First Amendment Folly: Court Says Pa. Ten Commandments Monument May Remain At Public School Because It Isn’t Offensive Enough | Americans United

Unfortunately, McVerry focused on the wrong facts in this case. While it is fair to say that many are offended by a Ten Commandments display on government property, that is not the main legal issue. The reality is this Decalogue is unconstitutional because it gives the impression that government is endorsing belief over non-belief. Whether or not anyone is offended by the specific display is secondary.

Even if McVerry had taken a proper First Amendment approach, however, there is no guarantee that FFRF would have won its case – thanks to a bad U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Tribune-Review said the Decalogue was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, sometime during the late 1950s. This allowed Valley High School administrators to argue that the monument is more a landmark than it is a religious display, a claim that is sometimes kryptonite for cases dealing with government-backed religious displays.

In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court said a Ten Commandments display that had been on Texas state property since 1961 could remain. The court’s main reasoning was that the monument was fine because it had been there for so long that it was essentially a ceremonial symbol with no real religious value.

Of course that argument is incredibly weak, even more so in the face of the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s recent decision that a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the capitol building in Oklahoma City is unconstitutional. That monument is very similar to the Texas Decalogue – the only real difference is Oklahoma’s was erected in 2012.

First Amendment Folly: Court Says Pa. Ten Commandments Monument May Remain At Public School Because It Isn’t Offensive Enough | Americans United