fbpx
News Articles

FIRST-PERSON: Porn in libraries OK, these folks say, yet they oppose the Ten Commandments


McMINNVILLE, Ore. (BP)–Many public libraries in America refuse to install filtering software on computers for fear they might keep someone from “enjoying” pornography. It matters not that an innocent child might be exposed to disgusting filth. Civil libertarians maintain that those who have a taste for trash have a constitutional right to indulge their appetite even at taxpayer expense.

At the same time, several cities in the United States are being sued for having the audacity to display the Ten Commandments on public property. Heaven forbid that someone who does not ascribe to the moral code might accidentally catch a glimpse of it. The same civil libertarians who maintain pornography should be free and accessible via a public library also assert that the Ten Commandments have no place on any government ground.

Those who argue the commandments should not be displayed on public property maintain they are simply trying to enforce the “separation of church and state” mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The only problem is, this mandate simply does not exist.

President Thomas Jefferson introduced the term “separation of church and state” in 1802. A Baptist group from Connecticut had written him concerned that the First Amendment might not be strong enough to protect the church from government intrusion. Jefferson responded using his now oft-quoted phrase to indicate that the First Amendment effectively created a wall of separation sufficient to protect the church from state interference.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof …” is precisely how the First Amendment begins. A law degree is not required to understand this amendment simply forbids the government from passing legislation that would mandate a specific religion, or a law that would make a particular faith illegal.

How does placing the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn “establish a law” respecting a specific religion? It doesn’t! Some would argue that the government in question would at the very least be giving preference to a religion. Perhaps, but that is not the same as mandating faith and it certainly does not prohibit anyone from the free exercise of whatever religion they so choose.

When the Ten Commandments are displayed publicly, what specific religion is being preferred? The belief systems of both Jews and Christians include the code recorded by Moses centuries ago. So, are governments “encouraging” people to embrace Christianity or Judaism, which while related remain very different? They are doing neither. In the words of one individual who defends the commandments on public property, “they are there to show us there are recognized codes of behavior to help us.”

I believe the motive for those who oppose the display of the Ten Commandments on taxpayer property has more to do with the fact that they are “codes of conduct” rather than their religious nature. How else can you explain that the same people who vehemently defend the availability of pornography in public libraries also condemn the display of the Ten Commandments on any government ground? It’s simple; they do not want to be reminded that there is a transcendent code of conduct that dictates what is right and wrong.
–30–
Boggs’ column appears each Friday in Baptist Press. He is pastor of Valley Baptist Church, McMinnville, Ore.

    About the Author

  • Kelly Boggs