Hot Button Issues and Elective Office

When Bernard Hargett and I began practicing law together, his father, Newell Hargett, then Postmaster, would drop by the office once in a while.  He gave us a lot of good advice (which we sorely needed) and among the things he said, never to be forgotten, was, "Boys, don't ever get involved in a school fight or a church fight!"  He simply meant that, regardless of the outcome, the lawyer(s) involved will make a ton of people mad as hell!

I didn't worry a whole lot about things when I was circuit judge, but there was one thing that kept me awake at night.  Oh, not every night, of course, but I did spend a good deal of time thinking about what I would do if somebody filed a suit in my court challenging the hanging of the Ten Commandments in some government building, mayble the courthouse. It never happened and I was very grateful that the cup passed me by.

I remember when I first heard about the Supreme Court banning prayer in school.  At first, I thought it was a terribly wrong ruling.  After all, when I was in school, we all began the day with a short prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance and roll call.  Bob Wilcox, one of Maysville's very best teachers, always wrote a different Bible verse on his black board every day, and he read it to us, in case we hadn't noticed it.  People were always praying at ball games, in club meetings and at almost every other school activity you could name.  And so, I wondered what those justices were thinking about. 

When I found out a little bit more about it, it turned out that the case arose in a large metropolitan area where the majority of people were Christian, but there were substantial numbers of followers of other religions.  Apparently, the saying of Christian  prayers or New Testament Bible readings in school offended some of the children of the Jewish persuasion.  In that context, the ruling made a little more sense to me.

It's now been thirty-five or forty years since the Supreme Court decided the landmark decision in this area of the law, but the passage of time has in no way quelled the rancor that has sprung up around the case.  For many people, the Supreme Court was and remains a Godless den of heathens and infidels, bent on destroying the nation and depriving us of God's merciful beneficence.  You might be interested that I have recently heard, although I cannot vouch for its truthfulness, that the ACLU is suing to have all religious symbols in national cemeteries (tombstone Crosses and Stars of David) removed.   I doubt they'll get very far with that, but who knows.

Most people really don't understand exactly what the rationale of the decisions is.  It all begins with the First Amendment to the Constitution which, where religion is concerned, bans both (a) the interference of the private practice of religion, and  (b) the establishment of any religion by the government.  These court opinions, of course, go on for page after page after page, but they always come back to these two clauses of the first amendment.  I can't quote them exactly, and it's not important for these purposes; but all they really require is that the government cannot regulate, close, or in any way impede your church or your worship, if you choose to worship.   By the same token, the government cannot endorse, promote or establish any religion whatever.  When these things were written, the memory of the European and English wars over religion were much fresher in people's minds than today.  Mary Queen of Scots, a Roman Catholic, was executed by her cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, an Anglican; and while the latter was afraid that the former was after her throne, it all had its roots in religious swells.  Henry VIII executed lots of people over religion, his versus theirs.  And, if you will remember, the Colony of Maryland was populated principally by people who wanted to be free to practice Roman Catholicism without the interference and prejudice they had suffered in England.

So, in the United States after the Bill of Rights passed the Congress, the Marylanders could continue to practice their religion freely, as could any other American, regardless of the brand.

But it is the other clause, the "Establishment" clause that is causing the trouble today.  When the Ten Commandments are posted in the Courthouse,  the Judeo-Christian religious tradition is being promoted.  Somebody in that government building  wants the world to know that this or that county believes in God and follows God's laws. And it's not that God is being promoted above other religious traditions or faiths, it is that He is being promoted at all in the courthouse.  The Constitution forbids it, and it always has!

Again, the government, state, local, or federal, cannot prohibit anyone from posting the Ten Commandments on the front of his or her home; nor can it stop Ford Motor, GE, Du Pont or any other private company from endorsing the Ten Commandments.  All of that is permissible as long as it doesn't appear on public, government property or promoted by government agencies of any kind.

Now, having said that, do religious values come into play in the halls of government, the Congress, the Supreme Court or the local courthouse.  Of course they do.  Name a couple of the Ten Commandments.
"Thou shalt not steal."  "Thou shalt not murder."  "Thou shalt not bear false witness."  These written commandments become our values, our sign posts of life.  They teach and instruct our forebears, just as they do ourselves.  And so, I submit that when you enter the courthouse as a juror, you're not required to check your values at the door.  If you enter as a witness, you know what "false witness" means when you take the stand and swear to tell the truth.  

The populace becomes so upset and vengeful at the idea that the Ten Commandments may not, under law, be posted in the Courthouse.  But every person who subscribes to the Ten Commandments can carry them in his mind and heart into the courthouse; and no one, no one will stop him.  Why this doesn't seem to be understood is a mystery to me.

If the case had come up while I was judge, I think I know what I would have done; but it would have taken one hell of a lot of courage.