Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 06-26-2003, 09:11 AM

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled today that a Ten Commandments plaque displayed near the entrance of the Chester County (Pa.) Courthouse doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. The opinion is available in PDF here. The file is large and is currently downloading at a painfully slow pace.

Edit - You'll find news on the ruling here.

beejay · 06-26-2003, 09:27 AM

Hmmm.

Any speculation on how this would fare on appeal?

Here's an article for those who prefer a summarized version.

Quote:

The Associated Press
6/26/2003, 11:49 a.m. ET

PHILADELPHIA (AP) � A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a Ten
Commandments plaque on the facade of a suburban courthouse does not
constitute an official endorsement of religion and may remain there.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals overturned a March
2002 lower court decision that
the plaque was inherently a
religious statement, improper
for a government building, and
must be taken down.

AP news story

topane · 06-26-2003, 11:34 AM

Dammit, and I have to live here, too.

Margaret Downey lives in the same neighborhood as one of my cow-orkers. He was telling me about how when she first filed the lawsuit all the people in the neighborhood put 10C signs in their front yards. He was quite proud of himself.

I imagine all these "historical" 10C's are going to stay up for the time being. Perhaps people should start donating plaques with the Bill of Rights on it to local courthouses.

Toto · 06-26-2003, 02:08 PM

Arghh :banghead:

I just started reading the opinion.

Quote:

Alternatively, applying the Lemon test, under which the County must also have a legitimate secular purpose, we note that the District Court found believable the testimony of the Commissioners that they thought the Ten Commandments plaque celebrated the significance of the decalogue as a foundational legal document. We note too that the Commissioners� conclusions are buttressed by some well documented history, presented by Chester County and its amici, to the effect that the Ten Commandments have an independent secular meaning in our society because they are regarded as a significant basis of American law and the American polity, including the prohibitions against murder and blasphemy. Because the purpose prong is subjective, it appears that the Commissioners� articulation of a secular purpose for refusing to remove the plaque met the requirements of Lemon.

Secular laws against blasphemy? How about those secular laws calling for the burning of witches?

:banghead:

Toto · 06-26-2003, 02:28 PM

Alas.

Quote:

As a preliminary matter, we cannot ignore the inherently religious message of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged this explicitly in Stone v. Graham, a case involving a Kentucky statute which required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public school classroom:

The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten
Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly
religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are
undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian
faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed
secular purpose can blind us to that fact.
449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980).

However, we do not believe that Stone holds that there can never be a secular purpose for posting the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments are so overwhelmingly religious in nature that they will always be seen only as an endorsement of religion; rather, we conclude that Stone is fairly limited to its facts. Stone held that a statute, recently enacted, requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms is an endorsement of religion by the state, considering the inherently religious nature of the Ten Commandments. But as the Court itself observed in Edwards, �in Stone [our] decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization.� 482 U.S. at 594.

Then they discuss the reasonable observer test and cite King v. Richmond County, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10943 (11th Cir. 2003), the case involving the representation of two tablets that looked like the 10C on a county seal.

Quote:

Of course, we agree that her examples of �ceremonial deism� are not violations of the Establishment Clause, e.g., the opening of court with the introduction �God save the United States and this Honorable Court� (used in this very Court), or the inscription �In God We Trust� on U.S. coins. But we do not think this is so because the phrases themselves have lost their religious significance. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that these two phrases invoking God would not be perceived as religious. Yet, in context, the phrase �In God We Trust� has taken on a secular meaning that changes the effect on the reasonable viewer; it is a cultural tradition and a well-known marker identifying money as authentic. Similarly, over time, the opening words �God save the United States and this Honorable Court� have taken on the secular purpose of �solemnizing public occasions� and �expressing confidence in the future.� Id. Thus, the reasonable observer, aware of the history of these invocations of God, views the religious language as tempered by the secular meaning that has emerged over the passage of time; the overall effect is that the reasonable person would not perceive in these phrases a government endorsement of religion (despite the clear use of the word �God�).

beejay · 06-26-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

the overall effect is that the reasonable person would not perceive in these phrases a government endorsement of religion (despite the clear use of the word �God�).

Boy, I hate it when a Federal Court of Appeals calls me unreasonable.

Arken · 06-26-2003, 02:41 PM

No words can express my anger at this... no words that are applicable to polite company anyway...

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Toto · 06-26-2003, 03:56 PM

Alas.

Quote:

As a preliminary matter, we cannot ignore the inherently religious message of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged this explicitly in Stone v. Graham, a case involving a Kentucky statute which required the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public school classroom:

The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten
Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly
religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are
undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian
faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed
secular purpose can blind us to that fact.
449 U.S. 39, 41 (1980).

However, we do not believe that Stone holds that there can never be a secular purpose for posting the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments are so overwhelmingly religious in nature that they will always be seen only as an endorsement of religion; rather, we conclude that Stone is fairly limited to its facts. Stone held that a statute, recently enacted, requiring the posting of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms is an endorsement of religion by the state, considering the inherently religious nature of the Ten Commandments. But as the Court itself observed in Edwards, �in Stone [our] decision forbidding the posting of the Ten Commandments did not mean that no use could ever be made of the Ten Commandments, or that the Ten Commandments played an exclusively religious role in the history of Western Civilization.� 482 U.S. at 594.

Then they discuss the reasonable observer test and cite King v. Richmond County, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 10943 (11th Cir. 2003), the case involving the representation of two tablets that looked like the 10C on a county seal.

Quote:

Of course, we agree that her examples of �ceremonial deism� are not violations of the Establishment Clause, e.g., the opening of court with the introduction �God save the United States and this Honorable Court� (used in this very Court), or the inscription �In God We Trust� on U.S. coins. But we do not think this is so because the phrases themselves have lost their religious significance. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that these two phrases invoking God would not be perceived as religious. Yet, in context, the phrase �In God We Trust� has taken on a secular meaning that changes the effect on the reasonable viewer; it is a cultural tradition and a well-known marker identifying money as authentic. Similarly, over time, the opening words �God save the United States and this Honorable Court� have taken on the secular purpose of �solemnizing public occasions� and �expressing confidence in the future.� Id. Thus, the reasonable observer, aware of the history of these invocations of God, views the religious language as tempered by the secular meaning that has emerged over the passage of time; the overall effect is that the reasonable person would not perceive in these phrases a government endorsement of religion (despite the clear use of the word �God�).

Toto · 06-26-2003, 04:43 PM

More:

Quote:

This conclusion is supported by some well documented history, presented by Chester County and its amici, to the effect that the Ten Commandments have an independent secular meaning in our society because they are regarded as a significant basis of American law and the American polity, including the prohibitions against murder and blasphemy. See, e.g., Bertera�s Hopewell Foodland, Inc. v. Masters, 236 A.2d 197, 200-01 (Pa. 1967) (noting that the Sunday closing laws "trace[ ] an ancestry back to the Ten Commandments fulminated from the smoking top of Mt. Sinai. . . . This divine pronouncement became part of the Common Law inherited by the thirteen American colonies and by the sovereign States of the American union."); Anderson v. Maddox, 65 So.2d 299, 301-302 (Fla. 1953) (" 'Thou shalt not steal' and 'thou shalt not bear false witness' are just as new as they were when Moses brought them down from the Mountain.") (Terrell, J., concurring specially); State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 749, 768 (N.D. 1966) ("Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud., etc. because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue.") (internal citations omitted).

What's going on here? These words from Gamble Skogmo seem to say that similarities between secular law and the dictates of the "Judaeo-Christian religions" are just a coincidence.

Quote:

It would also appear that the commandment against taking the Lord�s name in vain is reflected in the practice of swearing to uphold the law with the phrase, "so help me God."

What? How is "so help me God" not a violation of this commandment?

Quote:

See also Daniel J. Boorstin, The Mysterious Science of the Law, at preface to Beacon Press Edition (1958) (noting of Blackstone�s Commentaries on the Laws on England that "<i>n the history of American institutions, no other book � except the Bible � has played so great a role. . ."); Blackstone identifies King Alfred as the founder of English common law and the Laws of King Alfred start with the Ten Commandments. Harold J. Berman, Individualistic And Communitarian Theories of Justice: An Historical Approach, 21 U. Cal. Davis L.Rev. 549-575 (1988).

Chester County also notes that members of the United States Supreme Court have recognized the influence of the Ten Commandments on the foundations of the American legal system. See Stone, 449 U.S. at 45 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (�It is . . . undeniable . . . that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World.�); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 462 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) ("Innumerable civil regulations enforce conduct which harmonizes with religious canons. State prohibition of murder, theft and adultery reinforce commands of the decalogue."). Numerous American Presidents have also made reference to the Ten Commandments as a foundational legal document. See, e.g., John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (Charles Francis Adams, ed. 1851) ("If 'Thou shalt not covet� and �Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."); Harry S. Truman, Public Messages, Speeches and Statements by the President, Jan. 1. to Dec. 31, 1950 (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965) Item 37, p. 157 ("The fundamental basis of this Nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount.").

Returning briefly to the "endorsement" inquiry, we note that we did not consider whether the reasonable observer (in contrast to the Commissioners) would believe that the Ten Commandments formed the basis of much of American law and polity, a conclusion which would have given additional support to our holding that the reasonable viewer would not perceive the plaque as an endorsement of religion. Instead, we discuss the Ten Commandments as a foundational legal document only to the extent that it informs our determination of the subjective inquiry into the Commissioners' purpose. Thus, in holding that the Commissioners had a legitimate secular purpose for refusing to remove the plaque (it appears that they honestly believed it served the secular purpose of demonstrating one of the key sources of American law), we express no opinion about the objective inquiry into whether a reasonable observer would perceive the Ten Commandments plaque as celebrating a foundational legal document, although we comment in the margin about this troubling and difficult question.12

12. The plaintiffs and the amici in support of the plaintiffs question the extent to which the laws of the United States are actually based upon the Ten Commandments (a question which we have neither the desire nor expertise to resolve). They also contend that the County�s examples in no way suggest that the reasonable observer would believe that the Ten Commandments are the basis for many modern laws; indeed, the assumption, inherent in Chester County�s argument, that the reasonable observer knows about, e.g., statements made by John Adams or the holdings of state court cases seems highly questionable. Finally, the plaintiffs note that the Ten Commandments is not the most significant basis of American law and polity and that there is no reason why the reasonable observer would believe that the plaque was posted to celebrate the foundational significance of the decalogue and not its religious message, especially where other foundational documents (such as the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights) are not displayed along with the Ten Commandments.

We acknowledge the intuitive force of the defendants� secularization arguments set forth in text, i.e., that the Ten Commandments have lost their primary religious significance because of the perception that they are a significant source of American law and polity. We also acknowledge the great force of the plaintiffs� reasoning in opposition to these arguments both in their application and their doctrinal core. However, we need not address these issues since we decide this case on narrower grounds.

emphasis added to some troubling parts. The 3rd Circuit seems to be saying that sinece the Commissioners sincerely believed that the 10C were the foundation for our secular laws, bolstered by some quotes that show nothing of the sort, that their actions are OK.

Jewel · 06-27-2003, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Thus, in holding that the Commissioners had a legitimate secular purpose for refusing to remove the plaque (it appears that they honestly believed it served the secular purpose of demonstrating one of the key sources of American law), we express no opinion about the objective inquiry into whether a reasonable observer would perceive the Ten Commandments plaque as celebrating a foundational legal document, although we comment in the margin about this troubling and difficult question.12

Even if they really did believe that the 10C were the basis of American law -- which I completely don't buy -- that's no excuse for the Federal Court of Appeals to allow that mistake to continue propagating that erroneous belief.:banghead:

06-26-2003, 09:11 AM	#1
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Third Circuit: Ten Commandments Plaque A-OK The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled today that a Ten Commandments plaque displayed near the entrance of the Chester County (Pa.) Courthouse doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. The opinion is available in PDF here. The file is large and is currently downloading at a painfully slow pace. Edit - You'll find news on the ruling here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2003, 11:34 AM	#3
topane Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: SE Pennsylvania Posts: 193	Dammit, and I have to live here, too. Margaret Downey lives in the same neighborhood as one of my cow-orkers. He was telling me about how when she first filed the lawsuit all the people in the neighborhood put 10C signs in their front yards. He was quite proud of himself. I imagine all these "historical" 10C's are going to stay up for the time being. Perhaps people should start donating plaques with the Bill of Rights on it to local courthouses.

06-26-2003, 02:41 PM	#7
Arken Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: North Hollywood, CA Posts: 6,303	No words can express my anger at this... no words that are applicable to polite company anyway... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.