A press conference was held Tuesday defending a controversial law to require a copy of the Ten Commandments in public spaces. Act 573 requires a copy of the religious document be hung in state-run buildings, including school and college classrooms.
The ACLU sued to stop enforcement of the law. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks agreed, granting an injunction last month.
The First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The first half of that sentence is called the Establishment Clause; the second is called the Free Exercise Clause. Generally, it has been interpreted to mean the government cant show preference for a religion or discriminate against someone for having a religion.
Brooks ruled Act 573 clearly violates both sections of the First Amendment. He said it's “not neutral with respect to religion.” This doesn't mean the law is dead, just that right now it's stopped in the courts — though it should have gone into effect last week.
Supporters did not seem defeated at Tuesday's press event. They talked about the Brooks ruling as though it was a mere roadblock . The law's sponsor, Rep. Alyssa Brown, said:
“It will be upheld in a higher court. An Obama-era judge's ruling doesn't change the truth.”
Behind her was a spread of supporters, along with the other state lawmaker who sponsored the bill: Sen. Jim Dotson. Act 573 is supported by Christian advocacy groups helping to fight the lawsuit. A sign listed the group Wall Builders and the Liberty Counsel, the Family Policy Alliance and the National Institute of Christian lawmakers.
Speeches went back to the phrase: "history and tradition.”
When it comes to religious monuments, American courts have generally said you can't add or subtract. Monuments that have been in a place for decades, monuments that are a part of the history of a place, those get to stay. But if it just got put up, it typically comes down. Supporters interpreted this phrase “history and tradition” as it's been used to defend the monuments in a new way. In their minds, the Ten Commandments represent the history and tradition of America. But when courts have said “history and tradition,” they are talking about the history of a specific monument in a specific place.
“The very first textbook published in American schools was in 1690,” historian David Barton said. “The New England Primer, it was a first grade textbook. And in that first grade textbook, it starts with 40 questions on the Ten Commandments.”
There are a few examples of the Ten Commandments being referenced in popular early textbooks like the McGuffey Reader. But this is a case about the First Amendment in schools, not an antebellum textbook.
At the last hearing in the case against the law, a different historian testified that putting the Ten Commandments in classrooms has no historical basis. In his affidavit, Steven Green says the First Amendment was a response to religious infighting in the colonial era. He said the founders had “profound concerns” about “promoting religious divisiveness that flows from government favoritism of some religions over others or non-religion.”
The filings made a non-historical argument. They were written by lawyers for the attorney general. They focused on how the law says the signs have to be purchased with private funds. So, the state argued the signs may just never be hung up because no one donated them.
Several large donations have already been sent from private groups to hang up the signs. Glen Story from the phone company Patriot Mobile announced a donation of the signs to the Arkansas Secretary of State.
Plaintiffs in the suit are generally non-Christians. One plaintiff was a Jewish family who followed a different translation of the religious text.
Lawyer Jeremey Dice from First Liberty Institute said this about the plaintiffs.
“If schools can't teach our children how to participate in a pluralistic society, then one wonders whether they can teach anything at all.”
The group didn't rule out the Supreme Court as an option in their appeals.
