Louisiana’s House Bill 71 would require all public schools in the state to plaster the Ten Commandments in all classrooms. This law would submit students of opposing faiths to scriptural dictates such as “I am the Lord thy god” and “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Multiple organizations who are devoted towards maintaining the separation of church and state such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit against the Middle District of Louisiana. These organizations are working for a group of nine families with different religious backgrounds, even those of Christian faiths, who have children attending Louisiana public school. The claims these organizations assert is that the law is a clear violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote “H.B 71 coerces children to view, venerate, and obey commandments that are against their beliefs and interferes with parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious upbringing.”
The lawsuit, Roake v. Brumley, decided that the display of the ten commandments was unconstitutional on November 12th, 2024 in a federal district court. The Louisiana judge argued the legislation was “facially unconstitutional” and “in all applications” as it promoted Christian ideals that could be seen as coercive and supported religion in a public establishment that is paid for with taxpayer money. The plaintiff’s lawyers from the original court case said, “this ruling should serve as a reality check for Louisiana lawmakers who want to use public schools to convert children to their preferred brand of Christianity.”
However, the State of Louisiana appealed the court’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Five public schools have blocked implementation of the Ten Commandments awaiting following lawsuits, while some school districts are complying. Some lawmakers argue that the Ten Commandments hold value in western society and should be viewed as a historical document rather than a religious document. The appeal process is being led by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and Louisiana Solicitor Ben Agionaga. Liz Murill argues that “the commandments have historical significance as one of the foundations of our law” and that “there are numerous ways for our schools to constitutionally implement the law.” People in support of this Louisiana legislation argue the law would enforce that the context of the commandments’ role in American history would be included, schools would have room to implement the document how they see fit, and they would be small displays. As well, the commandments would need to be donated. Murill stated that the commandments would best be presented with other documents such as the Declaration of Independence.
If the case were to be appealed to the supreme court, it would threaten the precedent of the 1980 Supreme Court case titled Stone v. Graham. The court in a 5-4 vote decided that Kentucky’s requirement of the Ten Commandments being displayed in public schools violated the Establishment clause since the law violated the Lemon Test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The court said that the law “had no secular legislative purpose” and was “plainly religious.” What interests me regarding this case and Roake v. Brumley, is how close the vote was, presenting how laws regarding religion have always been a divisive issue. Considering that the court is now filled with completely new justices who often align with a more conservative ideals, the possibility of this case being overturned seems to be a high possibility.
In my opinion, this case clearly violates both the Establishment and Free Exercise clause of the constitution as the language of the Ten Commandments is coercive in nature. My concern would primarily be for elementary school children who are very impressionable. Heather Weaver, an attorney for the ACL said, “public schools are not Sunday schools” and that “all students, regardless of their faith, feel welcomed.” I completely agree with this statement considering how the Ten Commandments are viewed. The Ten Commandments in Christian faith is the moral code. If students of opposing faiths are taught this, especially younger children, they may feel since they don’t follow all the commandments, that they are doing something wrong. This feeling could threaten a parent’s control of their child’s religious upbringings. While certain commandments may not be inherently religious such as “you shall not murder” or “you shall not steal”, I don’t believe that the other commandments with clear religious motives such as “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” can be ignored. The argument that the ten commandments is the foundation of American law seems to be a loose argument pushed by conservative law makers hoping to break down the wall between church and state. I don’t see laws preventing stealing and murder as religious backed laws, but moral laws that maintain peace and good order within the United States. Conservative lawmakers seem to understand the power they have within the Supreme Court and keep appealing laws regarding religion to the supreme court. Subjecting students in public schools to ideas such as “thou shalt have no other gods before me” clearly promotes Christian ideals which public schools should not endorse since they use taxpayer money and our American values aim to promote government free from religion. I also find that presenting the commandments with important United States documents like Liz Murill recommended illustrates the idea the United States was founded as a Christian state to students which contradicts the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
This case, along with other cases regarding religion in public schools, could raise concerns for the barrier between church and state. With the Supreme Court holding a 6-3 conservative majority, Senator Bob Phalen of Montana states “it is now a new day for religious freedom in America.” Senator Phalen has supported religious displays being allowed in schools. However, do these laws truly protect freedom of religion or do they rather a push to uphold conservative ideals against a consistently evolving and diversifying United States? Is it a coincidence that most of these legislations are being proposed by Christian, conservative lawmakers? At least fifteen states have created laws that would put the ten commandments in all public classrooms. I would not be surprised if this case is appealed up the Supreme Court, possibly overturning a 45 year old precedent.
Sources
- https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/rev-roake-v-brumley/
- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/80-321
- https://becketfund.org/media/louisiana-defends-ten-commandments-in-federal-appeals-court/
3 comments:
I believe that displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools infringes the Establishment Clause by introducing religious doctrine into taxpayer-funded institutions. Given their overtly religious nature, the argument that the commandments are merely historical is weak. With the current conservative majority on the Supreme Court, I worry that cases like Roake v. Brumley could jeopardize established precedents, blurring the line between religion and government. To safeguard religious freedom, I feel it’s essential to maintain neutrality in public schools and refrain from endorsing specific beliefs.
I disagree with Aidan, as the Ten Commandments are technically a historical text, and are not attempting to infringe any beliefs on those viewing them. They are simply being hung up, and displayed as a cross is on a chain around a professor's neck. There is nothing about the display of this text that forces or even coerces a child to follow it religiously, and it can be taken as as much of a piece of history or social text as the Bible.
I think it is tricky to dissect this case without going into the sincerity and intentionality on all sides, which can be a dangerous thing to do. Yes, the Ten Commandments could be upheld as a historical document, there is no denying that that history is very closely tied to particular religions. It can lead one to wonder if the state is instituting this law as a historical document as some claim, or in favor of a religion, but can motivation really be proven? Perhaps as a historical document it is not unconstitutional to enforce the placement in classrooms (even if it seems rather impractical), but one could argue that other historical documents associated with religions should also be placed in classrooms then, since they also have places in human history. I can also see how parents and families may feel concerned about the potentially coercive nature of religious/ historical documents being placed in classrooms without the representation of others. It's a precedent the government should be wary of.
Post a Comment