The battle over the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings continues with the courts providing seemingly inconsistent rulings.
In a 2-1 decision released Thursday, the 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati reversed a 2008 lower court decision that ruled that the inclusion of the Ten Commandments as part of a display of historical documents in the Grayson County Courthouse in Leitchfield was primarily religious and amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
The Ten Commandments were part of a “Foundations of American Law and Government” display in the Grayson County Courthouse that included the full text of the Mayflower Compact, the full Declaration of Independence and other historical documents with an explanation of their significance.
In voting to overturn a lower court decision by U.S. District Judge Joseph McKinley, Appellate Judge David W. McKeague wrote that minutes of the Grayson County Fiscal Court show county officials were interested mainly in having the historical display at the courthouse.
“While there is no doubt that the fiscal court members could have been more explicit about their educational goals, we nonetheless find that, taken as a whole, the foundations display endorses an educational message rather than a religious one,” McKeague wrote. U.S. District Judge Karl Forester of Lexington agreed.
Appellate Judge Karen Nelson Moore dissented, saying the minutes of various fiscal court meetings make the intent of the display clear. Moore noted that county officials didn’t discuss the historical significance of the commandments or other documents in the display until after being sued.
“The county’s asserted purpose here — that the display was posted for educational or historical reasons — is a sham and should be rejected,” Moore wrote. “The predominant purpose at the time the fiscal court voted to approve the display was a religious one.”
Thursday’s ruling clears the way for the display to go back up in the Grayson County Courthouse, but don’t be surprised if the ruling is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
That’s part of the problem. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings is acceptable if it is part of a historical display, but the high court has given the lower court a great deal of leeway in determining whether each individual display of the Ten Commandments is “religious” or “historical.”
Because the high court has not be clear in its guidelines for the proper display of the Ten Commandments, it has left open the door for seemingly contradictory lower court rulings. The Grayson County case may give the high court the opportunity to add some needed clarity to its earlier rulings.
