Judge Rules Against Monument Of The Ten Commandmensts

Dear Friends, Recently, a New Mexico federal district judge ruled that a monument of the Ten Commandments on a municipal building lawn violated the First Amendment, specifically the “Establishment Clause” which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another or establishing a religion. The monument was part of a large display that included other monuments to the Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and Bill of Rights. Some individuals objected to the Ten Commandments monument, saying that they were offended by it as they drove by on their way to work. As the Becket Fund has said before, simply disliking a government monument does not mean that anyone can just run into court to make a federal case about it. This ruling shows how confused the courts are on the Establishment Clause—something the judge admitted himself. In his words, he had to decide the case based on "confusing jurisprudence" and his "own imagination." We've seen this before. The Becket Fund has repeatedly argued that the Establishment Clause does not require courts to scrub every religious reference from public life. If we did, where would that leave us? Five years ago, we filed a brief in a Supreme Court case that also dealt with a Ten Commandments monument. The Supreme Court ruled that a city has the right to choose which monuments to display in its public parks, even if it does not reflect every church or belief. The decision followed our logic that government displays are government speech, meaning that governments can choose what to say—and what not to say. Courts continue to be confused about all this. In fact, one Virginia judge tried to strike a deal, suggesting that a public school, sued by the ACLU for displaying the Ten Commandments along with the Declaration of Independence, remove four of the Ten Commandments on display—the ones that mentioned God. This would leave, he argued, the "more secular" ones on display. Whenever I tell this story to audiences of incredulous pastors, priests, ministers and advocates I carry with me the clip of the newspaper article. You can read the story here. Rulings like this damage the American commitment to religious freedom, a principle that promotes a vibrant and diverse culture. City governments often recognize the values of their citizens, and that is a good thing. For instance, a Pennsylvania city displays a menorah at Hannukah, with the understanding that by recognizing the Jewish holiday it recognizes its own citizens. The city of San Antonio puts on an annual Diwali festival, recognizing the Hindu holiday with food, fireworks, Indian dance, and traditional lighted candles. And who could forget the celebration of Saint Patrick's Day in Chicago? Granted, this is more an ethnic festivity than a religious one. But why should recognizing purely religious symbols be any different? Religion is part of culture. It is part of human nature. It is part of who we are. Religious symbols do not need to be hidden behind church walls or temple doors. Religious words do not need to be whispered in the dark, and only among believers. Americans have the freedom to believe and express their beliefs—that's what makes our country great. And our city governments have the right to recognize our many different beliefs.

Sincerely, Kristina Arriaga Executive Director How Can You Show Your Support? Donate Now!   Share on Facebook Share on Twitter   Share by Mail

P.S. Speaking of religious displays, check out this 2-minute video. The Becket Fund defended the presence of a privately funded and maintained monument to fallen soldiers, which included a statue of Jesus, in Montana. ​The soldiers who erected this monument were inspired by similar statues they saw while fighting for freedom in Europe. But, guess who objected and why.