Public Religious Displays and the Courts

       The controversy over the Ten Commandments being placed in schools, government buildings, courthouses and other public places calls into question the constitutionality that has long been fought by the Supreme Court's argument that the U.S. government is not able to endorse a specific religion. This framework for legal precedents is often rooted in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and have been used when dealing with banning government support for religious activity such as prayer in public schools and lessons of creationism being taught. To begin it is best to understand the evolution of the Ten Commandments in terms of the separationist argument between church and state, the accommodation of supporting all religions equally compared to none at all and recent Supreme Court cases that have furthered public perceptions of the legality of what can and cannot be displayed on public grounds.

     The historical context of the Ten Commandments provides an important foundation for the purpose at which today, many individuals and groups contend are means for displaying them in public places. While some may think of the Ten Commandments as simply just a list of rules by which to obey, they are more than that in terms of biblical context. They are a written version of the covenant between God and Abraham made before they were actually inscribed. Introduced in Exodus, the Ten Commandments are a set of obligations and responsibilities that people must obey in order to show God their devotion and separation from sin. Given to Moses after the exodus from Egypt on Mount Sinai (Ex. 31:18 New International Version) and written down on two stone tablets. Their role in Judaism and Christianity are concerned with importance by their obligations to God, parents, community and avoiding injuries inflicting on people such as adultery, murder and stealing. Throughout their history, they have given way for a plethora of interpretations (Barclay, 2001, pg. 30)

that reflect on the changing times and applying universally to all. 

    During the Separationist Era, there were numerous arguments that arose in protest against the state imposing religious traditions and customs on citizens as well as the government trying to protect those whose religious worship was the subject of ridicule. Several court cases began to lead the way for more religious minorities seeking the protection of the First Amendment (Wald, 2014, pg. 92)

and the freedom it granted when exempting from acts of religious symbolism, like the Pledge of Allegiance or displaying mottos. It is also important to note that it was at this time that the Court began broadening its definition of religion to allow for more types of religion to enter into the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments due to recognizing conscience over traditional religion. In broadening the definition, one of the first cases the Court heard was Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 which involved schools in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania reimbursing salaries for teachers who taught in private schools, did these statutes violate the Establishment Clause by giving financial compensation to church-education institutions? The Court thought it did and by ruling 8-0

(Silberlight, 2008, pg. 15) in favor of Lemon the case established the Lemon Test,

which established three requirements for determining legislation over religion; no excessive government entanglement in regards to religion, it cannot advance or stop religious practice, and it must have a secular purpose.

It was only after this landmark case that the separationist era along with the Lemon Test beginning to diminish and the accommodationist view was adopted due partly because new justices were appointed that believed a state could recognize religion as long as all religions were treated equally and it did not look to a reasonable person that the government was favoring one over the other.  Over the past decades religious displays on government grounds have received great debate about their place in the courts and the public perceptions of what is considered just. During this time, the Supreme Court began hearing cases about these public displays of the religious symbolism in terms of the Ten Commandments in 1980 in the case of Stone v. Graham (Oyez Project, 1980) when a Kentucky school allowed them to be displayed in classrooms. In this case, the Court decided that the school was using government sponsorship of a particular religion and thus was ruled unconstitutional. Soon after, another case approached the Court, only this had to do with religious symbols during the holiday season being placed in a town square. For some time there had been fierce debate about seasonal decorations and religious symbolism throughout cities such as nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and others but this was the first case that specifically involved these holiday displays.

2005 Pew Research Survey

      However, in Lynch v. Donnelly the Court ruled that since other displays; a Christmas tree, Santa Claus and a banner reading "Season's Greetings" were also shown the nativity scene did not violate the First Amendment because it was simply there for a historical context and the city was not endorsing Christianity. However, the Court did not always rule in this way when it came to nativity scenes on public grounds; the case of County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (Pew Research, 2008) a Pittsburgh town also was showing a nativity scene and menorah at the county courthouse but those were the only two displays shown, the Court ruled that unlike the Donnelly case where other displays were shown, this case simply showed just the nativity and the menorah and therefore was unconstitutional because it favored two religions over others. 

     While these two cases set precedents for what would become more lax rulings on the grounds of religious displays that was not so in 2005 when two courts on the same day ruled differently involving permanent displays of the Ten Commandments. In the first case, McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky (Eidsmoe, 2005, pg. 1) three counties in Kentucky (Oyez Project, 2005) were thought to have violated the Establishment Clause but they argued that the Ten Commandments were simply there for historical contexts; therefore the counties broadened the displays by including other historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the Kentucky Constitution among others with the title “The Foundations of American Law and Government” in order to make their case that this was simply representing the US’s founding. However, the Court ruled the Ten Commandments along with the other displays had to be removed because to an observer it looked as though the government was endorsing a religion and other religious texts, as well as the title because it was being presented in a way of "Foundations of American Law," which the majority understood to be in violation of the Establishment Clause.  

      However, in Van Orden v. Perry (Oyez Project, 2005) the Court ruled the establishment clause was not hindered because the Ten Commandments monument, that had been donated by a secular group, The Fraternal Order of Eagles and placed on the grounds of a Texas' state capitol building was a part of “tradition” showing the historical meaning and helped influence the Founders even though they argued that the Commandments language is religious, having this language did not violate the Establishment Clause. In deciding on the case, the justices argued that since the display had been given by a group that was secular and was part of a broader setting that included other historical elements that showed Texas’ founding, therefore it was argued that the commandments merely showcased history.  While Chief Justice Rehnquist gave the opinion of the court, Justice Breyer also gave a concurring opinion but wrote his opinion separate due to the fact that he believed that because the monument had been there for almost 40 years (Howe, 2005, pg. 440) and had not caused any disturbance that removing it could cause separation among religious groups that the Establishment Clause was all together trying to avoid. Both of these cases are significant due to the fact that the Court examined the historical context of each display and whether or not individuals would look at these monuments and think they were purely religious or of historical value. 

Furthermore, in Robin Fox's analyze of the Biblical language (Fox, 2006, pg. 11) and stories that the Ten Commandments derive from he identifies two versions; definitive or ritualistic that each monument could potentially have and contends that the ritualistic version is somewhat obscure with nothing about murder, adultery, stealing or other moral issues with which some argue are the moral and legal statutes and thus, by this case have no place in public society. He seems to be arguing against the language of the commandments but breaks it down with more historical undertones and then uses that to argue against supporters due to the commandments not having anything to do with legal laws but clearly promoting religious ideologies. 

     More recently, an opposing argument has been made by the Alabama House Committee (USA Today, 2013) that government buildings and schools could display the Ten Commandments because they are "historic foundations of rule of law in America," this was furthered due to the number of local communities that wanted to display them but were afraid too. While many residents were upset, an amendment was made to include language banning the use of public funds to construct the commandments, however they would still be placed on public land. The argument goes on to point out that other religious documents, like the Quran would not be authorized to be displayed, as long as the monument includes secular aspects and is not paid for by public funds it is okay. Based on evidence made by the separationist and accommodationist arguments I agree that this proposal made in Alabama is in direct support of favoring one religion over the other and thus, is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment. While other arguments can be made that as long as other displays are shown along with the Ten Commandments due to historical reasons I still do not agree with the commandments being placed on public grounds regardless of what organization or group funded their installment or what language is or is not being used. Based on the many arguments that have been put forth by these Supreme Court cases, arguments on separation of church and state, or representing religions equally the need for balance and neutrality among government is essential in adhering to the protection of the First Amendment afforded to all citizens. 

 

Ala. & Ten Commandments