Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Sourcing would indicate the passage from the Bible from which the exerpt was taken. Sourcing of the Islamic prayer would indicate its location in the Quran. What would it hurt to take them down? Nothing. What does it hurt for them to be there. Nothing. But if a lot of people enjoy having them there, why is it so important to some of you to deny them that? You aren't required to look at it, read it, believe it, recite it, or pay any attention whatsoever to it. So why is it so darned important that nobody else be able to enjoy it?

ACLU Nebraska Foundation v. City of Plattsmouth, No. 02-2444, 2004 WL 298965 (8th Cir. Feb. 18, 2004) (2-1):

Display: Fraternal Order of Eagles monument[1] in a city park ten blocks from Plattsmouth City Hall, with no other monument, statue or display within viewing distance.

Decision: The district court found that the monument had a religious purpose and effect at the summary judgment stage, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed 2-1.

Purpose: Despite the fact that there are no records of the City's decision-making process in accepting the monument, the religious purpose is evident in the content and context of the monument itself: the monument's message is undeniably religious, and nothing in the monument's surroundings suggest that its purpose might be something other than religious because it is displayed in isolation.

Effect: The reasonable observer of the monument would perceive a government endorsement of religion because the context of the monument does nothing to secularize it: the park and monument are public property upon which a religious message has been placed; the monument's inscription links government to its religious message; and although the City had accepted other donated items for display in the park, none of them bears a religious message.

ACLU v. McCreary County, 354 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2003) (2-1) (McCreary II) (consolidated case, enjoining displays in McCreary and Pulaski County courthouses, and in Harlan County public school classrooms; a discussion of those portions of the decision that pertain to schools is in the section below regarding public schools), reh'g denied, 2004 WL 569257 (with dissent by 2 judges):

Display: In an effort to remedy the violations found in McCreary I and Pulaski I (see below), the defendants put up the Ten Commandments joined by the full text of the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Star Spangled Banner, Mayflower Compact of 1620, a picture of Lady Justice, the National Motto, and the emblem and preamble to the Kentucky Constitution. Each display included an explanation of the significance of each document, stating, with respect to the Ten Commandments, that they provide the "moral" background of our legal tradition.

Decision: The district court found a religious purpose and effect at the "supplemental preliminary injunction" stage and the Sixth Circuit affirmed 2-1.

Purpose: The Circuit disagreed with the district court's conclusion that a purpose to display the influence of the Ten Commandments on American law is itself religious. They can be displayed to demonstrate their connection to American law or government, but it must be done objectively, as part of a secular message. The government achieves this goal by ensuring that the items in the display "share a common secular theme or subject matter." A court examines "content, context and the evolution of the displays" in order to make this assessment. Here, the content reflects a religious purpose because: the displays provides the viewer with no analytical or historical connection between the Ten Commandments and the other historical documents, such that the displays lack an apparent theme; and the displays emphasize a single religious influence on our legal tradition, with no mention of any other religious or secular influences. As to context, because the Ten Commandments are an "active symbol of religion" rather than a passive symbol like a creche, defendants must exercise "special care" to present them objectively and as an integral part of a non-religious message. The proffered purpose to educate citizens about the various documents that influenced American law is a pretense, as the history of the display shows that the true intention was to display the Ten Commandments.

Effect: The display conveys a message of religious endorsement because of the "complete lack of any analytical connection between the Ten Commandments and the other patriotic documents and symbols." The display reflects no "unifying [secular] historical or cultural theme." A reasonable observer would not link all of these texts to the foundation of American law government; the displays' mere assertion of such a link does not cure the problem any more than the disclaimer in Stone. The location of the displays also advances religion because courthouses are places in which the government carries out a quintessential function of enforcing laws and where citizens go out of necessity or force of law. The history of the displays bolsters the impression of endorsement.

Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003):

Display: The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy Moore, commissioned a 5,300 pound granite monument to the Ten Commandments that he placed in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building, which houses the Alabama Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal. The monument is in the shape of a block, the top of which is engraved with the Ten Commandments, and the sides of which are engraved with religious excerpts from documents such as the Pledge of Allegiance, the Alabama Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and writings of the founding fathers.

Decision: On appeal, the court upheld the district court's post-trial ruling that the display violated the purpose and effect prongs of Lemon.

Purpose: According to the testimony of Chief Justice Moore himself, as well as all other evidence, it is "self-evident" that Moore's purpose in displaying the monument was non-secular. During the trial, Moore testified candidly as to his religiously-motivated reasons for placing the monument in the rotunda.

Effect: The appearance of the monument itself, its location in the rotunda of a state judicial building, the selection and location of the quotations on its sides, and the inclusion of the Ten Commandments, all contributed to the district court's finding, affirmed by the appellate court, that the monument's primary effect was to advance religion. In addition, both courts considered the fact that Moore had campaigned as the "Ten Commandments Judge," his statements at the monument's unveiling, and the fact that the rotunda was not a public forum for speech.

ACLU v. Ashbrook, 211 F. Supp. 2d 757 (N.D. Ohio 2002):

Display: Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights posters in a county courtroom.

Decision: The court found religious purpose and effect on summary judgment.

Purpose: The Ten Commandments, by themselves, cannot be stripped of religious significance, so the issue is whether the religious purpose is diluted. When government specifically decides to display the Ten Commandments, whether with or without other documents, there is a religious purpose. When the Ten Commandments are an incidental or inconspicuous part of a larger secular display, there is a secular purpose. The county court judge's deposition testimony shows that he displayed the Ten Commandments to reflect "moral absolutes" that come from God. This is a religious purpose because the only "absolutes" displayed are those embraced by particular religious groups.

Effect: The display is in a courtroom, which is plainly under government control. The display sends the message that the Bill of Rights and the Ten Commandments are co-equal in importance and that the judge may favor Judeo-Christian litigants; labeling items as "the rule of law" sends the message that the Ten Commandments are rules of substantive law in that courtroom; and the Ten Commandments are not presented as part of a comprehensive display of other influential legal codes. The Court refused to consider displays elsewhere in the courtroom and in the building because they were erected at different times, are physically distinct, and nothing links them together.

Judge's Free Speech Rights: "Where, as here, a poster endorsing religion has been placed on government property by a government official in a forum only available to the government, the speech is that of the government, and not that of a private individual."

There's an interesting story about the World Cup football finals played in England in-oh about 1966 or so.We won with a hotly disputed goal and shortly after the Gov't won the election.

There is nothing that says a monument can't be there, only that we can't coerce you to believe in it a certain way.

If you remove all religious icons, lola, you are not granting equality to all. The people who don't have, or believe in, religious symbols would be being placed above those who have the symbols.

And though we disagree, my hat is off to you Ros as a principled person who can actually hold her own in a reasoned discussion and without demeaning and/or insulting her opponent. Kudos. And I will be proud to have that lunch with you anytime.

I'm a He, not a She. The R in Rosborne stands for Ralph.

Best Regards,
Ralph Osborne

Yes, I get it Lola. I can understand those who are offended by religion. There is much in the public life that I find offensive too but these things do not infringe on my personal, inalienable rights any more than a marble monument does. I prefer (and preach) the doctrine of live and let live. When my rights are violated or your rights are violated, then I'll join with anybody to defend them. Until then, I will defend the right of people to exercise all their first amendment rights, not just the part that most pleases the anti-religious crowd.