Hindu American Foundation [HAF]

This article was written as a result of HAF's filing of an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the 10 Commandments case. The below article is republished with the permission of The Argus.

Fremont president of Hindu group backs efforts to remove Decalogue from Texas Capitol
FROM STAFF WRITER AND WIRE REPORTS
By Rob Dennis

WASHINGTON — The subject Wednesday at the Supreme Court was the Ten Commandments on government property, and Moses was the star of the show.

A stone image of the patriarch, holding a Hebrew-inscribed tablet, occupies a prominent place in the justices' own courtroom, alongside Confucius, John Marshall and others in a frieze dedicated to history's great lawgivers.

In a controversial issue that has attracted the interest of a Hindu nonprofit group with many Fremont members, lawyers argued for and against displays of the Decalogue in Texas and Kentucky, and the attorneys and justices repeatedly referred to that frieze.

What if, instead of a 6-foot stone monument on the state capitol grounds bearing the words of all 10 commandments — beginning with "I am the Lord thy God" — Texas posted a version similar to the one Moses holds in the frieze, in which only the last five are visible? Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.

"That is still unconstitutional. It would still be the state of Texas expressing the message that there is a God," replied Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor representing an opponent of the Texas monument. The court's frieze is constitutional, Chemerinsky said, because it places the commandments in a secular, historical context.

So does the Texas monument, countered Greg Abbott, the attorney general of Texas. He told the court that it is part of a "parklike" area dotted with monuments to veterans, pioneers and other "historical influences" that have shaped Texas.

The Texas and Kentucky cases, argued separately in the course of two hours, represent the court's first foray since 1980 into an issue that most recently boiled over with the failed effort of Judge Roy Moore to install a massive stone copy of the Ten Commandmentsat the Alabama Supreme Court.

The Hindu American Foundation spearheaded the filing in December of an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the Texas case.

Many of its members live in Fremont, including foundation President Mihir Meghani. He said it is difficult to tell how the court will rule.

"I imagine it's going to be split, as so many of these controversial cases are, and we'll have to abide by whatever the decision is," said Meghani, a Kaiser emergency room doctor.

"Rather than a very broad, broad ruling, this case may come down to a very specific ruling — the specific instances in this case."

Regardless of the outcome, the case may help encourage tolerance and pluralism, Meghani said.

"One good thing this case has done for Americans is it's really opened up people's minds to different perspectives," he said.

"It's great for people to have a strong belief in their own faith, but it should not come at the expense of denigrating or looking down at others."

Opponents of displaying the Ten Commandments on public property say it amounts to a governmental imposition of monotheism.

Proponents say it is often nothing more than a recognition of the role Judeo-Christian norms played in Western Civilization and the founding of the United States itself.

The court banned the mandatory display of the commandments in public schools in 1980.

Its broader doctrine on publicly sponsored religion permits limited exercises or displays that serve a secular purpose, such as acknowledging the historical role of religion in American life, without "endorsing" particular beliefs.