NATIONAL-In a potentially landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear two sides regarding the presence of the Ten Commandments at county courthouses in Kentucky, and a statue with religious excerpts on the grounds of the Capital Building in Austin, Texas.
Thomas Van Orden, a man with a history of secular-based lawsuits, has filed a suit against the presence of the statue. Orden, in regards to the statue, has stated that the spiritual references show support for religious principles. The Texas statue bears the “”Ten Commandments,” the Star of David, and a symbol representing Christ and the words “I am the Lord thy God.”
In the Kentucky case, two county executives separately posted copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses.” The ACLU has filed suit against the latter, the only non-secular of 11 privately donated items in the courthouses. All of the items were donated under the premise of being historically critical to the United States of America.
According to VOANews.com Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Texas Law School, argues that the Ten Commandments primarily represent religious symbolism and should not be prominently displayed on government property. “[It] begins with, ‘I am the Lord, thy God…’ That does not sound like law,” said Professor Laycock. “That sounds like religion. The first half of the [Ten] Commandments really have no secular equivalents. They are purely and entirely about one’s duties toward God.”
The Bush administration, has filed a brief along with 26 attorney generals contending, “that the Commandments symbolize the Judeo-Christian roots that form the foundation of modern legal principles.”
In a CNN.com report, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has definitively stated his support of the presence of the Commandments stating, “The First Amendment was never intended to remove all religious expression from the public square…there is no doubt the Ten Commandments are a sacred religious text, but neither can we deny their significant impact on the history, culture and laws of Texas and the rest of the country.”
Preston Fuller, the United Campus Minister for PSU, took a third view of the issue. “Pontification aside, the world ultimately will not be any better or worse off, nor will justice be facilitated or hampered regardless if such plaques remain or are removed. However, if at the time, human energy and money used by both polemic groups were used to address a real and agreeable cause such as poverty, environment or peace, then the world would be better off and justice freed to make real decisions.”
A CNN/Gallup poll, with a given margin of error – plus or minus 4.5 percent, has found that 76 percent of their respondents were supportive of the presence of the Ten Commandments. Twenty-one percent of respondents were not supportive, and many public interest groups also spoke against the keeping of the publicly displayed religious references. Religious groups attempting to preserve the text, text that is displayed in the halls of the Supreme Court itself, countered them.
According to mainstream media, Orden’s other lawsuits include an attempt in 1961 to remove this same statue, an attempt last year to remove “In God We Trust” from the dollar bill, and an attempt to amend the Pledge of Allegiance to remove “Under God” in order that his daughter may say the Pledge in class. The Supreme Court decided last year that he, as a father with no custodial rights, had no legal basis to decide what his daughter said or did in her second-grade classroom. His ex-wife, a woman supporting the Pledge, won the suit.