Blog #4 - Van Orden v. Perry

     The Establishment Clause, among the key provisions within the First Amendment, ensures that Congress is forbidden to pass laws "respecting an establishment of religion" (Newell, 341). Throughout history, this clause has been "interpreted to mean either (1) that there should be a 'wall of separation' between church and state, and that government may not help or even acknowledge religion in any way, or (2) that government may aid religion, at least indirectly, as long as it shows 'no preference' among the various religious beliefs" (Newell, 341). Although the federal government has been interpreted by law to show now bias among religious beliefs and to protect exercises of religious variety, "in practice it has allowed the states to provide a variety of aids to religion- for example, school lunches and public facilities for church-run schools and tuition grants for church-run colleges- as long as government agencies do not show a preference for one church over another" (Newell, 341).

     The validation of separation between church and state, however, is still a debatable issue since the Establishment Clause leaves room for misinterpretation. For example, in "1961, the Fraternal Order of the Eagles, a national social, civic, and political organization, presented the State of Texas with a monument containing the Ten Commandments,"(Di Iorio) which was placed near the state capitol building along with sixteen other monuments. Although the monument was intended to represent Texas' history, in 1999 "Thomas Van Orden sued Texas in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion" (Van Orden). Making it's way to the Supreme Court, the case questioned if the monument of the Ten Commandments "[violated] the First Amendment's Establishment Clause" (Van Orden). With a resulting "no," Van Orden unfortunately lost the case as the Court "held that the Establishment Clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building" because the "plurality deemed the Texas monument part of the nation's tradition of recognizing the Ten Commandments' historical meaning" (Van Orden).
     From my perspective, it seems that Van Orden definitely had a reason to be upset. For decades, our country has fought for religious discretion, but here, in the state of Texas, it seems that the dominant Judeo-Christian culture is forever embedded and protected because of our altruistic, traditionalistic history. Through my eyes this act obviously defies the Establishment Clause, as it seems to represent some sort of religious favoritism, whether it be direct or indirect. Also, the state capitol is not a church-run facility, but a government facility, so, why is this government property allowed to aid to a certain religious belief? This exception seems to reverse the point of the Establishment Clause, be it a part of Texas history or not. Although Texas undeniably has a history reflecting upon the representation of the Ten Commandments, the monument would have had made more sense to be placed within or near an establishment that is intended explicitly to reveal information upon our state's history. Not in front of the state capitol, a true representation of our culture and history where we center-point much of our legislative action. What kind of symbolism does that show about our state's mindset? Seems pretty preferred, to me.


Citations

Di Iorio, William. "Van Orden v. Perry: The Establishment Clause and an Inconsistent Supreme Court." Lexisnexis.com. LexisNexis, 2006. Web. 29 Mar. 2012. <https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=14+Digest+97&key=3cd24444dab26a1cd2cde31584dcf40b>.

Newell, Charldean, James W. Riddlesperger, and David F. Prindle. Texas Politics. 11th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2011. Print

Van Orden v. Perry. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 29 March 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500>.