THE FAMILY FOUNDATION

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays in public places. *McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky*, certain to be a landmark case, is the first Ten Commandments case in history to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mat Staver, General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, the group defending McCreary County’s display of the Decalogue, said the future of religious liberty hinges on the outcome.

"The decision . . . will set the course for the future interpretation of the First Amendment on such matters as the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto ‘In God We Trust’, and other public acknowledgments of religion," Staver said. "Either America will be able to acknowledge God or it won’t. Our heritage and our future are riding on this case." More than two dozen "controversial" Ten Commandments cases, currently "on hold" in legal dockets across the country are expected to be affected by the decision which will be handed down in June.

"I’m very optimistic about the case," said McCreary County Judge/executive Blaine Phillips. Phillips said he plans to be present for oral arguments along with other local supporters, including several fiscal court members and retired Judge/executive Jimmie Greene — who vowed in 2001 to take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court.

Greene permitted a display in the McCreary County courthouse which featured the Ten Commandments, Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, and other historical documents that played a significant role in the founding of America’s system of law and government. The courthouse later established a public forum where private citizens could post additional historical documents.

"Our history is replete with references to the Ten Commandments," Staver said. "There is no question that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the origin of American law and government and that they may be constitutionally displayed for their historical significance." A poll taken late last year showed 75 percent of Americans support displaying the Commandments in public places.

Yet, state and federal courts are sharply divided over the legality of public Ten Commandments displays. Four federal circuit courts and one state supreme court have ruled that such displays are constitutional, while three federal circuit courts hold that such displays are illegal.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in Kentucky public school classrooms was unconstitutional. Now, the case comes full circle. This time they will consider oral arguments, but the outcome is expected to have implications that reach much further than local classrooms.

"As a result of this Ten Commandments case, either the courts will respect and acknowledge our religious history and faith or they will be set on a collision course with our faith and values," Staver said. "Whether we face hostility or receive accommodation from the courts will be determined by the decision in this case."

The Supreme Court will also decide the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas state capitol grounds. A positive ruling could allow Kentucky to restore its Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds in Frankfort, according to Frank Manion, a Kentucky attorney who works for the American Center for Law and Justice.

Manion believes much more is at stake than whether or not the Ten Commandments can be publicly posted. "This issue is really about free speech and the ability of citizens and elected officials to exercise their right without approval of the ACLU," Manion said. Manion successfully defended a Mercer County Ten Commandments display in federal court in 2003.

"This Supreme Court decision brings the United States to a critical crossroad: Either this nation will choose to return to its founding premise of true freedom of religion, OR, it will continue down its more recent path, and clearly choose to be hostile to public expressions of faith. If it chooses the latter, it will in essence be saying, "Separation *of God* and state," and will be no different than the Soviet Union of the 1980s. Let us pray!"
- Kent Ostrander
Key Family Foundation Contacts: Kent Ostrander , Executive Director Martin Cothran , Senior Associate Policy Analyst

On March 2, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays in public places. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, certain to be a landmark case, is the first Ten Commandments case in history to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mat Staver, General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, the group defending McCreary County’s display of the Decalogue, said the future of religious liberty hinges on the outcome.

"The decision . . . will set the course for the future interpretation of the First Amendment on such matters as the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Motto ‘In God We Trust’, and other public acknowledgments of religion," Staver said. "Either America will be able to acknowledge God or it won’t. Our heritage and our future are riding on this case." More than two dozen "controversial" Ten Commandments cases, currently "on hold" in legal dockets across the country are expected to be affected by the decision which will be handed down in June.

"I’m very optimistic about the case," said McCreary County Judge/executive Blaine Phillips. Phillips said he plans to be present for oral arguments along with other local supporters, including several fiscal court members and retired Judge/executive Jimmie Greene — who vowed in 2001 to take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court.

Greene permitted a display in the McCreary County courthouse which featured the Ten Commandments, Declaration of Independence, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, and other historical documents that played a significant role in the founding of America’s system of law and government. The courthouse later established a public forum where private citizens could post additional historical documents.

"Our history is replete with references to the Ten Commandments," Staver said. "There is no question that the Ten Commandments played a significant role in the origin of American law and government and that they may be constitutionally displayed for their historical significance." A poll taken late last year showed 75 percent of Americans support displaying the Commandments in public places.

Yet, state and federal courts are sharply divided over the legality of public Ten Commandments displays. Four federal circuit courts and one state supreme court have ruled that such displays are constitutional, while three federal circuit courts hold that such displays are illegal.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in Kentucky public school classrooms was unconstitutional. Now, the case comes full circle. This time they will consider oral arguments, but the outcome is expected to have implications that reach much further than local classrooms.

"As a result of this Ten Commandments case, either the courts will respect and acknowledge our religious history and faith or they will be set on a collision course with our faith and values," Staver said. "Whether we face hostility or receive accommodation from the courts will be determined by the decision in this case."

The Supreme Court will also decide the constitutionality of a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas state capitol grounds. A positive ruling could allow Kentucky to restore its Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds in Frankfort, according to Frank Manion, a Kentucky attorney who works for the American Center for Law and Justice.

Manion believes much more is at stake than whether or not the Ten Commandments can be publicly posted. "This issue is really about free speech and the ability of citizens and elected officials to exercise their right without approval of the ACLU," Manion said. Manion successfully defended a Mercer County Ten Commandments display in federal court in 2003.

"This Supreme Court decision brings the United States to a critical crossroad: Either this nation will choose to return to its founding premise of true freedom of religion, OR, it will continue down its more recent path, and clearly choose to be hostile to public expressions of faith. If it chooses the latter, it will in essence be saying, "Separation of God and state," and will be no different than the Soviet Union of the 1980s. Let us pray!"
- Kent Ostrander