An interesting aspect of the legal questions surrounding government monuments to the Ten Commandments concerns the context of those monuments. Courts have made it clear that in certain contexts a display or monument can be acceptable; in other contexts, it isn’t. Neither supporters nor opponents are entirely happy with such conclusions — but are those decisions justified?
I think so because context really is so important. Let us consider, for example, a much easier case: a large statue of Christ hanging from the cross, a standard and traditional image in Christianity. It would be illegal for the government to set it up on the front lawn of the courthouse, but it wouldn’t be illegal to set one up in the local museum. Why the difference? Because context is everything.
When we are in an art museum, we know that the displays we are seeing represent the intentions, ideas, and beliefs of the artist rather than the government, despite the fact that the government may have had a major role in selecting the piece, placing it, and paying for its upkeep. We know this, first, because we are in a museum, and second, because the piece is surrounded by other pieces of art that communicate different or even contradictory messages. The presence of a religious message in this piece not only doesn’t make its presence illegal, but a law excluding art with religious messages (either generally or only particular ones) would itself be illegal.
For obvious reasons, none of this is true when it comes to erecting this display on the front lawn of the local courthouse. Because it is a display chosen and maintained by the government, rather than a private display done on the sidewalk, we can justifiably assume that the piece is communicating intentions, ideas, and beliefs held by the government. The absence of different or competing messages signals that the government is privileging this particular religious message over any alternatives. In effect, then, the government is endorsing a religious message and specific religious beliefs. This is illegal because the government doesn’t have the authority to do such a thing.
The Ten Commandments may not be as obviously problematic as a large crucifix, but the facts of the cases require similar conclusions. Take, for example, the fact that these are typically cases of “monuments” rather than “displays.” Synonyms for “monument“ include: memorial, testimonial, and tribute. None of these are neutral. Monuments are erected to memorialize or commemorate something (or someone) important that the state thinks people should value highly. Monuments are endorsements, they aren’t merely interesting works of art or historical artifacts.
A old granite statue of Jesus in a museum of local history would not be objectionable; an old granite “monument” to Jesus in a public park is. An old granite display of the Ten Commandments in a museum of local history would not be objectionable; an old granite “monument” to the Ten Commandments in a public park is. Why? Because again, context is everything. In one case something is clearly being displayed for its artistic or historical value; in the other, something is being memorialized, endorsed, and promoted. The two situations aren’t comparable and that’s why very different conclusions must be reached in each.
We should be able to better understand why nowadays courts are willing to defer to “displays” of the Ten Commandments that are alongside “displays” of other legal or historical codes that contain different messages. When the Ten Commandments are not singled out all alone for special endorsement in a “monument,” the government isn’t sending the inappropriate message that the Ten Commandments merit special attention or even acceptance.
We should also be able to better understand why decisions on this subject can vary to such a great degree. Because so much rides on context (and the intent behind the display), every decision will depend heavily on the individual facts of the case. Two relatively similar granite displays of the Ten Commandments may have to be treated in a very different manner by the courts — all because of the different contexts in which they exist. This may make for confusing jurisprudence, but it’s the most just manner of dealing with the issue.
