The Donley County Commissioners’ Court next week will consider a request to place a marker commemorating the Ten Commandments on the lawn of the 1890 Courthouse, but it is a proposal the court should respectfully decline as improper, unnecessary, and inappropriate.
The court was approached about this during its last meeting on March 12, but it correctly took no action at that time because two members of the court were absent. A group describing themselves as “Citizens of Donley County” made the request and stated in a letter to the court that “our history is being lost to the younger generations,” and the purpose of the monument is to “honor the influence of the Bible and the Christian faith has had on our nation and our county.”
One of the citizens making the request told the Enterprise that the monument in question is not a “Ten Commandments” monument but that it is rather a “historical marker.” This point of semantics is designed to preempt any possible legal challenge to the monument, but it seems obvious from the information presented to the county that the desire to place such a monument is driven by religious and possibly political motives rather than a desire to teach history. The photographs of sample monuments from other courthouses show what appears to be a dishwasher size piece of granite with the Ten Commandments prominently inscribed with several faith-based quotes from American historical figures on the sides. The supporter told the Enterprise that the local monument would also reflect the history of the county.
Certainly many of America’s ideals have come under attack in recent decades, and this column appreciates the “here’s mud in your eye” attitude towards the left that the backers of this monument seem to possess. Still, we do live in a litigious society and commissioners are sure to be mindful of this fact. Despite assurances that backers have secured the promise of legal representation if a court challenge is mounted, it is ultimately the county that will be responsible.
But this column’s objections to the marker are not about legality. Just because something is determined to be legal doesn’t mean it is right, and there are several reasons to object to this proposal.
First, allowing such a monument would be improper. During the restoration of the 1890 Courthouse in 2003, architects and state preservationists expressed concern that the Courthouse Square was somewhat crowded with markers, monuments, and buildings. This was brought up in 2007 when Sara SoRelle brought a proposal to the Commissioners’ Court to erect a memorial to her late mother, Dr. Zell SoRelle, for her contributions as a preservationist and civic leader in Donley County. Commissioners not only unanimously rejected SoRelle’s proposal, but they also prohibited any future commemorative markers from being placed on the Courthouse lawn. Later, the county took this a step further by actually removing a marker dedicated to pioneer rancher and philanthropist Cornelia Adair and relocated it to the Saints’ Roost Museum. Allowing a Ten Commandments marker would be improper, therefore, because it would go contrary the Commissioners’ earlier action and open the door to future requests. What would be next?
Second, the monument is unnecessary. There can be no denial of the influence that Christianity had on the settlement and development of this county. But that influence has already been recognized on the Courthouse Square. The county’s Centennial Marker erected in 1982 shows four elements as the foundations for this county – Ranching, Farming, Education, and Churches – and includes a representation of the Christian cross. The role of religion on the development of this county can be found on Texas Historical Markers throughout town at local churches and even in front of the office for this newspaper, in the visitor guide for our community, and even with the halo on our official city logo. Our history is not being lost in Donley County. It is already well documented, memorialized, and stated without having an unnecessary dishwasher size Ten Commandments marker on the Courthouse lawn.
Finally, the location of the proposed monument is inappropriate. Given prominent role of religion in the development of this county, isn’t it somewhat surprising that the Ten Commandments were not included in the design of the courthouse when it was built in 1890? Our county forefathers were men of faith, but perhaps they felt that the Commandments belonged at the church house instead of the courthouse. There must, therefore, be a better place to do this. Putting the monument on grounds of the Methodist Church, for example, would be adjacent to the Courthouse Square and would be a far more appropriate location to discuss the influence of religion on this county. If backers desire a non-denominational location for their “historical marker” and truly desire to teach people about Christianity’s influence in Donley County, then choose a location on the highway and create an attractive grand memorial telling the story of Saints’ Roost and all the many historic churches and religious institutions and the influence of faith in our community. Do something truly impressive that will become an attraction for our community like the cross is at Groom.
Commissioners are in a difficult spot. Turning down this request will likely result in citizens’ unfairly questioning their personal faith or values. But these men aren’t elected to just make the easy decisions. They are put in office to do what is right even when it is unpopular, and in this case it is right to say, “No, thank you.”
In addition to the editor’s questions and observations there are some others that should be considered. Would there be unintended consequences with the installation of this worthy cause? We always want to defend that which we believe to be a good cause. I am no different but as a Christian I wonder if this is an appropriate defense of what I believe basic to our national foundation. As Christians we are to bring honor and glory to God. How many people will see or know about this monument? This is Saint’s Roost, do we teach our children why that is? If we are worried about our children and their futures, the best place to instill these values is in the christian home. If the foundation hasn’t been set there, a marker on the court house lawn won’t make any difference. Now back to my first question of unintended consequences. What would the commissioners say to the next group who comes along? Perhaps they would want to commemorate or memorialize atheism, or witchcraft or something else. Would God be glorified if the requested marker were sitting next to one of those? The court house lawn belongs to all citizens regardless and while we may think that no one in this county would ever do that, it may not always be so. If we as citizens of this county want the world to know that we are proud of our heritage, our faith and our founding principles there may be better and maybe even more prominent ways to do that. I am not saying that the marker request is anything but honorable or that motives aren’t pure. My concern is that whatever happens that it be a positive, well thought out and prayed about action and not simply a reaction to the attacks on christianity that concern all people of Christian faith. If we really want to return to the founding principles of our nation it has to start at the ballot box. Christians need to be involved in the political process and communicate with each other and the community about the things that are being done in the highest levels of government to limit freedom of religion and free speech along with a lot of other freedoms. We need to educate one another about what we learn about candidates, their voting records, their character and their associations. This subject should be on all our lips. Well informed voters are a powerful force and never more important than they are to the upcoming November election.
Wow. I am both shocked and disappointed by the lack of support the editor shows for this project.
If you were going to put a monument somewhere in town and wanted it to look nice, where would you place it? On the side of the highway? In an empty lot? No, I don’t think so. You would put a gorgeous piece of “dishwasher-sized” granite on the courthouse lawn where it belongs. People already visit the courthouse because of the history and beauty it holds. This will only draw more people to the courthouse lawn. The Ten Commandments are something that, regardless of people’s religious beliefs, hold a place in our history. We should not hide that for fear that someone will disagree or want to post something of their own.
Other cities in the panhandle have put up beautiful monuments of the Ten Commandments. Why should Clarendon be any different? If anything, Clarendon has more of a reason to post them. Ultimately it is up to the committee to vote on this and I hope they follow their hearts and not “political” reasons.
It Is a Matter of Heritage
Recently our county commissioners have been discussing the issue of our heritage and how to best pay homage to it. I would like to urge our commissioners to strongly consider the placement of the “Ten Commandments” marker symbolizing the importance of our spiritual heritage on our courthouse lawn.
I site the reasons for doing this as follows:
1. The identification of our community as “Saints’ Roost”. Our faith is an important part of our identification, it is our heritage. The marker will affirm that identification and retell it to future generations. We are not known as “Buddha’s Roost”, or “Allah’s Roost” or even as “Athesists’ Roost”, but as “Saints’ Roost”.
2. That identification should not be placed on the side of the road but next to the heart of our community, our courthouse. Either we are proud of that heritage or not. Placing it in some remote out of the way spot would convey the exact opposite meaning of the importance of our heritage. If it is not important to this generation, it certainly will be less so for the next one.
3. The Bible, the basis of our heritage and faith, tells of what happened to a generation of God’s followers who neglected the importance of reminding their sons and daughters of their heritage. In the book of Joshua you have the recording of the great things that generation was able to do because of their faith. Then in the book of Judges, chapter 2 and following, you have the recording of their one great failure; they did not pass the importance of that heritage on to the next generation. Our heritage will only last as long as we retell it. Our heritage is only as important as we make it.
4. 30 or so years ago the generation before mine would have done this without any hesitation. Some say we now live in different times. I ask, “why are these different times?” They are different because we have allowed our heritage to slip away or be removed from remembrance. We no longer stress the importance of our spiritual heritage to our children and, indeed, they have become different times. The challenge to this generation is; are we going to stand up and reaffirm our heritage or sit down in silence and have the testimonial of our heritance relegated to some out of the way place, if at all?
5. Some say if we do this then we risk opening up the courthouse lawn to other markers from other religions, this is just not so. No other religion can attest to the historical fact that the Ten Commandments and Christianity played in our heritage. You only need to look at what is happening to Europe which abandoned their spiritual heritage only to become a ripe breeding ground for another one. The simple laws of nature teach us that nature abhors a vacuum. So does our spirituality. It will be filled with something. Something that was not a part of our heritage.
6. Finally other counties have done this. Even our state capital has a marker that states this heritage, and it has stood against those who would try to deny this fact. Certainly, our community that has claimed and still claims it is “Saint’s Roost” will have legal standing to a marker that attests to this. We are known as “Saint’s Roost”!
If you feel the same as I do about this I hope you will contact your county commissioner and respectfully tell them your opinion on the heritage marker.
To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to remain forever a child.
– Cicero
Will Thompson
The fact that Clarendon is a religious community with a religious heritage cannot be denied and is not being disputed. It is also not in danger. Christianity is doing very well here and has for more than a century. The issue before commissioners is not about whether we are losing our heritage (which we most certainly are not in Donley County). It is rather about what is appropriate on the Courthouse Square, the seat of our county government. A marker to our heritage, including Christianity as a foundation of this county, already exists on the square. After spending $4.2 million in state and local funds to restore our Courthouse, and even more money to beautify and improve the Courthouse lawn, Commissioners have previously rejected one new memorial, removed another, and set a policy prohibiting new memorials. That is a good policy, and it should be maintained.
If commissioners approve this marker, there could be no end to the requests that will follow. It is possible that as time marches forward the composition of our community could change, and the courthouse must serve all the people of Donley County, including those who are not evangelical Christians. But set all that aside for a moment, and let’s consider what the present day might bring. We have, at my last count, 24 churches in Donley County (that number could be up or down one or two, depending on the day). This includes the Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but does not include the people of faith in our community – Jews and Later Day Saints and possibly others – who don’t have a local house of worship.
My point is that our religious community does not always agree with each other; and so it is not outside the realm of possibility that while some might support the Ten Commandments being on the Courthouse Square, others might want to honor our heritage in other ways. Besides, the Law of Moses has been followed by a New Covenant, and most religious people in this community live more by the teachings of Jesus than the strict laws of the Old Testament. There is now an individual putting up large crosses around town made of PVC pipe, and yesterday I learned that he has approached the city about putting one at City Hall. One could easily argue that the cross is a more accurate symbol of our local heritage, so perhaps this fellow should be allowed to put up a cross. But perhaps that’s not good enough for some folks. Methodists founded Clarendon, and there is no disputing that fact, so let’s have a Methodist cross and flame put on the square. Catholics built the railroad and have a rich heritage here, so let’s put up a crucifix or some memorial of their choosing. Is there room on the public square for all the symbols of our diverse faith? One might argue that the Ten Commandments would represent most people’s beliefs… but the same could be said for the marker that is already on the square.
It also has to be said that there are people of faith in this town who do not want the Ten Commandments marker on the square because they feel it just isn’t appropriate. To them, the commandments belong in the church house not the courthouse. But I suspect most of these folks do not speak up because they don’t want their faith questioned or be dragged into a religious debate. Commissioners need to consider, however, that these people are here and that it is their courthouse, too.
Furthermore, just because something is an important part of our heritage does not mean it needs to be recognized on the Courthouse Square. Our newspaper is older than any local church – even the Methodist Church. It was responsible for bringing the some of the earliest settlers to our community. There might be a ranch or two that has been in operation longer, but otherwise there is no business older than the newspaper. Can we have a marker? What about the JA Ranch? It’s older than the newspaper; and the cattle business was a key part of this county’s establishment? Oh, but wait, ranches in general are already recognized on the square and a memorial to JA Ranch owner Cornelia Adair has been removed.
Donley County can save itself a lot of headaches by simply maintaining its current policy of “no new memorials.” The backers of the Ten Commandments marker are well intentioned, but, again, this proposed marker is unnecessary and inappropriate. The money that would be raised for this project would do so much more good and bring more people to Christ by being put into any of several local ministries – Christ’s Kids or the Donley County Crisis Pregnancy Center come to mind. I therefore urge the commissioners to respectfully and politely deny this request.