Friday, July 01, 2005
Court's ruling on Decalogue split
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court this week wrestled with whether religious symbols can be permissible on government property, splitting two decisions over the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments.
In separate 5-4 rulings, the court struck down posting the Decalogue in two Kentucky county courthouses, while allowing the display of a six-foot granite monument of the tablets on the grounds of the Texas Capitol amidst other historical markers.
While she was pleased with the Kentucky ruling that the display of the Ten Commandments unconstitutionally promoted religion, Bettysue Feuer, Cleveland-based regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, was disappointed in the Texas decision.
Even if displaying the sacred tablets is deemed constitutional, she asks, which Ten Commandments should be displayed? The Jewish version differs from the Commandments accepted by Christian faiths.
"Now we have a huge policy issue," Feuer says. "We all feel our version is the right one. Of course the Bahais, Hindus and atheists don't believe any of them are right."
Furthermore, presenting the religious symbol as merely one of many important documents and monuments denigrates the religious value of the Ten Commandments, she says.
In the two Supreme Court decisions totaling 150 pages, different majorities, with Justice Stephen Breyer as the swing vote in each ruling, found the Kentucky display had an overtly religious purpose and motivation, while the Texas monument did not. In each decision, the court invoked the constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion.
It was the first time the Supreme Court had ruled on the Ten Commandments issue in 25 years. In 1980, the justices barred posting them in public schools.
The justices stressed the context and intent of each display in the rulings, which hinged on whether or not posting the Ten Commandments violated the First Amendment's prohibition against "establishing" or promoting a religion.
Liberal and conservative Jewish organizations found something to applaud in the decisions. While most Jewish groups oppose the public display of the Ten Commandments as a violation of church-state separation, these organizations were pleased that even in allowing the Texas monument, the justices said government must not promote religion.
Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a written statement that the decisions affirmed "government neutrality toward religion at a time when, as Justice (David) Souter acknowledged, the religious community appears to be increasingly divided in American public life."
However, Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, noted that the ruling meant that groups wanting to promote a religious message will simply cloak that intent in a secular purpose.
"It's going to require them to be circumspect in their intent, which is not a bad thing, but will lead to some hypocrisy," said Stern.
Orthodox Jewish groups, which support posting the Ten Commandments, said in a written statement that they were satisfied the rulings recognized that a proper expression of religion had a rightful place in the public arena. However, Rabbi Abba Cohen, Washington director and counsel for Agudath Israel of America, disputed the notion that public display of the Decalogue promoted religion.
"It strains the imagination that displays of the Ten Commandments in courts can be viewed as an establishment of religion," he said. "All such displays simply seek to acknowledge the Commandments' historical significance for the rule of law."
Some local Jewish leaders complained that the narrowly drawn decisions provided limited guidance, guaranteeing more litigation on the subject.
"This makes it more difficult for the lower courts," notes the ADL's Feuer.
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations said it welcomed the rulings, which rejected extreme positions in favor of the "sensible approach" of neutrality. "It is a very good day for the Constitution in general and for religious liberty in the United States in particular," the organization said in a statement.
The OU joined with other Orthodox organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of the Texas monument. While the Orthodox groups' brief also backed the display of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky case, it did acknowledge that the "evidence of religious favoritism" by public officials might "constitute impermissible endorsement of religion."
Nathan Diament, OU director of public policy, said, "As representatives of the faith to whom the Ten Commandments were initially given on Sinai, we have a deep appreciation for the role these principles have played in the development of a just and moral society. To entirely eliminate their display from the public square on the basis of their religious source would be a misguided attempt to oust religion from its critical role in American life."
In the Kentucky case, McCreary County vs. ACLU, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, noted that the intent behind the display of the Commandments is crucial to its constitutionality.
Some displays of the Ten Commandments, including the one of Moses carrying the tablets next to images of Confucius, Mohammed, Augustus Caesar and Napoleon in the frieze on the Supreme Court building, are legal, he pointed out. But the two Kentucky counties originally stressed Christian values in the Ten Commandments when they hung them in the courtrooms.
After the American Civil Liberties Union sued to have the Decalogue removed, the counties added other exhibits, such as the national motto of "In God We Trust," to show "America's Christian heritage." Later, when a federal court ruled against that display, saying it promoted religion, the counties added historical documents such as the Bill of Rights.
"The secular purpose required has to be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective," Souter wrote in the decision striking down the Kentucky display.
In the Texas case, Van Orden vs. Perry, Judge William Rehnquist, writing the plurality opinion, acknowledged that there must be a division between religion and government. "Of course the Ten Commandments are religious, but simply "having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause."
While joining in the Texas judgment, Breyer wrote his own opinion, describing the case as "borderline." Because the monument has been displayed for 40 years without challenge, he said most people clearly did not find it promoted religion. Rather, the public understood the granite tablets to be part of a "broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing a dissent in the Texas case, said that the monument was not a passive acknowledgement of religion, as the majority opinion stated. "This nation's resolute commitment to neutrality with respect to religion is flatly inconsistent with the plurality's wholehearted validation of ... the message that there is one, and only one, God," he said.
Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement that he was gratified that the Supreme Court recognized the Ten Commandments as an inherently religious text. While the organization disagreed with the court's conclusion in the Texas case, Shapiro said, "a majority of the court has now clearly reaffirmed the principle that government may not promote a religious message through its display of the Ten Commandments."
The ACLU of Ohio was not prepared to comment on the two cases, said spokesman John Durkalski. Attorneys are still carefully studying the implications of the rulings on other Ten Commandments cases that the civil liberties group is litigating. The ACLU has sued over a display of the Ten Commandments in a Lucas County (Toledo) courtroom.
However, the day after the Supreme Court's rulings in the Ten Commandments cases, the ACLU claimed another victory on the issue. The Supreme Court declined to review the lower court rulings in two Ohio cases brought by the ACLU that involved the Ten Commandments.
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last year that Ohio Valley/Adams County school officials must remove monuments displaying the Decalogue from the grounds of public high schools. The same court also ordered a Richland County judge to remove posters of the Ten Commandments hung in his courtroom. The Supreme Court action means the Sixth Circuit rulings stand.
John Hexter, area director of the American Jewish Committee, found the mixed signals of the Supreme Court rulings on the Texas and Kentucky cases to be puzzling.
In his dissent in the Kentucky case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the authors of the Constitution did not intend to ban religion from public life. "Nothing stands behind the court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the court's own say-so."
Hexter took issue with Scalia's pronouncement that there was nothing unconstitutional in the state favoring religion generally. "This leaves out a whole lot of people who are doubters and who are protected under a secular system. Or, it tends to favor one religion over another."
-with reports from JTA
Liberal and conservative Jewish organizations found something to applaud in the decisions.
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/07/01/news/local/bcover0701.txt
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court this week wrestled with whether religious symbols can be permissible on government property, splitting two decisions over the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments.
In separate 5-4 rulings, the court struck down posting the Decalogue in two Kentucky county courthouses, while allowing the display of a six-foot granite monument of the tablets on the grounds of the Texas Capitol amidst other historical markers.
While she was pleased with the Kentucky ruling that the display of the Ten Commandments unconstitutionally promoted religion, Bettysue Feuer, Cleveland-based regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, was disappointed in the Texas decision.
Even if displaying the sacred tablets is deemed constitutional, she asks, which Ten Commandments should be displayed? The Jewish version differs from the Commandments accepted by Christian faiths.
"Now we have a huge policy issue," Feuer says. "We all feel our version is the right one. Of course the Bahais, Hindus and atheists don't believe any of them are right."
Furthermore, presenting the religious symbol as merely one of many important documents and monuments denigrates the religious value of the Ten Commandments, she says.
In the two Supreme Court decisions totaling 150 pages, different majorities, with Justice Stephen Breyer as the swing vote in each ruling, found the Kentucky display had an overtly religious purpose and motivation, while the Texas monument did not. In each decision, the court invoked the constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion.
It was the first time the Supreme Court had ruled on the Ten Commandments issue in 25 years. In 1980, the justices barred posting them in public schools.
The justices stressed the context and intent of each display in the rulings, which hinged on whether or not posting the Ten Commandments violated the First Amendment's prohibition against "establishing" or promoting a religion.
Liberal and conservative Jewish organizations found something to applaud in the decisions. While most Jewish groups oppose the public display of the Ten Commandments as a violation of church-state separation, these organizations were pleased that even in allowing the Texas monument, the justices said government must not promote religion.
Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said in a written statement that the decisions affirmed "government neutrality toward religion at a time when, as Justice (David) Souter acknowledged, the religious community appears to be increasingly divided in American public life."
However, Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, noted that the ruling meant that groups wanting to promote a religious message will simply cloak that intent in a secular purpose.
"It's going to require them to be circumspect in their intent, which is not a bad thing, but will lead to some hypocrisy," said Stern.
Orthodox Jewish groups, which support posting the Ten Commandments, said in a written statement that they were satisfied the rulings recognized that a proper expression of religion had a rightful place in the public arena. However, Rabbi Abba Cohen, Washington director and counsel for Agudath Israel of America, disputed the notion that public display of the Decalogue promoted religion.
"It strains the imagination that displays of the Ten Commandments in courts can be viewed as an establishment of religion," he said. "All such displays simply seek to acknowledge the Commandments' historical significance for the rule of law."
Some local Jewish leaders complained that the narrowly drawn decisions provided limited guidance, guaranteeing more litigation on the subject.
"This makes it more difficult for the lower courts," notes the ADL's Feuer.
The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations said it welcomed the rulings, which rejected extreme positions in favor of the "sensible approach" of neutrality. "It is a very good day for the Constitution in general and for religious liberty in the United States in particular," the organization said in a statement.
The OU joined with other Orthodox organizations in filing an amicus brief in support of the Texas monument. While the Orthodox groups' brief also backed the display of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky case, it did acknowledge that the "evidence of religious favoritism" by public officials might "constitute impermissible endorsement of religion."
Nathan Diament, OU director of public policy, said, "As representatives of the faith to whom the Ten Commandments were initially given on Sinai, we have a deep appreciation for the role these principles have played in the development of a just and moral society. To entirely eliminate their display from the public square on the basis of their religious source would be a misguided attempt to oust religion from its critical role in American life."
In the Kentucky case, McCreary County vs. ACLU, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, noted that the intent behind the display of the Commandments is crucial to its constitutionality.
Some displays of the Ten Commandments, including the one of Moses carrying the tablets next to images of Confucius, Mohammed, Augustus Caesar and Napoleon in the frieze on the Supreme Court building, are legal, he pointed out. But the two Kentucky counties originally stressed Christian values in the Ten Commandments when they hung them in the courtrooms.
After the American Civil Liberties Union sued to have the Decalogue removed, the counties added other exhibits, such as the national motto of "In God We Trust," to show "America's Christian heritage." Later, when a federal court ruled against that display, saying it promoted religion, the counties added historical documents such as the Bill of Rights.
"The secular purpose required has to be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective," Souter wrote in the decision striking down the Kentucky display.
In the Texas case, Van Orden vs. Perry, Judge William Rehnquist, writing the plurality opinion, acknowledged that there must be a division between religion and government. "Of course the Ten Commandments are religious, but simply "having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause."
While joining in the Texas judgment, Breyer wrote his own opinion, describing the case as "borderline." Because the monument has been displayed for 40 years without challenge, he said most people clearly did not find it promoted religion. Rather, the public understood the granite tablets to be part of a "broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing a dissent in the Texas case, said that the monument was not a passive acknowledgement of religion, as the majority opinion stated. "This nation's resolute commitment to neutrality with respect to religion is flatly inconsistent with the plurality's wholehearted validation of ... the message that there is one, and only one, God," he said.
Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement that he was gratified that the Supreme Court recognized the Ten Commandments as an inherently religious text. While the organization disagreed with the court's conclusion in the Texas case, Shapiro said, "a majority of the court has now clearly reaffirmed the principle that government may not promote a religious message through its display of the Ten Commandments."
The ACLU of Ohio was not prepared to comment on the two cases, said spokesman John Durkalski. Attorneys are still carefully studying the implications of the rulings on other Ten Commandments cases that the civil liberties group is litigating. The ACLU has sued over a display of the Ten Commandments in a Lucas County (Toledo) courtroom.
However, the day after the Supreme Court's rulings in the Ten Commandments cases, the ACLU claimed another victory on the issue. The Supreme Court declined to review the lower court rulings in two Ohio cases brought by the ACLU that involved the Ten Commandments.
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last year that Ohio Valley/Adams County school officials must remove monuments displaying the Decalogue from the grounds of public high schools. The same court also ordered a Richland County judge to remove posters of the Ten Commandments hung in his courtroom. The Supreme Court action means the Sixth Circuit rulings stand.
John Hexter, area director of the American Jewish Committee, found the mixed signals of the Supreme Court rulings on the Texas and Kentucky cases to be puzzling.
In his dissent in the Kentucky case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the authors of the Constitution did not intend to ban religion from public life. "Nothing stands behind the court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the court's own say-so."
Hexter took issue with Scalia's pronouncement that there was nothing unconstitutional in the state favoring religion generally. "This leaves out a whole lot of people who are doubters and who are protected under a secular system. Or, it tends to favor one religion over another."
-with reports from JTA
Liberal and conservative Jewish organizations found something to applaud in the decisions.
http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2005/07/01/news/local/bcover0701.txt
Comments:
Post a Comment
