|
Date: June 27, 2005
TAMPA,
FL - The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) expressed a combination of
relief and some disappointment over the Supreme Court decisions on the
constitutionality of Ten Commandments displays on government property.
The decision in McCreary County vs. ACLU, that disallowed a framed
version of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse supported the
HAF position that public displays of the overtly Judeo-Christian Ten
Commandments effectively promote a particular religion over other
religious traditions. In contrast, in Thomas Van Orden vs. Rick Perry,
a case in which HAF submitted the first ever Supreme Court amicus brief
representing Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, the Court ruled that the
display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds
could remain.
The HAF amicus brief was cited in
the dissenting opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens in the Van
Orden case. In the citing, Justice Stevens wrote that the monument
violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution by, ".prescribing
a compelled code of conduct from one God, namely a Judeo-Christian God,
that is rejected by.Hinduism, as well as nontheistic religions, such as
Buddhism."
"Clearly, some members of the bench
considered our views seriously and decided in favour of our communities
in the Kentucky case," said Suhag Shukla, Esq., Legal Counsel of HAF,
who coordinated the filing of the brief with a team of attorneys
working pro bono at Goodwin Procter, LLP. "We are disappointed that the
Court's reasoning in the Kentucky case did not produce the same
conclusion in the Texas case."
In its decisions, the Supreme Court
held that the context in which the display is placed is paramount.
According to the Court, the courtroom displays in Kentucky were placed
with an expressed purpose to promote the Judeo-Christian faith.
"If the factual surroundings of the
Decalogue displays are critical to their constitutionality," said
Nikhil Joshi, Esq., member of the Hindu American Foundation Board of
Directors, "Then HAF, and similar organizations protecting the views of
other major religious traditions, must remain vigilant to ensure that
the separation of church and state enshrined in our Constitution is
never violated."
Despite the split decision in these
cases, Shukla and Joshi expressed satisfaction that HAF's efforts in
this case were recognized. "To have the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain
perspective acknowledged by the highest court is a first for our
community," said Ms. Shukla. "HAF will endeavour to ensure that a Hindu
voice is heard in dialogues of national import."
The full amicus curiae (friend of the court brief) may be
viewed at http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/campaigns_10_commandments-amicus_brief.pdf
HAF is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization promoting the Hindu and American ideals of understanding,
tolerance and pluralism. |
