Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 25

18 

AMERICAN LEGION v. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSN. 

Opinion of the Court 

Fraternal  Order  of  the  Eagles  began  distributing  paper 
copies  of  the  Ten  Commandments  to  churches,  school 
groups,  courts,  and  government  offices.    The  Eagles, 
“while  interested  in  the  religious  aspect  of  the  Ten  Com-
mandments, sought to highlight the Commandments’ role 
in  shaping  civic  morality.”    Van  Orden,  supra,  at  701 
(opinion  of  BREYER,  J.).    At  the  same  time,  Cecil  B. 
DeMille  was  filming  The  Ten  Commandments.18    He 
learned  of  Judge  Ruegemer’s  campaign,  and  the  two  col-
laborated,  deciding  that  the  Commandments  should  be 
carved  on  stone  tablets  and  that  DeMille  would  make 
arrangements  with  the  Eagles  to  help  pay  for  them,  thus 
simultaneously  promoting  his  film  and  public  awareness 
of the Decalogue.  Not only did DeMille and Judge Ruege-
mer have different purposes, but the motivations of those 
who  accepted  the  monuments  and  those  responsible  for 
maintaining them may also have differed.  As we noted in 
Pleasant  Grove  City  v.  Summum,  555  U. S.  460,  476 
(2009),  “the  thoughts  or  sentiments  expressed  by  a  gov-
ernment  entity  that  accepts  and  displays  [a  monument] 
may  be  quite  different  from  those  of  either  its  creator  or 
its donor.” 
  The  existence  of  multiple  purposes  is  not  exclusive  to 
longstanding  monuments,  symbols,  or  practices,  but  this 
phenomenon is more likely to occur in such cases.  Even if 
the  original  purpose  of  a  monument  was  infused  with 
religion, the passage of time may obscure that sentiment.  
As our society becomes more and more religiously diverse, 
a  community  may  preserve  such  monuments,  symbols, 
and practices for the sake of their historical significance or 
their  place  in  a  common  cultural  heritage.    Cf.  Schempp, 
374  U. S.,  at  264–265  (Brennan,  J.,  concurring)  (“[The] 
government may originally have decreed a Sunday day of 

—————— 

18 See  D.  Davis,  The  Oxford  Handbook  of  Church  and  State  in  the 

United States 284 (2010).