About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Buy a CD
Vital notes

World religions
Who is a Christian?
Shared beliefs
Handle change
Bible topics
Bible inerrancy
Bible harmony
Interpret Bible
Beliefs, creeds
Da Vinci code
Revelation, 666
Other religions
Other spirituality
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

About all religions
Important topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handle change
Confusing terms
World's end
One true religion?
Seasonal topics
Science v. Religion
More info.

Absolute truth

Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten commandm'ts
Assisted suicide
Death penalty
Equal rights - gays & bi's
Gay marriage
Origins of the species
Sex & gender
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news


Religious Tolerance logo


The Texas case

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

The case:

Van Orden v. Perry (03-1500): This case involves a six-foot tall granite monument containing the Ten Commandments placed on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol at Austin in 1961 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. It includes:

bulletThe words "Ten Commandments,"
bulletThe text of the Decalogue including the words "I am the Lord thy God,"
bulletA Star of David,
bulletA symbol representing Jesus Christ 

No material from other religions is included. No text from secular sources is included.

The respondent in the case is Rick Perry, in his capacity as governor of Texas and Chairman of its State Preservation Board. 1,2,3

horizontal rule

Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) briefs:

These were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by:

bulletNational School Boards Association
bulletRutherford Institute
bulletConservative Legal Defense and Education Fund
bulletJudicial Watch, Inc.
bulletFederal Government
bulletBecket Fund for Religious Liberty
bulletAshbrook Center for Public Affairs
bulletEagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
bulletState of Alabama and many other states
bulletFaith and Action
bulletState of Minnesota
bulletPacific Justice Institute
bulletThomas More Law Center
bulletFoundation for Moral Law, Inc.
bulletAmerican Legion
bulletAmerican Center for Law and Justice
bulletFamily Research Council
bulletFocus on the Family
bulletWallBuilders, Inc.
bulletAmerican Liberties Institute
bulletAmerican Humanist Association
bulletAnti-Defamation League
bulletAmerican Atheists
bulletAtheist Law Center
bulletFreedom From Relgion [sic] Foundation
bulletCouncil for Secular Humanism
bulletInternational Academy of Humanism
bulletAmericans United for Separation of Church and State
bulletLegal Historians and Law Scholars
bulletBaptist Joint Committee 4

On 2005-MAR-02. the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the two cases.

horizontal rule

The plaintiff:

Thomas Van Orden, describes himself as a religious pluralist. He was raised in a Methodist family, had a brief interest in the Unitarian Universalist religion, but now regards himself as "not religious.3 He said: "I have nothing against the Ten Commandments. I grew up with the Ten Commandments," I didn't sue Christianity or Judaism. I sued the government. It was filed to uphold the principles of the First Amendment." He launched a lawsuit against the state of Texas. He has said that the state has crossed the line separating church and state by promoting "personal religious beliefs." He includes in his brief the comment that many religions reject the concept of a single God who lays down rules for human behavior. He said: "Even among religions that accept the Ten Commandments, there are significant differences in content of each religion's version of the Ten Commandments." 1 The Decalogue text on the monument is almost identical to the Protestant version. Although the majority of court decisions on isolated religious displays have found them unconstitutional, Van Orden lost at the federal appeals level and has appealed to the Supreme Court. He has received threatening E-mails, that warn "we're gonna get you" and tell him to "get the hell out" of the country if he cannot support Christianity and the American way of life. 3

horizontal rule

References used:

  1. "Join us! Wednesday, March 2 rally at Supreme Court..." AANEWS, 2005-FEB-28.
  2. Bill Mears, "Ten Commandments before high court. Explosive church-state issues from Kentucky, Texas," CNN,com Law Center, 2005-MAR-01, at: http://www.cnn.com/
  3. "Top Court to Weigh Ten Commandments Cases," Associated Press, 2005-FEB-26, at: http://apnews.myway.com/
  4. "Van Orden v. Perry," U.S. Supreme Court, at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
  5. Pete Winn, "Ten Commandments arguments go well," Focus on the Family, 2005-MAR-02, at: http://www.family.org/

horizontal rule

Site navigation: Home > Religious LawsTen Commandments > 2005 SCOTUS cases > here

horizontal rule

Copyright © 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2005-MAR-02
Latest update: 2005-MAR-02
Author: B.A. Robinson

line.gif (538 bytes)

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to the "2005 SCOTUS cases" menu, or choose:

Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?

Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.