Austin TX 10C monument stays (for now)

[beejay]

AP story from the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/metropolitan/1603750)

A federal judge has ruled that a 5-foot stone slab with the Biblical passage next to the state Capitol building does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. :(

Thomas Van Orden [irrelevant information excised] had sued for its removal, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government.
In a 14-page ruling filed Wednesday, U.S. District Senior Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth rejected those claims and said no reasonable person would consider the display a religious endorsement.


Yeah, how could the Ten Commandments be seen as religious? :rolleyes:

Will Harrell, director of the Texas American Civil Liberties Union, which was not involved in the lawsuit, said he wasn't surprised by the decision.
An order to remove the monument would have bucked recent case law, Harrell said.
"The law has developed as such that there can be religious symbols associated with non-religious ones if they have historical values," Harrell said.
"We don't go about fighting lost battles."


I don't know what case law Harrell is reading. All the decisions I know of are going the other way.

Thomas van Orden indicated (before this decision) to me that intended to appeal to the 5th Circuit Court if he lost at this level. I hope he still feels that way. :)

[Buffman]

What about a Religious Discrimination suit? Lets put monuments for every religion pacticed in the US around the front of the building. I wonder when someone might decide that this one represents only the Judeo-Christian religion and is receiving support from the local government.

I wonder whose monument would get the most favorable position next to the State Capitol. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

(The ACLU position is depressing.)

[Toto]

At some point, you have to choose your battles, and the ACLU has a lot of experience in that, so I have to give some respect to their judgment. I think that the key points were:

The monument does not bear a state seal or the Texas star that is evident on 16 other Capitol monuments, most of them memorials to the state's history.

The legislative resolution accepting the monument made no mention of religion, and there is no record that either a Christian clergyman or a Jewish rabbi participated in the dedication ceremony.

. . .

The judge also said that because of its location -- turned away from a seldom-used door and facing away from vehicle traffic -- most Capitol visitors didn't even know the monument was there.


Besides, there is the historical value. This monument clearly celebrates the release of the movie with Charlton Heston, a signficant event in American popular culture. ;)

I am more interested in the Liberty Legal Institute (http://www.freemarket.org/liberty_legal.shtml), apparently a wholy owned subsidiary of the Free Market Institute. Read these unbiased summaries of their cases: (http://www.freemarket.org/case_summary.shtml)

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale- A homosexual scout leader sued the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual activists to be Scout leaders over young boys. . . .

Doe v. Santa Fe (TX) I.S.D.- In 1995, a federal district court ordered that students be arrested who use the name of Jesus, or any deity, in their graduation prayers.

[Stephen Maturin]

What an awful decision. From the article:

The monument does not bear a state seal or the Texas star that is evident on 16 other Capitol monuments * * *.

The legislative resolution accepting the monument made no mention of religion, and there is no record that either a Christian clergyman or a Jewish rabbi participated in the dedication ceremony.

* * *

The judge also said that because of its location -- turned away from a seldom-used door and facing away from vehicle traffic -- most Capitol visitors didn't even know the monument was there.


If that's all it takes to insulate a blatant government endorsement of religion from First Amendment challenges, we might as well repeal the Establishment Clause.

[Buffman]

At some point, you have to choose your battles, and the ACLU has a lot of experience in that, so I have to give some respect to their judgment.

Hmmmmm? Why do I feel that the Christian radicals are winning the war? Perhaps the ACLU's judgment does need closer examination. However, I suspect that like so many issues, financial resources, personnel(talent) and motivation play leading roles in how each state ACLU office conducts its operations/battles.

How has it come to be that in a country that claims to be 85% Christian, with elected representatives mirroring that percentage, that the radical Christians have successfully created the legal image of themselves as an oppressed religious minority in that same country? Is the judgment of the ACLJ and LLI better than that of the ACLU...or do they simply have more money, motivation and talent? (Of course they do have a 9-1-1 line to the supernatural world when they need a hand...or some additional financing) <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[GaryP]

Buffman;

Is the judgment of the ACLJ and LLI better than that of the ACLU...or do they simply have more money, motivation and talent? (Of course they do have a 9-1-1 line to the supernatural world when they need a hand...or some additional financing) <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

When one calls the Ohio ACLU, one gets a recording. It says something such as "Send us a letter unless you are from the media."

When one sends a letter, one gets a response such as, "The ACLU is only interested in cases which has no established precedence. If you think your rights have been violated, call a lawyer."

They don't have enough money to even man the phones! And they are the great ungodly who are ruining our country!

:rolleyes:

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]</p>

[beejay]

It's certainly true that each state's ACLU chapter has a different level of resources.

The Ohio ACLU contact page (http://www.acluohio.org/contact/contact.htm) also has a comment If you are seeking the ACLU's help in a legal matter involving your constitutional rights, please send us a one page letter summarizing your situation along with a S.A.S.E. (Self-Addressed, Stamped Envelope.) After that, we will only contact you if we can help.
The ACLU handles cases that involve serious violations of civil liberties by the government. We do not have a large staff of lawyers. We are funded through donations, and do not receive any government money. Because of this, we cannot take every worthy case that comes our way

The Ohio ACLU is currently involved in at least two 10C cases, so they don't share the Texas ACLU view that these are "losing battles".

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: beejay ]</p>

[beejay]

Interview with Thomas van Orden (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2002-12-06/pols_feature.html)

Van Orden will be filing an appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2003.

So far the Circuit Courts have been ruling "our way" on these cases, so I'm hopeful that the 5th Circuit (and the 11th? Circuit covering Alabama) will continue in this manner.

(Similar cases pending in the 8th Circuit (Nebraska), 6th Circuit (Ohio and Kentucky) and the 3rd Circuit (Pennsylvania).)


:)

[beejay]

Just an update:

The oral arguments for this case are scheduled for 9/2/2003 at the Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans.

This is another Eagles 10C monument. So far all Circuit Courts who have ruled on these has held them unconstitutional.

(The 3rd Circuit is the only exception on 10C rulings, because the monument had been there for 80 years. I was not aware that unconstitutional acts become constitutional after a certain time had expired...was Brown v Board of Education wrongly decided?)

[beejay]

A pretty balanced (perhaps even favorable to the separation side) article.

Houston Chronicle story (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2098051)

Thomas Van Orden, a former criminal defense attorney … in Austin, doesn't agree with the court's decision. Representing himself, he appealed the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where it awaits a ruling from a three-judge panel.

This case certainly hasn't had the press that the Alabama case has, but it's just as important.

[shome42]

I work at the Capitol and have never seen this momument. That's either a testament to the momument's inconspicuous placement or my ignorance of the Capitol.