The Ten Commandments: an Everett civics lesson

An 11-page ruling by the federal judge in the Everett case over a granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments is an excellent primer on religious freedom in America. Our conclusion would have been different, but the civics lesson is invaluable.

Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik said the monument tucked back in the bushes on a corner of the city's police station has become part of civic landscape since it was given to the community in 1959, as a combined movie promotion and gift from a fraternal order. He could discern no governmental intent to promote a brand-specific religion then or now. The monument sat without notice or fuss for more than 40 years.

Removal, the judge concluded, could be construed as a hostile act toward religion which is no more allowed by the Constitution than acts that favor it.

Context is everything, Lasnik said, echoing a recent U.S. Supreme Court case out of Texas. The history and presence of the Everett monument are not offensive or threatening. And it should stay put.

Our choice would be to carry the hunk-of-local-history example a bit further and place the monument in a museum with other city of Everett memorabilia. Keep it as a symbol of a moment in time when everyone was presumed to be Christian and dissenters would neither speak up nor be heard.

Try that in 2005 and the howls would rise to, well, the heavens. Exactly, the judge explains; a similar stone tablet would not be allowed. Everett's monument is viewed as ornamental, not a sales pitch. Lasnik's ruling was a patient exposition of where the country has been and is now. Our view did not prevail.