Unit 3: Written Assignment the Ten Commandments
The battle over the display of the Ten Commandments in state buildings such as court houses has been a controversy for years. One side of the argument is that some people say the Ten Commandments should be displayed in court houses. The reason being, they believe that the Ten Commandments have historical meaning in that it has formed the foundation of American legal tradition (Robinson, 2005, p. 2). The other side of the argument is that displaying the Ten Commandments goes against the first amendment of the Constitution. The reason being, coming from Judeo – Christianity these people believe that having the Ten Commandments in a government building is forcing religious beliefs on them. This is based on the first amendment of the Constitution that states freedom of religion is a political principle that strives to forbid government constraints or peoples choices of beliefs. It requires also let people be free to act on their beliefs (Harr, Hess, 2008, p.123).
Two cases that came before the United States Supreme Court in 2005 dealing with the Ten Commandments controversy are Van Orden v. Perry (03 – 1500) and Mc Creary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (03 -1673). The first case Van Orden V. Perry (03 – 1500) involved a six foot granite monument with the Ten Commandments written on it. This monument was placed on the ground in of the Texas state capital at Austin in 1961. The respondent, Governor Rick Perry and chairman of Texas state preservation Boards argument was to preserve or save a historical monument that has been a part of Texas history since 1961.
Thomas Van Orden launched a lawsuit against the state of Texas. The reason being, he believed that the state has cross the line separating church and state by promoting "personal religious beliefs” and in many religions reject the concept of a single God who lays some human behavior (Robinson, 2005, p. 2). The Supreme Court ruling was that the monument on the...