Judge to rule in Everett Ten Commandments case

A granite slab inscribed with the Ten Commandments and displayed in front of Everett's police headquarters is an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.

Or it's a historical monument with a secular purpose, an unobtrusive part of downtown for 45 years and perfectly lawful.

It might require the biblical wisdom of Solomon to determine the legality of the donated local marker in one of dozens of cases nationwide. After hearing oral arguments yesterday, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik said he would issue a written ruling in two or three weeks.

Jesse Card, a 21-year-old Everett resident, sued the city over the monument last year, aided by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that is seeking the removal of publicly displayed Ten Commandment markers in other states.

The 6-foot-tall monolith, partially obscured by trees, was donated to the city in 1959 by the Everett Eagles as part of a national program by the Ohio-based Fraternal Order of Eagles.

That Card professes no religious beliefs does not erode his right to view city property without being offended, said Benjamin Block, a Washington, D.C., attorney who is representing him.

The city's defense of the monument tells his client that "your beliefs are not as valued as those who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian faith," Block said, calling that the basis of Card's case.

Steve Smith, a Seattle attorney representing the city of Everett, said that pushing for the removal of the monument for reasons of religion was too narrow.

He urged Lasnik to put himself "in the position of a reasonable observer, who not only looks at the monument but the context and its place in history."

The monument is overshadowed by a nearby war memorial maintained by the city and has been displayed without legal challenge for more than four decades, Smith said, arguing that no reasonable person would conclude that the city is promoting religion.

Lasnik repeatedly asked both attorneys to compare the Everett case with those in other states, where rulings have gone both ways. Judges have ruled against monuments or plaques donated by Eagles in Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, but have allowed them to remain in Pennsylvania and Texas.

Block said the historical mention of a deity in government -- the inscription of "In God We Trust" on currency, for instance -- was much different from the monument, which gave a clear command: " 'Thou shalt have no other Gods before me' and other texts."

Even if city officials don't believe in the Ten Commandments, their display of the monument indicates its importance to them, which sends a message to the public, he said.

Smith said the city considers historical preservation a reason to keep the monument.

"That is a secular purpose," he said. "The court is required to give deference to a historical purpose. The burden shifts to the plaintiff as to whether the (stated) purpose is a sham."

Smith said the city at one time moved the monument back to give more prominence to the war memorial, a tripaneled display with benches, lighting, a flagpole and flower pots.

"When the city wanted to promote something, it knew how to do so," he said, contrasting that with the city's comparatively low-profile display of the monument.

Block disputed that the city considered the Ten Commandments marker to be historically valuable, noting that it hasn't been cleaned or maintained.

"The city contradicts itself on preserving this monument," he said.

Smith said the city has acted properly, given today's cultural climate.

"Can you imagine the screaming if the city had done something to enhance the monument?" he asked.

More headlines and info from Everett.