Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02444/USCOURTS-ca8-02-02444-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-2444

___________

ACLU Nebraska Foundation; *

John Doe, *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

City of Plattsmouth, Nebraska, *

*

Defendant - Appellant, *

-------------------------------------- * Appeal from the United States

State of Nebraska, * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Amicus on Behalf of Appellant, *

*

Americans United for Separation of *

Church and State, *

*

Amicus on Behalf of Appellee, *

*

Foundation for Moral Law, Inc.; *

Wallbuilders, Inc.; The National *

Legal Foundation, *

*

Amici on Behalf of Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 15, 2004

Filed: August 19, 2005

___________

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
1

The Honorable Richard Sheppard Arnold died on September 23, 2004. This

opinion is filed by the remaining judges of the en banc court. See 8th Cir. R. 47E. 

2

The monument lists eleven commands ostensibly to serve as an amalgamation

of the Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic versions of the Ten Commandments. See

ACLU Nebraska Found. v. City of Plattsmouth, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1032 n.9

(D. Neb. 2002) (noting that Plattsmouth monument is identical in content to

monument at issue in Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 294–95 (7th Cir. 2000),

cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1058 (2001), in which nonsectarian nature of text is discussed).

-2-

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RICHARD SHEPPARD ARNOLD1

, BOWMAN,

WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, MURPHY, BYE, RILEY,

MELLOY, SMITH, COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit

Judges, En Banc.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

The City of Plattsmouth, Nebraska, appeals the District Court's grant of

summary judgment in favor of John Doe, a Plattsmouth resident, and the ACLU

Nebraska Foundation on their claim that the City's display of a Ten Commandments

monument violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. We reverse.

In 1965, the Fraternal Order of Eagles (Eagles) donated to the City of

Plattsmouth an approximately five-foot-tall and three-foot-wide granite monument

inscribed with a nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments.2

 Above the text of

the Commandments appear two small tablets surrounded by a floral design; an eye

within a pyramid—an all-seeing eye similar to that appearing on the back of a dollar

bill; and an eagle clutching the American flag. Below the text are two Stars of David;

the intertwined Greek letters "chi" and "rho"; and a scroll reading, "PRESENTED TO

THE CITY OF PLATTSMOUTH, NEBRASKA BY FRATERNAL ORDER OF

EAGLES PLATTSMOUTH AERIE NO. 365 1965." Appellant's Br., Ex. O. The

Plattsmouth monument is one of many other Ten Commandments monuments given

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
3

Although the history of the Eagles's Ten Commandments project—an attempt

to provide youths with a common code of conduct to govern their actions—is

recounted in detail in other cases, see, e.g., Books, 235 F.3d at 294–95; State v.

Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 898 P.2d 1013, 1017 (Colo. 1995), cert. denied,

516 U.S. 1111 (1996); as well as by Justice Stevens in his dissent in Van Orden v.

Perry, 125 S. Ct. 2854, 2877–78 (2005) (Stevens, J., dissenting), these facts were not

submitted by the parties in this case. 

-3-

by the Eagles to towns, cities, and even states in the 1950s and 1960s.3

 The Eagles

is a national social, civic, and patriotic organization. Its local chapter has been

responsible for many philanthropic and community-enhancing contributions to the

City of Plattsmouth.

The monument was erected in a corner of Plattsmouth's forty-five-acre

Memorial Park, ten blocks distant from Plattsmouth City Hall. Then Street

Commissioner Art Hellwig, an Eagles officer at the time, and other City employees

helped erect the monument, although it is not known whether these City employees

were acting in their personal or official capacities. The monument is located two

hundred yards away from the park's public parking lot, and there are no roads or

walkways from the parking lot to the monument. The words of the monument face

away from the park, away from any recreational equipment, picnic tables, benches,

or shelters. Although the inscribed side of the monument faces the road, it is too far

away to be read by passing motorists. The City of Plattsmouth performs no regular

maintenance on the monument, but if repairs are required, City employees perform

those duties. In addition to the monument, the park contains, among other items,

recreational equipment, picnic tables and shelters, and a baseball diamond. Certain

individual items located in the park, such as grills, benches, and picnic shelters, bear

plaques identifying their donors. In addition, a large plaque inscribed with the names

of all donors to Memorial Park is located near the park's entrance. Because no

contemporaneous City records exist, there is little evidence in the record regarding

the process by which the monument was accepted and installed.

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
4

Standing was not raised in the City of Plattsmouth's petition for rehearing en

banc, nor was it addressed at oral argument. Our three-judge panel's affirmance of

the District Court's ruling that Doe and the ACLU have standing to bring this action

was unanimous. Because we have an independent duty to make sure that we have

jurisdiction over the case, we have studied the question and now affirm the District

Court's conclusion that Doe and the ACLU have standing, adopting the reasoning of

the panel opinion on this point. See ACLU Nebraska Found., 358 F.3d at 1026–31.

-4-

In 2001, more than thirty-five years after the monument was installed, Doe and

the ACLU sued the City of Plattsmouth, claiming that the Ten Commandments

monument interfered with Doe's use of Memorial Park and caused him to modify his

travel routes and other behavior to avoid unwanted contact with the monument.

According to Doe and the ACLU, the City's display of the monument in Memorial

Park is a violation of the Establishment Clause. The District Court granted summary

judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that both Doe and the ACLU have

standing to bring suit and that the City's display of the monument violates the

Establishment Clause.

On appeal, a divided panel of this Court affirmed. ACLU Nebraska Found. v.

City of Plattsmouth, 358 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir. 2004), vacated and rehearing en banc

granted, April 6, 2004. After agreeing with the District Court that both Doe and the

ACLU have standing to pursue this action, the opinion of the Court concluded that

(1) Plattsmouth's display of the monument violates the Establishment Clause because

the City's purpose in installing or maintaining the monument was solely religious and

(2) the display's primary effect was an impermissible endorsement of religion. Id. at

1026-31.

We granted Plattsmouth's petition for rehearing en banc to review the District

Court's determination that the City's display of the monument violates the

Establishment Clause.4

 With the benefit of the United States Supreme Court's recent

decision in Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 2854 (2005), we now reverse.

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
5

The opinion of the panel in this case rejected the appellees' argument that the

strict scrutiny test described in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 246 (1982), should

apply here. We also, for the reasons stated in the panel opinion, ACLU Nebraska

Found., 358 F.3d at 1032–34, reject that argument. 

-5-

When we consider a district court's grant of summary judgment, we review

findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Royer ex rel. Royer

v. City of Oak Grove, 374 F.3d 685, 687 (8th Cir. 2004). We view the facts in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party—in this case the City—and give that

party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts.

Morgan v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 380 F.3d 459, 463 (8th Cir. 2004), cert.

denied, 125 S. Ct. 1933 (2005). 

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from

making any law "respecting an establishment of religion." U.S. Const. amend. I.

This prohibition applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Everson

v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947). Using the test described by the Supreme

Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the District Court held that the

presence of the monument in a City park violates the Establishment Clause.5

 In

Lemon, the Supreme Court announced a three-part test for analyzing whether

government activity results in a prohibited establishment of religion. Under the

Lemon test, government practice is permissible for purposes of Establishment Clause

analysis only if (1) it has a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect neither

advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) it does not foster an excessive entanglement

with religion. Id., 403 U.S. at 612–13 (citations omitted); Children's Healthcare is a

Legal Duty, Inc. v. Min De Parle, 212 F.3d 1084, 1093 (8th Cir. 2000), cert. denied,

532 U.S. 957 (2001).

After the Court en banc heard argument in the present case, the United States

Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of certain government displays of

the Ten Commandments. See Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. 2854; McCreary County v.

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
-6-

ACLU, 125 S. Ct. 2722 (2005). In Van Orden, the Court held that the State of Texas

did not violate the Establishment Clause when it accepted a Ten Commandments

monument from the Eagles (a monument virtually identical to that at issue in this

case) and installed the monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The Ten

Commandments monument, along with the other monuments and historical markers,

stands on the twenty-two acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol to

"commemorat[e] the 'people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity.'" Van

Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2858 (citing Tex. H. Con. Res. 38, 77th Leg. (2001)). In his

plurality opinion finding no Establishment Clause violation, Chief Justice Rehnquist

(joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) acknowledged that the test

announced in Lemon occasionally has governed the analysis of Establishment Clause

cases over the past twenty-five years, but noted that "the factors identified in Lemon

serve as 'no more than helpful signposts'" in Establishment Clause analysis. Id. at

2861 (quoting Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741 (1973)). The Chief Justice went

on to cite recent cases in which the Supreme Court did not apply the Lemon test. See,

e.g., Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002); Good News Club v. Milford

Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001). Chief Justice Rehnquist ultimately concluded that

the Lemon test was "not useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that

Texas has erected on its Capitol grounds." Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2861. Instead,

he declared that Establishment Clause analysis in these circumstances was "driven

both by the nature of the monument and by our Nation's history." Id. Explicitly

recognizing the religious nature and significance of the Ten Commandments, id. at

2863, the Chief Justice distinguished the "passive use" of the Ten Commandments

text by the State of Texas from the impermissible use of the text by the State of

Kentucky, where copies of the text hung in public-school classrooms and "confronted

elementary school students every day," id. at 2864 (distinguishing Stone v. Graham,

449 U.S. 39 (1980)). After discussing in some detail our Nation's history insofar as

the use of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols are concerned, id. at

2859–63, Chief Justice Rehnquist—with a fifth vote from Justice Breyer concurring

in the judgment—concluded that the State of Texas did not violate the Establishment

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
-7-

Clause by its display of the Ten Commandments monument on its Capitol grounds,

id. at 2864.

In his opinion concurring in the judgment in Van Orden, Justice Breyer agreed

that the text of the Ten Commandments communicates an undeniably religious

message, but cautioned, as did Chief Justice Rehnquist, see id. at 2863, that focusing

on the religious nature of the message alone cannot resolve an Establishment Clause

case. Rather, consideration must be given to the context in which the Ten

Commandments' text is used. According to Justice Breyer, the State of Texas

included the Ten Commandments monument in its Capitol grounds display to

communicate both a secular and a religious message. He concluded, however, that

the "circumstances surrounding the display's placement on the capitol grounds and

its physical setting suggest that the State" intended the secular aspects of the

monument's message to predominate, despite the monument's inherently religious

content. Id. at 2870 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). Finally, the Ten

Commandments monument had stood on the Texas State Capitol grounds for forty

years without legal challenge. In Justice Breyer's view, "those 40 years suggest more

strongly than can any set of formulaic tests that few individuals . . . are likely to have

understood the monument as amounting, in any significantly detrimental way, to a

government effort" to promote, endorse, or favor religion. Id. 

The Supreme Court's decision in Van Orden governs our resolution of this

case. Like the Ten Commandments monument at issue in Van Orden, the Plattsmouth

monument makes passive—and permissible—use of the text of the Ten

Commandments to acknowledge the role of religion in our Nation's heritage. Similar

references to and representations of the Ten Commandments on government property

are replete throughout our country. Buildings housing the Library of Congress, the

National Archives, the Department of Justice, the Court of Appeals and District Court

for the District of Columbia, and the United States House of Representatives all

include depictions of the Ten Commandments. See id. at 2862–63 & n.9 (listing

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
6

See also Eugene F. Hemrick, One Nation Under God: Religious Symbols,

Quotes, and Images in Our Nation's Capital (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division

2001). 

-8-

additional examples of government buildings and monuments reflecting the

prominent role religion has played in our Nation's history). Indeed, in the United

States Supreme Court's own Courtroom, a frieze depicts Moses holding tablets that

represent the Ten Commandments, and the Ten Commandments decorate the metal

gates and doors around the Courtroom. Id. at 2862.6

 In addition, the Supreme Court

has acknowledged in its decisions the role of religion in our country's history. See,

e.g., Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 434 (1962) (noting that the "history of man is

inseparable from the history of religion"); Sch. Dist. of Abington Township v.

Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 212 (1963) (acknowledging that "religion has been closely

identified with our history and government"); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 675

(1984) ("Our history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of

Divine guidance . . . ."); Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 124 S. Ct. 2301,

2317 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in judgment) (recognizing that "patriotic

invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion's role in our Nation's

history abound"). Moreover, the Court has approved certain government activity that

directly or indirectly recognizes the role of religion in our national life. See, e.g.,

Zelman, 536 U.S. at 662–63 (upholding school voucher program); Good News Club,

533 U.S. at 120 (permitting religious school groups' use of public school facilities);

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 209 (1997) (allowing public employees to teach at

religious schools); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819,

845–46 (1995) (permitting disbursement of funds from student activity fees to

religious organizations); Lynch, 465 U.S. at 687 (upholding Christmas display

including a creche); Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983) (upholding

legislative prayer); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 391 (1983) (allowing tax

deduction for certain religious school expenses). Given this "rich American tradition

of religious acknowledgments," Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2863, we cannot conclude

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
7

The monument in Van Orden on the Texas State Capitol grounds is situated

between the Capitol and the State Supreme Court. Based on the Appendix to Justice

Breyer's concurring opinion, the monument appears to be within fifty yards or so of

both of those buildings. In contrast, the Plattsmouth monument is located in a

relatively isolated corner of Memorial Park, more than ten blocks distant from

Plattsmouth City Hall and, as far as the record shows, not close to any other building

that is part of City government. This fact provides further support for our conclusion

that Van Orden effectively protects the Plattsmouth monument from successful attack

under the Establishment Clause. In addition, this fact tends to offset any inference

adverse to the City arising from the Plattsmouth monument's being, as far as we

know, the only monument in the forty-five-acre City park, whereas the twenty-twoacre grounds of the Texas State Capitol are well-populated by other monuments of

various kinds. We note the record in the present case does not contain anything that

would suggest the City of Plattsmouth ever has turned down any monument that was

offered to it. 

-9-

that the City's display of a Ten Commandments monument violates the Establishment

Clause—particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Van Orden.

7

 

We are required neither to "abdicate our responsibility to maintain a division

between church and state nor evince a hostility to religion by disabling the

government from in some ways recognizing our religious heritage." Id. at 2859.

Given the "unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of

government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789," id. at 2861

(quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674), and the Supreme Court's "[r]ecognition of the role

of God in our Nation's heritage," id., we believe that, like the Ten Commandments

monument in Van Orden, the City's monument has "a dual significance, partaking of

both religion and government," id. at 2864. Like the monument at issue in Van

Orden, the Ten Commandments monument installed in Memorial Park by the City of

Plattsmouth is a passive acknowledgment of the roles of God and religion in our

Nation's history. Moreover, as was the case in Van Orden, decades passed during

which the Ten Commandments monument stood in Plattsmouth's Memorial Park

without objection. See id. at 2864 (Rehnquist, C.J.), 2870 (Breyer, J., concurring in

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
8

Taking our cue from Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion for the Court and

Justice Breyer's concurring opinion in Van Orden, we do not apply the Lemon test.

But were we to apply the Lemon test, we would conclude, essentially for the reasons

set out in the dissent to the panel decision in the present case, ACLU Nebraska

Found., 358 F.3d at 1043–50 (Bowman, J., dissenting), that the City's display of the

monument passes that test. 

-10-

judgment). Although the text of the Ten Commandments has undeniable religious

significance, "[s]imply having religious content or promoting a message consistent

with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause." Id. at 2863;

see Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680, 687; Marsh, 463 U.S. at 792; McGowan v. Maryland, 366

U.S. 420, 445 (1961); Walz v. Tax Comm'n of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970).

While there are limits to government displays of religious messages or symbols, a fact

well-illustrated by Van Orden's companion case, McCreary County, 125 S. Ct. 2722,

we cannot conclude that Plattsmouth's display of a Ten Commandments monument

is different in any constitutionally significant way from Texas's display of a similar

monument in Van Orden.

8

 

The judgment of the District Court is reversed.

BYE, Circuit Judge, with whom MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,

joins, dissenting.

The First Amendment's religion clauses stand as a bulwark to protect religion

and, most importantly, religious freedom, "mandat[ing] governmental neutrality

between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." McCreary

County v. ACLU, 125 S. Ct. 2722, 2733 (2005) (quoting Epperson v. Arkansas, 393

U.S. 97, 104 (1968)). "They embody an idea that was once considered radical: Free

people are entitled to free and diverse thoughts, which government ought neither to

constrain nor to direct." Id. at 2746 (O'Connor, J., concurring). We enforce the

clauses out of "respect for religion's special role in society," id., recognizing "the

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
9

The Eagles' stated purpose in providing this and similar monuments was to

"inspire all who pause to view them, with a renewed respect for the law of God,

which is our greatest strength against the forces that threaten our way of life." Van

Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2878 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citation and quotations omitted).

-11-

relationship between government and religion is one of separation, but not one of

mutual hostility and suspicion," Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 2854, 2869 (2005)

(Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). Because this Ten Commandments monument,

erected and displayed with the imprimatur of the City of Plattsmouth, abridges these

ideals, I respectfully dissent.

The Ten Commandments monument belongs to Plattsmouth. It is located ten

blocks from Plattsmouth's City Hall, in Plattsmouth's Memorial Park, and rests in a

tranquil setting under shady trees on a grassy knoll between a recreation area and a

road. Although the inscribed side faces the road, it is too far away to be read by

passing motorists. Pedestrians, picnickers, and others using the park, however, have

an unrestricted view of the Ten Commandments as written on the monument.

Nothing in the monument's surrounds suggests its religious message might not

be its raison d'etre. Plaques and nameplates in remembrance of, or in thanks to,

various individuals adorn other park items as well as a wall by the main entrance to

the park. Unlike the monument, however, these messages of thanks and recognition

do not appear on well-known religious symbols nor are they accompanied by any

religious text. The monument shares its environs with trees and recreational

equipment but none of this mise-en-scéne reflects an intent to merely complement an

otherwise secular setting by drawing upon one of the Ten Commandments' secular

applications. Rather, the monument's stark religious message stands alone with

nothing to suggest a broader historical or secular context.9

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 11 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
-12-

The majority, relying upon Van Orden, holds the monument "makes passive

– and permissible – use of the text of the Ten Commandments to acknowledge the

role of religion in our Nation's heritage." Inasmuch as I respect "the strong role

played by religion and religious traditions throughout our Nation's history," Van

Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2859 (Rehnquist, C.J., plurality opinion), I remain true to the

concomitant principle that when government takes as its own an undeniably religious

message, we must thoroughly "examine how the text is used," id. at 2869 (Breyer, J.,

concurring in the judgment) (emphasis in original), "[a]nd that inquiry requires us to

consider the context of the display." Id.

In his opinion concurring in the judgment in Van Orden, Justice Breyer

recognized, as does the majority, a display of the Ten Commandments can convey a

historical message about the relationship between the standards inscribed thereon and

our laws. Id. at 2869-70. He concluded this relationship "helps to explain the display

of those tablets in dozens of courthouses throughout the Nation, including the

Supreme Court of the United States." Id. at 2870. The majority expands upon this

principle by identifying other references to and representations of the Ten

Commandments on government property, including the Library of Congress, the

National Archives, the Department of Justice, the Court of Appeals and District Court

for the District of Columbia, and the United States House of Representatives. See

also id. at 2862-63 & n.9 (noting additional examples). 

Each of these examples, however, is distinguishable from the monument

erected in Plattsmouth. Many earlier monuments and inscriptions appeared at a time

when we "may not have foreseen the variety of religions for which this Nation would

eventually provide a home." McCreary, 125 U.S. at 2747 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

Indeed, "for nearly a century after the Founding, many accepted the idea that America

was not just a religious nation, but 'a Christian nation,'" Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at

2886 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143

U.S. 457, 471 (1892)) (emphasis in original), and "many of the Framers understood

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 12 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
-13-

the word 'religion' in the Establishment Clause to encompass only the various sects

of Christianity," id. at 2885. In today's pluralistic America we no longer accept nor

countenance such a narrow reading of the Establishment Clause.

The majorities' examples of displays and inscriptions are further

distinguishable because of the clear historical context in which they appear. For

example, the oft noted image of Moses holding two tablets, depicted on the frieze in

the Supreme Court's courtroom, appears in the company of seventeen other lawgivers,

both religious and secular. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2741. Similarly, the depiction of

Moses and the Ten Commandments on the Court's east pediment also finds him in the

company of renowned secular figures. Id. at 2741 n.23. Such longstanding displays

of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and public buildings harken back to a time

when the overwhelming majority of Americans espoused a Christian belief, and now

serve as a historical reminder of those times and the relationship between the

Decalogue and our laws. The religious message announced by these depictions is

undeniable, but their long history and proximity to secular institutions founded upon

many of the same basic principles, places them in a historical context not apparent to

those viewing Plattsmouth's display. Instead, the Plattsmouth monument stands alone

with nothing to recommend it but its religious message. 

Texas's display of its Ten Commandments monument, while much like

Plattsmouth's monument, is surrounded by seventeen additional monuments and

twenty-one historical markers "commemorating the 'people, ideals, and events that

compose Texan identity.'" Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2858 (Rehnquist, C.J., plurality

opinion) (citation omitted). Conversely, Plattsmouth's monument rests alone among

the park's trees and recreational equipment in an area well-suited for reflection and

meditation. See id. at 2870 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment) (noting Texas's

monument was located in a setting poorly suited for meditation). Its location among

donated park equipment and various plaques and nameplates does nothing to mute

its undeniably religious message in favor of the secular and historical messages

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 13 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
-14-

described by Justice Breyer. Id. at 2869-70. Indeed, though not mentioned by the

majority, Plattsmouth expressly disavows any claim "that it displays the monument

in order to show the secular role and influence of the Ten Commandments."

Appellant's Br. at 6. Accordingly, there is nothing reflected in the context of this

monument to suggest Plattsmouth intended a secular or historical message to

predominate. See id. at 2870.

The majority eschews this distinction, suggesting the monument's location, ten

blocks from City Hall, obviates the need to contextualize its religious message. This

goes well beyond the reasoning advanced in Van Orden's fractured decision. At most,

Van Orden holds a Ten Commandments display, incorporated into a larger display

of thirty-eight monuments and historical markers, will survive constitutional attack

because it reflects a broad range of secular and religious ideals. Van Orden did not

extend constitutional protection to Ten Commandments displays with no secular or

historical message. 

Nor did Van Orden reduce Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a simple

mathematical calculation. It is not enough that Plattsmouth's monument has stood for

more than thirty-five years in Memorial Park. Without the contextualizing presence

of other messages or some indicia of historical significance, there is nothing to free

the display from its singular purpose of advancing its religious message. Because no

such broader application is apparent – or for that matter offered – the monument

violates the Establishment Clause. 

For the foregoing reasons, I reject the majorities' conclusion the monument

stands simply "to acknowledge the role of religion in our Nation's heritage." The

monument does much more than acknowledge religion; it is a command from the

Judeo-Christian God on how he requires his followers to live. To say a monument

inscribed with the Ten Commandments and various religious and patriotic symbols

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 14 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211
-15-

is nothing more than an "acknowledgment of the role of religion" diminishes their

sanctity to believers and belies the words themselves. I respectfully dissent.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 02-2444 Page: 15 Date Filed: 08/19/2005 Entry ID: 1942211