ACLU v. McCreary County (Supreme Court, 2005): Ten Commandments Displays
< Continued from page 1
ACLU Arguments
According to the ACLU, it might be legitimate to display the Ten Commandments if some explanation of their connection to American law or government is made, but the McCreary County display didn?t do this ? it merely asserted that the Ten Commandment are the moral background of the law. The McCreary County display was not a secular message and the various documents did not ?share a common secular theme or subject matter.? Thus, the purpose of the display was religious rather than secular.
It must also be remembered that the Ten Commandments continue to be an active symbol of religion and an active expression of particular religious dogmas. They are not merely historical by any stretch of the imagination. This means that special care must be taken in any display of the Ten Commandments, even in a display that is arguably constitutional, but McCreary County didn?t do this. On the contrary, the history of the display reveals that they had the promotion of religion in mind all the time. They argue that they want to educate people about the law, but that is mere pretense.
Finally, it is clear that the effect as well as the purpose of the law is to promote religion. No connection between the Ten Commandments and any of the other documents is explained ? it?s asserted, but that?s not the same thing. A reasonable observer would therefore not see any connection and interpret the display of the Ten Commandments as an effort to promote them as such rather than as anything connected to the origins of American law.
McCreary County Arguments
According to McCreary County lawyers, the Ten Commandments are displayed in court houses all over the nation, making the display in McCreary County unremarkable. They are simply a facet of America?s heritage as a Christian Nation and shouldn?t arouse any great opposition, even from non-Christians. We don?t object to displays of documents like the Declaration of Independence which reference God, so we shouldn?t object to the Ten Commandments simply because they reference God.
Lawyers acknowledged that the original Ten Commandments display was deeply flawed, reflecting not only religious intent but also producing a religious effect. They argued, though, that they had seen the error of their ways during the first court challenge and that is why they drastically altered the display currently being challenged. This new display removed all the problematic religious references and the county shouldn?t be punished further for doing the right thing.
Moreover, when arguing before the Supreme Court lawyers for the County claims that any inquiry into the purpose behind such displays was misguided because true ?purpose? is unknowable ? thus, trying to make such an inquiry is merely and invitation for judges to impose their own assumptions upon the actions of others. This was a curious argument given the fact that inquiries about the purpose of a law are a standard aspect of so many legal judgments.
Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld that Sixth Circuit Court decision that even under the amended display, there was no integration of the Ten Commandments with secular material such that the entire display could be said to have a ?secular message.? The nature of the original display made it clear that the whole purpose was to send a ?religious message? and that the changes were made merely to get around constitutional limitations.
In his majority opinion, Justice Souter emphasized the principle that government must remain neutral between various religions as well as between religion and nonreligion:
In her concurring opinion, Justice O?Connor emphasized the fact that the government doesn?t have the authority to promote religious beliefs merely because they are followed by a majority:
This decision did not ban all Ten Commandments displays. Integrating the Ten Commandments into a larger display about the history of law may work; promoting the Ten Commandments as part of an obvious religious message won?t. Those arguing for the Ten Commandments, though, specifically want that religious message.
ACLU Arguments
According to the ACLU, it might be legitimate to display the Ten Commandments if some explanation of their connection to American law or government is made, but the McCreary County display didn?t do this ? it merely asserted that the Ten Commandment are the moral background of the law. The McCreary County display was not a secular message and the various documents did not ?share a common secular theme or subject matter.? Thus, the purpose of the display was religious rather than secular.
It must also be remembered that the Ten Commandments continue to be an active symbol of religion and an active expression of particular religious dogmas. They are not merely historical by any stretch of the imagination. This means that special care must be taken in any display of the Ten Commandments, even in a display that is arguably constitutional, but McCreary County didn?t do this. On the contrary, the history of the display reveals that they had the promotion of religion in mind all the time. They argue that they want to educate people about the law, but that is mere pretense.
Finally, it is clear that the effect as well as the purpose of the law is to promote religion. No connection between the Ten Commandments and any of the other documents is explained ? it?s asserted, but that?s not the same thing. A reasonable observer would therefore not see any connection and interpret the display of the Ten Commandments as an effort to promote them as such rather than as anything connected to the origins of American law.
McCreary County Arguments
According to McCreary County lawyers, the Ten Commandments are displayed in court houses all over the nation, making the display in McCreary County unremarkable. They are simply a facet of America?s heritage as a Christian Nation and shouldn?t arouse any great opposition, even from non-Christians. We don?t object to displays of documents like the Declaration of Independence which reference God, so we shouldn?t object to the Ten Commandments simply because they reference God.
Lawyers acknowledged that the original Ten Commandments display was deeply flawed, reflecting not only religious intent but also producing a religious effect. They argued, though, that they had seen the error of their ways during the first court challenge and that is why they drastically altered the display currently being challenged. This new display removed all the problematic religious references and the county shouldn?t be punished further for doing the right thing.
Moreover, when arguing before the Supreme Court lawyers for the County claims that any inquiry into the purpose behind such displays was misguided because true ?purpose? is unknowable ? thus, trying to make such an inquiry is merely and invitation for judges to impose their own assumptions upon the actions of others. This was a curious argument given the fact that inquiries about the purpose of a law are a standard aspect of so many legal judgments.
Outcome
The Supreme Court upheld that Sixth Circuit Court decision that even under the amended display, there was no integration of the Ten Commandments with secular material such that the entire display could be said to have a ?secular message.? The nature of the original display made it clear that the whole purpose was to send a ?religious message? and that the changes were made merely to get around constitutional limitations.
In his majority opinion, Justice Souter emphasized the principle that government must remain neutral between various religions as well as between religion and nonreligion:
- ?The display?s unstinting focus was on religious passages, showing that the Counties were posting the Commandments precisely because of their sectarian content. That demonstration of the government?s objective was enhanced by serial religious references and the accompanying resolution?s claim about the embodiment of ethics in Christ. Together, the display and resolution presented an indisputable, and undisputed, showing of an impermissible purpose.?
In her concurring opinion, Justice O?Connor emphasized the fact that the government doesn?t have the authority to promote religious beliefs merely because they are followed by a majority:
- ?It is true that many Americans find the Commandments in accord with their personal beliefs. But we do not count heads before enforcing the First Amendment. ... Nor can we accept the theory that Americans who do not accept the Commandments? validity are outside the First Amendment?s protections. There is no list of approved and disapproved beliefs appended to the First Amendment...?
This decision did not ban all Ten Commandments displays. Integrating the Ten Commandments into a larger display about the history of law may work; promoting the Ten Commandments as part of an obvious religious message won?t. Those arguing for the Ten Commandments, though, specifically want that religious message.
Source...