	Bob Hostetler > Writing

Civic Displays and Religious Motivation

by Bob Hostetler

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling a few days ago about the controversial “Ten Commandments” displays that have been popping up in courthouses and civic squares around the country in recent years. Sitting under a courthouse frieze that includes Moses holding the tablets of the Law, the court decided (by a slim majority) that such displays are legal if the motive of the person, group, or community erecting it is demonstrably secular. If any religious motives entered into the decision to display the Decalogue, the majority reasoned, that would render the display unconstitutional.

Predictably, perhaps, the ruling produced confusion and disapproval on several sides of the issue. Rabbi Eric Slaton of Hamilton’s Beth Israel community, granted that the ruling “sounds like a Solomonic way of dealing with the problem, a way of appealing to both right and left,” while pointing out that even the phrase “Ten Commandments” is distinctly Christian (Jewish teaching numbers these commandments from a different starting point—“I am the Lord thy God” instead of “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”—and counts fourteen separate commandments in the list). Other experts—both “religious” and “secular”—pointed out that the court’s decision—far from settling anything—will certainly produce more challenges and appeals in the months and years to come.

Wendell Conning, pastor of Hamilton Dream Center, says he’s happy the court even considered the case and at least granted that some displays are appropriate. But, he says, it’s “sad that they targeted religious expression” as apparently less appropriate in the public square than secular forms of expression. That stance, some argue, is itself a judicial endorsement of one religious view over another.

But while some jurists take comfort when they manage to displease both sides of a legal issue, we may hope—and, if you’re so inclined, pray—that the Supreme Court’s new standard enjoys a short (or at least limited) life span. Because, if the majority’s apparent goal of excising religious motivations from public displays is applied evenly and comprehensively, our community and our nation will soon be in a desperate state.

Rabbi Slaton suggests “it’s not possible to separate religion from one’s other views. Everyone has a worldview that informs what you do, so you can’t just withdraw religion from a position; you can make your position known without referring to a religious text, but I don’t think you can separate it.” He says, for example, that “Jewish tradition makes it very clear that we’re supposed to pray for the welfare of the country in which we live, and be good citizens (as the prophet Jeremiah enjoined) even though we long to return to Israel. And I think you’ll find higher civic participation in the Jewish community than among many other groups because our freedoms may be more precious to us because we’ve so often been denied such freedom and such participation in our past.” For many Jews, civic participation and improvement is a matter of religious obligation.

In our Hamilton community, there are many civic “displays” that can only be explained by religious motivations. Conning, whose Hamilton Dream Center gives away six tons of free food every Thanksgiving and a thousand gifts to needy families each Christmas, says that love for God is the motivation for all that activity. “We’ve given needy school children over 2500 book bags the last 4 years so they can start the school year with the supplies they need and not be ashamed as they walk to school. And in each bag is a card we give to the kid, and we pray over each card, praying for the kid who will receive it. That all comes from our love for God. You bet our motivation is spiritual.”

Ken Ritz, senior pastor of Hamilton’s New Life Vineyard Church, says he gets less worked up about protecting Ten Commandments displays than with preserving “some of the faith-based initiatives that allow faith-based ministries to compete on even footing to receive government money to provide services to needy people.” He says, for example, “My church started a homeless shelter and food, furniture, and clothing ministries that are the largest in Butler County. Then we invited other churches to join us through forming the faith-based organization Serve City. We provide services to the poor that the government cannot possibly afford to provide, because of our extensive use of volunteers. We are supported in part by local and state funds, but we still have the right to share the gospel with those we help.” These ministries, he says—all of which spring from religious convictions—have produced enormous practical and spiritual results.

As Anthony Picarello, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote in response to the Supreme Court ruling, “The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of everything remotely religious from everything remotely governmental. Even if such an extreme separation were desirable—and it’s not—it would be impossible to implement, especially in a country where so many are religious.” He’s right.

Whatever you think about Ten Commandments displays, and however the Supreme Court may rule, it’s impossible to excise religious motives from the civic activities of America’s citizens and communities. To do so would not only be unjust; it would be disastrous.

This article appeared in the June 3, 2005 edition of the Hamilton Journal-News.

More articles by Bob Hostetler...