“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” – Thomas Jefferson

Do you remember the political brouhaha from this time last year when the Alabama Supreme Court made a controversial ruling about in-vitro fertilization?

Don’t worry; this is not a column reanalyzing the issue of reproductive rights. Instead, I bring up that ruling to discuss the legal opinion issued in the case by now-retired Chief Justice Tom Parker. To my knowledge, this Tom Parker never managed Elvis Presley.

As part of his opinion, Parker took the unusual step of citing biblical scripture and centuries-old essays from Christian philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin to point out there is a duty for government to protect unborn life. In this case it was Alabama protecting embryos outside the womb.

I actually agreed with Parker’s decision but was dismayed by his reasoning. It represented a classic example of the danger of mixing your government and religion.

Parker’s interpretation of scripture was far from being seen as a universal truth among Protestant denominations. Yet, because he was in a position of authority in government, his analysis of scripture on a complicated issue carried the force of law until the Alabama Legislature passed a new law protecting IVF clinics.

This brings us to the present. House Bill 178 – sponsored by Rep. Mark Gidley, R-Gadsden, and cosponsored by 21 other representatives – is under consideration in the Alabama House of Representatives.

It would require the Ten Commandments to be posted in an entryway or common area of every public school.

There are two ways to consider if this bill is the right thing for government to do – legally and morally. Legally, the First Amendment does not allow Congress to make any law meant to favor a religion.

Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled First Amendment limitations on national government were extended to state governments through the 14^th Amendment.

So if the Supreme Court has not allowed states to be involved in promoting religion, why even bother creating this bill?

Gidley’s bill contains language requiring a statement of historical context to be included with the display. This statement discusses how the Ten Commandments were published in some textbooks used by some public schools at various points of American history.

This is important because some Supreme Court rulings have allowed the Ten Commandments to be displayed on government property as long as it is part of a larger historical context not overtly religious in its purpose.

Posting the Ten Commandments with some notes included about how they appeared in some privately produced textbooks used by some public schools in order to teach students about American history is a stretch that would snap the world’s largest rubber band. The religious motive for posting the Ten Commandments is nakedly apparent.

But let us set aside the legal issue and consider the moral issue. Would it be good or bad to post the Ten Commandments in public schools? I would not be personally offended to see the Ten Commandments in a school. I imagine many of you reading this would not either.

The problem is throughout history whenever government tries to involve itself in matters of religion, its leaders tend to claim authority from God for their actions. It becomes that much harder for people to challenge government when those actions are obviously corrupt or wrong because government leaders claim their actions represent the will of God.

Many of you, including myself, have ancestors who came to this country to escape persecution from a state-sponsored religion, such as the Church of England, which oppressed Catholicism and other Protestant denominations. This is the main reason we have the First Amendment.

Let me say here I do not think Gidley or Parker are claiming to speak on God’s behalf or that posting the Ten Commandments suddenly changes the state into a theocracy.

My point is the more a state tries to involve itself in promoting a particular religion, the more likely it is to define what that religion is and how it should be followed, limiting your ability to make those decisions.

It is fine to elect people who exhibit godly qualities and to pray government leaders use wisdom in their decisions.

But if you value the ability to exercise free will in how you practice or do not practice religion or if you value the ability to criticize government when it performs poorly, it is best to keep government and religion as separate from each other as possible, even on minor issues like this.