High Court should find state-sponsored Commandments displays unconstitutional

March 2, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Ten Commandments displays on the Texas statehouse grounds and in courtrooms in two Kentucky counties are unconstitutional state endorsements of a religious message, argues a Baptist religious liberty organization.

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in both Ten Commandments cases scheduled for oral argument today before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Van Orden vs. Perry, a Texas resident is challenging the ruling of a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a granite monument on the state capitol grounds did not violate the First Amendment's ban on governmental establishment of religion.

In McCreary County vs. ACLU, the ACLU is challenging Ten Commandments displays in two counties that, after a federal court ordered them removed, were surrounded by other historical documents in an effort to pass constitutional muster.

In the briefs, written by University of Texas Law Professor Douglas Laycock, the BJC argues that "when government displays a sacred text, it must be presumed to endorse that text" unless there exists "equally prominent evidence at the site of the display that objectively negates the appearance of endorsement."

"Time after time...government minimizes the religious significance of government-sponsored religious practices or displays. ...In this process, government lends its weight to distorted readings of sacred texts; indeed, government litigators deliberately desacralize these sacred texts."

The briefs are available here: Van Orden vs. Perry and McCreary County vs. ACLU.

"It does religion no favors for a public display to include the words 'I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me,' and then have the sacred nature of the monument diminished by government," said BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman.

As for the court's decision, which will likely come this summer, Hollman said, "The court should draw a line that defends religious freedom. It can strike these government displays and still leave religion free to flourish in public life."

-30-