Metro Voice News Celebrating Faith, Family & Community
A heated battle over religious freedom in public schools is reaching a critical point as Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law faces intense scrutiny in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The landmark case, Roake v. Brumley, challenges the state’s mandate requiring biblical displays in every public school classroom, setting the stage for what legal experts say could become a defining moment in church-state relations.
The plaintiffs in the case, a group of public school parents represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the appeals court should uphold an injunction against the bill on the grounds that it violates the religious establishment clause of the First Amendment. The case follows similar debates across the country, as reported in Metro Voice News’ coverage of religious freedom in schools.
“We have Christians, we have Jews, and they are all—those who chose to bring this case—united in the concern that their children will be coerced,” said Jonathan Youngwood, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “Many of our clients believe in the Ten Commandments, but they believe it’s their job to teach their children about the Ten Commandments, not the job of the state.”
In June, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed H.B.71 into law, making Louisiana the first state to require Ten Commandments displays in all public school classrooms. In November, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed with the plaintiffs to place an injunction on the law.
Proponents of the legislation argue that the Ten Commandments are an integral part of America’s cultural and legal heritage and that their display does not infringe on the religious liberties of anyone.
“According to the ACLU, religious symbols are so radioactive that students can’t be anywhere near them,” wrote Joseph Davis, a senior counsel at Becket, which is supporting the state of Louisiana. “That view is absurd and utterly divorced from history—religion has been a natural and welcome part of our American public life since the founding.”
Benjamin Aguiñaga, the Louisiana solicitor general, argued procedurally that the plaintiffs lack standing and their case lacks ripeness.
“Plaintiffs seek to challenge hypothetical displays that do not exist and that they have never seen,” Aguiñaga told the court.
On the merits, Aguiñaga said that the plaintiffs had to prove that displaying the Ten Commandments would violate the First Amendment in every instance and had failed to do so.
“Plaintiffs are free to try to make their challenge about particular kinds of classrooms, but this is a facial challenge,” Aguiñaga said. “They have to prove to you that even in LSU’s biggest student auditorium that somehow an H.B.71 display is unconstitutional.”
According to the Torah [Old Testament], God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai and gave them to him as two tablets written on stone. (After he broke the first set, Moses received a second pair.) Both Christians and Jews adhere to the Ten Commandments, but religious groups differ on how they ought to be divided and numbered.
The plaintiffs argue that the version of the commandments mandated by H.B.71 is distinctly Protestant and differs from those found in the original Hebrew texts. What’s more interesting is that this version is taken from the misquoted wording in the 1950s movie “The Ten Commandments,” starring Charleton Heston. That version was inscribed on at least 10,000 plaques distributed to public and private buildings in the ensuing 70 years.
Consequently, the bill’s version “does not match any version or translation found in the Jewish tradition,” the original complaint reads.
“The version of the Ten Commandments mandated in H.B.71 omits key language and context that is included in the version set forth in the Torah,” it states. “For example, it is missing the important message in the Jewish story about God bringing the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery to freedom. It also summarizes other commandments instead of including the text as found in the Torah in its entirety.”
The Supreme Court’s landmark Stone v. Graham decision in 1980 found a similar Kentucky law unconstitutional because it lacked a “secular legislative purpose” as required by the 1971 ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman.
In a pair of 2005 cases, the high court reached differing conclusions about the legality of displaying the Ten Commandments, holding that it was allowed if placed in a historical and social context and forbidden if displayed in isolation or for a religious purpose.
According to Becket, a decision in the case is expected by the spring.
–Metro Voice and The Epoch Times
