Michigan Atheists have announced a demonstration to defend separation of state and church on Wednesday, March 2, 2005, 11:00AM – 1:00PM at The Michigan State Capitol, Lansing Michigan. This march is being called for in response to the fact that for the first time in 25 years the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments involving Ten Commandments displays on March 2, 2005 in Washington DC. An e-mail put out by West Michigan Free Thought Association states that Michigan’s godless community will gather to defend separation of state and church and voice their objections to the posting of the Ten Commandments in the public square.
Following is information about the two oral arguments in the Supreme Court from the Michigan Atheists:
McCREARY COUNTY v ACLU OF KY. Docket Number: 03-1693.
Facts of the case: The American Civil Liberties Union sued three Kentucky counties in federal district court for displaying framed copies of the Ten Commandment in courthouses and public school. The ACLU argued the displays violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” The district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the displays violated the establishment clause. Question to Supreme Court, March 2, 2005: Do Ten commandments displays in public schools and courthouses violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which barred government from passing laws ‘respecting an establishment of religion?”
VAN ORDEN v. PERRY. Docket Number: 03-1500
Facts of the case: Thomas Van Orden sued Texas in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Orden argued this violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibited the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Orden and said the monument served a valid secular purpose and would not appear to a reasonable observer to represent a government endorsement of religion. Question to Supreme Court, March 2, 2005: Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitolbuilding violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws ‘respecting an establishment of religion?”
Related posts:
