Stone v. Graham and Religious Freedom in Public Schools
This paper examines the Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham, in which the Court ruled unconstitutional a state law requiring public school teachers to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The paper argues that the ruling was correct on two grounds: first, that mandating the display of a religious document without a corresponding secular curriculum violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; and second, that the commandments served no functional educational purpose in the context they were posted. The paper also considers related 2005 rulings on Ten Commandments displays near courthouses, concluding that judicial review appropriately distinguishes between constitutionally permissible and impermissible religious displays in public spaces.
- Introduction: Religion and the First Amendment: Historical context and Stone v. Graham case overview
- The Problem with Mandating Religious Displays: Why the state mandate violated the Establishment Clause
- Educational Context and the Secular Purpose Test: Lack of curriculum purpose renders display unconstitutional
- Conclusion: Judicial Review and the Establishment Clause: Broader rulings affirm proper use of judicial review
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a clear legal standard — the Establishment Clause — and applies it consistently to the facts of Stone v. Graham, avoiding vague moral claims.
- It acknowledges the secular justification written into the law itself, then explains precisely why that justification fails, demonstrating nuanced engagement with the opposing position.
- The use of a secondary source (Robinson) to highlight the impact on religious minorities adds a practical dimension that strengthens the constitutional argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates concession-and-rebuttal reasoning: the author acknowledges that the Ten Commandments do have genuine historical relevance to Western law, concedes that teaching them in that context would be appropriate, and then pivots to explain why the mandatory, curriculum-free posting still fails constitutional scrutiny. This technique shows intellectual honesty while keeping the central argument intact.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical context for the First Amendment, introduces the Stone v. Graham case, and states its thesis. The second section addresses the legal and constitutional problems with a government mandate to display religious content. The third section applies an educational-purpose lens to argue the display lacked a legitimate secular function. The conclusion briefly connects the case to related 2005 rulings, broadening the paper's significance.
Introduction: Religion and the First Amendment
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 to its Constitution that allowed for the freedom of religion through the non-establishment of religion. This issue can still cause controversy, as certain people argue their freedom to express religion while others argue their freedom to refrain from exposure to it. The Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham is an example of this tension. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a law requiring public school teachers to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in each classroom was unconstitutional ("Stone V. Graham," 2001). Because the law required the display and the commandments were not used in connection with any specific lesson, this was the correct ruling.
The Problem with Mandating Religious Displays
If a teacher decided independently to hang the Ten Commandments in his or her classroom, wear a shirt with the commandments on it, or otherwise express personal beliefs, the analysis might differ. 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 honors no established religion. Furthermore, the Court determined that the purpose of the display "was plainly religious in nature," despite the fact that the law contained a clause asserting a secular reason for displaying the commandments (Simon, 1996). That 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. Graham," 2001).
While this statement is certainly true — and teachers could collaborate to teach the Ten Commandments in precisely that historical and legal fashion — the fact that a law mandated the hanging of this ostensibly "secular" tool is, at minimum, unusual, and at most, unconstitutional. As Robinson (2000) notes, "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." He further argues that posting such a document may target religious minorities, making the school environment less safe and less inclusive. The First Amendment's Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, exists precisely to prevent government institutions from placing the weight of state authority behind any particular religious text or tradition.
Conclusion: Judicial Review and the Establishment Clause
The issue of religion in public forums such as public schools is a nuanced one. Teachers and students retain the right to express themselves, and the teaching of religious texts in an appropriate academic context is both legal and valuable. In this case, however, the mandatory display of the Ten Commandments in every classroom, unsupported by any corresponding curriculum and imposed by state law, did not properly honor the constitutional principle that the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
These concerns have continued to shape American jurisprudence. In 2005, the Supreme Court issued related rulings on the presence of Ten Commandments monuments on courthouse grounds, finding one unconstitutional while upholding another (Lane, 2005). The fact that the Court distinguished between the two — striking down one display while permitting the other — suggests that judicial review is being applied appropriately in these cases: demanding the removal of a religious item only when its presence defies the Constitution, not merely because it invokes religion at all.
References
Lane, C. (2005, July 28). Court split over commandments. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700416.html
Robinson, B. A. (2000, July). The Ten Commandments: Legal developments: 1999. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from Religious Tolerance Web Site:
Simon, B. A. (1996, April). Turning back the clock in Tennessee. Retrieved February 12, 2009, from PublicEye.org Web Site: http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9604/legal.html
"Stone V. Graham." (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2009, from the Religious Freedom Page Web Site:
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.