The Lines of Battle: When Religion Enters the Classroom
When Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed the Ten Commandments display law earlier this year, it was already clear it wouldn’t stand unopposed. The ink had barely dried before civil liberties organizations, led by the ACLU, filed lawsuits on behalf of diverse community groups—atheists, Christians, Jews, and even some clergy. The message resonated: forced religious endorsement in public schools is a violation of core constitutional boundaries.
This past June, the ongoing conflict over the separation of church and state reached another crescendo. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the conservative-leaning Fifth Circuit Court found the law mandating a large Ten Commandments poster in every Louisiana public classroom unconstitutional. The decision was greeted as a victory for the First Amendment. In the words of ACLU attorney Heather L. Weaver, “This is a resounding victory for the separation of church and state and public education.” For many, that relief was short-lived.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, backed by Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga, immediately vowed to appeal, armed with a battery of conservative talking points: the Ten Commandments, they claim, are mere historical acknowledgments—not religious coercion. Murrill promptly petitioned for a full or “en banc” review by the entire Fifth Circuit Court, which temporarily froze the panel’s ruling and cracked open the door for yet another high-profile church-state showdown.
The culture war over religious displays in schools is nothing new. Recall Alabama’s Roy Moore, whose monument to the Commandments was forcibly wheeled out of Montgomery’s courthouse. Or revisit Kentucky in the early 2000s, where a nearly identical law was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of religious neutrality. The echoes are unmistakable: these efforts rarely end in legal triumph for the religious right, but the cycles persist, fueled by shifting political winds and a yearning for a vanished America that never truly existed.
A Constitution Tested: Standing, History, and a Fractured Court
Peeling back the legal arguments reveals both sharp ideological divides and fundamental misunderstandings of the First Amendment. Murrill’s office and supporters contend the courts relied on outdated jurisprudence—specifically, the “Lemon test” from 1971’s Lemon v. Kurtzman. That framework, long a bogeyman for conservative legal theorists, asks whether a government action has a secular purpose and avoids advancing or inhibiting religion. Critics claim it’s been effectively bypassed by recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Kennedy v. Bremerton School District in 2022, which favored a broad reading of religious liberty over institutional neutrality.
On top of that, the state argues plaintiffs have no standing, since the law hasn’t yet forced anyone to sit beneath a classroom Commandments display. This argument, while technically plausible, ignores the chilling effect such requirements have on religious minorities and non-believers—a reality abundantly documented by the Pew Research Center and legal scholars alike.
The state’s defenders also raise a rhetorical shield of tradition. Citing images of Moses etched into the U.S. Supreme Court building and the scattered presence of biblical references across American civic culture, they assert that these displays are about heritage, not proselytization. But this argument collapses under closer scrutiny. As Harvard historian Jill Lepore reminds us, “Founders like Jefferson and Madison fought for religious liberty precisely because they knew state-sponsored orthodoxy breeds division, not unity.” Imposing a state-mandated religious poster in government classrooms is not mere acknowledgment—it is government endorsement by any honest reading of constitutional principle.
Religious liberty is most robust when government neither coerces nor disparages faith, creating space for conviction and doubt alike. That is the legacy progressive America must fiercely defend—not some “heritage” narrative cherry-picked from the pages of nostalgia.
“There is no such thing as a neutral display of faith in a public school run by the state. When diversity of belief is the rule, singular endorsement is the exception our Constitution prohibits.”
The Stakes: What Inclusion and Liberty Really Mean
Beyond the legal arguments, the broader stakes are clear. Mandating religious posters in secular classrooms sends an unmistakable signal: you belong here if you share this particular creed; the rest must adapt or feel marginalized. This is the antithesis of an inclusive public square. According to a 2024 study by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, more than half of teachers in religiously diverse districts reported concerns over rising student tensions when religious themes are introduced through curriculum or displays.
The timing of Louisiana’s push is hardly a coincidence. Conservative strategy, especially in southern states, has often relied on court fights designed to get controversial questions before a right-leaning Supreme Court. Legal experts, such as University of Virginia professor Micah Schwartzman, point out these are not grassroots community demands but orchestrated campaigns to push constitutional boundaries. Schwartzman notes, “The endgame has always been a direct challenge to the lines set by decades of church-state separation.”
Why does this matter? Because the effect isn’t limited to Louisiana. If the full Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court upholds this law, the precedent could reshape public education from Mississippi to Montana—leaving students of minority faiths, or none at all, to navigate new hurdles to full acceptance. Teachers will shoulder new legal and social risks. Communities, already divided along political and religious lines, could find those divisions deepening, all in the name of a narrow reading of religious liberty.
The road ahead promises pitched legal battles and emotional testimonies before courts likely to split along ideological lines. But the principle at stake transcends temporary political advantage. A truly pluralistic society, rooted in the promise of equality before the law, cannot thrive while government preference for any faith, overt or subtle, becomes a fixture of our schools.
