A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently in two cases involving public displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. In one case, the Justices ruled 5-4 to allow a longstanding granite monument to remain on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. In another 5-4 decision, the high court barred framed copies of the Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses.
In the Texas case, the six-foot tall monument was erected more than 40 years ago. In the Kentucky case, framed copies of the Commandments were placed on the walls of the courthouses in McCreary and Pulaski counties in 1999. Other documents such as the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence were added in the courthouses after the displays were challenged as religious by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The high court determined the Texas monument was part of a historical display and could remain, but deemed the Kentucky displays to be religious in nature and should be removed. In a more general context, the Justices said, such exhibits would be upheld if their primary purpose was to honor the nation’s legal, versus religious, traditions; and if they did not promote one religious sect over another.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.
How long a display of the Ten Commandments has stood, as well as its location, will also determine its constitutionality, with the question to be decided on a case-by-case basis by lower courts.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott applauded the court’s decision to uphold the monument on the state capitol grounds as a constitutional acknowledgment of religion. Abbott called the ruling great for the state of Texas and for all Americans, noting, the court made clear that the monument can be displayed on public grounds to recognize the role the Ten Commandments played in forming the foundation of America and its laws.
In Kentucky, McCreary County Judge Executive, Blaine Phillips, said, “We will abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court. However, we want to encourage our citizens not to give up the fight.”
The American Center for Law and Justice filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both cases. ACLJ Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, stated, “The decision by the Supreme Court in the Texas case, upholding the constitutionality of the public display of the Ten Commandments, clears the way for thousands of monuments like the one put in place outside the Texas Capitol by the Fraternal Order of Eagles to remain in place across the country. At the same time, the court’s decision declaring the displays unconstitutional in the Kentucky case will create additional confusion in this area of the law. It is very encouraging that the Supreme Court understands the historical and legal significance of displaying the Ten Commandments and moved to protect thousands of monuments now in place across America. The fact that the Commandments hold a religious meaning for many does not render them unconstitutional. The Texas decision recognizes the fact that the Commandments have played a vital role in the development of Western law and represents an integral part of the legal underpinnings of our system. Unfortunately, the court’s decision in the Kentucky case is likely to create more questions and confusion in this area of church/state law. The Supreme Court has long acknowledged that when religion and culture intersect, there are traditions and practices that are appropriate. That principle was reinforced with the court’s decision in the Texas case.”
The American Civil Liberties Union was involved in both cases. ACLU Legal Director, Steven Shapiro, said he was “gratified” with the Kentucky decision. “The ruling is consistent with what the court has ruled before. Our Constitution’s ban on government entanglement with religion is good for both government and religion. It keeps religion free, and it allows government to represent us all. Ultimately, we show more respect for the Ten Commandments when we do not deny their inherently religious message.” Of the Texas decision, Shapiro said, “While we disagree with that conclusion, a majority of the Supreme Court in both cases has now clearly reaffirmed the principle that government may not promote a religious message through its display of the Ten Commandments.”
The mixed rulings by the high court drew an almost immediate response by a number of state, county and municipal jurisdictions. Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants (R-Sioux City) said, a display of the Commandments posted behind the House chamber will remain in place. “We have hundreds of schoolchildren who go marching by them every year while we’re in session. I can’t imagine how we’re corrupting their young minds by having the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights and things like that posted up there,” Rants said.
Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels said, returning the Commandments to the state capitol grounds should be a “straightforward matter.” A monument similar to the one in Texas stood near the Indiana capitol for more than 30 years, but was removed in 1991 after being repeatedly damaged by vandals. A federal judge blocked the installation of a replacement monument five years ago, saying, it could be construed as a government endorsement of religion.
The Richland County, Illinois, Board of Supervisors had a display that was donated last year at the courthouse, removed, following the court’s decision. Board Chairman Dottie DiCiro said, the display was returned to the donor with regret. “That’s what our country’s based on. If we can’t display the Ten Commandments in our courthouses, how come the Supreme Court can?” she asked.
In Allentown, Pennsylvania, a Ten Commandments plaque which was placed in a Northampton County courtroom in 1955 will remain. Lead County Judge Robert Freeberg issued a statement saying, there’s no evidence that the plaque was presented to promote religion. “The placement of the Ten Commandments plaque on the wall in Courtroom 1, rather than in a non-court-related portion of the government center, is evidence that the primary purpose was to emphasize the historic relation between the Ten Commandments and the American legal system,” he wrote.
In Hopkinsville, Kentucky, a posting of the Ten Commandments was removed from City Council chambers. City Administrative Officer, Mark Withers, said, “I want to comply with the Supreme Court. I regret that it had to come down. ”In Watertown, South Dakota, the state’s attorney said, a monument similar to the one in Texas that has been on the courthouse lawn for nearly the past 40 years, can remain.
In the wake of the rulings, a bipartisan coalition of over 100 Congressman and several pro-family groups introduced a constitutional amendment to protect religious expression on public property. The proposed Religious Freedom Amendment would reverse the court’s order that the Ten Commandments must be removed from the Kentucky courthouses, and would protect voluntary prayer at schools and other religious speech on public property. The measure’s chief sponsor, Oklahoma Republican Rep. Ernest Istook, offered a similar Constitutional amendment in 1998, but it failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed for passage.
“The Supreme Court has sent a clear message to public officials everywhere. They will face an onslaught of expensive litigation unless they remove the Ten Commandments from public property. Intolerant people have been attacking the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, voluntary prayers at school, and other religious expression, but this amendment will halt those attacks. The courts are using the First Amendment to attack religion, when they should be using it to protect religion. Unfortunately, only a constitutional amendment can fix this problem. We can’t stay silent and accept decisions like we’ve seen, which is only the latest in many years of bad rulings. When judges overstep their boundaries, as they have here, we have only two lawful options: either impeach the judges or amend the Constitution to reverse their rulings. Only the constitutional amendment undoes these bad precedents and guarantees that all courts must change course in the future,” Istook said.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State denounced the RFA. AU Executive Director, Rev. Barry Lynn, stated, “Istook’s scheme is a direct attack on individual freedom. It would allow government officials to meddle in religion, and it would take away church-state safeguards that have given Americans more religious freedom than any people in history. Rep. Istook is opening the door to majority rule in religious matters and that would be a disaster in our diverse nation.”
The 2005 State of the First Amendment survey, taken to coincide with the court rulings found that 70 percent of the one-thousand adultrespondents nationwide would approve of the posting of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. In addition, 85 percent of those surveyed said they would approve if the Commandments are included as “one document among many historical documents” when displayed in public buildings. The survey was conducted by the First Amendment Center.
Last month, the American Tract Society began distributing pocket-sized cards of the Ten Commandments, which also feature Evangelistic messages. ATS expressed hope that its Core Value Cards will bring the faithful back to the basics. ATS Vice President of Marketing, Mark Brown, said, “There are a lot of people going to church today, but they’re forgetting these basic tenets.”
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]