Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Wow! Now that I see the whole thing there in black and white, it is perfectly obvious that displaying the Ten Commandments in a Federal Courthouse violates the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion. Silly me.
Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment. See, for example,
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Justice Black wrote that, "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." He continues: "[The First Amendment] requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers."
Erecting a 2.5 ton monument to a religious document, at the exclusion of all other religions, violates this definition of government's responsibilities under the First Amendment. Moore clearly was not creating a religious marketplace of ideas in his courthouse.
See also Justice Black's opinion in
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962). In it he concludes that when "the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain."
Justice Clark refines this view more in
Abington School District v. Schempp, 375 U.S. 203 (1963). He contends that "to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Can you honestly argue that Moore's primary purpose in displaying the monument was secular? His own words don't suggest so.
From this comes the famous "Lemon Test" that arises out of
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Chief Justice Burger identifies three "main evils" against which the Establishment Clause serves to protect: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." Three tests measure compliance with the Establishment Clause. First, "a statute must have a secular legislative purpose." Next, "its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." And finally, "the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"
The Lemon Test has undergone modification over time, particularly in the 1990s, but its main tenet still remains: that government must act in a neutral manner toward religion, neither promoting nor attacking any religion through its laws and actions. Thus legislatures may engage in an optional morning prayer with non-denominational speakers or rotating denominations. And, as well, government representatives such as Judge Moore may not publicly display, at taxpayer expense and on taxpayer-funded property, a monument that clearly favors one religion over another. If he desires to put the monument in his private quarters, then that's well within his rights. I hope he has room to fit it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
