resolution. Madison, they insisted, once commented, "We have staked the future of the American civilization not on the power of government, but on the capacity of Americans to abide by the Ten Commandments of God."

Historians, however, have no record of any such quotation and insist that it is almost certainly bogus. Even David Barton, a leading "Christian nation" propagandist, now admits the quote is false and has stopped using it in his materials.

Congressional opponents of the Aderholt resolution were adamant about its dangers. They charged that it was a threat to church-state separation, a legislative intrusion into an ongoing court proceeding and a politically motivated distraction from real problems congressional leaders seem unwilling to face.

Calling the courtroom posting of the Ten Commandments "an intentional establishment of religion," U.S. Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-Va.) said, "Our religious freedom is the foundation of our free society. This country was established on the high ideals of allowing everyone to practice the religion of their choice without interference of government.... This resolution, unfortunately, represents a retreat from that very principle that has made us a great and tolerant nation."

Scott insisted that courtrooms are not the place for religious activities. "One's religious beliefs should not be a factor in whether or not one will receive justice in America's courts," he said. "This is the issue presented by this amendment. It is not about the Ten Commandments or one's feelings about the Ten Commandments. It is about a courtroom remaining a fair place for all religions. The courtroom loses its neutrality when it endorses a specific religious doctrine.

Continued Scott, "Christians do not need the courts to endorse or legitimize our religion, and asking for support from a court for endorsement is self-defeating.

"We have other things that we should be doing, juvenile justice, education, health care, employment, the budget," concluded Scott. "We should be attending to those rather than this resolution that comes, as I said, without warning, without hearings and without deliberation."

Watt of North Carolina agreed. "This is not about whether you support freedom of religion," he said. "If you support freedom of religion, then you would really be supporting the right of every American citizen to either be religious or not be religious, support one religion or the other; you would not be bringing a resolution here supporting just one form of religion."

Noting that the House had dealt with almost no significant legislation this year, Watt charged that the resolution was a mere diversion. "We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for parading this resolution out here as it if was some kind of serious business," he asserted.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) called for support of the First Amendment and religious freedom. "We have the right to have freedom of religion across this nation," she said, "but those who would come into that courtroom also have the right to be acknowledged and recognized in their difference in beliefs, their difference in interpretation of the Ten Commandments, their belief or nonbelief in the Ten Commandments."

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) argued that the resolution was insulting to religion. "What you are saying is that the Ten Commandments are not in themselves strong enough to command respect.... That is a denigration of religion. That is an assumption that religion cannot make it on its own, and it is an inappropriate assumption," he said.

"We are clearly here for political purposes seeking the capturing of the Ten Commandments, not to inculcate respect for them but to deal with a political problem," Frank concluded.

Only one Republican spoke out against the Aderholt resolution. U.S. Rep. Steve Horn (R-Calif.) charged that Congress was intruding into judicial affairs and entangling religion with government.

"There are," he said, "many great religions in this world -- Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Judaism and Islam. We have all studied them, many of us in this chamber, and it is wrong to single out two religions and carve what they believe on the walls."

Members of Congress, Horn warned, should not "use religion to advance political careers."

Although the debate was spirited, the vote the next day was not close. The resolution was approved 295-125, surpassing the two-thirds margin necessary for this kind of "suspension calendar" measure.

Republicans voted heavily for H.Con. Res. 31, with 216 casting yes votes and only four voting no. Democrats showed more of a split, with 120 going on record against the resolution and 79 voting for it. Twelve members were absent. (See how your member voted, page 7.)

Church-state separationists were disappointed by the tally.

"This is the worst politicization of religion I have seen in Congress in the 25 years I have worked in Washington," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The Ten Commandments are no stronger now that the House has given them official blessing. This is a sad day for church-state separation and common sense."

But Lynn also noted that the vote had a silver lining. If 125 House members are willing to vote against a non-binding resolution that does not have the force of law, Lynn said he is optimistic that a constitutional amendment would be easier to defeat. Religious Right operatives in Congress plan to introduce a religion amendment this month that would effectively repeal the separation of church and state.

Many congressional observers believe the House conflict over the Ten Commandments was the opening round in a lengthy congressional battle over "judicial activism." Religious Right groups and their more secular right-wing allies are targeting judges who rule in favor of individual freedoms.

The anti-court brigades are considering a broad range of tactics to combat "liberal" judges. Among the possibilities are impeachment of sitting judges, enactment of "court-stripping" bills that would remove certain issues from judicial consideration and term limits for judges.

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told The Washington Times March 11 that articles of impeachment are being prepared for one federal judge now and two others are possible targets as well. DeLay, a Christian Coalition favorite, said, "As part of our conservative efforts against judicial activism, we are going after judges."

In the Senate, U.S. Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) announced in early March that his Judiciary subcommittee will hold hearings on judicial activism. He blasted federal judges as "a robed, contemptuous intellectual elite."

The most radical anti-court voices are even calling for outright defiance of court orders. In the case that spawned the recent House resolution, Alabama Gov. Forrest "Fob" James has threatened to call out the National Guard and state troopers to prevent the removal of the Ten Commandments plaque from Judge Moore's courtroom.

Observed far-right firebrand Patrick Buchanan in a recent column, "There is a whiff of rebellion in the air."