MUSKOGEE, Okla. (ABP) — A federal judge in Oklahoma has upheld a Ten Commandments display outside a county courthouse, saying county officials did not advance any religious viewpoint by allowing the monument to be built two years ago.
United States District Judge Ronald White ruled Aug. 18 that Haskell County, Okla., commissioners did not err in allowing the eight-foot-tall stone monument to be erected on the county courthouse's lawn in Stigler. He relied on recent opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court suggesting that government displays of religious symbols or texts that are important parts of Western civilization can be done in a constitutional manner, depending on their contexts and histories.
White wrote that county commissioners did not “overstep the constitutional line demarcating government neutrality toward religion” in allowing the monument. The stone monument has a translation of the Decalogue on one side, and a copy of the Mayflower Compact on the other.
He noted that there are several other monuments on the Haskell County Courthouse lawn, including ones honoring veterans of various wars and the Choctaw Indian tribe, decreasing the religious value of the Decalogue display.
“A reasonable observer would see that the [commandments] monument is not the focus of the courthouse lawn,” White wrote. “The mélange of monuments surrounding the one at issue here obviously detract from any religious message that may be conveyed by the commandments.”
A fund-raising campaign led by a local minister, Mike Bush, paid for the monument. According to the Tulsa World, Bush was pleased by the victory and said he believes the display will pass expected future legal challenges.
“I'm a firm believer that it's going to stay there, regardless of what level of the court system it goes to,” he said. “I know God burdened my heart with it, that it was put there for a reason, and that it will stay there.”
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that context matters in Ten Commandments displays. In split decisions, the court ruled 5-4 that a historic monument among several other statues on the Texas Capitol grounds was constitutional. At the same time, an equally divided majority said much newer displays in two Kentucky counties were created with the initial intent of endorsing Christianity.
Shortly after those rulings, two Haskell County residents sued to have the Stigler monument removed. The American Civil Liberties Union helped represent the residents, arguing that the display's recent history and intent made it more like the Kentucky displays the high court had struck down than the Texas monument.
Judge White disagreed, writing that nothing about the resulting display, viewed in context, suggested the county was endorsing one faith.
Attorney Michael Salem, who argued against the display, said he was disappointed in White's reasoning.
“I really think the opinion doesn't seem to address the questions of when government becomes involved in the deciding of religious questions,” he said, according to the World. “Religious freedom really is the loser.”
-30-
Read more:
Supreme Court offers split decisions in Ten Commandments cases (June 27, 2005)
Are the Ten Commandments really integral to American legal history? (March 4, 2005)
Wary Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Ten Commandments cases (March 2, 2005)