Published: April 02, 2008 02:30 pm            

Still no clarity — 04/03/08

New ruling adds to confusion over commandments’ displays

Instead of offering clarity, a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Joseph H. McKinley further muddies the water concerning whether local governments can include the Ten Commandments as part of broader displays in public buildings.

Indeed, at least on the face of it, McKinley’s ruling regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in the Grayson County Courthouse in Leitchfield seems to contradict a 2005 ruling by the 6th District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that allowed a display of the Ten Commandments in the Mercer County Courthouse that was part of a broader display of historical documents.

In a ruling issued Friday, McKinley upheld a preliminary injunction against the Grayson County display he had issued in 2002 and permanently barred the county from using the Ten Commandments as part of a “Foundations of American Law and Government” display.

The Ten Commandments have not hung in the courthouse since the 2002 preliminary injunction, but the frame the commandents were in has remained. No public money was used to set up the display.

The Grayson County display originally included the full text of the Mayflower Compact, the full text of the Declaration of Independence, the Ten Commandments, the full text of the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto together with the Preamble to the Kentucky Constitution, the Bill of Rights, a picture of Lady Justice together with an explanation of the significance of each of the documents.

That would make the display similar to the Mercer County display ruled constitutional by the appeals court. Yet, McKinley ruled that the Grayson County display was religious, not educational, in part because it came after the county failed to put up only a Ten Commandments display and Grayson County Fiscal Court members discussed what to put with the Ten Commandments to avoid objections from the American Civil Liberties Union.

“An objective observer would understand that the Foundations Display’s sponsor desired to post the Ten Commandments in the courthouse for purely religious reasons and counseled the Grayson County Fiscal Court on how to accomplish this to avoid objection by the ACLU,” McKinley wrote in his 23-page decision.

There is no question the Grayson County Fiscal Court was trying to comply with court rulings in establishing a display that would include the Ten Commandments, but isn’t that what should be expected of public bodies?

McKinley’s ruling is almost certain to be appealed. Either that or the courthouse display will be modified in an attempt to comply with court rulings.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 ruled that displays inside the McCreary and Pulaski county courthouses were unconstitutional. Since the appeals court ruling, Ten Commandments displays and monuments in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia have been challenged and taken down.

One hopes that the appeal of McKinley’s ruling will clearly define what local governments must do to make the Ten Commandments part of a broader display — or, since the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the appeals court ruling, if any displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings pass constitutional muster.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.