![]() |
Date Posted: March 7, 2003
Ten Commandments bill passes House
By BRADEN BUNCH
Item Staff Writer
In the midst of budget discussions at
the Statehouse, the House of Representatives has passed a bill
presented by Sumter delegation member Rep. Marty Coates,
R-Florence, that has the potential of creating situations more
controversial than the spending bill.
|
 |
|
COATES |
Approved last week by an overwhelming
100-6 margin, the proposed law would permit the display of the
Ten Commandments on government property, raising arguments
concerning the separation of church and state.
Several representatives from both parties, including House
Speaker Rep. David Wilkins, R-Greenville, and local legislator
Rep. Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, signed on as co-sponsors of the
bill heading to the state Senate for approval.
Last year, Coates attempted to have a similar bill passed,
attaching the proposal as an amendment to the state’s Homeland
Security Act, but it was eventually removed from homeland
security by the Senate after some lawmakers were afraid that
the constitutional question could cause problems for the
entire bill.
Attempts to display the Ten
Commandments on government grounds have occurred in other
states prompting varying responses from the courts to their
constitutionality.
In November, a federal
judge ruled that a Ten Commandments monument installed in an
Alabama court had to be removed because it violated the
separation of church and state.
In making his
ruling, however, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson did not
say that he did not feel all displays would be
unconstitutional.
This is not the first time
in recent years that the issue has been raised in South
Carolina. In 1999, At-large Circuit Court Judge R. Markley
Dennis Jr. ruled that Charleston County Council had violated
the Constitution when it posted the Ten Commandments outside
its chambers.
Charleston County Council argued
that the presentation, surrounded by pictures of the council
members, was not an endorsement of religion. Dennis, however,
disagreed.
In Indiana, two separate cases
involving the Ten Commandments have had conflicting
results.
In one, a federal appeals court ruled
that placing a stone monument of the Ten Commandments on the
statehouse lawn would have violated church-state separation.
The state of Indiana appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, but in February 2002 justices opted not to hear
the case.
Before that, however, a U.S.
district judge had ruled that a display in Elkhart, Ind.,
could remain after ruling that the display was part of a
monument displaying a collection with historical and cultural
significance.
Coates’ proposal tries to
incorporate the Elkhart concept, saying the commandments must
be posted “along with other documents of historical
significance that have formed and influenced the United
States’ legal or governmental system.”
The
bill goes on to say that the Ten Commandments cannot be
presented in a way that calls more attention to the Ten
Commandments than to the other documents.
David Kennison — a past president of the American Civil
Liberties Union of South Carolina who now serves on the
organization’s national board — said that although he was not
opposed to Coates’ legislation, he didn’t see the necessity
for the bill.
“It doesn’t do anything. It’s of
absolutely no legal significance whatsoever,” Kennison said.
“It’s the kind of thing that some people pass to try to snow
their constituents into thinking they’re doing
something.”
“No law that the South Carolina
General Assembly can pass (can) change the First Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution,” Kennison said.
Kennison also said that while his organization would not
challenge the bill itself, it would have to evaluate the
actual monuments created on a case-by-case basis, just as they
would do if the bill were not to pass.
“If
it’s done in a way to promote religion, then obviously we
would want to litigate against it,” Kennison said. “The other
thing that’s problematic is that the Ten Commandments
themselves, contrary to the wording of the House bill, some of
them have absolutely nothing to do with the history of our
legal system.”
Kennison said that if a
presentation can be made without promoting religion, “Then I
guess the worst that can be said is that they wasted the
taxpayers’ money.
“Normally I wouldn’t care
much about it,” Kennison said, “but at this time in our
history when the world is awash in terrorism based in
fundamental religious beliefs and people are being killed in
the name of God, you would think that legislators could at
least refrain from this kind of nonsense.”
The bill now moves on to the Senate, where it has been
referred to the Finance Committee.
State Sen.
John Land, D-Manning, who serves on the committee, said he
supports the bill but did worry about the legality of the
proposal.
“It probably does have
Constitutional problems, but at the same time I would support
it,” Land said, adding, “You can read it or you can ignore it,
the choice is yours.”
Land said he would have
a problem with a law that makes posting the Ten Commandments a
requirement, and not an option, on public buildings, mainly
because of the cost involved.
Land, however,
feels that anyone offended by the posting of the Ten
Commandments can easily avoid the problem.
“If, for some reason you don’t want to read the Ten
Commandments, just don’t do it,” Land said. “Just walk on
by.”
Contact Staff Writer Braden Bunch
at bradenb@theitem.com or
803-774-1222.
 E-mail
This Story |
![]() |
March 10, 2003 
