Constitutional law: principles and applications

Constitutional Law

Religious Freedom and Stone V. Grahm

Religious freedom was one major motivation for the colonists who first settled this country. In response to the authoritative stance that the English government took on prescriptive religion, the United States drafted an amendment in its constitution that allowed for the freedom of religion through no establishment of religion. This issue can still cause controversy, though, as certain people argue their freedom to express religion and others argue their freedom to refrain from exposure to that religion. The Supreme Court Case Stone V. Grahm is an example of this. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a law requiring Kentucky teachers to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in each room was unconstitutional ("Stone V. Grahm" 2001). Because the law required the commandments and they were not used with a specific lesson, this was the correct ruling.

If a teacher decided to hang the Ten Commandments in his or her classroom, wear a shirt with the commandments written on them, or otherwise express his or her own beliefs in the commandments, I may have come to another understanding regarding this case. A law that mandates the display of the commandments, however, without mandating the display of other contributions to Western law does seem out of place in a country that does not honor an established religion. Furthermore, the court decided that the purpose for the display "was plainly religious in nature," despite the fact that the law contained a clause stating a secular reason for displaying the commandments (Simon 1996). This clause read as follows: "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" ("Stone V. Grahm" 2001). While this statement is certainly true, and teachers at schools could band together in order to teach the ten commandments in this fashion, the fact that a law mandated the hanging of this "secular" tool is odd at least, and illegal at most. In addition, Robinson (2000) makes the following statement: "Many individuals who are neither Jews, Christians nor Muslims oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments, because the first half of the document is totally theological in nature, requiring the reader to follow certain religious rituals, and avoiding other religious behaviors in worshiping Jehovah." Indeed, he goes on to say that posting this sort of document may target minorities, making the school less safe.

In addition to the argument that the law's requirement of hanging the Ten Commandments is contrary to a country with no established religion, the commandments were also serving no functional purpose but a religious one. In many schools, the teaching of religion and religious ideas occurs in social studies, history, and culture classes. This contributes to students' understanding of different viewpoints, heritages, and the foundations of countries and institutions. Thus, using the Ten Commandments as a lesson in Western law would be a reasonable use of the document in my view. Even hanging the ten commandments in a classroom as a display for a lesson or project or with other types of important laws would have been acceptable Hanging the Ten Commandments as they were in Kentucky, however, was done without a corresponding lesson. That is to say, a secular or educational purpose of the commandments hanging in every classroom, not just the ones that dealt with them as curriculum, could not be found. At worst, this is poor educational planning and instruction. At worst, it is unconstitutional.