Written by Don Byrd
In evaulating the constitutionality of government displays including the Ten Commandments, courts look to the context of the display – is it one of many historical documents, or a standalone piece, for example – to help determine whether the purpose of the display is secular (which may be permissible) or religious (which for government action is not). There is other evidence that can help answer that question, however, as when a school board member voting to approve a display explains under oath their motivation.
All the secular documents surrounding the Ten Commandments won’t necessarily help survive constitutional scrutiny if the true underlying motivation was religious in nature. One school board member inRoanoke,Virginiarecently took the noble step of being honest in his deposition in the ACLU’s case challenging the decision to (re)hang the Ten Commandments in a display in public schools.
The Roanoke Times has more (many thanks to aVirginia reader for passing this along):
When Joseph Gollehon was asked by an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit, why he voted for the “historical display,” it led to the following exchange:
Answer: “I thought it was the right thing to do.”
Question: “And why was it the right thing to do?”
Answer: “I’m a Christian.”
Question: “The way you voted for this was because you’re a Christian?”
Answer: “It had right much to do with it. I thought it was a great thing if you can live by it. It’s hard to live by.”
Question: “What’s hard to live by?”
Answer: “One particular historical document.”
Question: “Which one is that?”
Answer: “You know.”
Question: “I don’t.”
Answer: “All right. The Ten Commandments. You know that.”
Legitimate secular reasons may exist – I suppose – for displaying the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents, though that doesn’t make it a good idea. I would hope people of faith – rather than being proponents of this action – would resist the move to secularize sacred text. The other options are to own up to the religious motivation, as here, and risk that a court will rightly find it unconstitutional, or to leave sacred text out of the halls of pulbic schools altogether, and allow parents, ministers, and faith communities claim responsibility for religious and moral education, rather than the state. Why isn’t that the simpler, more honorable, more faith-sensitive route?
