 | ||
|
| ||
|
| Stone v. Graham
In its opinion the Court relied on the three-pronged Lemon test,
which says that, to be Constitutional with regard to the Establishment
Clause, a statute "must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its
principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits
religion . . . ; finally the statute must not foster ‘an excessive
government entanglement with religion.’" [5] Without addressing the final
two prongs of the test, the Court determined that the law failed the
first. "The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on
schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. . . . The Commandments do
not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s
parents, killing or murder, . . . adultery, stealing, false witness, and
covetousness. . . . Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns
the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone,
avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the
Sabbath Day." The Court then summed, "If the posted copies of the Ten
Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the
schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the
Commandments. Promoting the Ten Commandments in schools has no secular purpose, the Supreme Court ruled, and so is unconstitutional. The Kentucky legislature had foreseen this conflict, and had instructed that every copy of the Decalogue be inscribed: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." [7] The majority rejected this argument, however. Only Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion, and his primary complaint was procedural: "The Court’s summary rejection of a secular purpose articulated by the legislature and confirmed by the state court is without precedent in Establishment Clause jurisprudence." [8] Nevertheless, he also pointed out that "the fact that the asserted secular purpose may overlap with what some may see as a religious objective does not render it unconstitutional," and while the Decalogue may be a sacred text, it has undeniably "had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." [9] Should the Ten Commandments have a place of honor in our public schools? If we agree with the Supreme Court that every governmental function should have a secular purpose, then we must investigate the Decalogue’s secular application. The English word "secular" derives from the Latin saeculum, which means both "the world" and "time." [10] Webster’s says that "secular" refers to that which is "of or relating to the worldly or temporal . . . [or] not overtly or specifically religious." [11] In order to fairly judge the Stone ruling, we must discover whether the Ten Commandments have an application to the world in time that is not specifically religious. If Rehnquist is correct concerning the Bible’s impact on our legal system and social order, that would help to establish the important secular purposes of the Decalogue. The Bible and Western Law Harold Berman, perhaps the greatest contemporary authority on legal history, notes that "the Laws of King Alfred . . . start with the Ten Commandments and a restatement of the laws of Moses." [12] Alfred’s laws, written in the tenth century, became the foundation of the English common law, which our Founders adopted virtually whole. In the eleventh century Pope Gregory VII, whose work "gave birth . . . to modern Western legal systems," [13] "never doubted . . . that the power of the secular ruler was established by God." [14] One hundred years later, the monk and renowned legal scholar Gratian wrote that "the validity of an enacted law depended on its conformity to the body of human law as a whole, which in turn was to conform to both natural law and divine law." [15] This reverence for the Scriptures exhibited by legal authorities continued through the eighteenth century in the works of William Blackstone, as evidenced in his Commentaries on the Laws of England: "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." [16] Blackstone’s influence upon the American legal system was profound: an exhaustive study of citations from 1760-1805 found that Blackstone, representing 7.9% of all references to thinkers, ranked second only to Montesquieu. The Bible, incidentally, was the most cited authority—34% of all citations in the colonial period, the greatest number of those coming from a book focusing on legal issues: Deuteronomy. [17] This clear historical link between our legal system and the Bible led Russell Kirk to conclude that "American political theory and institutions, and the American moral order, cannot be well understood, or maintained, or renewed, without repairing to the Law and the Prophets." [18] Even Supreme Court Justice David Brewer noted that "the citizen who does not . . . share in the belief of those who do, ought ever to bear in mind the noble part Christianity has taken in the history of the republic, the great share it has had in her wonderful development and its contributions to her present glory . . . ." [19] The almost universally held view in America, until recently, was that morality represented the connection between the secular and religious realms. Tocqueville asserted that "the safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom." [20] He also noted, "The Americans show, by their practice, that they feel the high necessity of imparting morality to democratic communities by means of religion. What they think of themselves in this respect is a truth of which every democratic nation ought to be thoroughly persuaded." [21] Another colonial historian asked rhetorically, "Were [the Puritans] not right in teaching and practicing that the principles of religion and morality should govern men in the discharge of their duties as citizens, as well as otherwise?" [22] Some of the greatest public pronouncements concerning the secular
application of the Bible have come from our Presidents. Possibly the most
profound was delivered by George Washington in his farewell address: "Of
all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity,
Religion, and Morality are indispensable supports. . . . The Bible and Education Whatever our prejudices today, historically there has been an overlap between religion and morality, and morality and the social order. Because morality undeniably found its highest expression in the Ten Commandments, they have played an important role in our secular sphere. But should these Commandments play a role in public education? Again, there is a wealth of historical evidence to suggest that our Founders believed they should. The relationship between the Bible and education has been clear since the Reformation. As William Jackman observed, the Reformers "were diligent seekers for truth; the advocates of education and of free inquiry. Throwing aside the traditions of men, they went directly to the Bible, and taught all men to do the same." [25] This spirit was carried into Harvard’s founding documents, which declared, "Let every student be plainly instructed, . . . the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life . . . and therefore to lay Christ . . . as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. . . . Every one shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day." Jackman noted that in New Jersey, "the Presbyterian element moulded the minds of the youth, by instilling the truths of the Bible as they deemed them summarized in their catechism; through their influence Princeton college was founded." [26] Unfortunately, today we have rejected the connection between religion
and morality, and, by order of the Supreme Court, have ejected the
Decalogue from our schools. The result has been predictable, and
catastrophic. According to a survey of high school achievers, "The
‘decline of social and moral values’ is today’s greatest national crisis."
[28] Unfortunately, many refuse to make the obvious logical connection—the
Bible has an essential secular purpose in promoting morality in our youth.
Department of Education guidelines suggest that although "schools must be
neutral with respect to religion, they may play an active role with
respect to teaching civic values and virtue, and the moral code that holds
us together as a community. The fact that some of these values are held
also by religions does not make it unlawful to teach them in school." [29]
Circuit Judge Thomas Reavely asserted similarly, "Schools have an
obligation to instill positive values in students while avoiding the
advocation of ideas on religious grounds." [30] The reality is, however,
that positive values are derived from religion, and the moral code that
formed our social order was a direct offspring of the Ten Commandments now
outlawed as objects of "veneration" in our schools. Our Founders understood that the Bible played an important role in education; they understood that its moral teachings had a profound secular application. The Bible also encourages its own use in education. Deuteronomy 6:6-7 says that "these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your children . . . ." Solomon tells us in Proverbs 22:6 to "train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." Finally, II Timothy 3:16 asserts that "all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness . . . ." [32] The Secular Purposes of the Ten Commandments The Ten Commandments do have a secular purpose. They are certainly religious, having profound implications for spiritual and eternal realities. They are also, however, very much involved with the world in time. Even the disgruntled Court admitted that the last six Commandments had an "arguably" secular purpose—I would argue that the first four also have arguably secular purposes. The fourth, the Sabbath commandment, is firmly enmeshed in our culture as a secular practice of resting on the weekend. The third interdiction on taking the Lord’s name in vain has clear ramifications for the needed civility in our public discourse. Even the first two prohibitions against other gods and graven images have an important political dimension: if obeyed, the state could never represent the embodiment of God on earth, providing meaning and moral order at its whim. This, as our Founders understood, was a doctrine with profound secular implications that helped to inspire our concept of limited government. According to my arguments, the Kentucky statute should have passed the
first prong of the Lemon test—it had a secular purpose. Concerning
the second prong, however, was the primary purpose of posting the Ten
Commandments in Kentucky classrooms secular? I believe it was. The
Kentucky legislature was not promoting a particular church—they were not
even promoting Christianity. The Ten Commandments do not reference Jesus
or a means of salvation. The only religion the Ten Commandments could be
said to be supporting, standing alone, is Judaism. But to claim that the
Kentucky legislature was seeking to make Jewish converts out of its public
school population is ridiculous. The Ten Commandments played an essential role in the formation of our legal system; through the English common law, the Catholic canon law, and the Christianizing of the Roman law. Our Founders understood that the moral teachings of the Christian religion, which reached their zenith in the Decalogue, were essential to the health of our secular society, and should play a central role in the moral education of our youth. Whatever the government’s legitimate role in providing for the education of its citizens may be, the argument that the promotion of the Ten Commandments in schools is unconstitutional because they have no secular purpose must be rejected for the simple reason that it defies history, logic, and the truth. What do you think? To respond, please send us a note (your response may be posted in the letters section of NeoPolitique).
NeoPolitique is a student-initiated and
student-staffed publication of
Copyright ©1997 by NeoPolitique. All
rights reserved. Views expressed here are not |
n 1978 the Kentucky legislature passed a statute "requiring the
posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private
contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State."
[1] Believing that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the
Constitution, a few Kentuckians sued Graham, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. A circuit court upheld the statute, but the case, as Stone
v. Graham, was appealed to the Supreme Court in 1980. In a "rare
unsigned opinion," [2] the Court, split 5-4, reviewed and disposed of
Stone "summarily without briefs or argument." [3] The anonymous
Court stated simply that the law "has no secular legislative purpose, and
therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment." [4] 
However desirable this might be as a matter
of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the
Establishment Clause." [6] 
Let it simply be asked where is the
security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious
obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in
Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that
morality can be maintained without religion. . . . reason and experience
both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle." [23] John Quincy Adams also admonished: "I speak
as a man of the world to men of the world, and I say to you, search the
scriptures." Andrew Jackson stated simply, "The Bible is the rock on which
our Republic rests." William McKinley asserted, "The more profoundly we
study this wonderful book, the more closely we observe its divine
precepts, the better citizens we will become and the higher will be our
destiny as a nation." Finally, Theodore Roosevelt noted that "almost every
man who has by his life work added to the sum of human achievement of
which the race is proud . . . has based his life work largely upon the
teachings of the Bible." [24] 
Father Donald Schmidlin correctly perceives
the tragedy of the situation: "One of the most destructive things we could
do to individuals, and particularly to children, is to undermine or to
assist in undermining the tendency toward God and toward the goodness that
God has left as a mark of his activity in creation. Each individual has an
ability to see things in terms of good and evil, right and wrong, but it
requires a sensitivity on the part of others to bring it out." [31]
Most likely they were thinking along of
the lines of John Quincy Adams, who said that "the earlier my children
begin to read [the Scriptures], the more confident will be my hopes that
they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectful members of
society." [33] This is a beautiful description of the primary secular
purpose of promoting the Ten Commandments. 
