Displays a source of friction

Many of the Ten Commandments displays on the grounds of courthouses, city halls and city parks in America were gifts from the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the mid-1950s. A half-century later, these and other, newer Ten Commandments monuments continue to be a source of friction.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two Ten Commandments cases and came up with what appear, on the surface, to be two different conclusions. In one, the court ruled that the Ten Commandments could stay on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, because they were one of 17 monuments and therefore served "a mixed but primarily nonreligious purpose." In the other case, the court ruled that the display had to come down, because it had an "unmistakably religious" intent.

There's a difference, says BYU law professor Cole Durham , between many older Ten Commandments displays and some of the newer ones, which "are trying to garner support for their side in an ideological battle."

Since the Supreme Court rulings are all about location and context, the 2005 decisions mean that the legality of other displays will be determined on a case-by-case basis, including five Utah cases that are still pending before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In those cases, a Utah-based religion known as Summum sued the cities of Duchesne and Pleasant Grove after both denied Summum's request to erect a monument next to the cities' Ten Commandments displays. Summum's monument would list its Seven Aphorisms — based on the principles of psychokinesis, correspondence, vibration, opposition, rhythm, cause and effect, and gender.