Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry
2005
Thomas Van Orden, an American Lawyer, challenged the State of Texas claiming that the placement of the Ten Commandment monument on state capital grounds was unconstitutional because it symbolized government endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Van Orden v. Perry Case Brief). The Supreme Court held the monument constitutional as it was merely a recognition of the Ten Commandment in American history and served no religious purposes (Van Orden v. Perry). The Supreme Court also noted that many other government buildings, including itself, have some form of the Commandments as the recognition of its important historical meaning as a source of law (Van Orden v. Perry).
This case raised issue on whether placing a religious monument on state property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Lemon Test, established in precedent Lemon V. Kurtzman, concluded that to survive an Establishment Clause challenge a policy 1) must have a secular purpose; 2) must have a principal or primary effect that doesn’t advance or inhibit religion; and 3) must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion” (Blazing).
This case was significant in defining a new line for the placement of religious monuments on government grounds, holding that it is not unconstitutional if the purpose was to reflect American history and tradition. The comparison of the case to McCreary V. ACLU also showed the “highly contextual nature of the Court’s analysis when it comes to public religious displays (Van Orden v. Perry)”.
Bibliography
BibMe: Fast & Easy Bibliography Maker. (n.d.). BibMe: fast & easy bibliography maker. Retrieved October 4, 2013, from http://www.bibme.org/
Blazing, L. (2011, December 11). Lemon v. Kurtzman. Sites@duke | sites.duke.edu. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from http://sites.duke.edu/dialogues_aa/tag/lemon-v-kurtzman/
Van Orden v. Perry. (n.d.). Berkley center
2005
Thomas Van Orden, an American Lawyer, challenged the State of Texas claiming that the placement of the Ten Commandment monument on state capital grounds was unconstitutional because it symbolized government endorsement of religion, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Van Orden v. Perry Case Brief). The Supreme Court held the monument constitutional as it was merely a recognition of the Ten Commandment in American history and served no religious purposes (Van Orden v. Perry). The Supreme Court also noted that many other government buildings, including itself, have some form of the Commandments as the recognition of its important historical meaning as a source of law (Van Orden v. Perry).
This case raised issue on whether placing a religious monument on state property violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Lemon Test, established in precedent Lemon V. Kurtzman, concluded that to survive an Establishment Clause challenge a policy 1) must have a secular purpose; 2) must have a principal or primary effect that doesn’t advance or inhibit religion; and 3) must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion” (Blazing).
This case was significant in defining a new line for the placement of religious monuments on government grounds, holding that it is not unconstitutional if the purpose was to reflect American history and tradition. The comparison of the case to McCreary V. ACLU also showed the “highly contextual nature of the Court’s analysis when it comes to public religious displays (Van Orden v. Perry)”.
Bibliography
BibMe: Fast & Easy Bibliography Maker. (n.d.). BibMe: fast & easy bibliography maker. Retrieved October 4, 2013, from http://www.bibme.org/
Blazing, L. (2011, December 11). Lemon v. Kurtzman. Sites@duke | sites.duke.edu. Retrieved October 3, 2013, from http://sites.duke.edu/dialogues_aa/tag/lemon-v-kurtzman/
Van Orden v. Perry. (n.d.). Berkley center