Ten commandments fever

Decalogue Advocates Turn Up The Heat With Legislation In Congress, State Legislatures

When most Americans read the First Amendment, they see a wall of separation between church and state that has protected both institutions for over two centuries. When Rep. Robert Aderholt (RAla.) sees the Constitution's guarantee of religious liberty, he sees a barrier to freedom that he believes needs fixing.

"For too long, governement has attempted to censor expression of religion," Aderholt said in March. "Discrimination against religion under the guise of separation of church and state needs to end."

To rectify this perceived injustice, Aderholt had developed a plan to change federal law to allow promotion of religion on public property from coast to coast.

On March 7, Aderholt unveiled the "Ten Commandments Defense Act," a bill that would allow government posting of the Decalogue in all public buildings.

"The Ten Commandments represent the very cornerstone of the values this nation was built upon, and the basis of so much of our legal system here in America," Aderholt said. He added that his legislation is intended to "clarify the First Amendment."

Aderholt's proposal to advance the Commandments, offered in spite of federal court rulings mandating official neutrality on religion, is just the tip of the iceberg. From city halls to state legislatures to Congress, proponents of government-sponsored religious displays are participating in a religious crusade that seeks political endorsement of their faith on a grand and unprecedented scale.

The Ten Commandments Defense Act is easily the highest profile of all the efforts. The legislation, labeled H.R. 3895 in the House of Representatives, would ignore court precedents and permit display of the Decalogue "on or within" any public building, which would include public schools, courthouses and municipal buildings.

Aderholt has said his plan is consistent with the First Amendment.

"[The bill] does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution," Aderholt said in press materials distributed in February. "The Ten Commandments do not represent one single religion - in fact they are tenets of Judaism, Islam and Christianity."

Critics have been quick to point out that this argument is fundamentally flawed. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that constitutional law prohibits government from supporting religion generally or favoring one tradition over another. Moreover, Aderholt's assertion that the Commandments served as the basis for American law has been rejected and debunked by historians, constitutional scholars and legal experts.

With Aderholt's legal and historical analyses predicated on fallacies, many believe his plan is on shaky footing.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that the Alabama lawmaker's scheme should be rejected for several reasons.

"Aderholt isn't Moses, and Capitol Hill isn't Mt. Sinai," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Americans don't need politicians giving us instruction about religion."

Lynn noted that Aderholt's plan to win political imprimatur for a religious code is only part of what makes the Ten Commandments Defense Act controversial.

While most of the attention has been focused on the religious elements of the legislation, the bill also takes the remarkable step of telling the judicial branch how to rule on future legal cases on this issue. In short, Aderholt's scheme orders the courts to rule that state-sponsored religious displays are consistent with the First Amendment.

AU's Lynn dismissed the Alabama congressman's legal approach as bordering on ridiculous.

"Aderholt is taking a reckless and radical approach to constitutional law," said Lynn. "Congress can't tell the courts how to rule on cases. Anyone who's taken a high school civics class recognizes the principle of the 'separation of powers' between branches of government. Samford Law School should call Aderholt's office and ask for its diploma back."

Aderholt's approach is highly unorthodox and without a basis in American law. Most citizens understand that different branches of the federal government have unique responsibilities - Congress passes laws, the president enforces laws and the courts interpret the law. Aderholt, however, has said he believes Congress should have an "equal and independent authority" to interpret the Constitution.

During an interview on Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network, Aderholt said plainly that the Supreme Court should not always be the final arbiter of the Constitution. He asserted, "[W]e would make the argument, the Supreme Court does not always have the final authority over the interpretation of the Constitution."

The issue of government approval of the Decalogue has been a concern for Aderholt since he was elected.

In 1997, during his first year in office, Aderholt took note of the legal challenges facing Judge Roy Moore after the controversial jurist posted the Commandments in his Alabama courtroom. Aderholt reacted by introducing a nonbinding 'House resolution endorsing the display of the Ten Commandments in all government buildings.