When I heard the news that Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry had signed a bill requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every public classroom in the state, from elementary schools to state universities, my first thought was my friend David Golemboski.
David, a political theorist who received his PhD from Georgetown University’s Department of Political Science and is currently an associate professor of politics and international affairs at Augustana University in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, has long been interested in questions at the intersection of religion and politics, particularly from the perspective of Catholic social thought.
David and I met nearly 20 years ago in Europe at a conference on the life and work of Thomas Merton. We share a common passion and have remained close friends ever since. I enjoy discussing many things with him, but I was particularly interested in speaking with him about the Louisiana situation. I thought NCR readers might be interested in our conversation.
The following interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Horan: I was surprised last week when the news broke that Governor Landry had signed this new law into law. To me, this seemed like a clear violation of the First Amendment’s “separation of church and state clause.” Am I right? What was your initial reaction to this new law?
Golemboski: In 1980, the Supreme Court had the same reaction as you did. stone v. GrahamThe court struck down a Kentucky law that was essentially the same as Louisiana’s new law, saying that the requirement to display the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms served no legitimate secular purpose but was instead designed to advance religious ends, thus violating the separation of church and state clause.
“If a challenge to this law makes it to the Supreme Court, it will truly test the limits of how tolerant the current courts can be.”
So my first impression of this law is that the Louisiana Legislature and Governor are clearly trying to test that precedent, essentially challenging the Supreme Court to overturn it.
The problem is that the First Amendment’s separation of church and state is very vague — it simply says that the government is prohibited from “respecting the separation of church and state.”
What that means exactly is open to interpretation, and the state of Louisiana is clearly aware that the current Supreme Court has taken a much more lenient interpretation of these words than courts of the past few decades. Assuming a challenge to this law were to reach the Supreme Court, it would truly test the limits of how lenient the current court can be.
This is evident from the governor’s rude attitude. state He said he “can’t wait to get sued” and hopes the case will be fought in court. What do you think could be the outcome if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Louisiana’s law?
The most immediate impact would be greater freedom to include religion and religious symbols in public education, an area in which other states are also making progress.
For example, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill allowing public schools to appoint volunteer chaplains, and my state, South Dakota, passed a law a few years ago requiring all schools to display the motto, “In God We Trust.”
These efforts received a boost following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision that upheld the right of high school football coaches to pray with students on the field after games. If the Supreme Court upholds Louisiana’s law, advocates of religion in schools will be further emboldened. I would not be surprised, for example, to see some states take steps to reintroduce prayer into classrooms.
More broadly, a decision upholding the Ten Commandments would continue a trend of weakening church-state separation that the Supreme Court has upheld for at least the past several decades. On everything from public religious displays to congressional prayer to state funding of religious organizations, the Court has turned away from its more influential “wall of separation” approach to church-state law. A decision upholding Louisiana’s law would dramatically expand this shift.
As someone I wrote about What do you think this effort to blur the separation of “church and state” means for the current political and social climate in terms of religious pluralism, political stability, and the relationship of law and religion in the United States?
Trying to separate religion and government is an inherently complicated undertaking in the United States because religion has always been an important part of American public culture. In a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” the people’s religious beliefs and practices inevitably intersect with politics and law.
That said, there are many important reasons to place limits on religious influence on government.
“Resistance to Christian nationalism must come from within the Christian community.”
First, we must protect the religious rights of minorities. We all know that the symbols most frequently displayed in public spaces are Christian symbols. Christianity is the religious group that benefits most from public funding. When a government becomes too closely tied to one religion, it risks undermining the religious freedom of believers of other religions.
Second, it supports the principle that government exists for all its citizens and that equal standing before the law does not depend on whether or not one practices the “right” religion.
The third priority, which many religious conservatives tend to forget, is preventing the corrupting influence of government on religion if the two become too closely intertwined. For religion to maintain its dignity, it must protect its independence from government.
Nevertheless, there is a vibrant and well-funded movement on the political right that seeks to infuse Christian faith into all aspects of government, and this movement is greatly encouraged by the Supreme Court’s continuing erosion of the separation of church and state clause.
While politically engaged religion has played a significant role in American political history, including movements for emancipation and justice from the abolition of slavery to women’s suffrage, the civil rights movement, and modern-day immigration justice, I worry that elements of Christian nationalism on the contemporary right threaten to undermine the fundamental values of a secular government.
Your final point about Christian nationalism is particularly problematic. New York Times articleGovernor Landry sees Louisiana paving the way for a national shift in the direction you described. Do you think there’s anything that can be done to prevent this?
One possibility is that the Supreme Court will assert the Church-State Clause’s limitations on government-religion collaboration. The Court has moved the law dramatically to the right in recent years, especially in cases involving religion, but we’ve seen even conservative justices loosen the reins at times (for example, in recent gun control decisions). They might do the same with other challenges to the Ten Commandments and the Church-State Clause principle.
But ultimately, resistance to Christian nationalism must come from within the Christian community. Christians can vote for faith-based candidates in a way that respects the diversity of religious and secular perspectives in our pluralistic democracy.
There are examples in both parties: Sens. Raphael Warnock and Mitt Romney come to mind.
Christians can be role models for engaging in dialogue with people of other faiths and seeking understanding and common ground, and they can demonstrate their commitment to true religious freedom by speaking out on behalf of non-Christians and other vulnerable groups whose rights are threatened both at home and abroad.
Finally, given that NCR’s primary readership is Catholic, I was curious to know what thoughts or advice you have for Catholics in America. I know Governor Landry is Catholic, and some of our readers may share your views. What would you say to those readers?
As I say, Catholic teaching has always emphasized the connection between faith and politics, but just as important is the idea of the autonomy of the so-called temporal order, that is, the independence of the state from the control of any particular religious institution or authority.
As Pope Benedict XVI has said, it is not the Church’s responsibility to infuse its teachings into political life: the Church abandoned theocracy a long time ago.
Rather, it is the job of Catholics today to work in partnership with their fellow man and woman for the common good, based on values we can all share, regardless of religious views.
