Source: http://pluralism.org/research-report/getting-the-balance-right-a-diversity-of-responses-to-the-10-commandments-debate/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:16:52+00:00

Document:
In the past three years the state and federal courts have witnessed a flurry of cases concerning religious displays on state or public property. Central to these cases has been the question of whether publicly displaying the Ten Commandments violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This Amendment and its Establishment Clause guards against the establishment of a state religion or against impeding the right of an individual to practice in the religious manner of their choice. In 2005, two defining cases (McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry) on this issue were heard before the US Supreme Court, with final decisions handed down on June 27, 2005.
The court ruled in favor of the state in Van Orden v. Perry. In this case, the Fraternal Order of Eagles (FOE) had gifted a “6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments” to the state of Texas in 1961. The monolith was associated with an acclaimed national campaign by the FOE aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency through publicization of the Ten Commandments and its admonitions against theft, murder, and the like. “Based on the recommendation of the state organization that maintains the capitol grounds,” the monolith had been placed on the grounds of the state capitol, among 21 historical markers and 17 monuments.
During the 1950s and 1960s, the Fraternal Order of Eagles erected as many as 4,000 markers, statues, and monuments featuring the Ten Commandments in public parks and government buildings as part of a campaign against juvenile delinquency. Some of these dedications included the participation of the actors and director of the 1956 film, The Ten Commandments.
In recent years, the constitutionality of these monuments has been challenged across the country, forcing their removal from a number of public sites. Presumably, the Van Orden ruling will reverse this trend. FOE Legal Advisor George Miller notes that the decision can, “serve to remind us to redouble our efforts in the spirit of charity.” What remains to be seen is whether the Van Orden case will now be used to defend FOE monuments in other locations.
The margin of error for the poll was held to be +/- .5 percentage points.
As might be expected, there is no shortage of groups which have offered opinions on the Ten Commandments cases. A number of Amicus (“friend-of-the-court”)Briefs—representing a diverse range of political and religious views—were filed with the Court expressing a number of views on these cases. Other groups undertook other activities such as public service campaigns to express their views on the issue.
The Interfaith Alliance filed with the Baptist Joint Committee in both McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry. In Van Orden v. Perry they argued in their Brief in Support of the Petitioner that, “The Commandments have not had a significant secular role in the development of American law. Most of the Commandments are not part of American law at all, and those that are part of American law were part of Anglo-Saxon law long before the Anglo-Saxons learned of the Commandments.” Thus, they refute the assertion that the Ten Commandments are a basis for American law.
It will be interesting to observe the fate of existing FOE monuments now that Van Orden v. Perry has affirmed their right to exist on state property within certain contexts. It will also be interesting to observe how other non-Judeo-Christian groups proceed, and whether they will take Van Orden v. Perry as a green light to insist on the inclusion of their sacred texts on government property.
With McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry and the issue of the public display of the Ten Commandments behind us, the issue of religious freedom nonetheless continues in other venues. A notable case that is currently evolving regards the use of the Qur’an in court for swearing in witnesses, and whether denying witnesses the opportunity to use scriptures other than the Bible is a violation of the establishment clause. The debate on religious freedom rages on, with viewpoints as diverse and global as the practice of religion in America itself.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.