Liberty Counsel
NEWS RELEASE

Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 28, 2005

CHICAGO, IL – Last Friday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a display of documents including the Ten Commandments in the County Administration Building in Elkhart, Indiana. Elkhart County, Indiana, is represented by Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, and Erik W. Stanley, Chief Counsel for Liberty Counsel.

The Elkhart County display is identical to the one pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. It includes nine historical documents and symbols, including the Ten Commandments, flanked by the flags of the United States and Indiana. The display is entitled the “Foundations of American Law and Government” and is intended to display documents and symbols that played a significant role in the foundation of the American system of law and government.

Reaching the merits of the case, the Seventh Circuit stated, “[I]t is well within the bounds of constitutional plausibility to assert, as the County does here, that the Ten Commandments have played an important role in the development of American society and civic order.” The court also stated, “The Establishment Clause is not violated when government teaches about the historical role of religion.” The court concluded, “We see no reason why the display as erected must be purged of the Ten Commandments to survive constitutional scrutiny.”

Judge Easterbrook dissented, stating the court need not address the merits. He would dismiss the ICLU suit for lack of standing. Easterbrook said he had “serious doubts” about “the supposition that the establishment clause affects the states in the same way as the national government.” He also said that: “‘Endorsement’ differs from ‘establishment.’ A government does not ‘establish milk as the national beverage when it endorses milk as part of a sound diet.’” Easterbrook wrote: “‘Establishment’ entails coercion: either mandatory religious observance or mandatory support (via taxes) for clergy on the public payroll.” Noting that “Words do not coerce,” Easterbrook wrote that mere offense to a religious display does not grant standing to sue.

Erik Stanley stated, “The Seventh Circuit’s decision rejected the attempt to rewrite our history by removing any and all religious references. The Ten Commandments did play an important part in our history, and government may constitutionally display it for its historical value.” Mat Staver stated, “The Ten Commandments is a universally recognized symbol of law. Displaying the Ten Commandments does not establish a religion. Displaying the Ten Commandments acknowledges religion and the role of religion in America. Acknowledging religion is far different than establishing religion.”

###