An MSU professor and a Washington, D.C., religious expert squared off Tuesday about the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in public areas as a matter of freedom of religion.
MSU's chapter of the Federalist Society hosted a discussion in the MSU College of Law with panelists MSU law Professor Frank Ravitch and Kevin Hasson, founder and chairman of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty in Washington.
In recent years, the controversy had arisen about whether posting the Ten Commandments on public property is constitutional. With different U.S. Supreme Court rulings on the subject, no definitive position has come out.
"(The issue is) important, because these sorts of issues define what sorts of places religion should or should not have in public life," MSU Federalist Society President Nathan Piwowarski said.
The presence of the U.S. Supreme Court cases and the debates at the state Capitol on the issue spurred the need for the debate, said Piwowarski, who is a second-year law student.
"(Ravitch) is a very well-respected expert," Piwowarski said. "(Hasson) is very knowledgeable, and he has a lot of expertise with these kinds of cases."
The two speakers disagree on the way government should execute policies relating to religion. Ravitch said government should rarely include religion in public policy, but Hasson said some flexibility is OK.
Both speakers said they believe it's fine for individuals to express their religious views in public. But Hasson said he believes religion should be expressed by anyone, including government, while Ravitch said government shouldn't be allowed to mandate it in policy.
"I oppose government displays pretty universally," Ravitch said. "If the government displays the text of the Ten Commandments, I think it's constitutionally problematic."
But Ravitch said there is nothing wrong with private individuals displaying the text on public property.
"In a public forum, religious voices should be just as welcome," Ravitch said.
Hasson said government should be allowed the opportunity to express religion in public, but it becomes an issue when government requires people to participate.
"(Religion is) something that's essential to our humanity, and if it can't be expressed in public, that's a problem," he said. "It's when it becomes coercive is when it becomes constitutionally problematic."
Ravitch said he believes the debate stems from the personal context of the issue.
"It's emotionally charged," Ravitch said. "Both sides get really charged up, and it hits a raw nerve."
Hasson said society can benefit from having religion expressed in public.
"As long as government is reflecting the culture of the people it serves, it's fine," he said. Some of the students who attended thought the event was a good way to embrace the free exchange of ideas.
"I thought the topic was particularly interesting and the ability to see two viewpoints," second-year law student Lena Zwarensteyn said.
Other students said they hoped there would be more varied viewpoints expressed in future debates.
"I'm an atheist, so I find separation of church and state pretty important," second-year law student Nathan Cortright said. "I would've liked to see more diversity in the opinions."
The Federalist Society's next debate is at 7 p.m. Oct. 19 in the Castle Board Room of the MSU College of Law, with speakers discussing the issue of Granholm vs. Heald , and the selling of wine by in-state and out-of-state dealers.
Kristen Daum can be reached at daumkris@msu.edu.
