Court houses and public parks all around the nation have had Ten Commandments monuments of one sort or another erected in them. Defenders varyingly argue that Ten Commandments monuments represent the basis of American law, are part of America’s religious heritage, or are simply expressions of majority religious beliefs. Critics argue that they are unconstitutional expressions of support for one religion over others. Should Ten Commandments monuments be allowed?
Some defend the Ten Commandments by simply arguing that they are part of the history of human law and have played a role in the development of American law. A monument to the Ten Commandments is, therefore, appropriate from a secular perspective. Whatever religious meaning they may have for some, they do have a secular meaning and a secular role to play in the public square. Opponents say that this is just a weak rationalization for the government to promote religion.
Others explicitly acknowledge the religious meaning of the Ten Commandments and deny that there is anything secular about them. Being religious, though, is no reason not to have monuments to them. America was founded as a Christian Nation and, therefore, it is appropriate for American governments to acknowledge both their debt to and duty before God by memorializing God’s more fundamental laws. If people are reminded of them, they will be more likely to follow them and lead the sorts of lives God wants. It’s appropriate for the government to favor monotheism over polytheism or atheism.
Opponents insist that these are not appropriate goals for any level of government in America. They agree that the Ten Commandments are religious and communicate a religious message, but that’s precisely why it is wrong to erect monuments to them. American government shouldn’t be memorializing, promoting, endorsing, or otherwise showing favoritism towards the religion or religious beliefs of any one group of Americans over those of other Americans.
Many Ten Commandments monuments were erected by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the 1950s and 60s. One six foot tall monument was placed on the Texas state Capitol grounds in 1961. According to the legislative resolution accepting the gift, the purpose of the monument was to “recognize and commend a private organization for its efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency.”
It was not made clear at the time what the connection was between the Ten Commandments and the work of the fraternal Order of Eagles, but no overt religious purpose was expressed. There is also no evidence of there having been a religious ceremony or invocation when the monument was unveiled.
The grounds of the Texas state Capitol have been designated a National Historic Landmark and contain many different monuments dealing with the religious and secular history of Texas. Because of this, the grounds are treated like a museum rather than like a traditional public square.
Thomas Van Orden was a Vietnam veteran and homeless lawyer in Austin who challenged the Ten Commandments monument and argued his own case through the court system. When the case was taken up by the Supreme Court, this task was assumed by Duke University professor Erwin Chemerinsky, a noted constitutional law scholar.
Van Orden sued Rick Perry, Governor of Texas and Chairman of the State Preservation Board, among others for their responsibility in maintaining the Ten Commandments monument. According to Van Orden, the Ten Commandments monument impermissibly involved the government with the promotion of the religious beliefs and doctrines of one group of citizens over others.
