|
HAF filed an amicus brief to support the
First Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees
no establishment of religion, and explained why we feel
the Ten Commandments Monument on Texas state grounds
represents an unconstitutional government endorsement of
the dominant religion over others and has the effect of
informing these particular citizens that they are somehow
political outsiders. Our brief, signed with nine
co-signatories representing Hindu, Buddhist and Jain
organizations, offers several unique legal and spiritual
perspectives to this long standing national debate. Our
brief promotes pluralism by educating fellow Americans
about religious and spiritual traditions with which they
may not be familiar. We were featured in many newspaper
articles, Fox News, and KQED's nationally syndicated radio
program THE FORUM. We expect a ruling in the summer and
will keep you informed about this issue. |
Press Release
March 5, 2005
The Hindu American
Foundation (HAF) was present at the United States Supreme Court
on March 2, 2005, as the court heard oral arguments in the case
of Van Orden v. Rick Perry. The foundation, along with
nine co-signatories representing Hindu, Buddhist and Jain
organizations, filed the only amicus curiae (friend of the
court) brief providing a non-Judeo-Christian perspective to the
widely anticipated case that involved the placement of a
permanent monument of the Ten Commandments on government
property.
|
 |
|
HAF legal representative Aseem Mehta appeared on Fox News'
Hannity and Colmes on March 2. |
Suhag Shukla, Esq.,
legal counsel for HAF, attended the hearings along with the
legal team from Goodwin
Procter LLP, the firm that filed the brief on behalf of HAF.
Two cases, both relating to government-sponsored displays of the
Ten Commandments, were heard over a span of two hours. The
court focused on a wide range of issues, from whether the
displays are similar to legislative prayer sessions, to whether
the Texas Capitol state grounds where the Decalogue is displayed
constitutes a museum-like setting.
Ms. Shukla
was pleased that some of the issues brought forth in HAF’s brief
were introduced during the oral arguments. “HAF assertion
that the monument, with its location in the seat of government,
implies an endorsement of the message found in the display was a
central part of the oral arguments,” said Ms. Shukla, “We
do hope that the Justices will agree that state-sponsorship of
this unquestionably religious display in park-like setting shows
an unconstitutional preference of one religious tradition over
others.”
HAF’s brief received
widespread coverage after its filing on December 13, 2004.
The group has asserted that its position is not an effort to
counter any religious tradition or its scripture. “HAF, as
an organization committed to tolerance and pluralism, has utmost
respect for many of the ethical values enshrined in the
Decalogue,” said Nikhil Joshi, Esq., also an attorney and
member of the HAF Board of Directors. “However, HAF’s
stand reflects the views of millions of fellow Americans that
feel strongly that the great traditions of the U.S. Constitution
maintaining a clear separation between church and state must be
upheld.”
During the arguments,
Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, Attorney for Van Orden,
specifically asked the Justices to consider the effect of the
Texas display on Hindus and Buddhists. “There is no way to
predict how the Court will decide this issue, but we are
satisfied that because of HAF’s efforts, the Hindu perspective,
along with that of Buddhists and Jains, will at least have the
chance to be considered,” added Ms. Shukla.
Immediately following
the oral arguments, HAF explained its position to various media
outlets. Among others, Ms. Shukla appeared on
National Public Radio and attorneys from Goodwin Procter LLP
represented HAF on the Fox News Channel and at a panel
discussion on the case at the Georgetown University College of
Law.
The full amicus curiae (friend of the court brief) may be
viewed at
http://www.hinduamericanfoundation.org/campaigns_10_commandments-amicus_brief.pdf
|
