In Stone v. Graham 449 US 39 (1980), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Kentucky law was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as it had no nonreligious legislative purpose. The law requires the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the walls of every public classroom in the state. While the copy of the Ten Commandments was purchased with private funding, the Court ruled that since they were placed in public classrooms, they violated the First Amendment.
Video Stone v. Graham
Opini Pengadilan
The Court stated that the Kentucky law that requires the Ten Commandments to be installed in the school classroom violates the First Amendment. To interpret the First Amendment, the Court rests on a precedent established at Lemon v. Kurtzman and three parts "Lemon test". The court concluded that since "requiring the Post Ten Commandments in a public school room has no secular legislative purpose," it is unconstitutional.
The court approached the case through a lens made at Lemon v. Kurtzman . They agree that if the Kentucky statute violates any of the three guidelines outlined in the Lemon test, the law would violate the Establishment Clause. The majority voiced that the Commandments contain a religious tone, because it involves "the believer's religious duty: worshiping God himself, avoiding idolatry, not using the name of God in vain, and observing the Sabbath." But because "The commands are not integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible can be constitutionally used in proper historical study," they have no secular and religious purpose.
The Court concludes that although the Orders are paid by private agencies and although they are "posted only on the wall... only post copies under the legislative aegis provide 'official State support... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." Although the Command is not used to indoctrinate or convert students but passively enough, the Court stated that, "there is no defense to insist that religious practice here may be a relatively minor increment in the First Amendment." Because he supports religion and has no secular purpose, the Court concludes that the Kentucky law is unconstitutional.
Majority: "This is not the case where the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible can be constitutionally used in appropriate studies of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. [See Abington School District v. Schempp.] Posting religious texts on the walls does not work like education. If a copy posted from the Ten Commandments has to have any effect at all, it will encourage school children to read, ponder, perhaps to respect and obey, the Commandments. this may be a matter of personal devotion, it is not the purpose of the country allowed under the Constitutional Establishment Clause. "
Maps Stone v. Graham
Dissent
Judge Rehnquist argued in disagreement that the law did not violate the First Amendment because there was a legitimate secular purpose for the Post of the Ten Commandments. Rehnquist argues that "The Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of the Western secular legal code," which he qualifies as a secular destination. Rehnquist's difference of opinion also states that the relationship of something to religion does not automatically cause it to "respect the formation of religion."
Judge Rehnquist agrees with the framework proposed by majority opinion, but thinks that Kentucky law has a secular purpose. Rehnquist believes that just because "secular secrets are asserted can overlap with what some may see as religious goals does not make it unconstitutional." The Court believes that since the Commandments are 'sacred texts' and not taught in the context of the history class, their mandatory posting is unconstitutional. Rehnquist argues that the Orders are documents that "have a significant impact on the development of the Western secular legal code." Rehnquist dissidents argue that since religion has been "closely identified with our history and government... we can barely honor the educational system that will make students completely unaware of the currents of religious thought."
Next development
Stone v. Graham is one of the first Supreme Court cases to condemn a passive religious object because of its unconstitutionality. Before Stone , decisions have been made on government-sponsored prayer and religious activities subsidized by the government, but not only on the existence of religious objects. For this reason, Stone v. Graham functions as a useful precedent in Lynch v. Donnelly , where he was referenced and compared to the disputed cha founded in Pawtucket, Rhode Island.
See also
- List of US Supreme Court cases, volume 449
- Glassroth v. Moore (11th Cir. 2003)
- Van Orden v. Perry (2005)
- McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005)
- Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009)
- Green Commissioner v. Haskell County (10th Cir. 2009)
External links
- Works related to Stone v. Graham on Wikisource
- Text Stone v. Graham , 449 US 39 (1980) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Ã, Google Scholar Justia OpenJurist Oyez
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments