Van Orden v. Perry

Insight into the Intricacy of the Separation of Church and State in America

by Matt Suhosky

http://kelseymariebaker.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-4-van-orden-v-perry.html

    The separation of church and state in the United States is guaranteed in the First Amendment of our Constitution through the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from passing a law "respecting an establishment of religion." This is the only mention of the separation of religion and the government in the Constitution, leaving such a separation somewhat ambiguous.

    Such ambiguity has caused dozens of citizens and activist groups to sue their governments, whether it be local, state, or federal. Cases regarding the Establishment Clause that have gone to the Supreme Court range from the federal government subsidizing secular textbooks to parochial schools, to the allotment of time for prayer in public schools, to a prayer led by a rabbi at a public high school's graduation.

    One case in particular demonstrates the ambiguity of the Establishment Clause. On the grounds of the Texas State Capitol sat a large granite monument reading the Ten Commandments. In 2003, Thomas Van Orden sued Rick Perry, in his capacity as Governor of Texas, on the grounds that the display of such a religious symbol on government property was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Van Orden argued that the placement of such a monument on state grounds seems as a government endorsement of religion, and in this case in particular, Christianity. In opposition, Perry argued that the placement of the monument had a secular purpose and the messages of the Ten Commandments were deeply rooted in our nation's history. Issues such as whether or not tax dollars were used to fund the monument, the maintenance of the monument, and the donation of the monument from an independent organization were all debated throughout the case. Seeing the importance of these issues in the debate over the constitutionality of the monument, it is clear how complicated and vague the Establishment Clause is in its interpretation of the separation of church and state.

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas, thereby upholding the placement of the Ten Commandments on the state capitol's ground. The Court agreed with Perry's reasoning in the historical and secular message of the monument, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause."

    Though Gaudium et Spes does maintain that the roles of the church and the state be isolated, the document also states the Church "contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation," and that the Church should have the right "to pass moral judgement in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of soul require it." The Church's teaching in Gaudium is certainly consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Van Orden v. Perry. Though religion and the state are separate entities, the teachings and morals of religion have and continue to play an essential role in the foundation and the continuation of a just and noble state. 

The Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds, the focus of Van Orden v. Perry

http://web.law.duke.edu/voices/gallery?id=170&pil=2

Sources:

1.     https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZO.html

2.     http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/quick-look-at-van-orden-v-perry-mccreary-county-v-aclu

3.     https://www.quimbee.com/cases/van-orden-v-perry

4.     http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html