Charging that religious inscriptions on the walls of the Cambridge Public Library breach separation of church and state doctrine, an Arlington resident has said he will sue the city of Cambridge unless the writings are removed immediately.

The tablets--which cover an entire wall of the library's old reading room--contain the Ten Commandments, several proverbs and quotes by St. Paul the Apostle.

The inscriptions are permanently carved into one wall of the library, which was built and donated to the city by Frederick Hastings Rindge in 1889. According to the building's deed. Rindge's gift was made with the stipulation that the tablets be "maintained forever in the same position or ...some equally public and conspicuous position."

Eric T. Chester, 51, charged in an interview with The Crimson that the writings violate the First Amendment and the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

In particular, Chester cited one of the plaques which says the library was "built in gratitude to God, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost."

"It venerates God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost," Chester said. "That definitely proselytizes a certain religious viewpoint. It has no business being on the walls of a public building."

Chester also said that another tablet, which reads "Wise are they who protect the purity of their blood and preserve their strength by living ,pure lives," is "racist, anti-Semitic andhomophobic."

"Rindge put this up before the Holocaust,"Chester says. "We now understand the true meaningof these type messages."

City officials, however said Chester ismisinterpreting the writings and that they wouldoppose his efforts of remove them.

According to City Councillor Sheila T. Russellthe inscriptions are lyric messages about actingethically and revering one's family.

"You can interpret that any way you want,"Russell said. "This is getting crazy. We shouldn'tremove it".

Historical Background

Acting under the advice of City Manager RobertW. Healy and Deputy City Solicitor DonaldDrisdell library official have posted a disclaimernext to the exhibit which explains its historicalcontext and meaning, said Donald A. York, alibrary employee.

The note explains that the sayings were left byRindge and must be maintained permanently in orderto satisfy the deed's language. The letter alsosays that the city is not endorsing any religiousbeliefs or attempting to impose any particularviews upon library patrons.

"The city continues to preserve the tablets intheir original form in recognition of theirhistorical importance and in recognition of thehistorical commitment of the city to the donor,"the message reads.

City Councillor Anthony D. Galluccio said hethinks the message should settle any legalquestions-- and that it will also enrich thedisplay.

"The background is very interesting," Gallucciosaid. "I think an historical explanation willserve an educational purpose an also deal with theissue being presented."

Complicating matters is the fact that thelibrary is listed on the National Register ofHistoric Buildings. In 1985, the MassachusettsHistorical Commission (MHC) donated money to helprefurbish the building's interior.

Because of the building's historic status,changes that will seriously impair itsarchitecture or historical contents cannot be madeunless the city holds public hearings and obtainsthe permission of the MHC--a process which couldtake several years, York said.

Cambridge historians have indicated that theywill fight Chester's crusade, saying that theinscriptions are protected by their historicalsignificance.

Charles M. Sullivan, executive director of theCambridge Historical Commission, said yesterdaythat the plaques "are the most significantremaining interior feature of the librarybuilding."

"Removing them would be a destructive act allout of proportion to the offense they may cause tosome individuals," he wrote in a letter to Healydated March 24, 1995.

Chester says he received a letter yesterdayfrom Susan Flannery, director of the CambridgePublic Library, stating that the explanatorymessage would be affixed to the wall permanentlybut no further action would be taken because ofrespect for the history of the plaques.

Chester, however, said he was not satisfiedwith the response of the disclaimer.

Constitutional Questions

"The Constitution is to be taken seriously,"Chester said. "You cannot disclaim it.

Constitutional precedence also outweighs anyhistorical considerations, Chester said.

"An historical deed cannot supersede theConstitution. When there's a dispute, the Bill ofRights wins," Chester said. "Essentially, they'resaying the Constitution can be bought and soldwith Rindge's money."

Chester, a self-proclaimed atheist, said he hascontacted attorneys from the Civil Liberties Unionof Massachusetts and is "exploring my legaloptions."

Attorneys from the Massachusetts group refusedto comment yesterday, saying they do not haveenough information about the case.

But Courtenay Morris, media relations agent atthe national headquarters for the American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU), said the case may helpresolve unclear legal questions.

"This sounds like an interesting case," Morrissaid.

The ACLU issued a press release which stated:"We believe that the place for religiousdisplays...is in the private sector."

Harvey A. Silverglate, a Boston attorney whohas litigated several First Amendment cases, saidhe sees no problem with the display.

"This is a completely frivolous claim,"Silverglate said." Unless it's there forinstructional or celebratory purposes, it'sconsidered a cultural artifact or a piece of art."

Silverglate said that Stone v. Graham--a U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruledthat the Ten Commandments could not be displayedin a public school--is not relevant in thisinstance because the exhibit was not the creationof city officials.

"[This exhibit] was not installed by thegovernment," he said. "It was by a private donor."

A Multicultural City

Chester said the Christianity is no longer adominant religion in Cambridge and that officialsshould be sensitive to the diverse views ofCambridge residents.

"This says to people who are not Christian,`you are second-class citizens" said Chester, wholast December had a Nativity scene removed from aholiday exhibit at Arlington Center's town green.

Galluccio, however said that the city must beconsiderate of all religions, includingChristianity.

"You need to be inclusive not only of theminority but also of the mainstream points ofview," he said.

York, a 30-year library employee, said thatwhile many people have visited the library, hecould not recall another complaint about theexhibit during his tenure.

"People sometimes ask questions, but they seemmore intrigued than oppressed or offended," hesaid.

"It's a splendid example of ethical literaturein a building," said John J. McCafferty '46, alongtime Cambridge resident. "It bothers me thatsomeone's bothered by it."

Noting that no Cambridge residents havecomplained, Galluccio said that he felt Chesterwas more interested in hurting Cambridge's senseof community rather than protecting his ownreligious free dom.

"There is no internal dissent," Galluccio said."This is an outsider creating a rift."

Russell said she would not even considerChester's protests because he is not a cityresident.

"Mr. Chester should go back to Arlington andfind something to dig up there," Russell said.

Chester criticized Russell's attitude as"dangerous and sad" and said he would not abandonhis crusade.

"It makes no difference that the Cambridge CityCouncil wants to keep the exhibit," Chester said"By that logic, there would still be segregationin the South.