ACLU Loses Case Against the Ten Commandments

In Mid-January 2010, the ACLU lost another case against a public display of the Ten Commandments.

This display including the Ten Commandments in a Leitchfield, Kentucky courthouse was the subject of one of the ACLU's (American Civil Liberties Union) many lawsuits against Bible-based items in public venues.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant in ACLU v Grayson County. The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals governs Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan. The Court, in this case, ruled that the presence of the Ten Commandments did not violate separation of church and state.

The legal firm Liberty Counsel represented Grayson County. Liberty Counsel's "Defend the Ten" website explains: Public Acknowledgment of Religion is not the same as Establishment of Religion.

The ACLU hasn't won a Court of Appeals case against the Ten Commandments since 2005. This Leitchfield, KY. display is identical to others at issue in two 2005 ACLU lawsuits, where the Ten Commandments also won the right to stay on display amid other historic documents of the United States such as the Declaration of Independence and the Mayflower Compact. As long as it is among other founding documents, it represents the general stance of the history of a city, county or state - not one religion.

Between the years of 2005 and 2009, the ACLU has lost their lawsuits against Ten Commandment displays in the Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Court of Appeals.

At U.S. Supreme Court level, the Court does sometimes rule against the Ten Commandments when the display seems purely of 'religious intent;' but often finds in favor of the Ten Commandments as a part of America's foundation when amid other documents.

For example, the Supreme Court reviewed a lower court's decision in the case of ACLU v. McCreary County, Kentucky. Whereas the lower court ruled for the ACLU, the Supreme Court found the following:
-The Constitution Does Not Prohibit the Inclusion of the Ten Commandments in Historical Displays on Government Property (p. 17).
-The complaints were facially inadequate because no plaintiff specifically claimed to have visited either courthouse, let alone to have actually seen the displays (p. 15).
-Plaintiffs here have failed to allege a "concrete" or "actual" injury (p. 14).
-The Ten Commandments appeared inconspicuously among a series of other historical documents... Defendants offered a legitimate secular purpose for the displays (pg 12).

The Supreme Court found similarly in the Texas case of Van Orden v. Perry. They upheld a Ten Commandments monument surrounded by other historical documents; although this was just a preliminary injunction to prevent removal of the monument. A final decision is still pending.

If we remove the Ten Commandments and any other religious artifacts from public view, we will be in effect declaring atheism the established faith of the United States. Just as the presence of religious monuments is accused of establishing a religion, then the absence of them would be establishing atheism. By doing so, we would be flying in the face of the politically correct mantra of "diversity," and that would be hypocritical. That would be so wrong. Because, after all, the only hypocrites that exist are those sitting in Christian churches -- Right?

The original version of this article appeared here in The Underground Online Magazine.

Sources:
ACLU v Grayson County: http://www.lc.org/media/9980/attachments/decision_ky_appeals_10_command_011410.pdf;
ACLU v McCreary County: http://www.lc.org/attachments/TenCommAmicus_Ashbrook.pdf;
Van Orden v Perry: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=764;
Liberty Counsel Press Release: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=894;
Defend the Ten: http://www.lc.org/ten/index.htm.