The Supreme Court
While recent years have seen increasing hostility from the courts to public displays of religion, the Supreme Court itself is filled with them. To start with, all sessions begin with the Court's Marshal announcing: "God save the United States and this honorable court."
The truth is that throughout most of our history, the decisions of the Supreme Court have recognized the fact that we are a religious nation. For example, in the 1952 case Zorach vs. Clauson, the Court upheld a statute that allowed students to be released from school to attend religious classes. Justice William O. Douglas wrote: We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a supreme being. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion.
Religious Imagery in the Supreme Court
The most striking religious imagery at the Supreme Court is that of Moses with the Ten Commandments. Affirming the Judeo-Christian roots of our legal system, Moses can be found in several places: in the center of the East Pediment on 2nd Street NE, as a relief on the southwest corner of the building on 1st Street NE, inside the Upper Great Hall, and inside the actual courtroom as part of the "great lawgivers of history" frieze.
Along the East Pediment of the Supreme Court is a sculpture entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty," which features Moses at the center, flanked by Solon and Confucius.
The following court cases are taken from http://www.pewforum.org/files/2007/06/religious-displays.pdf
In 1984, the court took up its first case that specifically involved holiday displays. In that case, the court ruled that a Christmas nativity scene that the city of Pawtucket, R.I., had placed in a municipal square was constitutionally acceptable. The court stated that the nativity scene simply recognized the historical origins of the holiday, one that has secular as well as religious significance. In those circumstances, the justices concluded, the nativity scene did not reflect an effort by the government to promote Christianity
The lack of clear guidelines reflects deep divisions within the Supreme Court itself. Some justices are more committed to strict church-state separation and tend to rule that any government-sponsored religious display violates the Establishment Clause. These same justices also believe that, in some circumstances, the Establishment Clause may forbid private citizens from placing religious displays on public property.
Other members of the court read the Establishment Clause far more narrowly, arguing that it leaves ample room for religion in the public square. In recognition of the role that religion has played in U.S. history, these justices have been willing to allow government to sponsor a wide variety of religious displays. In addition, they have ruled that the Establishment Clause never bars private citizens from placing religious displays in publicly owned spaces that are generally open to everyone
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Pawtucket’s display did not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren Burger emphasized that government has long had the authority to acknowledge the role that religion has played in U.S. history. This authority suggests, he said, that the Establishment Clause does not require a total exclusion of religious images and messages from government-sponsored displays. He concluded that the local government had included the crèche to “depict the historical origins of this traditional event” rather than to express official support for any religious message.
For Justice O’Connor, government endorsement was the key factor. Courts, she argued, should ask whether a “reasonable person” would view the government’s actions as an endorsement of particular religions. But while endorsement is prohibited, she argued, mere acknowledgement of religion, or of religion’s role in the nation’s history, is not.
RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS AND THE COURTS: Significant Supreme Court Rulings
Stone V. Graham (1980)
The court ruled that a Kentucky statute requiring public schools to post a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom was unconstitutional.
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
The court ruled that a Pawtucket, R.I., Christmas display, which included a crèche as well as more secular symbols of Christmas, such as a Santa Claus and reindeer, was permissible.
County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989)
The court struck down a Christmas crèche displayed alone inside a courthouse in Pittsburgh, Pa., but upheld the same city’s broader holiday display that included a Christmas tree and menorah.
Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette (1995)
The court ruled that Ohio officials were wrong to deny the Ku Klux Klan the right to place a large cross on a public plaza where displays by private citizens were permitted.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)
The court ruled that the placement of framed copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses in two Kentucky counties was unconstitutional.
Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
The court ruled that a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas state Capitol grounds was permissible.
Ray R Barmore
Health and Wellness Coach
The Herbal Guy
San Diego California
619-876-5273
Skype: barmore4
Email Me
Other Blog:
Health and Nutrition
Websites:
Organo Gold
Herbalife