Did local officials in Indiana rush to erect a huge Ten Commandments display knowing that a legal challenge had been filed?

n a sternly worded rebuke to government officials, a federal judge has ordered Lawrence County, Ind. to dismantle a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments from its courthouse lawn. U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker placed a punitive five-day deadline for the removal of the 9-1/2 ton granite tablet, which was originally scheduled to be placed in front of the state capitol building at the behest of Rep. Brent Steele. A legal challenge to the capitol display, though, prompted Steele to approach Lawrence County officials with the suggestion that the Commandments lithe be placed temporarily on the local courthouse lawn.

   Barker imposed fines of $1,000 per day against the county, and $200 per day against individual Commissioners if the monument was not removed. Officials say they will comply.

   The dispute has raised the issue of whether or not Steele and local officials hoped to have the religious monument placed on the Lawrence County courthouse lawn, and remain there while court action was in progress. There are also indications that the display would have become a permanent fixture, and another granite Commandments slab placed on the Statehouse lawn if court ruled that practice to be constitutional.

   Judge Baker said that the southern Indiana county's attitude seemed defiant, "so as to say, 'Now what are you going to do, judge?' "

   Commissioner Bob Adamson grumbled to the Indianapolis Star newspaper, "We'll have to move it. I don't want to lose my home."

   In July, Judge Barker issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from placing the monument on the law in front of the capitol. The commandments monolith had been approved earlier in the year, when legislators voted overwhelmingly to have it situated on Statehouse grounds. All of this corresponded to a wave of "Ten Commandments" fever throughout states in the area, with proposals to have copies of the Decalogue displayed in public school classrooms. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled practice unconstitutional, however, in the historic STONE v. GRAHAM case which noted that the commandments were primarily a religious statement.

   The Indiana Statehouse commandment display was the brainchild of Rep. Steele, who had the blessing of Gov. Frank O'Bannon. Several strategies were employed in hopes that the enormous monument would pass constitutional muster. In a shabby attempt to minimize government entanglement, the granite display was donated by the Indiana Limestone Institute. The sides and backside of the monument had token quotes from the Preamble to the 1851 Indiana Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. The select portion of the state Constitution read: "To the end, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated: We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this constitution."

   In her 41-page ruling, Barker delved into the complex circumstances surrounding the Ten Commandments monument, examining whether or not it was sufficiently mixed or "secularized" by the inclusions of nonsectarian statements or documents. She noted that the list of Commandments seemed to stand out, creating a central and pivotal focus of the display. On the front portion of the granite monument were carved two lists, each measuring 4'4" by 3'7" to create the appearance of Mosaic "tablets," with a rendition of the commandments in all-capital lettering about 1.5 inches in height. It read:

I. THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME

II. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THEE ANY GRAVEN IMAGE

III. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

IV. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY

V. HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER THAT THY DAYS MAY BE LONG IN THE LAND WHICH THE LORD THY GOD GIVETH THEE

VI. THOU SHALT NOT KILL

VII. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

VIII. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

IX. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR

X. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE OR WIFE OR ANYTHING THAT IS THY NEIGHBOR'S

   Barker's decision took note of the disingenuous claims of commandments display advocates, that it was a statement of "values common to the local community, including both secular and religious values." She noted that County Commissioner Timothy P. Terry -- the Lawrence official originally contacted by Rep. Steele and presented with the scheme to place the monument on the courthouse law -- admitted that he believed (as a "God fearing, red-blooded, American citizen...) that the Commandments, Bill of Rights and the state Preamble all were closely related documents. He freely admitted, in deposition to the case, that these commandments ordered worship of a monotheistic God, prohibited "vain" use of the Lord's name, and required that all recognize the Sabbath since "Everyone needs a day of rest."

   Were officials, knowing a lawsuit was already filed about placing the commandments on the courthouse lawn, hoping to secure of the monument anyway, perhaps believing that the judge would permit its temporary display? There is compelling evidence which suggests this. Referring to the filing by plaintiff Jennifer Kimbley, a local resident who is represented in the case by the American Civil Liberties Union, Judge Barker wrote:

"The facts clearly establish that Plaintiff filed her suit on October 30, 2000, prior to any affirmative steps being taken by the County to situate the Monument, one day before the base was laid and two days before the Monument itself was erected. One of more of the County Commissioners knew of the filing of this lawsuit prior to the Monument's final placement on the lawn; in fact, Commissioner Chenault testified that she was consulted by County Attorney Smith about the lawsuit and injunction and enlisted by County Engineer Burcham to find a contributor for the cement for the Monument's base prior to its construction."

   Barker continued:

"At best, the Commissioners acted in willful ignorance of their obligations under the laws of Indiana and the United States, through both their actions and their inaction; at worst, they intentionally rushed to create a 'new status quo.' "

   Unfortunately, the legal precedence concerning the display of Ten Commandments plaques and other religious symbols, including Christian nativity creches, on public property remains muddled and confusing. Other displays of the Ten Commandments on Statehouse lawns have passed constitutional review. In Colorado, for instance, a challenge to a Decalogue monument failed when courts suggested that its out-of-the-way location was one of several factors presumably minimizing the appearance of state-church entanglement and promotion of religion. Judge Barker took note of the case of SUHRE v. HAYWOOD COUNTY (1999) which had been filed by late American Atheist member Richard Suhre, against the display of a commandments plaque at his local courthouse. The Western District of North Carolina, going out of its way to preserve the religious screed, said that the display of the commandments along with an image of Lady Justice, the U.S. and North Carolina state flags meant that the presentation "had a secular purpose and was constitutional."

   Barker did underscore important precedents, though.

   ¶    The Ten Commandments is undeniably a sacred text. In STONE v. GRAHAM and other cases, courts have noted the clear and unambiguous nature of the commandments. They refer to a particular religious belief, monotheism, and a sacred day of the week, the Sabbath.

   ¶    The Lawrence County display lacked sufficient, compelling elements to "secularize" the Ten Commandments monument and allow it to pass judicial scrutiny. She rejected an incredible, almost amusing argument presented by Commissioner Terry who said that the monument was to "honor the importance of the limestone industry."

   "While honoring the limestone industry is a valid secular purpose ... the design and content of the Monument indicate that such is not the true purpose for the Monument, but that the purpose is, in fact, religious in nature."

   She added that the inclusion of the State Preamble and the Bill of Rights was almost gratuitous, noting "The Ten Commandments are not physically or even visually linked to the other texts on the display, appearing by themselves on one side of the large tablet-shaped block..."

   The latest word is that the Commandments display will be coming down, at least in Lawrence County, Indiana, pending resolution of the suit challenging their placement on the grounds of the state capitol. Supporters of the display have gone to extreme, ethically suspect and even ridiculous lengths -- such as saying that the Commandments honor the local limestone pit -- to justify this religious monument. No doubt, they will continue to try.

[text only]