By Richard Nelson
Special to NKyTribune
After a threatening letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Trigg County official removed the the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. All is right with Trigg County’s world now, at least according to FFRF. Or is it?
FFRF was concerned enough about a painting of the Ten Commandments prominently displayed in the courthouse that they demanded that County Clerk Carmen Finley remove them at once. The atheist group charged the local government with essentially establishing a religion, and they were ready to spend time and resources to stop such a thing. But does the mere posting of a religious document establish a religion?
The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that stand-alone displays posted with religious intent could be construed as such. (The case—McCreary County v. ACLU originated in Kentucky of all places). However, the court also upheld in another ruling handed down the same day, Van Orden v. Perry, that so long as Ten Commandments displays are within a historical context and without religious intent they may be displayed publicly.
How they arrived at such a conclusion is interesting but the important thing to know is that displaying the Declaration of Independence, National Motto, Star Spangled Banner and other similar documents provide enough historical freight for legal passage of the Decalogue into public buildings.
FFRF co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor’s concern is over imposing values and how outsiders might feel upon seeing the display.
“How can nonbelievers feel welcome in the Trigg County clerk’s office when they have such an obviously biblical message staring them in the face?” Gaylor asked in a press release. Greater offense is more likely taken when high vehicle tax bills appear at the service counter and stare unsuspecting local residents in the face.
Gaylor and FFRF sing a tune of values-free morality in the chord of no-religious-imposition in public places. They’ve got a big stage, a loud mic and plenty of legal firepower to coerce others to agree. But they hit a sour note after the song and dance is over. Reality sinks in and we come to realize all too soon that values have been imposed. Theirs.
FFRF has sued to remove the national motto from U.S. currency; demanded the Star of David be removed from a proposed Holocaust memorial in Ohio; and sued Presidents Bush and Obama over proclamations for the National Day of Prayer. College football chaplains and cheerleaders with Bible verses on spirit banners have also been in their sights.
Such religious display and sentiment—whether its posting the national motto at city hall or officials opening public meetings in prayer—have been considered protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion.
What’s lost in this drama is that values are always being imposed. It’s just a matter of whose values. In this case, Gaylor and FFRF’s insistence on secularism, a naked public square devoid of any religious documents or reference to God, won the day. But is a government-imposed secularism reflective of our history and what our nation is about?
Such concern by outside groups over local governments displaying religious documents or opening meetings in public has not always been the case. Nor has it been an issue of federal concern until the latter half of the 20th century after the Supreme Court’s Everson ruling.
In fact, to press the point further, state governments had established churches. The U.S. Constitution did not forbid Virginia from establishing the Anglican Church (official state support ended in 1830). Nor did it force Massachusetts from favoring the Congregationalists (official state support ended in 1833). Whether it was wise for states to do so is another question, but it was considered a state matter. Now groups like FFRF armed with the heavy hand of the state seek an imposition of another kind.
The battle today over religious documents and reference to God in public is largely symbolic. It’s a debate over what best reflects our history and understanding of religious freedom. But the bigger and more pressing question in this cultural moment is whether citizens will be free to live and work in public according to the tenets of a document no longer displayed at the Trigg County Courthouse.
Richard Nelson is the executive director of the Commonwealth Policy Center, a Kentucky-based nonprofit public policy organization. He resides in Cadiz with his wife and children.
It is not the Freedom From Religion’s values that have been “imposed” upon your community. It is the United States Constitution and the law which we all must follow to live in America. I would be just as offended to encounter a Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist display. Keep religion in the church, but out of our government. Nobody should be offended by not seeing a religious display when they go to the post office, their school board meeting, or the county clerk’s office because nothing offensive will be displayed there — only whatever displays concerning the business being conducted there.
I agree with Brenda’s comment. Very well stated.
It’s always interesting that folks like Mr. Nelson never attempt to put up a quote from the New Testament, such as Matt. 25:31-46:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Maybe with all the attacks on the poor, the ill, the disabled and the immigrant, it hits a little too close to home and reminds them of how they are falling short.
The first thing to remember is that religious freedom is a right guaranteed to all by the Constitution. It is not subject to vote or majority rule. Religious freedom means you are free to practice your religion, but you are not free to impose it on others via governmental rules or practices.
Next, when the law is neutral on religious topics, it does not mean that anyone’s rights are violated. It just means that no religion gets special rights that are denied to those of other religions or of no religion.
Let’s suppose you have business in a city (like Dearborn, MI) which has a very large Muslim population. In this hypothetical city, you have to testify in court. You are asked to place your hand on a copy of the Qur’an and swear by Allah. You can of course request something else, but you then have shown yourself to be an infidel, stared at with suspicion.
If you are OK with with displays of Christian symbols and texts in government offices and schools, you must also be OK with this scenario. I’m not OK with either.
Regarding the 10 Commandments in particular, I have never understood why people seem to think the our government and laws are somehow based on it. Only three of the prohibitions — murder, theft, and bearing false witness — are unlawful, and indeed have been unlawful in every society that ever existed Many of the rest, if made law, would violate the Constitution. (Some were at one time made law, but the laws were struck down.) If coveting were illegal, it would bring down our economy. 🙂
You are free to post the 10 Commandments in your home, on your front lawn, in your private business, in your church, and you are also free to argue that following them is a social good. The government is not free to impose them on citizens in public places — no more than the government can require you to swear on the Qur’an.
” But is a government-imposed secularism reflective of our history and what our nation is about?” Well, yes – it provides for an impartial teaching of that history and vigorous debate regarding the personalities and actions that produced that history. How else teach the Southern Baptist schism preceding the Civil War or the murderous prejudice laid on Joseph Smith and his followers?
Mr. Nelson’s FINA:L sentence is suggesting that the Ten Commandments have to be displayed to be obeyed?
Huh?
“What’s lost in this drama is that values are always being imposed. It’s just a matter of whose values. In this case, Gaylor and FFRF’s insistence on secularism…” As opposed to what, sectarian values? Is the FFRF attempting to impose an atheist or anti-theist viewpoint instead? Of course not. Insisting on neutrality is the exact opposite of imposing a viewpoint.
And what’s with the “values-free morality” cheap shot? I guess that’s to be expected from someone who runs a public policy organization yet doesn’t understand the basic tenants of the US Constitution.