Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Ten Commandments Cases
[size=-1]Kathleen Rhodes[/size]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1]Correspondent[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][size=-1] More than 15 months after Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore lost his job for disobeying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse, the larger issue involved is being argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court began to hear oral arguments Wednesday in two appellate cases, but not the one involving Moore, that deal with whether it is constitutional to display Ten Commandments monuments or symbols on public property. The lower court rulings in the two cases appear to contradict each other.
The Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry et al. case originated in Texas and revolves around a 6-foot red granite moment located on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol building in Austin. The monument includes a depiction of the Ten Commandments and the words, "I am the Lord Thy God."
Thomas Van Orden, a Viet Nam veteran and lawyer who is now homeless, originally sued Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry to have the 44-year-old monument removed, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment. However, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Van Orden's argument, citing the monument's long history as the reason why it should be maintained.
The Supreme Court will also hear oral arguments in McCreary County, Kentucky, et al, v. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al, a case involving two counties in Kentucky -- McCreary and Pulaski - and whether officials should be permitted to hang framed copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouse lobbies.
Both county courthouse displays are surrounded by historical documents like the Declaration of Independence, but the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the Ten Commandments displays amounted to government establishment of religion and as a result, were unconstitutional.
Among those who objected to the Sixth Circuit Court's decision is Bernie Reese, a lawyer who has drafted two legal briefs in favor of the Commandments displays. Tuesday, in comments before the National Press Club, Reese said the Ten Commandments serve as the basis for the laws of the United States and should be recognized as such.
"The Ten Commandments should be permitted to be on display because of their history, their recognition throughout time, but what we're really involved with is looking at the roots, the foundation of this nation, which is contained in the Declaration of Independence," Reese said.
"They are the basis for the Declaration. [The Ten Commandments] has an equal right to be displayed as the Declaration of Independence."
The founders of the United States, he said, "put together a Declaration that recognized God, so therefore, if you want to change things, then go back and change the Declaration."
The Ten Commandments have historical value, Reese argued. "[They] are a memory bank of where we came from, a picture of the past. You rip a memory and a conjunction with the past out of the lives of our young people and you're destroying this nation," Reese said. "There is a connection between history and what's happening now."
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, used an analogy to describe what he said was the government's endorsement of religion through the Ten Commandments displays.
"If a judge in the state of Kentucky were to put up a sign in his courtroom that said smoke Marlboro Lights, I think everybody who saw it would say 'That judge is promoting the use of tobacco,'" Lynn said. "So why do people think it would be any different when the Kentucky sign is a framed display of the Ten Commandments and the Texas monument at issue ... is a six-foot high monument shaped as tablets and inscribed with the words of Ten Commandments? In my view, there's no difference at all ..."
Lynn told his National Press Club audience that Americans should consider the context and the content of displays in question. "I'd say that ... any reasonable observer would reach the conclusion that the government which owns those displays is embracing, promoting, and endorsing the images and messages that it has deliberately chosen to display," Lynn said, adding that such promotion is unconstitutional.
"It is a religious document. It is a statement for Christians and Jews of the demands of religious law. When governments promote it, they are deliberately advancing a particular religious viewpoint," Lynn continued. "How could anything be more obviously religious?"
Mat Staver, president and general counsel of the Liberty Counsel, will present arguments before the Supreme Court in favor of the Kentucky wall postings. Staver will reportedly propose that a new standard be formulated in cases involving church and state issues. The new standard, according to Staver, would distinguish between government acknowledgement of religion, which is allowed, and government establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.
Although the Alabama Supreme Court rejected Moore's appeal for reinstatement last April, the former state chief justice has filed his own brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting the two framed displays in Kentucky, according to news reports.
Secular groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and religious groups like the Hindu American Foundation and Anti-Defamation League have reportedly filed briefs with the court arguing against the public display of Ten Commandments symbols.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its rulings on the Texas and Kentucky appeals in June.
[/size][/font]
