|
by Dave Bohon
A pair of rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court on Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky and Texas may not bode well for the future of faith-based displays on public property, warned a host of conservative and Christian spokesmen. On June 27th the High Court ruled that Ten Commandments displays in courthouses in Kentucky’s McCreary and Pulaski counties violated the First Amendment’s prohibition against government endorsement of religion, even though the displays were set among documents that included the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Magna Carta. In a separate decision, however, the High Court decided that a stand-alone, granite Ten Commandments monument on the state capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, was constitutional. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family said the rulings were an indication that the High Court “has failed to decide whether it will stand up for religious freedom of expression, or if it will allow liberal special interests to banish God from the public square.” Ironically, the justices issued their conflicting decisions from a building that houses multiple displays of carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments. The decisions also put huge question marks over the Ten Commandments monuments that are displayed in thousands of government buildings and properties throughout the nation. Writing for the 5-4 majority in the Kentucky case, Justice David Souter acknowledged that the Ten Commandments have influenced the American legal system. However, he wrote, the “original text viewed in its entirety is an unmistakably religious statement dealing with religious obligations and with morality subject to religious sanction. When the government initiates an effort to place this statement alone in public view, a religious object is unmistakable.” Writing for the dissenting minority, Justice Scalia called the assertion that government cannot favor religion over non-religion a “demonstrably false principle.” He predicted that the McCreary opinion would serve to “ratchet up the Court’s hostility to religion.” In the Texas case, the High Court ruled five-four that a six-foot-high granite monument erected on the State Capitol grounds in 1961 could remain because it is part of a larger presentation commemorating state history and culture. Writing for the majority Justice Rehnquist explained, “Simply having religious content or promoting a religious message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Dobson pointed out that the ruling is far from a clear victory for First Amendment freedoms. “This was no affirmation of the right of religious expression — particularly Christian religious expression — in the public square,” said the pro-family spokesman. “It was an argument rooted in logic along the lines of, ‘Well, the Commandments have been around for a long time, so long, in fact, that they’re kind of like any other historical decoration that might be used to adorn the walls or the grounds of a public building. So let them stay in place and keep accumulating dust.’” Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence said that in the Kentucky case the court appeared to be negatively influenced by the fact that county commissioners had issued a resolution expressing openly religious motives and purposes for putting up the Ten Commandments display. “They later went through a series of three displays where they increasingly conformed with what the Supreme Court has said about having secular documents with the religious documents,” Lorence said. “But even with that, the court basically was swayed by what they perceived to be a ‘bad attitude’ that had been expressed in the past.” Gary Bauer, president of American Values, questioned the motives of the High Court. “Is this now the great sin in American culture — to be defiant of our masters on the federal courts?” Bauer asked. “The people of Kentucky, operating through their elected officials, were doing what I thought America was all about, which was expressing their own deeply held views about what they wanted to honor in displays on public property. The Supreme Court is on dangerous ground.” Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family Action warned that since neither ruling rests on consistent constitutional principles, they may end up putting religious freedom in America in a more precarious position than if the High Court hadn’t issued the decisions. “What they are, are invitations to the ACLU and anyone else who wants to now file suit against any public display of a religious nature in the country,” Earll said. Several Minnesota communities have the types of displays that could attract a lawsuit from the ACLU, including Winona, Moorhead, Brainerd, Hibbing, and Albert Lea. In March 2004 the Duluth City Council voted to remove a Ten Commandments monument from City Hall property rather than face a lawsuit by the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (MCLU). The monument had stood on the spot since 1957 with no complaint from anyone. |
|
Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute 2855 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis MN, 55418-3265 Phone 612.789.8811, FAX 612.789.8858, www.mfc.org |