The 10 commandments newly set up on the grounds of the Oklahoma City capitol building is illegal

The cases you specifically point out are refuted later on by other Supreme court cases. These Supreme Court I will point out are cases that pertain to this particular event in much more clear context. The Case Lynch V Donnley which was decided in 1984 was again brought up later by another supreme court case: County of Allegheny V. American Civil Liberties Union in 1989. In the 1989 court case the supreme court deemed: "a complex and fragmented decision, the majority held that the County of Allegheny violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a creche in the county courthouse, because the "principle or primary effect" of the display was to advance religion within the meaning of Lemon v. Kurtzman, when viewed in its overall context. Therefore, the Supreme Court did in fact refer to the Lemon test when deciding whether the case violated the establishment clause under VERY similar circumstances and did indeed violate the establishment clause. There is also strong emphasis on the context of the monument / statue and whether it is proven to be under secular means or not. I will further this in the coming paragraphs (7) Your second case: Van Orden V. Perry, was also refuted by McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union. In this case, there was a Ten Commandments display at the McCreary County courthouse in Whitley City, Kentucky and a Ten Commandments display in two other locations. The Supreme Court ruled on June 27, 2005, in a 5-4 decision, that the displays were unconstitutional. However, The same day, the Court handed down the 5-4 decision in Van Orden v. Perry with the opposite outcome. The "swing vote" in the both cases was Justice Stephen Breyer. So, we must find why justice Stephen Breyer essentially flipped sides on very similar cases the same day: He stated in a concurrent opinion, "The case before us is a borderline case. It concerns a large granite monument bearing the text of the Ten Commandments located on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. On the one hand, the Commandments' text undeniably has a religious message, invoking, indeed emphasizing, the Deity. On the other hand, focusing on the text of the Commandments alone cannot conclusively resolve this case. Rather, to determine the message that the text here conveys, we must examine how the text is used. And that inquiry requires us to consider the context of the display."(1) So, it is essentially how the 10 commandments come about and how it is located that decides the outcome of its constitutionality. In Van Orden V. Perry, the monument was donated by a secular group and thereby seen to come about under non-religious terms. However, in the McCreary County case, on the same day, "the court upheld the lower courts' rulings, noting that a pastor was present to testify to the certainty of the existence of God at the dedication of one of the displays. Because there was a pastor present attempting to testify to the existence of God it became clear that this was not a secular display of history, but rather a religious move and thereby violating the Lemon Test." (2) Now, we can decide if there are any religious sentiments regarding the case in Oklahoma City. In Oklahoma City, the state has not allowed any other religions to post their own statues alongside the 10 commandments hence CLEARLY favoring the Christian religion. (3) (4). Using these court cases and the two clear separate outcomes, the actions of the Oklahoma City statehouse have shown favoritism to Christianity as seen similarly under the court case McCreary county V. American Civili Liberties Union. Since the statehouse is blocking other religions from posting their own religious statues this clearly shows favoritism towards Christianity. The 10 commandments are also not in the context of history but rather stand in isolation giving no historical link value to the 10 commandments on the statehouse lawn which is in contrast to the Van Orden V. Perry case. I will further this point in the paragraphs below. "The 10th Amendment gives certain "rights" to the states. Is it not a State's rights to display the 10 Commandments so long as it does so in a non-partial manner and non-discriminatory way?" As I have stated earlier, this is in fact a discriminatory way as the statehouse is not allowing other religions to post their own religious statues and beliefs on moral conduct. To further my point, read the following as stated by Justice Breyer on why he flip-flopped on the two cases. This is in particular to why he feels it would be legal to have the 10 commandments in a government place: "1. The monument's 40-year history on the Texas state grounds indicates that nonreligious aspects of the tablets' message predominate. 2. The group that donated the monument, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, is a private civic (and primarily secular) organization. Who, while interested in the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments, sought to highlight the Commandments' role in shaping civic morality as part of that organization's efforts to combat juvenile delinquency. 3. The Eagles' consulted with a committee composed of members of several faiths in order to find a nonsectarian text " an act which underscores the group's ethics-based motives. 4. The tablets, as displayed on the monument, prominently acknowledge that the Eagles donated the display. 5. The physical setting of the monument suggests little or nothing of the sacred. 6. The monument sits in a large park containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all designed to illustrate the "ideals" of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time. 7. The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity. 8. The setting does provide a context of history and moral ideals. 9. The larger display (together with the display's inscription about its origin) communicates to visitors that the State sought to reflect moral principles, illustrating a relation between ethics and law that the State's citizens, historically speaking, have endorsed. That is to say, the context suggests that the State intended the display's moral message " an illustrative message reflecting the historical "ideals" of Texans " to predominate. (5) Therefore, justice Breyer stated that since all of the above occured, it would be legal in the case Van Orden V. Perry. However, in Oklahoma City, for point 1, the 10 commandments have only been there for 4 years and since their creation have been opposed clearly negating this point. For point three, Oklahoma City did not consult other religious officials in fact, they are denying the right for them to post their own statues. For point 6, the 10 commandments stand IN ISOLATION. In fact, one of the displays was deemed unconstiutional by the Supreme Court in the case just due to the fact that " it was presenting the Ten Commandments in isolation" (Refer to link six) and were therefore unable to prove that it was placed under historical contexts. I cannot emphasize this point enough. For point 8, there is again, no mentioning or further examples of the 10 commandments in context to history on the Oklahoma state lawn. Therefore, since the 10 commandments in Oklahoma city do not follow or come close to all of the above points it can be inferred that this case would fall under the court case McCreary county V. American Civil Liberties Union and be deemed unconstitutional. 1. http://www.law.cornell.edu.... 2. https://supreme.justia.com... 3. http://www.koco.com... 4. http://atheists.org... 5. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... 6. http://www.oyez.org... 7. http://www.oyez.org...