AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > July > 18
Friday, July 18, 2008
Do public displays of Ten Commandments require equal displays from other religious groups?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
I’m sure that my colleague doesn’t want images of Nazi monuments in public parks cluttering her psyche. I’m equally sure, however, that she wants you to hold such images in your mind when you think of the Summums, a religious community wishing to erect their monument alongside the Ten Commandments. It’s a great trick of the far right—create a short walk from a little known religion to the Ku Klux Klan and in no time, fear clouds our understanding of church and state issues.
What we’re looking at here isn’t protecting citizens, it’s protecting the superior status of a 1970’s era Ten Commandments monument over other religious installations. Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice defends the city’s decision, claiming that it’s discretionary “government speech”.
It’s not a bad tactic. Government speech needn’t be content-neutral under the law. For instance, a town can erect a statue honoring veterans without permitting a nearby statue honoring the enemy they fought.
Yet a permanent installation of the Ten Commandments carries its own challenges. Even followers of its timeless laws should ask ourselves: is this powerful but undeniably Judeo-Christian tablet something our government should be preaching? Tell us not to litter, invite us to an annual festival, but it’s a dark day when a public park warns visitors of all faiths that “you shall have no other gods before me.”
There are far better solutions to this issue than beleaguered fundamentalists envision; a little Church and State dust-up doesn’t lead to a bunch of heathens sandblasting the words “God Almighty” off the Jefferson Memorial. In the Utah case, I can see why the U.S. Court of Appeals offered up an “all-or-nothing” scenario. Another famous case in Texas started with a request to remove the Ten Commandments from a public spot, and there the monument stayed. This is merely a reasonable request by another group for inclusion.
Do you think Robertson’s group would be so concerned about “monument clutter” if the Summums’ gift had been accepted first, and it was the Ten Commandments waiting to be added to the mix? Would we then be just a short skip and a jump away from encroachment by the Nazis and the KKK? I didn’t think so.
Services »
Commentary
By Shaunti Feldhahn
The latest Ten Commandments controversy is whether public grounds allowing any private religious or ideological displays must be open to all of them.
The Supreme Court will soon hear cases involving Ten Commandments displays on public grounds in Utah. The Summums, a religious group, want a similar monument of their “Seven Aphorisms.” The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that public officials must allow it or tear down all others.
I am sympathetic to the Summums’ “it’s-only-fair” argument. Government isn’t supposed to establish or favor one religion or ideology over another. The problem is that in real, messy life the government has no choice but to exercise ideological judgments and set priorities for the use of limited public space. The American Center for Law and Justice represents the Utah officials, and as chief counsel Jay Sekulow pointed out by phone, there is such a thing as “government speech” versus “private speech.”
For example, suppose your public park has a Ten Commandments monument, then later accepts monuments with quotes from Mohammed, Confucius, Jesus and Martin Luther King. It’s getting crowded. Then the local Ku Klux Klan wants its own shrine to white supremacy. Does it have to be allowed, “to be fair?” Of course not.
As part of “government speech,” we want officials to set standards for using limited public space. As part of private free speech, the park may have to allow KKK rallies. But they don’t have to erect a monument.
The only alternative to allowing such “government speech” is to eliminate all monuments - the very positive, historical touchstones we should want to preserve! Sekulow pointed out that some government agencies have done exactly that. But, he emphasized, “Government has a role in preserving the heritage of our country.”
Agreeing on that role isn’t easy, even among conservatives. The Rutherford Institute worries that endorsing government speech will eventually lead to infringement of private speech. This is a legitimate concern. But the reality is that government has to set priorities and standards of some kind.
Ultimately, the government must be allowed to preserve our religious and ideological heritage. As Sekulow put it, “Can you imagine if beside World War II hero monuments we had to put up counter monuments for Nazis?” No, nor do I want to.