Posted on 08/22/2002 11:33:40 AM PDT by AmerRepb
Contact: Mat Staver
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 22, 2002
Kentucky Judge: Ten Commandments Displayed in Kentucky Courthouses Are Constitutional
LEXINGTON, KY - Today, Federal District Court Judge Karl Forrester in the Eastern District of Kentucky held that a display of the Ten Commandments together with other historical documents in Rowan and Mercer Counties in Kentucky are constitutional. Rowan and Mercer Counties were sued by the ACLU of Kentucky. The ACLU requested the judge to issue an injunction requiring the Ten Commandments to be taken down while the cases were pending in court. Judge Forrester denied the request for an Injunction and instead stated that the displays were constitutional. Rowan County is represented by Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, and Erik W. Stanley, Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel. Mercer County is represented jointly by Liberty Counsel and the American Center for Law and Justice.
Rowan, Mercer, Garrard and Grayson counties in Kentucky were sued simultaneously by the ACLU for displays containing the Ten Commandments in county courthouses. The displays include the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Charta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, and a picture of Lady Justice. Named the "Foundations of American Law and Government" display, the displays are intended to display several documents that have played a significant role in the founding of our system of law and government. Grayson County's display was previously ordered removed in May. A decision on Garrard County's display is pending before Judge Forrester. The four lawsuits followed a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in 2000 against McCreary, Pulaski and Harlan counties in Kentucky. In those cases, Judge Jennifer Coffman ordered that the displays, which are identical to the Rowan and Mercer County displays, be taken down. McCreary, Pulaski and Harlan Counties are also represented by Liberty Counsel and have appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument on the McCreary case is expected before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in December.
Judge Forrester's decision today will be followed by a written opinion. Judge Forrester commented in Court that there are two issues in deciding the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays. The first issue is whether the display was erected for an entirely religious purpose. Judge Forrester stated that the displays in Rowan and Mercer counties were educational in nature and that there was no evidence that they were erected for an entirely religious purpose. The second issue is whether a reasonable observer would view the display as an endorsement of religion. The ACLU had argued that the Ten Commandments are an entirely religious document that played no role in the foundation of our system of law and government. Judge Forrester rejected that argument and said that the Ten Commandments are historical and did have a role to play in our system of law and government, therefore, they may be constitutionally displayed. Judge Forrester also commented that he specifically disagreed with the decisions ordering the Ten Commandments to be taken down in Grayson and McCreary Counties.
Mat Staver hailed today's decision as a great victory. Staver stated, "Today's decision begins to turn the tide against the ACLU who has been on a search and destroy mission to remove all vestiges of our religious history from public view. The ACLU's attempts to remove the Ten Commandments from public display are nothing more than historical revisionism at its worst." Staver added, "Whether the ACLU likes it or not, history is crystal clear that each one of the Ten Commandments has played an important role in the founding of our system of law and government. Each one of the Ten Commandments was adopted as law by 12 of the 13 original American colonies." Staver also added, "As long as a governmental entity displays the Ten Commandments together with other historical documents and does so for an educational or historical purpose, such displays will be constitutional." Staver concluded, "We are pleased that Judge Forrester found these displays constitutional and are confident that the Sixth Circuit will do likewise when it takes this issue up in December in the McCreary county case."
At last! A judge with some common sense!
That's a new tack--weak defense to undermine.
You seem to be threading two concepts together simultaneously: the people preaching (free speech) and taxes (appropriations). Well, let's get the field in order, shall we? May we, for sake of argument, state the rightful place of the federal government is a)interstate commerce and b) national defense, and nothing more? And may we also posit that the state and local governments and the people reserve all powers and rights remaining?
Then, is your objection to the fedgov using money thus, or the state, or the local, or all of the above? Do you have an objection to the preachers on legal grounds, or are you just complaining about them?
Have to admit tho, I have coveted Dick Cheney.
Agreed 100%.
And may we also posit that the state and local governments and the people reserve all powers and rights remaining?
Yes, but the states and local gov'ts should not be making laws that violate the Bill of Rights.
Then, is your objection to the fedgov using money thus, or the state, or the local, or all of the above?
All of the above.
Do you have an objection to the preachers on legal grounds, or are you just complaining about them?
I'm just complaining about them. They have a right to free speech, but so do I. I intend to exercise that right the next time... Will I actually follow through with that intention is another matter.
The Bill of Rights in the Constitution (which is actually the only consitution in the US that doesn't have a "Bill of Rights" originally written in it) should be a limit on federal power, no? If state governments have bills of rights that preclude the use of public funds for endorsement of religion (though a strong argument might be made for "nondenominational" support being non-endorsing of any particular religion), then I can see why they should be prohibited, but not on the basis of a limitation of the power of Congress.
If that's agreed, then which state constitution are we talking about? Or would you prefer to go about this from the other end--that is, from the theoretical arguments for and against public endorsement of religion?
I have to admit that your point is a valid one in that the First Amendment only prohibits Congress (not state gov'ts) from making law regarding religion. In fact, there are indeed state laws right now, for example, that even prohibit non-Christians or Atheists from holding office.
But, federal dollars are distributed among the states. (Whether that's right or wrong is another argument, I guess, but a fact for now). So, the federal gov't has become mixed with the state gov't.
Also, the states are collecting an income tax from all working residents, no matter what their religious beliefs. Yes, there are state laws that make it legal to do so, even if the funds are used to endorse a particular religion. But, I'd like to see those particular laws abolished.
Or would you prefer to go about this from the other end--that is, from the theoretical arguments for and against public endorsement of religion?
Remember, it can always go the other way. Today: State endorsement of religion. Tomorrow: State abolishment of religion. I wouldn't want either to happen.
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.