Senate committee holds public hearing on bill to require display of the 10 Commandments in public schools

Senator Kelly introduced SB 166 and described the bill as requiring each local board of education to display the 10 Commandments in a common area in schools under its jurisdiction. Kelly said the bill would not require school boards to use public funds for the displays and directed the state Department of Education to publicize free resources for compliance.

Senator Kelly framed the measure as recognizing the historical influence of the 10 Commandments on Western legal traditions and American culture. “What this bill does, it would require each local board, to display the 10 commandments in a common area, in a school under its jurisdiction,” he said.

The committee heard four opponents and four proponents in a public hearing. Opponents — including Reverend Lynn Hopkins, Rabbi Steven Silberman, Reverend Eric Clark and Reverend Julie Conradi — said placing the commandments in public schools raises constitutional and pluralism concerns, could privilege one religious tradition over others and was a matter for faith communities rather than public schools. Reverend Hopkins said it is “patently false” to claim the posting is not specific to any religion. Rabbi Silberman told the committee that “placement of displays in our schools is an intrusion to the minds and the hearts of our students.” Reverend Conradi presented a clergy letter signed by 36 members of multiple faith traditions opposing the bill.

Proponents — including Jim Love, John Wall (chairman of the Alabama Republican Party who spoke in support), Becky Garretson of Eagle Forum and John Idzmo (pastor and constitutional law professor) — argued the commandments reflect historical legal principles and moral values. Garretson cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (referred to in testimony as the Kennedy decision) and said that it permits returning the commandments to public display without violating constitutional limits. John Idzmo said, “just putting a plaque on the wall is not compelling belief.”

The chair announced the committee would not vote at the hearing and that the bill would be carried over for further consideration; the committee adjourned at the end of the hearing.

Public hearing outcome: SB 166 received testimony from multiple opponents and proponents; no committee vote was taken. The committee chair said the item will be called up again at a later date.