Appeals Court Declares Ten Commandments Monument Unconstitutional | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > June (Web-only)

Christianity Today, June (Web-only), 2009 |

Appeals Court Declares Ten Commandments Monument Unconstitutional

Judges say the Oklahoma monument would reflect a government endorsement of religion.

Adelle M. Banks, Religion News Service | posted 6/11/2009 09:24AM

Related articles and links |

1 of 1

A federal appeals court has declared the erection of a Ten Commandments monument unconstitutional, citing the "unusual" circumstances of its placement on the courthouse grounds in a small Oklahoma county.

In its Monday ruling, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals noted statements by county commissioners about the monument, including one who said, "I'm a Christian and I believe in this."

The court said "a reasonable observer" in the community would know of the religious motivations of the part-time minister who secured private donations for the monument and the quick approval of the commissioners who heard his request for it.

"We conclude, in the unique factual setting of a small community like Haskell County, that the reasonable observer would find that these facts tended to strongly reflect a government endorsement of religion," wrote Circuit Judge Jerome A. Holmes for a unanimous three-judge panel. "In none of their statements did the commissioners attempt to distinguish between the board's position and their own beliefs."

The court distinguished the county setting, where the monument was recently placed among war memorials and other monuments, from the Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. The Texas monument stood with other monuments for 40 years before it was challenged, while the Oklahoma monument was challenged within a year of its unveiling.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit against the county, hailed the decision, which overturned a lower court ruling. "The government should not be in the business of promoting religious viewpoints," said Daniel Mach, director of litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the commissioners, said it is considering an appeal. "Small-town government officials have just as much right to express their personal opinions about monuments as those in larger cities," said ADF Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot.

Related Elsewhere:

Christianity Today's earlier coverage of Ten Commandments displays and related controversies includes:

Keeping the Commandments | The Supreme Court is thinking more clearly about religious symbols in public life. (March 6, 2009)

Ten Commandments Displays Head Back to Supreme Court | Can a display be government speech without the government actually endorsing the message? (Nov. 12, 2008)

Broken Tablets The Court splits the baby and denies the rule of law. Feel united yet? A Christianity Today editorial (August 2005)

God Reigns—Even in Alabama | Let's not make the Commandments into a graven image. A Christianity Today editorial (October 2003)

Hang Ten? | Thou shalt avoid Ten Commandments tokenism. A Christianity Today editorial (March 2000)

1 of 1

share this page

June (Web-only) 2009, Vol. 53

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment

Reader Reviews are below

Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.

Click here for international orders

2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Displaying 1 - 3 of 11 comments.

See all comments

homebuilding

Posted: June 14, 2009 1:02 PM

Thank you, CT for covering this item. The last entity that I want promoting ANY religion is the government heirarchy of any nation. It's so obvious that "the crazies" in the Middle East see NO distinction--hence they bring their "god preoccupation" to every dispute (and they are willing to die or be killed on each count). I'm happy for a secular state that allows for ALL religions (or no religion), carefully NOT promoting any one group over another. The last place I want to live is where the limbaughs/coulters/malkins/hannities/becks decide on belief for all.

Salero21

Posted: June 13, 2009 11:24 AM

Believers in Jesus Christ as the one and only Son of God. Are NOT under the Law but under Grace. Anyone trying to justify themselves by the Law is fallen from Grace. Is funny if not phony, to hear "christians" like the one quoted. Saying they believe in something they don't practice, not even fully understand. Even Paul reprimanded Peter for trying to impose the Law upon the gentiles. This actions on the part of county officials is nothing more than one example among many. Of a people who think they are the ones that have replaced Israel in God's plans. Well there are bad, very bad news for them, Not even the Church replaces Israel. Much less a gentile Nation. The Church is the the Church, Israel is Israel. The Law was given to Israel, Grace was imparted to the Church. In reality, we even have a better deal than Israel; So why would anyone would want to go back to the Law? Not even those to whom the Law was given. Foolishness in the extreme degree.

Ted Voth Jr

Posted: June 12, 2009 1:49 PM

Hurrah! For once something good out of Nazareth– I mean, Oklahoma, my home state. Bart Campolo says 'Mixing Church and state is like mixing horse manure and ice cream; it doesn't do much to the manure, but it sure spoils the ice cream!' He's wrong: it's destructive to the state as well. Is LAH aware of what happened in England when Roman Catholic Mary Tudor came to the throne and tried to rverse her father's 'reformation?' 'Bloody Mary's'' her nick-name. Or for that matter what happened to the Catholics after her sister Elizabeth came to the throne? Is LAH a Baptist? is he aware of what the Romans and the Lutherans and the Anglicans and the Calvinists did to us Anabaptists? Furthermore if we are not under the Law of Moses but inder Grace, then in a very real sense the 10 Commandments are passé, irrelevant. They are the Top 10 capital crimes under the Law of Moses.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.