In 2002, Ohio judge James Deweese was instructed to remove a poster of the Ten Commandments from his courtroom after a federal court found it to be in violation of the separation of church and state. The 6th Circuit affirmed that decision in 2004, reiterating that such a display represents government speech and not private speech.
Two years later, the judge tried again to display the sacred text, putting up a new poster that purported to contrast the Ten Commandments with what he presented as "humanist" principles, all under the guise of demonstrating differences in moral philosophy. At the top, the poster explains:
1. There is a conflict of legal and moral philosophies raging in the United States. That conflict is between moral relativism and moral absolutism. We are moving towards moral relativism.
2. All law is legislated morality. The only question is whose morality. Because morality is based on faith, there is no such thing as religious neutrality in law or morality.
3. Ultimately, there are only two views: Either God is the final authority, and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior. Or man is the final authority, and standards of behavior change at the whim of individuals or societies. Here are examples.
Today the 6th Circuit again ruled against the judge, and correctly saw this new action for what it was: an effort to use a seat of government to promote religious viewpoints. Taking into account his previous unconstitutional acts, the court found Deweese's declared secular purpose to be "a sham," but explained that even giving him the benefit of the doubt on that question would not save the display.
Although the history of Defendant’s Establishment Clause violations is sufficient to reveal his religious purpose, the texts of the challenged poster and Defendant’s supplementary pamphlet are also illuminating. Courts have found the challenged text itself significant in determining purpose under Lemon. In addition to a redacted text of the Ten Commandments, the poster includes editorial statements by Defendant. These include religious statements such as “God is the final authority, and we acknowledge His unchanging standards of behavior,” and “I join the Founders in personally acknowledging the importance of Almighty God’s fixed moral standards for restoring the moral fabric of this nation,” among others.
…
Defendant’s definition of moral absolutes as the standards of “the God of the Bible,” coupled with his statements regarding the “necessity of moral absolutes,” reveal Defendant’s religious purpose.….Replacing the word religion with the word philosophy does not mask the religious nature of Defendant’s purpose. The poster’s patently religious content reveals Defendant’s religious purpose, violating Lemon’s first prong, and thus the Establishment Clause.
You can read the opinion here.
