Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing

Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing By J.J. Johnson Please excuse the shocking title of this article. I will try to get past much of the rhetoric from both sides of the standoff about the en Commandments on display at the State Courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama. As thousands descend to Alabama's state capitol for prayer and defense of a 5300 pound rock, and legal scholars try to sort out the mess, many pundits wonder 'just what point is Chief Justice Roy Moore trying to make?' Well, here's one man's take on the matter: Despite all the historical documents from this nation's beginning, and despite everything we were taught from a young age, we are a more 'enlightened' people. We elected more 'enlightened' politicians who in turn appointed more 'enlightened' judges. And these all knowing, all powerful people, having more information at their fingertips than at any time in world history, have ruled that the basic rules of mankind that have been in place for at least 50 centuries have no place ; no legal standing in today's government.

The order to remove the Ten Commandments from public display at the Alabama Court Building is not the cause of a failed government, failed courts, or a failed people - it is instead, the result of it.

I will do my best here not to preach a sermon or sound like a right-wing zealot, but no one can tell me what is 'offensive' about those ten rules that are, in reality, the foundation of what was American law. But that's ancient history. We are more 'enlightened' today.

Being the greatest and most powerful country on earth, we don't need silly rules such as those ten. No, we have government today - which has become the new god. And we have finally come to a point where there just isn't enough room on the Grand Stage for two gods. Thus, the courts have consistently ruled in recent days that the 'Other God' must go.

And so, what if God does leave? What if he actually said, "ok, you guys win - and you're on your own"? That would make us a better country, wouldn't it?

Of course. And when folks like Jerry Falwell makes a statement on September 11 implying the God has removed his protective hand from us, we won't have to chastise him - since it would have been true.

And after such tragedies, we won't have national days of prayer, and prayer sessions in Congress while grieving over the dead because there will be no God to pray to. We told Him to get lost, remember? No, let us bow our heads and pray (and pay homage) to the New god of government. They will protect us from now on, and provide for all of our needs.

Let's not sing God Bless America anymore, since we really don't want him to. That's George W. Bush's job now. And let's remove "In God We Trust" from our currency, since we really don't trust him anymore. We've placed our faith in our money supply to Alan Greenspan.

And when it comes to religious symbols, we do our best to protect those in the war zone of Iraq, while throwing our own in the trash.

Word has it that a guy named Moses had gotten these ten rules straight from God himself. Even though e-mail wasn't around back then, God somehow downloaded them on to a couple of stone tablets. When Moses came back down from that mountain and saw the folks that were led out of slavery acting like too many of us today, he threw the tablets down, and they were forced to wander in the desert for 40 years.

But today, in the more enlightened America, we don't have to wander in the desert. We have military personnel to do that for us. And little by little, more will go and wander as well. You see, we have a new god now, and the whole world has become a desert.

So if and when we are plagued with earthquakes, violent storms, endless droughts, brushfires, or just people going crazy and shooting their co-workers or schoolmates, we'll call them "Acts of God", then plead to our new god (government) for our protection from all of these things. Yes, this new god is more to our liking. We can pray, and if the new god doesn't deliver, we can just vote him out of office (federal judges not withstanding). That Old God wouldn't let us do that.

Isn't it ironic that if everyone simply followed those rules, it would make not only that 5300 pound rock, but that entire building itself - irrelevant?

With the polls showing upwards of 77% of Alabamians, and the vast majority of Americans supporting the Ten Commandments being displayed at the courthouse, people are scratching their heads wondering, "why can't they just do what the majority wants?"

We have long since slipped away from those tenants - and it's reflected in the people in government that represent us, enforce the laws, and rule on the laws. Yes, America - we didn't get the kind of government we wanted, nor the kind we needed. We get the kind of government we deserve.

We have become so 'enlightened' that we don't even know how to respect or enforce our own sovereignty. Millions cross our national borders illegally, and our leaders don't even have the will to call it illegal. As a result, we will eventually lose at least 4 southwestern states. I have all but given up trying to make it an issue anymore. We deserve it.

We have become so 'enlightened' that the only criteria for any judge to sit on a bench, despite all the other important decisions they have to make, depends on his or her willingness to sanction the killing of the unborn. Fine. We didn't want them to take the phrase "Thou shall not kill" seriously, anyway.

We have become so 'enlightened' that we fight to protect retirement schemes that we know will go broke soon, but that's okay since we've decided to let our grandchildren pay the bill. Then again, if they have no respect for that "Honor thy Father and Mother" thing when they grow up, why should they bother taking care of us?

We are so 'enlightened' that we find it acceptable to act pre-emptive, killing anyone we see fit to keep us safe, if we think they are a threat. Make sense, since we don't want God's protection anymore. We have to live this way now. We have enemies all around us and even within us we are told - because they envy us. They don't have the new god that we have, and they're jealous.

Gay Bishops are in, Boy Scouts are out, and sodomy has become a civil right, protected by the Constitution somewhere. Okay, I get it. According to our new god, the oldest industry on earth (agriculture) has become the most dangerous to the environment. And we all know that with all the craziness in schools these days, the last thing we need is prayer inside those buildings. Good thing we threw God out of there a long time ago. Just look at how much schools have improved since then.

Yes, for government's sake - let's get those Ten Commandments out of public view before something good happens.

And while we're at it, let's get all those crosses out of Arlington Cemetery. It's public property, you know. And tell all of our troops fighting overseas that worship service is history, turn in those pocket Bibles and as a matter of fact, they must all be atheists in those foxholes.

Let's do it right: Let us all come to an agreement that when the Bill of Rights was passed, they had no respect for any god, despite the fact that the Constitutional Convention was opened and closed with a Prayer to Almighty God. To Congress: Fire that priest we pay with our tax dollars to open and close each session of Congress with Prayer. We have a new god now, remember?

And one more thing: Let's not support Israel anymore, since their presence in the holy land is based on scripture, and our government's support would represent an 'establishment of religion'.

Now, as for those people who have dedicated themselves to prevent the monument's removal, and those who have rallied to the cause - take a good look at them. That's what's left of the American ideal that was founded over two centuries ago - like it or not.

Make no mistake about it. If it weren't for too many trips already taken this year, I'd be there myself from 2000 miles away. Who knows - if the standoff in Alabama lasts, I may still be there. If I lived anywhere in Dixie, I would be writing this article from Montgomery.

Would I suggest others go? Let's put it this way: You don't even have to be a Christian, Jew or even a Muslim. God knows none of us have lived up the standards of all those rules, but it you believe the Ten Commandments should REMAIN the foundation on which this country is based, then take a drive down to Montgomery. Your fellow Americans are waiting for you.

And what about you, Mr. Bush? The silence from the White House is deafening. Is this only a "state issue" where the federal government should not get involved? If that were the case, we wouldn't be in this mess. I would not only pray for protection of the Ten Commandments, but that the President, during his fund raising travels, make a stop in Montgomery to visit with the Chief Justice, or maybe the people standing vigilant outside.

You see America: There is no sense looking for a legal loophole to save the Ten Commandments anymore, as God has no legal standing left in today's courts, government, or much of society. But the way things look from my piece of the world, perhaps it's time we invited Him back.

Power never compresses, it expands. Always has, always will.

Books v. City of Elkhart and Progeny Beginning with Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000), however, courts have minimized the role of context in evaluating the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays. Books involved a display of the Ten Commandments that also included the "all-seeing eye," an American Eagle grasping an American flag, two stars of David, two Greek letters - Chi and Rho, and a small scroll indicating that the monument was presented by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The monument was located on the lawn of the municipal building, and nearby were a war memorial and a freedom monument. The plaque on the freedom monument read: "Behold, friend you are now on hallowed ground for here burns freedom's holy light." Id. at 295-96. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the display, ruling that a reasonable observer would find that the monument was part of the City's overall collection of displays of historical and cultural significance. 79 F. Supp. 2d 979, 1006 (N.D. Ind. 1999).

The court of appeals reversed, however, holding that the display lacked a secular purpose, and that a reasonable observer would perceive a governmental endorsement of religion from the display. 235 F.3d at 307. The court's decision that the display lacked a secular purpose was based primarily on statements made by various clergy at the dedication of the monument in 1958.

The participation of these influential members of several religious congregations makes it clear that the purpose for displaying the monument was not only to provide youths with common code of conduct to guide their participation in the civil community but also to urge the people of Elkhart to embrace the specific religious code of conduct taught in the Ten Commandments. … We cannot escape the conclusion that the purpose in displaying this monument was to promote religious ideals.

Id. at 303. The court also inferred that religious purposes motivated the display from the content of the Ten Commandments themselves. "[W]e do not think it can be said that the Ten Commandments, standing by themselves, can be stripped of their religious, indeed sacred, significance and characterized as a moral or ethical document." The court found the religious nature of the text enhanced by the Jewish and Christian symbols at the bottom of the tablet. Id. at 302.

In similar vein, the court of appeals held that the display in Books advanced religion because a reasonable observer would perceive a governmental endorsement of religion.

Here, in front of the building that houses the governmental departments of the City, stands a religious message. This granite monument is a permanent fixture on the grounds of the seat of government. As viewed by the passer-by or by an individual approaching the building, the monument certainly cannot be fairly characterized as a component of a comprehensive display of the cultural heritage of the people of Elkhart. Rather, it stands, as the City intended it to be when it dedicated the monument on Memorial Day in 1958, as a sole and stark reminder of the specific injunctions contained in the Commandments. Indeed, the surrounding area enhances the dignity and the primacy of the Commandments. Above the door of the Municipal Building are the Latin words "Dedicatum Justitia." Those who view the Ten Commandments are thus informed that the role of the government in that location is to do justice; the only "law" displayed for doing justice is the monument bearing the Ten Commandments. The only other display on the lawn of the Municipal Building is the War Memorial that reminds the onlooker that the space in front of the Municipal Building is "hallowed ground." The person approaching the seat of government is thus informed that, at that location, the government goes about the business of doing justice, that the only "law" displayed is the Commandments, and that these Commandments are displayed on land designated by the government as "hallowed ground."

Id. at 306 (citations omitted).

The court gave lip service to the Supreme Court's analyses in Lynch and Allegheny, but the court's conclusions are arguably irreconcilable with those cases. As the dissent argued, the display in Books is actually less religious than the display in Lynch. The creche in Lynch is solely a religious symbol, while the Ten Commandments are both religious and secular because six of the commandments form the basis of the nation's laws. Id. at 317 (Manion, J., dissenting). Judge Manion explained further:

True, there were many more holiday displays present in Lynch than are located in the 25-foot-wide courtyard at issue here, but Elkhart's display still includes more than the total of three involved in Allegheny. In Allegheny, in addition to the menorah, there stood only a Christmas tree and a sign stating "Salute to Liberty." Compared to Allegheny's constitutional "salute to liberty" display, Elkhart's cultural and historical display more fully neutralizes the religious dimension of the Ten Commandments. In short, if the menorah was constitutional in Allegheny, the Ten Commandments display must be in this case.

Id. at 317.

The court of appeals' secular purpose analysis in Books is also more reflective of Stone than Lynch or Allegheny. As did the Court in Stone, the Seventh Circuit court summarily rejected the government's articulated secular purpose for the display, ignoring the Supreme Court's teaching that 1) government actors may have religious motives for enacting a law or policy, provided they also have a legitimate secular purpose, see, e.g., Board of Education of Westside Community Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 249 (1990) (plurality), and 2) only one secular purpose need exist. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. at 681 n.6. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit focused primarily on the statements of private citizens at the monument's dedication almost a half century ago, long before a ban on governmental endorsement of religion was read into the Establishment Clause. The court virtually ignored the purposes articulated by the Elkhart City Council for retaining the monument once the ACLU challenged its constitutionality.

Specifically, the City Council decided to retain the Ten Commandments monument because as one of the earliest codes of conduct, the Ten Commandments had a significant impact on the development of the fundamental legal principles of Western Civilization. The City Council also noted that "the monument contains symbols that reflect the cross cultural and historical significance of the Ten Commandments" and that the monument serves as a recognition of those roots. See id. at 313 (Manion, J., dissenting). Yet, as the dissent observed: The court acknowledges the validity of Elkhart's asserted secular purposes, stating "the text of the Ten Commandments no doubt has played a role in the secular development of our society and can no doubt be presented by the government as playing such a role in our civic order." … Yet the court concludes that "the purpose in displaying the Ten Commandments monument was not secular." How can the court on one hand recognize the legitimacy of this purpose and on the other conclude that Elkhart lacks a legitimate secular purpose for leaving the Ten Commandments monument in place? Apparently, the court just doesn't believe that the City of Elkhart's statement of secular purposes is sincere and not a sham. … [A]bsent some evidence that the [City] Council's stated reasons for its decision are insincere, we should defer to those asserted justifications. … This is in keeping with the well settled maxim that courts are "reluctant to attribute unconstitutional motives to the States, particularly when a plausible secular purpose for the State's program may be discerned from the face of the statute." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394-95 (1983). This is true whether the governing body is a state legislature or a city council.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the caissons go rolling along...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.