Church Erects Ten Commandments Display

When the government is prevented from promoting a particular religion, some churches take the amazing and unprecedented step of doing the promotion themselves. Imagine that: a church that spends its resources on spreading the message about their beliefs instead of on a lawsuit to ensure that the government spreads their beliefs for them.

In The Leaf-Chronicle Lauren Howard writes:

"Rather than putting it at the courthouse -- why not just put it on the block of the courthouse," Freeman said of the monument at Fifth and Commerce streets. "We felt the best way to help America or the citizens of Clarksville know about the Ten Commandments was to place them on church property."

Freeman and Deacon Chairman Mark Briggs advocate placing Christian teachings in public buildings, but they also understand that opens the doors for the display of other religions' doctrine. ... But he believes recent court decisions ordering the removal of Scripture at judicial buildings restricts religious freedom, which is guaranteed in the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

"The separation between church and state was never intended to be the separation between state and God," Briggs said. Mitchum, who is a member of First Baptist Church, believes the country was founded on Christian beliefs, which shouldn't be ignored by the present-day government. "The best part of the Christian belief is morality," he said.

No separation between state and God? Well, whose God? If there is to be no separation, the government would have to pick out a particular god to promote and endorse. That also means that a particular understanding of that god would have to be singled out for special treatment — to the detriment of all other understandings. Thus the government would have to take sides in theological disputes: Christian rather than Muslim interpretations, Protestant rather than Catholic interpretations, Baptist rather than Anglican interpretations... and so on.

Is there anyone who honestly believes that the government has the authority to do this? Is there anyone who honestly believes that religious liberty could survive in a nation where the government had that kind of authority?

What’s ironic is that this church is doing exactly what they should be: displaying and promoting the Ten Commandments themselves rather than asking the government to do it for them. There doesn’t seem to be anything that would be added by having the display on government property except the presence of government endorsement of their religious beliefs. What arrogance must drive people to think that their religious beliefs should be promoted by the government?

Contrary to what Briggs and Freeman say publicly, no one’s religious freedom is restricted when they have to take personal responsibility for promoting their personal religious beliefs. No one’s religious freedom is restricted when the government is prevented form endorsing their religious beliefs over others. The simple fact of the matter is, no one’s religious liberty includes having the government tell them that they are right. That isn’t an aspect of religious liberty, it’s a sign of religious insecurity. A person secure in their religious beliefs wouldn’t care if the government endorsed or opposed them — they’d have enough self-confidence to go on regardless. So what does this say about people like Freeman, Briggs, and Mitchum?

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Ten Commandments
• Secularism 101