A student asks:
I'm curious about your opinion on the Ten Commandments being integrated into schools. I've seen pushback from teachers here at BYU–Idaho saying that this is a violation of the separation of church and state.
I'm all for that separation, but I don't see the issue here. Is the church controlling the state? Not that I can see. No Catholic, evangelical, or other denomination seems to be pulling the strings.
Is the state controlling the church? No, of course not—you'd see conservatives flooding social media with pushback if that were the case.
I’m all for religious freedom, and personally, I don’t see the issue. Are teachers being instructed to force students to convert to Christianity? No. How about Judaism, another religion that upholds the Ten Commandments? Again, no.
While the Ten Commandments are being taught, it feels like the only ones really being enforced are numbers 6–10. Isn’t that a good thing?
I’m curious what you think.
My response:
Dear student,
Thank you for such a compelling question!
My thoughts:
1. The Concept of "Separation of Church and State."
First, and compulsory, I have to comment on the notion of "separation of church and state." It’s one of those things that is so often invoked and so rarely understood that it is worth the time to consistently correct the record.
My primary rant is simply this: the phrase is not found in the Constitution, the writings of the founding fathers, or any other primary texts like the Federalist Papers. Instead, it comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. The letter is short enough that I can reproduce it here:
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as SentTo messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Notice that Jefferson was not proposing a denigration of the religious view in the public sphere, nor of an exiling of moral conscience from civic spaces. Rather, he was concerned with the state interfering with a man’s private right to practice his religion. If he had some private motivations then those will have to be left to better historians than I; his public record in this letter suggests that he has concerns only about the state edging out private practice of religion.
In terms of Jefferson’s views on religion, it is similarly worth noting that he is widely considered to be more of a secularist than many of his contemporaries. I am not convinced that we should “do what the founding fathers wanted.” But when the “separation of church and state” is invoked, it is often done with an implicit appeal to history and tradition and the founding fathers. If so, it’s worth honestly admitting that most of the founding fathers likely wanted a religious nation—but one without state support or subsidy for specific sects. This is largely how I feel: I want a vibrant background of private religious practice that informs political action in the public square—on the condition that the state ensure true freedom of religion, and the diversity of religious practice that attends such in natural course.
This contrasts with what many intend when they say separation of church and state today—which I can best compare to the French concept of laïcité. Laïcité suggests religion should be removed from the public square: it is your prerogative to practice your religion, but it is a public cost to have to see you do so; and you have no business appealing to religion in public spaces. This may be too strong—I do not, in my own, laïcité. I do not believe it is unfair to characterize it as far more secular and opposed to religious feeling than Jefferson’s views. Similarly, I do not believe it is unfair to suggest that many who use the phrase “separation of church and state” are advocating for a far more secular state than merely a separation would entail.
Even Jefferson’s views on separation were just one argument among many at the time. Most of the founding fathers, in fact, believed in "a religious, a Christian and a moral nation," often writing that a republic could not function without a moral and religious populace. If we are going to appeal to the founding fathers for the concept of separation of church and state, then I think we need to consider their broader views or dispense with the phrase to begin with.
I need to note, here, that there are many who claim they want a religious nation and freedom of religion—but they really want a Christian nationalist nation. We’ll come back to that later, but suffice it to say that I find this profoundly concerning.
2. Public Schools and Shared American Values:
My second point is about the fundamental purpose of public schools. I believe the purpose of public schools is to create a common vision, a common culture and a common meaning of what it means to be an American, and this necessarily includes a common set of virtues and values. Look, the Ten Commandments are awesome. They absolutely should be taught in every school, with clear explanations of their significance. This isn’t about infusing religion into schools—it’s about infusing morality into public schools.
I am the first to recognize that you can be moral and not religious. I find Dan Dennett’s discussion of this topic to be persuasive, and believe he is broadly right: we need to emphasize that secularists, humanists, atheists, and the agnostics are all neighbors and fellow citizens and can be as moral or immoral as the rest of us. But I say this strongly: when the secularists try to keep a “separation” between religious values and schools, they essentially prohibit any conversation about what is moral.
At one school I taught at, there was a club for religions. I was the advisor, but it was started by several muslim students. They were lovely, and wanted to talk religion with other students. We had teachers come by and share their religious experiences. It was great. We had full support.
There is this notion that religion isn’t welcome in schools, and I don’t believe that. God is welcome in schools—so long as He is properly muzzled. We can talk about Him in a scientific, historical, or anthropological sense. In fact, talking about private worship is even fine! The times when God wears out His welcome is when He is allowed to speak—to offer doctrine or expectation or rebuke.
The answer to this conundrum is to come up with common moral virtues that bind Americans together. That’s a hard conversation—we’ve avoided it precisely because it’s so hard. But if we don’t do it, we face a public school system that is not neutral, but rather watered-down, pitiful, and bland; a school system that preaches a pseudo-religion of expressive individualism and self-help therapeutics in place of meaningful morality.
Now, a quick note: you never mentioned it, but the term “Judeo-Christian values” often comes up in these discussions. I have stopped using that term. I read an article once that opened my eyes to this: the term often inadvertently excludes Muslims. Our Muslim brothers and sisters share very similar beliefs regarding the Ten Commandments, forming a wonderful bedrock foundation for common values. I think “Abrahamic Faith” might work better, but honestly, so does “interfaith.” We are hardly the only faith that believes it’s wrong to kill.
And that’s just it: things like don't steal, don't kill, don't cheat on your spouse are, in my view, excellent values for contemporary America. There will be disagreements—let’s have them. But we do need some level of common, agreed-upon norms. The idea that teaching them violates church and state is something I fundamentally disagree with.
3. The "Non-Religious Religion" Problem:
And now, a note to my secular friends: Over the past decade, we've seen certain leftist political philosophies—particularly surrounding race and sexuality—become mainstream in educational institutions. I'm not "anti-woke" and acknowledge there's value in focusing on equity. I’m not opposed to all of these beliefs and ideologies, though I am skeptical.
I raise these ideologies because I've noticed a significant hypocrisy: it has been my experience that efforts to keep religious values out of schools often end up limiting deeper conversations about morality altogether. Religious morality is often barred from public schools under the guise of "separation of church and state," yet these left-wing political moralities are often embraced (or required!) with no such interrogation.
For instance, at one school I worked at, there was a walkout to protest racial injustice. It was a powerful emotional experience. I do not think it is wrong to say that, for some, it was a spiritual experience. It was organized by teachers and leadership. Students were encouraged to participate. When one student balked, he was sternly told that it was “important for him to represent his people,” and he was more-or-less required to participate.
If the real concern is morality—and I think it is—then we need to have a conversation about what that is. My well-meaning friends would have been furious if a religious meeting had been held on campus. They had no compunctions, however, about requiring a young Black man to participate in a protest of racial inequity against his will.
4. Teaching All Religions for a More Moral Society:
I find it delightful that I so often agree with the late atheist philosopher Dan Dennett. Our motivations differ on this particular point, but we agree on the policy: I strongly believe that all religions should be taught in schools. Dennett thought it would reveal the historical changes and differences in religions, potentially protecting people from faith. He believed that teaching religions is important to understanding humanity—and I agree. Moreover, he believed that teaching the history of religions would show how they change and adapt—quite literally evolve—to meet the needs of human beings over time.
I believe it would have the opposite effect: students would likely recognize religion as a natural, ubiquitous phenomenon: it crops up everywhere. Similarly, it would show just how much religious communities have in common in terms of community practice and morality. Bluntly, it might show that we tend to do better in religious communities that have moral norms.
And if we were teaching the facts of a variety of religions in schools, I would have far less concern about the Ten Commandments in schools. Why? Because some who advocate (like you and I do) for the Ten Commandments in schools just want common morality and a nod to religion. Others, however, want a nod to their religion. They want state sponsorship of their religion faith. In the United States, this most often takes the form of Christian Nationalism. I strongly object to Christian nationalists who advocate for the Ten Commandments in schools as a symbol of Christian dominance, rather than as an inclusive recognition of shared Abrahamic values. We could even consider other historical moral codes, like Hammurabi's Code, to broaden the discussion. I admire practices like the Senate opening each day with prayer from different religious individuals as a model for inclusivity: religion is good, it matters, and it is too sacred to allow government to meddle with.
In short, I think the Ten Commandments are good, and their teachings are valuable for society. However, I suspect that many of the people who are pushing for them in schools are actually Christian nationalists in disguise. Be wary. They want the United States to specifically embrace Christianity and make it the state religion, and I am not on that bus.
Hopefully, this provides some thought-provoking answers to your excellent question!
Sincerely,
Benjamin Pacini