Posted on 11/05/2001 12:50:48 PM PST by callisto
A conservative legal group is defending, in federal court, the rights of three Kentucky counties to display the Ten Commandments in historical displays at two courthouses and a school district in the state.
The Liberty Counsel has filed a brief with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Its opponent in the case is the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that a U.S. district court judge in Kentucky was correct in ruling the displays unconstitutional.
"[The] ruling is quite clear," David A. Friedman, general counsel for the ACLU of Kentucky, said. "Our Constitution's ban on government establishment of religion is good for both government and religion. It keeps religion free, and it allows government to represent us all."
Erik Stanley, litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, said the original suit was nothing more than an attempt by the ACLU to revise the history of founding of the United States.
"I think it is really historical revisionism. Like it or not, religion played an important role in the founding of our country," he said.
The ACLU sued Pulaski, McCreary and Harlon counties in Kentucky over their choice to display the Ten Commandments in historical displays at two courthouses and a school.
"They were posting the Ten Commandments along with several other historical documents because they believed, and there is historical evidence to back it up, that the Ten Commandments were one of the documents that played a significant role in the foundation of our system of law and government," Stanley said.
The Liberty Counsel believes the Ten Commandments can be displayed legally because of their historical importance. "The incorporation of the Ten Commandments in law and policy pre-dates the Constitution," the brief reads.
Stanley said the displays clearly pass the 'Lemon test,' a measurement of whether the so-called Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government from establishing or limiting the free expression of religion, has been violated. The Lemon test was established with the 1971 Supreme Court decision, Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Stanley said the Lemon test is a three-part test that asks whether the governmental practice in question has a secular purpose, whether it has the primary effect of endorsing religion and whether it results in excessive entanglement of the government with religion.
The Kentucky case does not violate the Establishment Clause, Stanley said, because, "Someone looking at the display would view this as nothing other than a historical representation of some of the documents that played an important role."
The ACLU disagrees. In a press release, it cites the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer B. Coffman. She said the display of the Ten Commandments "have the overwhelming effect of endorsing religion," noting that the First Amendment protects "the religious diversity that is our national heritage."
Stanley, however, believes this ruling denies our national heritage.
"The ACLU has specifically argued in court that there is no connection between the Ten Commandments and our system of law and government. I don't understand why they are making that argument because I don't believe that, historically, that statement can be backed up. I think a true reading of history will show that the Ten Commandments did play a significant role," Stanley said.
The Liberty Counsel brief cites laws from the colonies of Virginia, Connecticut and others from the 17th century that show an intrinsic connection between colonial law and each of the Ten Commandments.
Stanley believes it is the intent of the ACLU to rid the country of the historical connection between religion, law and government.
"If the court bought into [the ACLU's] arguments, effectively what that would require them to do is take a chisel to the depiction of Moses above the chief justice's head in the Supreme Court chamber," he said.
"Religion still plays an important role in our national life and it can't violate the Establishment Clause for government to acknowledge an objective view of history. To require government not to present an objective view of history would rewrite history," Stanley said.
.......or more simply, any competition. Leftist always hated that.
Sure, but it's not really part of our historical foundation. The major part of religion's influence on the founding of our country was just a Protestant moral tradition. Jews, Catholics, atheists, and other non-Protestants were second-class citizens, in many states being denied freedom of religion.
But as I said before, we ought to just schedule a free-for-all sometime.
Don't give them any ideas :)
And once they set precedence for changing history, the Constitution is not far away. Everyone keeps wanting to read/translate it with modern meanings. Do they think so little of our Founding Fathers' intellect as to suppose that they were short-sighted as to the meanings of their own words?
I also wouldn't dismiss the ACLU 100%. (gasp) They've supported Jehovah's Witnesses and other small Christian sects on a number of important occaisions, and they've been fighting the McCainiac campaign finance reform crap tooth and nail. 90% of what they do may be rat work, but the extra 10% isn't insiginificant. In this case, they're wrong.
That is not quite how I would phrase it, but there is no doubt but that the Founding Fathers took the view that you suggest. The ACLU has gone to great lengths, over a great many years, to obfuscate the issue. They really do deserve their comeuppance on this. (See Leftwing Word Games & Religious Freedom.)
I wonder if the ACLU client in this contacted them, or was someone whom they solicited. One suspects that there are not too many ACLU supporters in those Counties--but then I could be wrong.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Come to think of it, I don't even know what they would have said about such a question at the state level.
Uh, I'm not so sure you are correct about that. The Judeo-Christian morality not part of our foundation? Whaa?
First, the Protestants were surely in charge, but how are they out of the orbit of "Judeo-Christian" morality? Second, if these guys were so bad, how did they (as you imply, all of a sudden) grant religious freedom to all? And third, Jews and Catholics were free to practice their religions in every colony that I am familiar with by the 1750s. Perhaps there were exceptions that I am unaware of, so please help me out here.
If you can find a copy, read "The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776-1791," by Robert Allen Rutland. One state (can't remember off the top of my head) guaranteed freedom of religion, but only to Protestants -- and then they forbad any pastor to hold any civil or military post. The early 'freedom of/from religion' issue is very convoluted and would absolutely shock most people if they studied it. For instance, one state's government only recognized marriages by Anglican ministers, up until 1780 if I remember correctly. If a couple were married by a Baptist preacher, then they weren't legally married, and their kids were bastards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.