South Carolina has managed for more than
200 years to get along without a display of the Ten Commandments in its
Statehouse. We see no reason to add such a display now.
Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, has filed legislation requiring that
the commandments be prominently displayed in the Statehouse alongside
unspecified historical documents. And Rep. Marty Coates, R-Florence, has
filed another bill that would allow the commandments to be displayed on
any property belonging to the state -- as well as alongside unspecified
historical documents.
Reference to historical documents, unspecified or otherwise, may be
crucial to a strategy to portray displays of the Ten Commandments as a
prop in a history lesson. In an earlier failed attempt to allow such
displays, lawmakers proposed that the commandments be posed next to
copies of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.
Constitution.
The idea is to avoid a constitutional challenge by claiming that
these displays are historical rather than religious. We're not promoting
religion, say the proponents, we're merely showing the evolution of the
rule of law.
But Fair, for one, finds it hard to maintain that pose.
"The foundation upon which our history of law rests is at risk unless
we get more assertive," he said recently. "It gets lost on some people
that this country, when it was founded, was a Christian country."
The motivation behind his bill plainly is to promote particular
religious views, which is unconstitutional. A similar ploy in Alabama
was struck down by the courts, and we wonder why lawmakers such as Fair
and Coates keep missing the point.
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, a shameless demagogue, had a
5,300-pound granite monument to the Ten Commandments installed in the
rotunda of the state Supreme Court in the middle of the night. When
ordered to have the monument removed, Moore repeatedly refused to do so,
eventually exhausting all legal avenues of appeal. In the end, the
monument was hauled off and Moore was thrown off the bench.
We might be more sympathetic if South Carolina lawmakers were trying
to protect a display of the Ten Commandments that had sat in the
Statehouse for decades. At least, then, advocates might claim the
specific monument possessed historic significance beyond its obvious
religious connotation. But the notion of installing a new monument and
inviting a long, expensive and ultimately futile legal battle is
misguided.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to address the matter of publicly
displaying the Ten Commandments next year. We hope justices, who have
dodged this debate in the past, will establish clear guidelines.
Until they do, state lawmakers should hold off on approving displays
of religious materials either in the Statehouse or other public
buildings.
