ACLJ in Federal Court Defending Judge and Display Including 10 Commandments
The ACLU is at it again. In its ongoing secular crusade to rid the public square of any hint or reference to religion, the ACLU has once again sued Judge James DeWeese of
Before getting into the nature of the current litigation, its important to know that this is the third time the ACLU has gone after Judge DeWeese. The first was back in 2001, when the ACLU sued him over a poster in his courtroom which contained only the text of the Ten Commandments. After Judge DeWeese took down this poster under court order, he eventually put up a new display, the current Philosophies of Law in Conflict.
The ACLU tried to have Judge DeWeese held in contempt of court for posting the new display, despite the fact it was a wholly new poster and unrelated to the previous one.
Once we successfully defended Judge DeWeese against the ACLUs contempt action, they sued Judge DeWeese yet again, arguing that the new poster is just as unconstitutional, if not more so, than the first one.
The educational display at issue in the current case, Philosophies of Law in Conflict, compares and contrasts the concept of Moral Absolutes with the concept of Moral Relativism a moral and philosophical topic which has been contested, debated and argued since the beginning of moral philosophy itself.
On one side of the poster, serving as an example of moral absolutes, is the text of the Ten Commandments. On the other side of the poster, serving as examples of moral relativism, are statements taken from the Humanist Manifesto and other sources, including a quote from the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey: At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life.
The reason Judge DeWeese displays the poster in his courtroom, a poster he designed himself, is set forth on the face of the poster. He wishes to educate visitors to his courtroom that there is a conflict of legal and moral philosophies raging in the
Judge DeWeese, who has been repeatedly re-elected to this position for over eighteen years and has presided over 5,000 felony criminal cases, states in his poster that the cases passing through this courtroom demonstrate we are paying a high cost in increased crime and other social ills for moving from moral absolutism to moral relativism since the mid 20th century.
What has raised the ire of the ACLU is not just Judge DeWeeses use of the Ten Commandments as an example of moral absolutes, but his stated belief that the moral order has its ultimate source in the divine order. As Judge DeWeese writes:
The Founders were right about the necessity of moral absolutes to the survival and prosperity of our country. I join them and the Constitution of Ohio in acknowledging Almighty God as the author of the necessary standards for restoring the moral fabric, safety and prosperity of this nation.
Judge DeWeese is quite correct about the Founders views regarding morality and religion.
In his famous Farewell Address to the newly established nation, George Washington stated that Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In a letter to Benjamin Rush, John Adams, the second President of the
Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father and one of the Federalist Papers authors, observed, Good and wise men, in all ages have supposed that the deity has constituted an eternal and immutable law which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institutions whatever.
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote that The moral or natural law was given by the Sovereign of the universe to all mankind; with them it was co-eval, and with them it will be co-existent. Being rounded by infinite wisdom and goodness on essential right, which never varies, it can require no amendment or alteration.
Indeed, as the United States Supreme Court itself has held: We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.
Judge DeWeeses poster is hardly the religious diatribe the ACLU says it is. In fact, it is not a religious display at all; it is an educational and philosophical one. It does not proselytize or preach; it conveys an opinion about an issue of great public and social concern, an opinion well-grounded in historical experience and reflection.
Contrary to the ACLUs understanding of the law, the public display of the Ten Commandments is not automatically unconstitutional. And Judge DeWeeses display is not constitutionally infirm simply because he cites to the Ten Commandments as emblematic of moral absolutes.
To survive judicial scrutiny under the Establishment Clause, a display like Judge DeWeeses Philosophies of Law in Conflict must have a secular purpose and be displayed in a manner which does not impermissibly endorse religion. Judge DeWeeses display satisfies this test. Its purpose is to call attention to the clash between objective morality and moral relativism, and the societal ills to which the latter logically leads. The poster uses the Ten Commandments as symbolic of natural law, a moral order which transcends time and place.
Finally, Judge DeWeeses personal comments on the display, regarding the relationship between religion and morality, do not constitute an endorsement of religion as such. They merely point out the judges opinion, based on personal reflection and first-hand experience, that when morality is untethered from its ultimate source, moral relativism and social ills are sure to follow. This is not a view unique to Judge DeWeese, but is one shared by the Founding Fathers.
If the ACLU prevails in this litigation, it will not just suppress Judge DeWeeses educational display, it will silence a dialogue about some of the most vital realities of human society and culture: law, morality and the relationship between the two.