Myth #10: The Eagles’s Tombstones are Nonsectarian

[Chapter 9, post #12]

“The Eagles’ consultation with a committee composed of members of several faiths in order to find a nonsectarian text underscores the group’s ethics-based motives.”[1]

Justice Stephen Breyer

The question raised by Myth #10 is whether the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds is “sectarian.”  A sectarian Ten Commandments monument would be one whose text of the Ten Commandments is: “narrowly confined or devoted to a particular sect.”[2]  This issue most frequently arises before the courts in legislative prayer cases – that is, challenges to the practice of opening legislatures and local boards with a prayer to solemnize the meeting.[3]

Justice Breyer took a bite of the Eagles’ poisonous apple and provided the pivotal fifth vote in Van Orden v. Perry. One of Justice Breyer’s rationales for finding no Establishment Clause violation was that a committee of clergy had developed nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments.  Some justices are of the view that under our Constitution government is permitted to advance religion as long as no single religion is preferred.[4]  I suppose that Justice Breyer was counting Judaism, Christianity and Islam as diverse religions eventho they are derivative of the religion of Abraham.

I discussed the “committee” more fully in the chapter Ruegemer Soars On Eagles Wings.  The essence is this – Judge E.J. Ruegemer established a local[5] committee of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant clergy to draft a nondenominational version of the Ten Commandments.  He believed that such universality would give him cover for the conspiracy he was about to undertake – collusion with state and local governments to violate the civil liberties of Americans – getting permission from governmental entities to erect tombstones to Jesus Christ on public property and proselytize “God’s law.”

It is not surprising that the version of the Ten Commandments that Ruegemer’s committee came up with most closely resembles the Catholic version in that the numbering of the first three commandments being man’s obligations to God[6] and the “covet” commandments are split in two as the ninth and tenth commandments.  Judge Ruegemer was a devout Catholic.

To many, it does not matter which version of the Ten Commandments is in the public square – as long as “God’s law” law is there for everyone to see.[7]  

To others, the version matters.  Often, parents do not want their children being indoctrinated in a religion different from their own – even a different Christian denomination.  This may seem exaggerated to some.  It is not.  In May and July of 1844, for example, Philadelphia experienced the Bible Riots following nativist groups spreading a rumor that Catholics were trying to remove the Bible from public schools. Numerous deaths and injuries resulted, as well as, the burning of several Catholic churches.[8]  Again, the version matters a lot to some people.

And to others, the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monuments placed on courthouse lawns, public parks and public schools represent a violation of the principle of separation of church and state embodied in the First Amendment and should be removed.[9]

Justice Breyer suggests that the Texas monument is nonsectarian.  Clearly, Justice Breyer either ignored reality or didn’t do his homework in this case.  Hardly could the Ruegemer committee take multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, mix them all together and produce a universal version.  Instead, what the committee produced was an “Eagles version” of the Ten Commandments.[10]  It turned out not to be so universal after all, inasmuch as, over the two decades of the program, the aeries erected multiple versions of the Ten Commandments on courthouse lawns, public parks and school yards.[11]

To summarize the salient facts:

1.      In 1940, the Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment applies to the states.[12]  Then, seven years later, the Court held that the Establishment Clause applied to the states. [13]

2.      Aware of this, Judge Ruegemer was concerned that selecting either the Jewish, Catholic or Protestant version of the Ten Commandments would be construed as “sectarian” and violate the Establishment Clause.  He needed a scheme to circumvent the First Amendment that had recently been made applicable to the states, including his state of Minnesota. 

3.      Judge Ruegemer established a St. Cloud, Minnesota committee of Catholic, Protestant and Jewish clergy to develop a universal version of the Ten Commandments for the Eagles Ten Commandments program.  There were no persons on the committee from non-Jewish minority faiths or persons without religious belief. 

4.      Judge Ruegemer was a devout Catholic.

5.      There are three major versions of the Ten Commandments, differing in both numbering and wording.[14]

6.      The Jewish, Christian and Protestant faiths number the Ten Commandments differently.  For example, the version adopted by the Ruegemer Committee[15] follows most closely the Catholic numbering system wherein (a) the religious commandments comprise the first three commandments, (b) the secular commandment “Honor thy father and thy mother” is the fourth commandment and (c) the two “covet” commandments are separated as commandments nine and ten.[16]

 

7.      Early Eagles-donated Ten Commandment monuments did not include “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images,” thus making those monuments more closely identifiable with the Catholic version.[17]

8.      Some early Eagles-donated monuments reflect the Catholic numbering.[18]

 

9.      The numbering and lack of the “graven images commandment on early Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monuments raised serious concerns about their sectarian nature.  Subsequently monuments generally dropped the numbering and included the “graven images” commandment in order to be more Protestant friendly, including the 1961 Ten Commandments monument located on the Texas State Capitol grounds.[19]  

10.  As mentioned previously, the wording of the Ten Commandments varies among religions.  For example, in the Jewish version of the sixth commandment God commands: “You shall not murder”; whereas, the King James version, God commands: “Thou shalt not kill.”  Many people gloss over this distinction as being trivial.  However, it is important to some people as an identifier of which version of the Ten Commandments is being displayed.  All of the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monuments that I am aware of use “kill,” suggesting a Catholic-Protestant preference.

Justice Stevens summed it up this way: “Moreover, despite the Eagles’ best efforts to choose a benign nondenominational text, the Ten Commandments display projects not just a religious, but an inherently sectarian, message.”[20]

---

[1]  Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 701 (2005) (Breyer, concurring in the judgment).

[2]  Dictionary.com, adjective, definition 2.  Available at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sectarian.

[3]  The Supreme Court held in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the “unique history” of the United States.  [Note: the Court had previously held in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) that school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools to be unconstitutional.]

[4]  The “nonsectarian” rationale flies in the face of McCreary County v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005), decided the same day as Van Orden, which held that “First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

[5]  St. Cloud, Minnesota.

[6]   The second commandment in the Protestant version is: “Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven images” – is not part of the Catholic version.  As a concession to Protestants, the committee appended it to the first commandment.  The Protestant version, the “covet” commandment s are combined.  It should also be noted that the Hebrew version uses the word “murder” instead of “kill.” 

[7]  As an Atheist, the Biblical story of God giving Moses tablets of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai is a myth and, therefore, the various versions are of no significance to me.  The critical point is that government is prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendments from displaying the Ten Commandments in the public square.

[8]  See Philadelphia Nativist Riots at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Nativist_Riots.  “During the 1840s, students in Philadelphia schools began the day with reading the Protestant version of the Bible.  On November 10, 1842, Philadelphia's Roman Catholic Bishop, Francis Kenrick, wrote a letter to the Board of Controllers of public schools, asking that Catholic children be allowed to read the Douai version of the Bible, used by Roman Catholics. He also asked that they be excused from other religious teaching while at school.  As a result, the Board of Controllers ordered that no child should be forced to participate in religious activities and stated that children were allowed whichever version of the Bible their parents wished.”  “After the riots, Bishop Kenrick ended his efforts to influence the public education system and began encouraging the creation of Catholic schools, with 17 being founded by 1860.”

[9]  To Separatists, the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monuments are inherently religious and, therefore, their presence on public lands violates both the Supreme Court’s Lemon and neutrality tests.

[10]  I assume that the 1951 Brown and Bigelow 20x26 inch design incorporated the committee’s version of the Ten Commandments.  In that year, the Minnesota state aerie distributed “more than 7,000 smaller replicas of the framed Ten Commandments.”  Hoffman, The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project.  Hoffman calls the Eagles version “a universally acceptable translation of the Ten Commandments.”

[11]  Eagles historian and member Sue A Hoffman that “some criticism surfaced because of the different versions of the Ten Commandments and their numbering.  Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958.  Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered.”  The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project, of the Fraternal Order of Eagles (2005), available at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm. 

[12]  Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

[13]  Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

[14]  Jewish, Catholic and Protestant.  Altho Islam is an Abrahamic religion, there is no formal Islamic version of the Ten Commandments.

[15]  This conclusion assumes that the text adopted by the committee is reflected in the design by the artists of Brown and Bigelow who prepared the original decorative 20x26 inch version of the Ten Commandments.  See Sue A. Hoffman, The Real History of the Ten Commandments Project of the Fraternal Order of Eagles (2005) available at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm.  [Note: Ms. Hoffman is a member of the F.O.E. She has identified over 150 Eagles-donated monuments in 34 states while researching for a book on the Eagles Ten Commandments Program.]

[16]  See photograph of an early 1950s Eagles Ten Commandments poster at http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/poptheology/files/2012/10/10-C-Front.jpg.  Also note the two tablets at the top with Roman numerals I-III on the left tablet and IV-X on the right tablet are consistent with the Catholic faith.  This confirms the Catholic preference and sectarian nature of the Eagles Ten Commandments program.  In the Jewish and Protestant faiths, the first four commandments are religious and the last six are secular.

[17]  For example, the Denver, Colorado (1955), Helena, Montana (1956), Boone County, Indiana (1957) and Connellsville, Pennsylvania (1957) do not include the “graven images” commandment.

[18]  For example, Denver, Colorado (1955), Helena, Montana (1956), International Peace Garden (1956) (on the boarder of North Dakota and Canada), Boone County, Indiana (1957), Connellsville, Pennsylvania (1957) (image available at http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/heraldstandard.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/2/33/233b509d-253a-5812-9fe3-661bf02923b8/514ce5cf0c3af.image.jpg., Gastonia, North Carolina (1957) and Xenia (Greene County), Ohio (1957) (image available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rubenrodz/1488741490/sizes/o/).

[19]  A photograph of the Eagles-donated Austin, Texas Ten Commandments monument is available at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg.

[20]  Van Orden (Stevens, J., dissenting), at 717.

Myth #9: The Eagles Tombstones are Passive

[Chapter 9, post #11]

“Whatever may be the fate of the Lemon test in the larger scheme of Establishment Clause jurisprudence, we think it not useful in dealing with the sort of passive monument that Texas has erected on its Capitol grounds.”[1] (Emphasis added.)

“Texas’ placement of the Commandments monument on its capitol grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was the case in Stone, where the text confronted elementary school students every day.”[2] (Emphasis added.)

Chief Justice Rehnquist

This deception of the Chief Justice is all about banding.  Brand the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments with an innocuous term like “passive,” repeat the term a few times and hopefully dissidents will be lulled into believing that the monument is a victim rather than an aggressor. 

If by “passive” Chief Justice Rehnquist meant that the granite rock doesn’t move, speak or light up, he is correct.  But the inference that the monument does “no evil” belies the motive and harm of the Eagles’ tombstone to Jesus Christ.

Justice Souter was not fooled by the Chief Justice: “Placing a monument on the ground is not more ‘passive’ than hanging a sheet of paper on a wall when both contain the same text to be read by anyone who looks at it.”[3]

 

Nor was Justice Stevens fooled: “The monolith displayed on Texas Capitol grounds cannot be discounted as a passive acknowledgment of religion . . .   This Nation’s resolute commitment to neutrality with respect to religion is flatly inconsistent with the plurality’s wholehearted validation of an official state endorsement of the message that there is one, and only one, God.”[4]
 
The Eagles’ tombstone fundamentally commands the people to Texas to obey “God’s laws” and marks the territory upon which the monument sits as “Christian.”[5]  To allow Texas monolith and the remaining one hundred plus Eagles Ten Commandments monuments to remain on public property is to destroy the secular foundation upon which the United States is built and to relegate persons of minority faiths and those of no faith into second class citizenship.

Accordingly, the author finds that the commanding nature of the Eagles-donated Ten Commandments tombstone to be aggressive (if not coercive) and, therefore, not passive.

---

[1]  Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 686 (2005).

[2]  Id., at 691.  “Stone” is referring to Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) wherein the Court held a Kentucky’s statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public classroom violated the Establishment Clause.

[3]  Id, at 747 (Souter, J., dissenting with whom Stevens, J., and Ginsburg, J., joined).  The “sheet of paper” Justice Souter is referring to are the copies of the Ten Commandments posted on the walls of Kentucky public schools.  See fn. 118.

[4]  Id, at 712 (Stevens, J., dissenting with whom Ginsburg, J.,  joined).

[5]  The territory here being the Texas State Capitol grounds, is a metaphor for the entire State of Texas.

Myth #1: The Display of the Ten Commandments on Public Property in Washington, D.C. is Common

[Chapter 9, post 3]

“[A]cknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation's heritage are common throughout America.”

Chief Justice William Rehnquist [1]

The role of the Decalog in America’s legal heritage is a frequent assertion of the Christian Right.[2]  However, the basis for that assertion is never articulated. And rightly so, for the claim is meritless. Not a single provision of the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments.  And with respect to its derivative laws, the religious commandments would clearly violate the First Amendment of our Constitution and the secular commandments are either ethical norms that predate the Ten Commandments (e.g., murder, theft and perjury) or simply not part of our laws (e.g., honor thy parents, adultery or coveting).[3]

But what about the symbols of the Ten Commandments – are they ubiquitous?  Chief Justice Rehnquist’s statement (above) is more than Christian Right hyperbole.  For it, and the listing of eleven "acknowledgements" in Washington, D.C., are part of a dishonest attempt by the Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas to justify the presence of the six-feet tall Eagles-donated Ten Commandments granite tombstone to Jesus Christ on the Texas state capitol grounds.

The purpose of this post is to prove through the use of photographs that the Chief Justice’s use of the “acknowledgements” is a deception of the greatest magnitude.  The Chief Justice wrote in Van Orden:

In this case we are faced with a display of the Ten Commandments on government property outside the Texas State Capitol.  Such acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation's heritage are common throughout America.  We need only look within our own Courtroom [1].  Since 1935, Moses has stood, holding two tablets that reveal portions of the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew, among other lawgivers in the south frieze. Representations of the Ten Commandments adorn the metal gates [2] lining the north and south sides of the Courtroom as well as the doors [3] leading into the Courtroom.  Moses also sits on the exterior east façade [4] of the building holding the Ten Commandments tablets.

Similar acknowledgments can be seen throughout a visitor's tour of our Nation’s Capital.  For example, a large statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside a statue of the Apostle Paul [5], has overlooked the rotunda of the Library of Congress’ Jefferson Building since 1897.  And the Jefferson Building's Great Reading Room [6] contains a sculpture of a woman beside the Ten Commandments with a quote above her from the Old Testament (Micah 6:8).  A medallion with two tablets depicting the Ten Commandments decorates the floor of the National Archives [7].  Inside the Department of Justice [8], a statue entitled “The Spirit of Law” has two tablets representing the Ten Commandments lying at its feet.  In front of the Ronald Reagan Building [9] is another sculpture that includes a depiction of the Ten Commandments.  So too a 24-foot-tall sculpture, depicting, among other things, the Ten Commandments and a cross, stands outside the federal courthouse that houses both the Court of Appeals and the District Court for the District of Columbia [10].  Moses is also prominently featured in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives [11]. (Numbers in brackets added.) [4]

The point being made by the Chief Justice, as I understand it, is that (1) the depictions of the Ten Commandments in and around government buildings in Washington, D.C. do not violate the First Amendment prohibition against governmental acts “respecting an establishment of religion,” (2) the Texas Ten Commandments monument is (merely) another “acknowledgement” of the Ten Commandments, therefore (3) the presence of the Texas monument on the Texas state capitol grounds does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The validity of the Chief Justice’s (Christian apologetic) argument is easy to refute. In my September 20 post, I included a photograph of the large Eagles-donated Ten Commandments monument in Austin, Texas (that was the subject of Van Orden).  Below, I show photographs of ten of eleven of the Chief Justice’s “acknowledgments” together with a brief analysis of the symbol and its comparability to the Texas monument.  As you will see, it’s a classic case of apples and oranges (or bait and switch).

Acknowledgment #1]: Moses Holding Tablets on Supreme Court's South Wall Frieze

 

“In this case we are faced with a display of the Ten Commandments on government property outside the Texas State Capitol.  Such acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation’s heritage are common throughout America. We need only look within our own Courtroom. Since 1935, Moses has stood, holding two tablets that reveal portions of the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew, among other lawgivers in the south frieze.”[5]

Supreme Court justices love to use “context” whenever they want to differentiate one case from another in order to circumvent precedent. The photographs immediately below and the others which follow help to correct the misleading record set by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his plurality opinion in Van Orden. The Texas legislature chose to endorse Christianity when it accepted the Eagles a six-foot tall Decalog inscribed with the full English text of the Ten Commandments and placed in an area of the state capitol grounds where no other monuments can be seen. In contrast, the base-relief of Moses on the South Wall Frieze is high on one of the walls of the courtroom of the Supreme Court. Moses is but one of 17 lawgivers depicted on the friezes (see http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf). There are five lines of Hebrew characters on the overlapping tablets, but only three lines have sufficient text to be translatable. No endorsement of Christianity by the Supreme Court – that is, until its Van Orden decision. See for yourself – the Supreme Court's depiction of Moses on the left below and the Texas Ten Commandments monument on the right.

A base-relief of Moses holding overlapping tablets on the South Wall Frieze of the courtroom of the Supreme Court. English translation of the Hebrew: Top line – “THOU SHALL MURDER” Second line – “THOU SHALL COMMIT    ADULTERY”  Third line – “THOU SHALL STEAL” Fourth line – insufficient characters to translate. Translation: Avrahum Segol. Photo: Steve Petteway, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ten Commandments Monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas. Photograph by J. Williams. (Aug. 26, 2002) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ten_Commandments_Monument.jpg

 

While many will argue that Moses beard covers up the "not" (since Hebrew is written from right to left), other spoofs by Adolph A. Weinman strongly indicate that the omission was deliberate. So if these are the Commandments which the Christian Right stands for, they revel in a glory of absurdity.  If it is true that ignorance of the law is no excuse, then ignorance of what is in plain sight is not a valid excuse.

Weinman (1870-1952), the sculptor, spoofed the Supreme Court.[6] The Hebrew on the tablet translated into English reads: "Murder," "Steal" and "Commit adultery." The Hebrew character for "Thou shall not" is conveniently omitted (in effect hidden by Moses beard and robe). This fact was confirmed by the oral argument of Jay Sekulow in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum on November 12, 2008 and confirmed by Justice Ginsburg.[7]

Therefore, it was deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the base-relief of Moses on the South Wall Frieze of the courtroom of the Supreme Court to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #2: Metal Gates Lining the North and South Sides of the Courtroom

 

“Representations of the Ten Commandments adorn the metal gates lining the north and south sides of the Courtroom.”[8]

Roman numerals on the metal gates lining the north and south sides of the Courtroom.

Keeping the commentary short, there is no English text of the Ten Commandments on the north and south gates of the courtroom at the Supreme Court

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for the Chief Justice to cite north and south gates of  the courtroom to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #3: Doors Leading into the Courtroom

 

“Representations of the Ten Commandments adorn . . . the doors leading into the Courtroom.”[9]

The lower panel on the oak doors at the entrance of the courtroom of the Supreme Court. Photo:  Robert V. Ritter

Two tablets with Roman numerals I thru X.  That's all.  No English text of the Ten Commandments here.

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the depiction of two tablets with Roman numerals on the oak doors leading into the courtroom of the Supreme Court to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #4: Moses on the Exterior East Facade of the Supreme Court Building

 

“Moses also sits on the exterior east façade of the building holding the Ten Commandments tablets.”[10]

Moses on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court Building. Both tablets are blank.

The tablets Moses is holding between his arms and knees are blank. Not one, no less ten, of the Commandments is displayed on the East Pediment.

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the depiction of Moses on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court building to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #5: Statue of Moses in the Library of Congress

 

“Similar acknowledgments can be seen throughout a visitor's tour of our Nation’s Capital.  For example, a large statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside a statue of the Apostle Paul, has overlooked the rotunda of the Library of Congress’ Jefferson Building since 1897.”[11]

Statue of Moses at the Library of Congress overlooking the Main Reading Room of the Jefferson Building.

From the reading room far below, one can’t discern what Moses is holding, no less that it’s tell blank.  However, a tourist can walk behind the Plexiglas protected statute see that the table is blank.  To the right of Moses is a statue of Isaac Newton (not seen in the photograph.)  To the left of Moses is a column a top of which is the symbolic statue of Religion.  “St. Paul” stands to the left of statue symbolizing Religion (not alongside Moses).

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the statue of Moses on a balcony overlooking the Great Reading Room of the Library of Congress to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #6: Statute of “Religion” – The Jefferson Building's Great Reading Room

“And the Jefferson Building's Great Reading Room contains a sculpture of a woman beside the Ten Commandments with a quote above her from the Old Testament (Micah 6:8).”[12]

Statue symbolizing “Religion” in the Great Reading Room of the Library of Congress

It takes a little imagination to understand what the Chief Justice meant by saying that the Ten Commandments are beside the statue symbolizing religion, one of eight fields of study.  (The others are: science, law, poetry, philosophy, art, history and commerce.)  Presumably, the Ten Commandments that he was referring to is the statue of Moses (with the blank tablet) below and to the right (not seen in the above picture) – too far away to be “beside” the statute.   

In short, Chief Justice Rehnquist is correct that the Main Reading Room contains the above statue, but there are no Ten Commandments beside it.  Rather, he is bootstrapping the blank tablet that Moses holding far below and to the right.  The essential point here is that there is no comparison between this statue and the Texas Decalog. 

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the statue symbolic of Religion in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #7: A Medallion in the Floor of the National Archives

 

“A medallion with two tablets depicting the Ten Commandments decorates the floor of the National Archives.”[13]

A 20-inch medallion representing "Legislation" on the floor at the entrance of the Rotunda of the National Archives. Photo: Robert V. Ritter

There is no English text of any religious commandment on the medallion. The medallion is located on the floor at the entrance to the Rotunda of the National Archives where the most important documents of the United States are displayed – the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The above medallion is one of four medallions incorporated in a larger medallion and, according to the National Archives, represents “Legislation.”  (The other three represent “Justice,” “History” and “War and Defense.”)  Arguably, the Roman numerals stand for the Bill of Rights? Who is to say otherwise?  

Therefore, it was grossly deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the medallion on the floor of the National Archives to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #8:  Spirit of the Justice Statue at the Department of Justice

 

“Inside the Department of Justice, a statue entitled “The Spirit of Law” has two tablets representing the Ten Commandments lying at its feet.”[14]

Spirit of Justice (also known as “Minnie Lou”) (left) and Majesty of Law (right) in the Great Hall at the Department of Justice

The partially nude statues above are located in the Great Hall of the Department of Justice. The female statue (on the left) represents the Spirit of Justice.  The 10- to 12-foot high cast aluminum statute was installed in the 1930s when the Department of Justice Building was finished.

A close up the Ten Commandment tablets at the foot of Spirit of Justice.  Note that the tablets are blank.

It is not manifestly clear what the small blank tablets represent.  Presumably they represent the “laws” that the Department of Justice is designated to enforce.  However, even if they were intended to represent the Ten Commandments, it is obvious that they are not comparable in size to the Texas decalog, nor is there a single English commandment inscribed on them.  

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the Spirit of Justice statue at the Department of Justice to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #9: The Liberty of Worship Statue Outside the Ronald Reagan Building

 

“In front of the Ronald Reagan Building [9] is another sculpture that includes a depiction of the Ten Commandments.”[15]

 

"Liberty of Worship" statue outside the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Robert V. Ritter

 

A close-up of "Liberty of Worship" statue resting on a tablet with roman numerals outside the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Robert V. Ritter

 
 “OUR LIBERTY OF WORSHIP IS NOT A CONCESSION NOR A PRIVILEGE BUT AN INHERENT RIGHT” is chiseled on the front side of the monument. Roman numerals (II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX and X) appear on a tablet below the right arm of the figure – but there is no text of any of the Ten Commandments. Adolph A. Weinman is the sculptor. He also did the friezes in the Supreme Court's courtroom.  No English text of the Ten Commandments here. 

Therefore, it was misleading and deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the Liberty of Worship statue outside the Ronald Reagan Building to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgmen #10: Outside of the U.S. District Court Building

 

“So too a 24-foot-tall sculpture, depicting, among other things, the Ten Commandments and a cross, stands outside the federal courthouse that houses both the Court of Appeals and the District Court for the District of Columbia.”[16]

Monument in front of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse

A close-up of a Latin (“Christian”) cross and two tablets with a Hebrew version of the Ten Commandments. Photos: Robert V. Ritter

Because small tablets are high atop the sculpture and the characters engraved on it are in Hebrew, few people will every read what is written on them.  (More interesting, however, is that the larger Latin cross suggests government preference for Christianity.)

Therefore, it was deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the 24-foot-tall sculpture to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

Acknowledgment #11: Moses in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives

 

“Moses is also prominently featured in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.”[17]

The base-relief of Moses in the U.S. House of Representatives Chamber was sculpted by Jeans de Marco in 1950.  It is 28 inches in diameter – a little more than one-third the size of the Texas Ten Commandments monument.  Photo: Wikipedia Commons

 

The Chief Justice’s statement is literally true – but it’s false for the intended purpose of justifying the Texas Ten Commandments monument.  I’m feeling overly repetitive.  There’s full English version of the Ten Commandments here.  As an aside, the ugly base-relief doesn’t even suggest laws to me.  Perhaps Moses has cast a spell of ineptitude upon the House of Representatives.

Therefore, it was deceptive for Chief Justice Rehnquist to cite the base-relief of Moses in the Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives to support exempting the Texas Decalog on its state capitol grounds from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

To summarize Chief Justice Rehnquist’s eleven “acknowledgments”:

    0 – Full English text of the Ten Commandments (like the Texas Decalog)
    4 – Tablets with Roman numerals

    3 – Blank tablets

    2 – No depiction of the Ten Commandments

    1 – Tablet with the text of the Ten Commandments in Hebrew
    1 – Tablet with partial Hebrew text (“murder,” “commit adultery” and “steal”)

The above photographs irrefutably shows that not one eleven “acknowledgments” cited by the Chief Justice in his Van Orden plurality opinion  has a single English word of the Ten Commandments, no less the full English text that is presented on the Eagles-donated Texas Ten Commandments Monument. 

 

Accordingly, I conclude that the eleven “acknowledgements” of the Ten Commandments referred to in Chief Justice Rehnquist’s plurality opinion in Van Orden were intended to mislead us and are wholly insufficient as a basis for exempting the Ten Commandments from the prohibitions of the Establishment Clause.

And thus it is a myth that the Ten Commandments are commonly displayed on public property in Washington, D.C.

---

[1]  Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 688 (2005) (Chief Justice Rehnquist plurality opinion).

[2]  E.g., “All the laws of the Country dealing with human relations are based upon the Ten Commandments.” Judge E.J. Ruegemer, the back of a Fraternal Order of Eagles 1950s Ten Commandments poster.

[3]  Steven K Greene, The Fount of Everything Just and Right? The Ten Commandments as a Source of American Law, 14 J.L. & Religion 525 (1999-2000): “At best, the most that could be said about the relationship of the Ten Commandments to the law is that the former has influenced legal notions of right and wrong.”; Marci Hamilton, The Ten Commandments and American Law: Why Some Christians' Claims to Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record (Sept. 11, 2003), available at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html.

[4]  Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 688-89 (2005).

[5]  Van Orden v. Perry, at 688.

[6]  The model which Cass Gilbert approved showed short vertical lines on the overlapping tablets, mostly likely to indicate Roman numerals.

[7]  Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, No. 07-665 (November 12, 2008), Transcript, p 9: “JAY SEKULOW: No, the words on the Court’s frieze are ‘steal,’ ‘murder,’ ‘adultery’ in Hebrew.”  Justice Ginsburg responded: “Yes.”  Note: the fourth line contains insufficient characters to translate.

[8]  Van Orden v. Perry, at 688.

[9]  Id.

[10]  Id.

[11]  Id. at 689.

[12]  Id.

[13]  Id.

[14]  Id.

[15]  Id.

[16]  Id.

[17]  Id.