Subject: U.S. Court: Some Commandments Displays OK Date: Tuesday 28 June 2005 Filename: SupremeCourt-RulesSomeCommandmentsOk-SomeNot.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday 28 June 2005 U.S. Court: Some Commandments Displays OK Source: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050628/ap_on_g Also: http://muslimvillage.com/story.php?id=2238 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that displayingthe Ten Commandments on government property is constitutionally permissible insome cases but not in others. A pair of 5-4 decisions left future disputes onthe contentious church-state issue to be settled case-by-case. "The court has found no single mechanical formula thatcan accurately draw the constitutional line in every case," wrote JusticeStephen G. Breyer. Breyer was the only justice to vote with the majority inboth cases: One that struck down Ten Commandments displays inside two Kentucky courthouses anda second that allowed a 6-foot granite monument to remain on the grounds of theTexas Capitol. The court said the key to whether a display isconstitutional hinges on whether there is a religious purpose behind it. Butthe justices acknowledged that question would often be controversial. "The divisiveness of religion in current public life isinescapable," wrote Justice David H. Souter. He said it was important to understand the Constitution'sEstablishment Clause, which requires the government to stay neutral onreligious belief. Questions of such belief, he said are "reserved for theconscience of the individual." In both cases, Breyer voted with the majority. In the Kentucky case barringthe courthouse displays, that left him with the court's more liberal bloc wherehe normally votes. In the Texascase, he wound up making a majority with the more conservative justices. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, oftena swing vote, joined the liberals in both decisions. The rulings mean thousands of Ten Commandments displaysaround the nation will be validated if their primary purpose is to honour thenation's legal, rather than religious, traditions. Location also will beconsidered, with wide open lots more acceptable than schoolhouses filled withyoung students. "It means we'll litigate cases one at a time fordecades," said Douglas Laycock, a church-state expert at the University of Texas law school, noting the decisionsprovide little guidance beyond the specific facts of the cases. "The nextcase may depend on who the next justice is, unfortunately," he said. In sharply worded opinions, Justice Antonin Scalia said a "dictatorship of ashifting Supreme Court majority" was denying the Ten Commandments'religious meaning. Religion is part of America'straditions, from a president's invocation of "God bless America" in speeches to thenational motto "In God we trust." "Nothing stands behind the court's assertion thatgovernmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutionalexcept the court's own say-so," Scalia wrote. The justices voting on the prevailing side in the Kentucky case leftthemselves legal wiggle room, saying that some displays inside courthouses —like their own courtroom frieze — would be permissible if they were portrayedneutrally in order to honor the nation's legal history. The Supreme Court's frieze depicts Moses as well as 17 otherfigures including Hammurabi, Confucius, Napoleon and Chief Justice JohnMarshall. Moses' tablets do not have any writing. The monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol — one of 17historical displays on the 22-acre lot — was determined to be a legitimatetribute to the nation's legal and religious history. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the Texas monument with thewords 'I AM the LORD thy God'" was a permissible acknowledgment ofreligion's place in society. Breyer, who provided the fifth vote in the holding, did notjoin Rehnquist's opinion. As a result, his separate concurrence, concludingthat the Texasdisplay was predominantly nonreligious and thus constitutional because it satin a vast park, was the controlling viewpoint. The rulings were the court's first major statement on theTen Commandments since 1980, when the justices barred display in publicschools. "This is a mixed verdict, but on balance it's a win forseparation of religion and government," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn,executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State."The justices wisely refused to jettison long-standing church-statesafeguards. We're thankful for that." On the other side, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, said:"It is very encouraging that the Supreme Court understands the historicaland legal significance of displaying the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, thehigh court's decision in the Kentuckycase is likely to create more questions." In Kentucky,two counties originally hung the copies of the Ten Commandments in theircourthouses. After the ACLU filed suit, the counties modified their displays toadd other documents demonstrating "America's Christian heritage,"including the national motto of "In God We Trust" and a version ofthe Congressional Record declaring 1983 the "Year of the Bible." When a federal court ruled those displays had the effect ofendorsing religion, the counties erected a third Ten Commandments display withsurrounding documents such as the Bill of Rights and Star-Spangled Banner tohighlight their role in "our system of law and government." The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsubsequently struck down the third display as a "sham" for thereligious intent behind it. Meanwhile in Texas, theFraternal Order of Eagles donated the exhibit to the state in 1961, and it wasinstalled about 75 feet from the Capitol in Austin. The group gave thousands of similarmonuments to American towns during the 1950s and '60s. Thomas Van Orden, a former lawyer who is now homeless,challenged the display in 2002. He lost twice in the lower courts in holdingsthe Supreme Court affirmed Monday. Dissenting in the Texascase, Justice John Paul Stevens argued the displaywas an improper government endorsement of religion. "If a state may endorse a particular deity's command to'have no other gods before me,' it is difficult to conceive of any textualdisplay that would run afoul of the Establishment Clause," he said. ----------------------------------------------------------------------