Source: http://thewordout.net/pages/page.asp?page_id=56764
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 06:12:09+00:00

Document:
In light of the confusion over the constitutionality of displays of the Ten Commandments and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear two cases involving such displays,1 the following are constitutional guidelines for state and municipal governments and agencies that desire to display historical and traditional documents that may include religious references without running afoul of the First Amendment Establishment Clause.
The current issue of the constitutionality of displays of diverse secular and religious documents, however, is not directly controlled by the holding or reasoning of Stone v. Graham. The inclusion of the Commandments in the same context with other principal documents of history and law, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, addresses the Lemon test concerns by both grounding the display in a demonstrable “secular purpose,” and reducing concerns relating to the “primary effect” prong of Lemon. Further, this approach effectively addresses concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s Endorsement Test by negating the apparent endorsement of the Judeo-Christian belief system that is inherent in a sole display of a religious item standing alone.
This approach is congruent with the treatment of religious displays on public property held constitutional by the Supreme Court. In 1989, a divided Supreme Court ruled in County of Allegheny v. ACLU12 that a crèche located in a county courthouse, which was surrounded by a floral arrangement and a sign proclaiming "Gloria in Excelsis Deo," violated the Establishment Clause.13 At the same time, the Court held that a holiday display outside a county office building, which consisted of a menorah and a Christmas tree alongside a sign proclaiming, "Salute to Liberty," was a permissible commemoration of the holiday season. 14 Justices Blackmun and O'Connor expressed the view that has become the principal view in “mixed message” Establishment Clause cases that when deciding an Establishment Clause question, a court must determine whether the governmental action amounts to an endorsement of religion as viewed by the "reasonable observer." In other words, the test is whether “the challenged governmental action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denomination as an endorsement, and by nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices.”15 Accordingly, Blackmun and O'Connor found it necessary to examine the particular setting and composition of each display. 16 In Lynch v. Donnelly, the Court held that a creche placed alongside a variety of secular holiday ornamentations, such as Christmas trees, lights and a plastic Santa Claus, was constitutional. 17 When viewed in this context, the creche became part of a celebration of the secular aspects of Christmas, and did not amount to a governmental endorsement of religion. 18 Since Allegheny, the majority of lower courts that have decided "creche" or "menorah" cases have relied on Blackmun and O'Connor's contextual analysis.19 In general, these cases indicate that the courts are much more willing to permit religious displays when they are placed alongside other less sectarian ones, since such displays tend to diminish the impression of governmental endorsement of religion.
1. The posting is done for an express and legitimate secular purpose, such as affirming the country’s diverse civic heritage.
2. The Decalogue should not be placed in a position that is more prominent than other documents, such as in height, size or visibility.
4. Whenever possible, donated private funds should be used for the display.
5. The arrangement as a whole should not appear to create a symbolic union with governmental authority, particularly by being located in close proximity to signs or symbols of governmental authority, such as in entrance areas of government buildings, executive offices and hearing chambers.
1 O’Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union, 259 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2001), reh. den., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505, cert. den., 2002 U.S. LEXIS 1195 (February 25, 2002); Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000), cert. den., 532 U.S. 1058 (2001).
2 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (per curiam).
3 See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984); Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
5 See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 (1970) (promulgating the Lemon test which states that for the Court to find a governmental action constitutional under the Establishment Clause “the [action] must have a secular... purpose... its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion... [and] the [action] must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion”).
7 Id. at 40 (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13).
10 Id. at 42 (quoting Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 431 (1962)).
11 Stone, 449 U.S. at 42.
12 492 U.S. 573 (1989).
15 Id. at 597 (quoting School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 390 (1985)).
16 Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 594. The Supreme Court had used this same rationale six years earlier in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
19 See, e.g., Kaplan v. City of Burlington, 891 F.2d 1024, 1025-30 (2nd Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 926 (1990); ACLU of Kentucky v. Wilkinson, 895 F.2d 1098, 1105 (6th Cir. 1990); Doe v. Clawson, 915 F.2d 244, 246-47 (6th Cir. 1990); Lubavitch Chabad House, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 917 F.2d 341 (7th Cir. 1990); State v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, 898 P.2d 1013, 1028 (Colo. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 909 (1996); Elewski v. City of Syracuse, 123 F.3d 51 (2nd Cir. 1997); ACLU v. City of Florissant, 186 F.3d 1095 (8th Cir. 1999).
20 811 F. Supp. 669 (N.D. Ga. 1993), aff’d 15 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 1994).
21 811 F.Supp. at 670.
22 33 F.3d 679 (6th Cir. 1994).
23 Id. at 684. Likewise, the attorneys general of South Carolina and California have opined that displaying the Ten Commandments on public school property does not violate the Establishment Clause where the display contains both secular and religious information and is presented for historical and educational purposes. See South Carolina Attorney Gen. Opinion: Guidelines for Religious Liberty in Public Schools, August 10, 1998; California Attorney General Op. No. 96-507, September 13, 1996.
235 F.3d 292 (7th Cir. 2000). The Seventh Circuit decides federal appeals from the states of Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana.
25 O’Bannon, 259 F.3d at 772-73.
26 The Supreme Court itself displays a diverse mix of secular and sacred “lawgivers” and symbols on the walls of its Court Chamber, including Moses with the Ten Commandments. Moses, Confucius and Solon also appear in the building’s exterior reliefs.

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