By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A bill mandating the display and teaching of the Ten Commandments in South Dakota public schools failed to pass the state House. Opponents argued the bill was unconstitutional, citing potential legal challenges and noting out-of-state support from organizations like WallBuilders. While supporters claimed the Commandments are foundational to American law and culture, the bill’s defeat followed a debate highlighting concerns over government endorsement of religion. Even an amendment reducing the number of required displays did not garner enough support.
Read the original article here
A bill mandating the posting and teaching of the Ten Commandments in South Dakota schools recently failed to pass in the House. This outcome, while unsurprising to some, sparked a considerable amount of online discussion, revealing a wide range of opinions. The debate highlighted the ongoing tension between religious freedom and the separation of church and state in public education.
One representative, who supported the bill despite opposition from religious leaders and school superintendents, claimed divine guidance influenced his vote. He described experiencing “calmness” while praying, interpreting this as a sign to support the bill if even one person found faith through it. This claim, however, was met with skepticism and ridicule by many commenters, who questioned the legitimacy of such a justification for legislative action.
Numerous commentators expressed strong opposition to the bill, citing concerns about the separation of church and state. Some argued that introducing religious instruction into public schools is inappropriate and unconstitutional, suggesting a potential for coercion and discrimination against students from non-Christian backgrounds. The fear of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was a recurring theme in the opposition.
Further criticism centered on the perceived hypocrisy of those advocating for the bill. Some pointed out the blatant contradiction between promoting the Ten Commandments and the actions of many prominent figures within the Republican party—actions seemingly in direct violation of several commandments, such as those against lying, adultery, and coveting. This hypocrisy fueled accusations of using religion as a political tool rather than a genuine effort to promote morality.
The debate extended beyond the simple acceptance or rejection of the bill. The discussion touched on the broader interpretation and application of the Ten Commandments themselves. Some raised questions about the Old Testament’s violent and morally questionable content, noting that teaching children those passages might be counterproductive to promoting ethical behavior. Others questioned the appropriateness of using a religious text to advance a political agenda, suggesting it fundamentally misinterprets the purpose and meaning of the Ten Commandments.
Concerns about the potential for further religious mandates in education were also raised. Several commenters expressed worry that the passage of this bill could open the door to similar legislation promoting other religions or ideologies, such as Islam or even extreme viewpoints. This highlighted a wider concern about the slippery slope of allowing religious doctrines into the public school curriculum.
There was considerable agreement among the opposition that incorporating religious education into public schools is best left to religious institutions. Many felt it’s the responsibility of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other faith-based organizations to teach their respective doctrines, rather than expecting public schools to undertake this task. This view reflected the consensus that religious instruction should be confined to the appropriate venues and not imposed on the broader public, where diverse beliefs exist.
The failure of the bill in South Dakota was seen by many as a positive outcome, signaling a victory for the separation of church and state and a rejection of attempts to impose religious beliefs on students through the public education system. This view was further amplified by those who feared that allowing this bill to pass would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging similar legislative attempts in other states.
One commenter pointed to the Supreme Court’s *Stone v. Graham* decision, which prohibits state laws mandating the posting of the Ten Commandments, acknowledging the possibility of the current Supreme Court overturning this precedent. This highlighted a concern about the shifting political landscape and the potential erosion of established legal protections regarding the separation of church and state.
Finally, many comments showcased the intense emotional responses this bill elicited. The failure of the bill was celebrated by some as a reaffirmation of American values, while others expressed disappointment and frustration, viewing it as a missed opportunity to promote morality. This polarization highlights the deeply divisive nature of the issue, which will likely continue to shape future political debates regarding the role of religion in public life.