US Supreme Court rules against Hindu body's plea: Indians Abroad
Indo-Asian News Service
Washington, June 28, 2005
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a 6x3 foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments could remain near a Texas court though a dissenting opinion said it violated the rights of other religions such as Hinduism.
Ruling on two separate cases Monday, one in Kentucky where the court held the Ten Commandments could not be displayed inside the courthouse, the Supreme Court supported a Kentucky court decision that disallowed the display.
But in the Texas case, it upheld the ruling of the Texas Fifth Circuit that the granite monument could be displayed on government property. The monument was placed roughly 40 years ago unlike the Kentucky display, which was apparently just three years old.
"I think that the legal community was probably anticipating or hoping for some kind of standard that could be applied, some type of test, but again the Supreme Court has demonstrated that these types of cases would be looked at on a fact by fact basis," Suhag Shukla, legal counsel for Hindu American Foundation (HAF) that initiated the amicus brief in the Texas case, told IANS.
"But as a member of the Hindu American community, we are very happy to participate in this national dialogue and the HAF brief has been mentioned in the Texas case," she said.
In his dissenting opinion in the five-four decision, Justice Stevens says, "Even if, however, the message of the monument, despite the inscribed text, fairly could be said to represent the belief system of all Judeo Christians, it would still run afoul of the establishment clause by prescribing a compelled code of conduct from one god, namely a Judeo Christian god, that is rejected by prominent (religions).... Hinduism, Buddhism."
Last December HAF spearheaded the filing of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the US Supreme Court in the Texas case in what became one of the most widely anticipated cases being heard in the Supreme Court this year.
In the brief, HAF and nine other organisations supported the position that the monument violates the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US constitution.
The case originally brought by Thomas Van Orden against Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, in 2003, asked for the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from Texas State Capitol grounds. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case after the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the monument could remain in place.
The 34-page brief was signed by HAF, Arsha Vidya Pitham, Arya Samaj of Michigan, Hindu International Council Against Defamation, Hindu University of America, Navya Shastra, Saiva Siddhanta Church, Federation of Jain Associations in North America, Interfaith Freedom Foundation and prominent Buddhist scholar and Director of Tibet House, Professor Robert Thurman.
"The court is not laying out a standard of rule," Shukla emphasised. "One could say they ruled against us, but we were filing as an amicae really to bring the perspective of Hindus, Jains and others," she contended.
"The (other) traditions were recognised and we participated in a civil activity. So on face value, the factual situation surrounding the monument was not in our favour.
However, we as a community have made great strides, evident from the dissenting statement of Justice Stevens which says that - that one cannot overlook the fact that there are many traditions that do not consider the Ten Commandments as the Judeo Christian faith does."
While filing the brief last year, Shukla had pointed to the overtly religious monument being displayed as a "blow to pluralism".
Washington, June 28, 2005
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a 6x3 foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments could remain near a Texas court though a dissenting opinion said it violated the rights of other religions such as Hinduism.
Ruling on two separate cases Monday, one in Kentucky where the court held the Ten Commandments could not be displayed inside the courthouse, the Supreme Court supported a Kentucky court decision that disallowed the display.
But in the Texas case, it upheld the ruling of the Texas Fifth Circuit that the granite monument could be displayed on government property. The monument was placed roughly 40 years ago unlike the Kentucky display, which was apparently just three years old.
"I think that the legal community was probably anticipating or hoping for some kind of standard that could be applied, some type of test, but again the Supreme Court has demonstrated that these types of cases would be looked at on a fact by fact basis," Suhag Shukla, legal counsel for Hindu American Foundation (HAF) that initiated the amicus brief in the Texas case, told IANS.
"But as a member of the Hindu American community, we are very happy to participate in this national dialogue and the HAF brief has been mentioned in the Texas case," she said.
In his dissenting opinion in the five-four decision, Justice Stevens says, "Even if, however, the message of the monument, despite the inscribed text, fairly could be said to represent the belief system of all Judeo Christians, it would still run afoul of the establishment clause by prescribing a compelled code of conduct from one god, namely a Judeo Christian god, that is rejected by prominent (religions).... Hinduism, Buddhism."
Last December HAF spearheaded the filing of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the US Supreme Court in the Texas case in what became one of the most widely anticipated cases being heard in the Supreme Court this year.
In the brief, HAF and nine other organisations supported the position that the monument violates the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US constitution.
The case originally brought by Thomas Van Orden against Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, in 2003, asked for the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from Texas State Capitol grounds. The Supreme Court decided to hear the case after the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the monument could remain in place.
The 34-page brief was signed by HAF, Arsha Vidya Pitham, Arya Samaj of Michigan, Hindu International Council Against Defamation, Hindu University of America, Navya Shastra, Saiva Siddhanta Church, Federation of Jain Associations in North America, Interfaith Freedom Foundation and prominent Buddhist scholar and Director of Tibet House, Professor Robert Thurman.
"The court is not laying out a standard of rule," Shukla emphasised. "One could say they ruled against us, but we were filing as an amicae really to bring the perspective of Hindus, Jains and others," she contended.
"The (other) traditions were recognised and we participated in a civil activity. So on face value, the factual situation surrounding the monument was not in our favour.
However, we as a community have made great strides, evident from the dissenting statement of Justice Stevens which says that - that one cannot overlook the fact that there are many traditions that do not consider the Ten Commandments as the Judeo Christian faith does."
While filing the brief last year, Shukla had pointed to the overtly religious monument being displayed as a "blow to pluralism".
Labels: HAF
US Supreme Court rules against Hindu body's plea: Indians Abroad
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home