In 2012 a mother and her daughter filed a lawsuit against the Kensington-Arnold school district in Western Pennsylvania, arguing that the presence of a monument depicting the 10 Commandments violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Even though her daughter did not yet attend the high school, the mother, Schaub, first saw the monument while attending her daughter's karate tournament at the school. Schaub believed the display was "commanding" that students and visitors worship "thy God." The monument in question was donated to the school in 1956 by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles. In 2015, the district won the lawsuit in federal court because the judge decided that the girl did not have much contact with the monument because she was not a student at the school. Then the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling. Eventually, in 2017, the district and the appellants reached a settlement that would see the monument's removal and the school pay $164,000 in legal fees.
The 3rd Circuit made the incorrect decision when they reversed the previous one, as precedent exists supporting the first decision. The 2005 case, Van Orden v. Perry, provides the precedent. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that a monument depicting the 10 Commandments in a Texas public park did not violate the establishment clause. This monument was donated in 1961, also by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles. The court voted 5-4 in favor of Texas, arguing there is an “unbroken history of official acknowledgments by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life.” The Supreme Court's opinion continued, arguing that this history gives the 10 Commandments a secular meaning in the United States. In his concurring opinion, Justice Breyer echoes a similar sentiment, asserting that the 10 Commandments can represent a "secular moral message." He also argued that the government must be cautious about acting against religion and should realize that it is impossible to remove all religious symbols from public spaces.
The similarities between this case and the New Kensington case run deep. Both involved monuments that had stood for over 50 years, they had been donated by the secular group the Fraternal Order of the Eagles and also included secular symbols such as the eye of providence, the American flag, and eagle. I believe that these facts and the arguments presented by the justices in Van Orden v. Perry prove that the 10 Commandments monument did not violate the establishment clause.
The 10 Commandments monument stood for over 50 years on the high school grounds. Initially donated to the school by a secular group, as one of 10,000 similar plaques, the monument had the purpose of "encouraging citizens to use the Commandments as a guideline for treating others and building a stronger community." The original meaning and context surrounding the monument need consideration when contemplating its removal. I do not believe the monument violated the establishment clause. The establishment and free exercise clauses prevent the government from actively promoting or dissuading religious practice. The display did not represent the promotion of religion due to its context. It did not encourage people to practice religion but instead to live up to a moral code that is, for the most part, pretty widely accepted in the United States. When viewed historically, this becomes clearer as when the order donated the monument, the nation was even more religious than today and most likely believed that the 10 Commandments were even more representative of the requirements for a united and just community than today. It is also necessary to understand that because the monument stood for over 50 years and was part of a nationwide effort by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles, it became a historical monument to the organization and what they stand for and surpassed the realm of religion.
The district also should not have removed the monument because the role of government is not to be against religion but instead neutral towards both religion and irreligious causes. When the school removed the monument it represented a violation of this principle and made a statement that the government does not allow any display with religious influence to be in the public sphere. This action not only violates the First Amendment but also sets a precedent that would be almost impossible to follow, as there are thousands of monuments at risk of being torn down.
The 10 Commandments Monument at the New-Kensington- Arnold high school did not violate the establishment clause as it also had secular and historical significance.
4 comments:
Although I understand your opinion stating that the original intent of the monument was to promote better moral judgement among the high schoolers, I disagree with your statement that by removing the monument the district / government wasn’t acting neutrally.
I disagree with the federal courts initial decision of choosing to side with the district. Stating the girl didn’t have much contact with the monument because she didn’t yet attend that school is a cop out. If the monument made this girl and her mother feel as though the establishment clause was being broken, I would go as far as to say that there were probably students that did attend this high school who felt this way and just didn’t say anything.
The 10 Commandments are directly related to religion and if there is going to be a monument standing on public property, specifically public school grounds, I would see that as breaking the establishment clause. If I wasn’t religious and went to a school with a monument of the ten commandments on its grounds it would make me feel as though the government is promoting / favoring that religion.
I agree that reversing the ruling and taking down the monument was wrong. I do not think that keeping the monument up heavily influenced children to practice a certain religion. By simply viewing the monument, children are not forced to start believing a different way than they already do. The monument was also donated by a group whose main focus is to benefit the wellbeing of the country. The commandments were not put up to coerce children into christianity, but rather promote respect and peace among the school.
I would disagree with this, because although the 10 Commandments can be applied as a secular belief, they are still inherently tied to Christianity, because they were created as a Christian belief. It is impossible to separate the 10 commandments from Christianity, because even if it is argued that it is just a moral code, it is still a moral code created from a major religion. Therefore, while the monument may have been erected for reasons not related to religion, it still violates the establishment clause, because it still connotates Christian beliefs regardless of any attempts at arguing secularism and was erected in a public school funded by taxpayer dollars.
I agree with the courts final ruling that the monument should be taken down. Although, the 10 commandments are incorporated in multiple religions and is not favoring one religion, I think by having the monument on public school grounds violates the establishment clause. This is because Jefferson and Madison argued for the state to show no entanglement with religion, having this monument on public school grounds, that is funded by the state is contradictory. Even though the 10 commandments does not explicitly demonstrate religion, I think most people associate the commandments with religion more so than pillars of being a good citizen/person. I think allowing this statue is a slippery slope because one could then argue a religious statue of a saint of good health is not religious but rather just promoting one to be healthy.
Post a Comment