nconstitutional displays of the Ten Commandments on public property in Indiana may be coming down, thanks in part to the efforts of Mike Suetkamp, attorney Ken Falk, and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

   Earlier today, a three-judge panel ruled that a monument of the Judeo-Christian Decalogue in front of the Elkhart, Indiana municipal building violated the Establishment clause separation of church and state. The justices found that shabby attempts to declare the religious monument a secular memorial failed, and they ordered the case remanded "for proceedings in conformity with this opinion." That could mean that the Commandments display may have to be removed or relocated.

   Mr. Suetkamp, Indiana State Director for American Atheists, was pleased with the decision and told AANEWS that it could have consequences elsewhere.

   "There are several suits throughout the state dealing with Ten Commandment displays on government property, including the one on the grounds of the state capitol," Suetkamp said. "This could have an important impact in having these unconstitutional religious symbols removed."

   "It's been worth the fight," Suetkamp added. He expressed praise for Ken Falk, ACLU attorney who has pursued the case since the initial filing.

   Today's ruling is another major setback for such unconstitutional displays on public property. Early last month, U.S. District Judge Sarah Barker Evans ordered a 9-1/2 ton granite Ten Commandments monument removed from the courthouse lawn in Lawrence County, Indiana. That monument was eventually to be placed in front of the state capitol building; but with today's Circuit Court finding, all such displays are in possible jeopardy.

   The good news from the Court of Appeals reversed a December, 1999 ruling by U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp who had ruled that the Elkhart Commandments monument passed constitutional scrutiny. Sharp opined that while the text of the Ten Commandments dominated the stone cenotaph, "it cannot be said that the message of the monument is exclusively religious," and that a neutral observer would not necessarily believe that the government was endorsing or promoting religious belief.

   Like many other Ten Commandments displays throughout the country which until recently were found in parks or in front of municipal and county buildings, the Elkhart monument was a donation from the Fraternal Order of Eagles. While intending to promote religiosity and good citizenship, though, the FOE was, in fact, including itself in a possible scheme hatched by a Minnesota juvenile court judge named E. J. Ruegemer, and Hollywood mogul Cecil B. DeMille.

   Circuit Court documents note that over half-a-century ago, Ruegemer, "Disheartened by the growing number of youths in trouble ... sought to provide them with a common code of conduct," and founded a Youth Guidance Program. He originally intended to post paper copies of the Ten Commandments in juvenile courts, first in Minnesota and then across the country. Toward that end, he contacted the FOE service organization, which initially rejected the idea fearing that "the program might seem coercive or sectarian."

   "In response to these concerns," noted the Circuit Court, "representatives of Judaism, Protestantism and Catholicism developed what the individuals involved believed to be a nonsectarian version of the Ten Commandments because it could not be identified with any one religious group." With this, the Fraternal Order of Eagles endorsed Ruegemer's plan.

   Enter Hollywood titan Cecil B. DeMille (1881-1959), producer of such blockbuster films as "The Plainsman," "The Buccaneer,""Cleopatra" and, of course, a string of religion themed hits including "The Ten Commandments," "King of Kings," and "Sign of the Cross." Just as the "Youth Guidance Program" was getting started, DeMille coincidentally was working on "The Ten Commandments," and suggested that rather than settling for mere paper copies of the Decalogue, that bronze plaques might be more suitable and enduring. Ruegemer then upped the ante by proposing that the Commandments be written on granite, and DeMille agreed. Two Minnesota granite companies were then put to work stamping out Ten Commandments monuments for display throughout the country, and financed by the FOE.

   In 1958, the Elkhart, Indiana chapter of the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated its version of the Commandments to the City.

   It is ironic that DeMille, while appearing to purchase a degree of social respectability by endorsing a religious promotion, had for years been a strong opponent of sectarian-government censorship. His 1932 epic "Sign of the Cross," described as a "sexy, bloody Roman-versus Christians" production, was considered the controversial films that led to the establishment of the Roman Catholic run Legion of Decency. For nearly three decades, the Legion exercised a shocking amount of control over the content of Hollywood films. Two decades after "Sign of the Cross," DeMille was once again in trouble with censors due to his spectacular production, "The Greatest Show on Earth," featuring Betty Hutton, Dorothy Lamont and Gloria Grahame, along with screen idols Charlton Heston and Jimmy Stewart. Although it passed muster with the Hollywood Production Code Office, "The Greatest Show on Earth" earned a B-rating (objectionable for all) from the Legion.

   Ten Commandments displays proliferated across the nation during a crucial time in American history; the country was in the midst of the "cold war," a period when public professions of religiosity were emblematic of the cultural and military confrontation with "Godless communism." President Eisenhower instituted a round of "prayer breakfasts" and other religious events at the White House. In Congress, federal legislators responded by declaring "In God We Trust" as America's national motto, discarding the earlier and secular Latin slogan, "E Pluribus Unum" or "out of many, one." The new "God motto" was inserted onto the nation's currency, and included in the Pledge of Allegiance.

   By 1956, DeMille was no longer a confrontationalist who challenged the authority of Hollywood censors and Church bluenoses. His remake of "The Ten Commandments" earned approval from the Legion of Decency, and generated more than $43 in box office profits.

   Back in Elkhart, the May 31, 1958 edition of the local "Elkhart Truth" newspaper covered the dedication of the new monument, noting the participation of local government officials, lodge members from the FOE, the pastor of the neighborhood Catholic church, the outgoing president of the Elkhart Ministerial Association, and a rabbi from the Temple Israel. The monument was positioned on the lawn in front of the city's Municipal Building, which houses offices for the mayor, prosecutor, and the Common Council. In other areas of the building's lot were a Revolution War Monument and the Freedom Monument honoring war dead.

   Above the "nonsectarian" rendition of the Commandments were two small tablets with ancient Hebrew script. Other decorations included a bas relief of the American Eagle, flag, two small Stars of David and floral patterns. In addition, two Greek letters, Chi and Rho were superimposed on one another as a symbol representing Christ.

   No residents bothered to challenge the constitutionality of the display until 1998, when the city was threatened with a law suit if it did not remove the monument. On May 4, the Common Council responded with a resolution "regarding the display of the Ten Commandments on public property," which consisted of the usual obfuscation and denial. The resolution discussed the "historical and cultural" significance of the Commandments, and their "significant impact on the development of the fundamental legal principles of Western Civilization." In effect, the Council had embarked on a strategy of attempting to declare the monument secular and constitutional by simple fiat.

   A District Court agreed, suggesting that the monument had a secular purpose in that it promoted morality in youth. The court also suggested that the monument included many religious symbols (and thus did not promote a specific religion) and was part of a larger collection of historical and cultural displays such as the war monuments. All of this, however, was reversed by today's victory in the Circuit Court.

   ¶    "As a starting point, we do not think it can be said that the Ten Commandments, standing by themselves, can be stripped of their religious, indeed sacred, significance and characterized as a moral or ethical document."

   ¶    Discussing the fact that a frieze on the wall of the U.S. Supreme Court happens to depict Moses holding the Ten Commandments, the Circuit Court noted:

"The frieze contains depictions of two other religious figures, Confucius and Mohammed, but also includes Caesar Augustus, William Blackstone, Napoleon Bonaparte, and John Marshall. Justice Stevens has stated that the placement of all of these historic figures together on the frieze signals a respect for great lawgivers, not great proselytizers..."

   ¶    "Here, the record discloses no significant attempt by the City of Elkhart to present the text of the Ten Commandments in a way that might diminish its religious character ... The code chosen ... was a religious code that focuses not only on subjects that are the legitimate concerns of civil authorities, but also subjects that are beyond the ken of any government and that address directly the relationship of the individual human being and God. That the purpose was to endorse, through governmental sponsorship, a code of religious values is further established by the program of speakers at the dedication of the monument..."

   ¶    Could the city "secularize" the Ten Commandments by fiat and decrees? The Circuit Court was skeptical, and noted:

"Moreover, nothing in the subsequent history of the monument can be said to have in any way transformed that religious purpose. The City's resolution, issued on the eve of this litigation and proclaiming a secular purpose for the monument's presence by recognizing the historical and cultural significance of the Ten Commandments, ought to be accorded no more weight than the avowed secular legislative purpose articulated by the Kentucky legislature in Stone (STONE v. GRAHAM) ..."

   ¶    "Even if we were to ignore the primary purpose behind displaying the Ten Commandments monument, we would have to conclude that this particular display has the primary or principal effect of advancing religion..."

   ¶    Elkhart officials suggested that the monument was somehow "secularized" by the presence of the American Eagle and flag. The Court responded:

"In this regard, the placement of the American Eagle gripping the national colors at the top of the monument hardly detracts from the message of endorsement (of religion); rather, it specifically links religion, or more specifically these two religions, and civil government..."

   ¶    "Finally, we cannot say that the monument's acknowledgment of two religious traditions, rather than one, renders the situation before us in compliance with the strictures of the Constitution. 'The simultaneous endorsement of Judaism and Christianity is no less constitutionally infirm than the endorsement of Christianity alone.' " (COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY, 492 U.S.)

   If no good deed goes unpunished, then courts are not always zealous in defending the civil liberties of Atheists, or a total separation of church and state. The Circuit Court decision leaves some options for the city, including replacement of the monument to another location, and other steps. "In making those decisions, Elkhart has the right and, indeed, the obligation to take into consideration the religious sensibilities of its people and to accommodate that aspect of its citizens' lives in any way that does not offend the strictures of the Establishment Clause..."

   The Court then quotes a controversial decision from ZORACH v. CLAUSEN (1952) where Supreme Court justices noted: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being..."

   Elkhart, or any other municipality or state, could still attempt to "secularize" the Commandments by situating them as part of a larger display which, to a court, suggests honor of or emphasis on "history," "culture" or tradition. This ruse has worked in salvaging a number of religious seasonal displays on public property, including Christian nativity creches and Jewish menorahs. With enough plastic Santa Claus figures or reindeer, a nativity can be "secularized" if it is not the central part of a display. The same ploy may pass muster with a court.

   Religious supporters of Ten Commandments monuments, however, may not settle on such a workable strategy, or they may feel that it is one which trivializes and marginalizes their display. Mr. Suetkamp thinks that the City may appeal the case, grinding up more tax money in pursuit of its unconstitutional goals.

   "We'll go the distance, even if they do appeal," declared Mr. Suetkamp. "It's worth it ... it's the principle of the thing."

[text only]