First Commandment: Another chance

Another case on the acceptability of the 10 Commandments in American schools is making its way to the Supreme Court.

Columnist Josh Hammer cited the hearing of oral arguments by the full Fifth Circuit of the U.S.Court of Appeals, where he once clerked, as a clear indicator the Supreme Court justices will again take on a First Amendment case.

The case revolves around two states —Louisiana and Texas – enacting laws requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools, Louisiana in 2024 and Texas in 2025.

Aggrieved left-wingers and secularists immediately filed First Amendment lawsuits and district judges compliantly enjoined enforcement in both states.

Hammer, recalling the reason for the controversy regarding the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) cites the letter that President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association stating that there was a wall separating the church and state, which is not in the Constitution and was not part of law until a 1947 Supreme Court decision — Everson v. Board of Education — that determined Jefferson’s friendly note to a church group needed to be woven into the nation’s laws.

Hammer pointed out that the word “establishment” is relevant because it can only mean what the Founders meant: a literal national established church, such as the Church of England. Generations of Americans have been taught that the First Amendment secures the “separation of church and state,” but that pernicious phrase is nowhere to be found in the amendment’s actual text.

Hammer also pointed out that Jefferson was in France (as a government envoy) when the Bill of Rights was passed by the early Congress.

Then he explained: “The word “Congress” is relevant because the Establishment Clause was unambiguously intended only to apply to Congress -- and, by extension, the federal government at large. As Justice Clarence Thomas and others have persuasively argued, the original understanding of the clause was to prohibit Congress from establishing a national religion so that the states may do so themselves -- consistent, of course, with prevailing free exercise protections and the No Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the Constitution. From the Founders’ perspective, the Establishment Clause was a necessary federalism provision for a fledgling, religiously pluralistic republic.”

Then attorney-columnist Hammer added: “None of this is even necessary to decide the Fifth Circuit case. The United States was founded on ecumenical biblical principles, and the Ten Commandments -- the wellspring of so much of Western morality -- embody that ecumenicism. Introduced to the world by Judaism and spread throughout the world by Christianity, the Ten Commandments are the shared inheritance of Jews and Christians of all stripes -- Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox alike. The Supreme Court itself famously features a frieze of Moses carrying the Ten Commandments tablets. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the court to deny Texas and Louisiana the ability to do that which it does itself. Sectarian public displays perhaps raise other concerns, but the Ten Commandments simply do not.”

Hammer also mentioned in his essay that former Texas Attorney General now Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and then-Texas solicitor (now U.S. Sen.) Ted Cruz defended the successful Texas State Capitol ground’s Ten Commandments monument in 2005. “For decades, the Court has made a muddled hash of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It’s been trending in the right direction in recent years, and the justices should eventually have an opportunity here for a landmark, clarifying ruling. But for now, the Fifth Circuit must do the right thing and side with Texas and Louisiana,” Hammer concluded.

Could this mark a return to traditional American goodness and honesty?

Noticed While Driving to Work

Monday morning was a challenge on a cold, snowy day.

First, getting the ice and snow off the windshield. Then starting the truck motor and leaving it idling thinking it would warm up the interior and clean the windswhield before leaving the house.

Then walking back out to drive to work only to find motor had stopped, which also ran down the battery.

Then turning all the battery-dependent gadgets off and getting a clicking sound.

Then attemping to sweep hood and windshield with a broom and spraying it with de-icer.

After a short time in the house, returning to truck and trying to start again. Battery had saved up enough charge by then to start motor on first try.

Then everything got better. As we drove down Shafenberg Road, a county road grader driven by a fellow wearing full cold-weather gear and a stocking cap returned my wave. Then I got on S.H. 33 and it had been cleared.

Then getting to town and seeing city crews on the job.