Posted on 11/23/2003 3:33:43 PM PST by Kerberos
The Decalogue And The Demagogue Lessons From Alabama
Now that the media circus created by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and his Ten Commandments display has died down, it’s a good time to step back and debunk some oft-repeated Religious Right assertions about this case:
• Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments was a courageous act.
It wasn’t. It was the act of an aspiring theocrat and religious zealot. This country does not have religious courts or anything like them. When you come before a judge, your age, sex, race and religion should be irrelevant. What you believe – or don’t believe – about God should be of absolutely no relevance to the state.
Moore’s display made religion not just relevant but paramount. It sent a message that the Alabama Supreme Court operates from a religious perspective. The state’s highest court had a favorite religious code, carved on a two-ton rock in the rotunda. Courts like that might exist in Iran; they ought to be alien to the United States.
• Moore just wanted to “acknowledge God.”
Moore is free to pray and read the Bible on his own in his private office whenever he feels the need. But he does not have the right to endorse any religious code in his official capacity or imply that Alabama courts have even a quasi-official religion.
Moore told a Promise Keepers rally in Atlanta recently that church-state separation is “a fable.” That’s a strong clue revealing what this crusade was really all about: furthering Religious Right attacks on that important constitutional principle and paving the way for fundamentalist government in the United States. Moore’s goal was to advance the Religious Right’s repressive agenda, not acknowledge God.
• The Ten Commandments are the foundation of U.S. law.
Wrong. The Ten Commandments are an important moral code to millions of believers, but they are not the foundation of American law. U.S. law does not require citizens to worship only one god, and it does not ban the production of graven images. We do not require citizens to keep the Sabbath holy, force people to honor their parents or punish coveting. We don’t even punish lying, unless it’s in a court proceeding or in some other venue where criminal conduct is involved. (Two of the Commandments ban killing and theft. These prohibitions have been adopted by societies of many religious hues throughout history as common-sense rules for peaceful living.)
Most of the Commandments deal with humankind’s relationship to God. The state has no business regulating this relationship. Who would want to live in a country that mandated worship of God in certain ways? Who would want to live in a nation where people were fined or imprisoned for not going to services on the Sabbath (which day is it anyway?) or for saying something a cleric deemed blasphemous? Moore’s actions not only violate church-state separation, they mislead Americans about the ultimate source of our law. That source is the Constitution – not the Bible or any other religious book.
• The Ten Commandments are displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
No display anything like the one in Alabama appears in the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court’s main chamber contains a frieze that depicts great lawgivers throughout history. Moses is part of this frieze. He is depicted holding two tablets, one of which contains some Hebrew letters. The frieze also depicts Hammurabi, Solomon, Confucius, Mohammad, Augustus, Charlemagne, Napoleon and others. The point of this display is educational and artistic, not an endorsement of one religious tradition.
A second high court frieze includes a single tablet with the Roman numerals one through 10 on it. Some Religious Right activists have assumed that this is intended to represent the Ten Commandments. In fact, Adolph Weinman, the sculptor who designed the frieze, stated publicly that the tablet symbolizes the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution – our Bill of Rights.
• • •
The Montgomery showdown was telling – and disturbing – for many reasons. It exposed, for example, just how extreme some leaders of the Religious Right are these days. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was not alone in backing Moore’s defiance of the federal courts. Despite all of their “I love America” rhetoric, many in the Religious Right have nothing but contempt for America’s secular democratic government and our system of law.
The imbroglio also underscored that defenders of church-state separation have some work to do. One poll that came out during the showdown indicated that 77 percent of Americans support displaying the Ten Commandments in government buildings. This is a strong warning that our educational efforts have not been as persuasive as they need to be. We ignore that message at our own peril.
Courts are an important line of defense in the battle to maintain church-state separation. But we cannot rely on them to do all of the heavy lifting for us. If the American people do not truly value the wisdom of the founders and appreciate why they demanded that religion and government be separate, eventually Moore and his Religious Right allies will start to win. They could begin remaking this nation to their liking, discarding the legacy of religious freedom.
We all got a glimpse of what a Religious Right-dominated America would look like in Montgomery recently. Our challenge is to make sure it never comes to pass.
Since the religious right is about only the thing on the right these days... and since the entire republican party is mostly left of center.... I'll have go with 'em... not haveing a relgious bone in my body... anything left of center has treason at its heart.. being a radical as I am... a radical change from the status quo. is the only solution to what ails "us".
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you guys crack me up.
Hey, Eric: ever considered that the saddest thing about being an atheist, is that you have to lie like a liberal? That is, deny the evidence of your own eyes? Fingers crossed that dichotomy proves jarring enough to wake you from your silliness, one day. Cheers, By
Not that you can show me apparently.
And it looks like it's about to get personal. I'm not in the mood for a flame war.
Pure imagination on your part. A good excuse for not offering a response with substance. You're excused.
perhaps, when you state the following to your fellow leftward leaning friends:
"...Moore told a Promise Keepers rally in Atlanta recently that church-state separation is “a fable.” That’s a strong clue revealing what this crusade was really all about: furthering Religious Right attacks on that important constitutional principle..."
you might do well to clarify that such a statement is found in a Constitution, just not the United States Constitution.
It is found, however, in the Soviet Constitution of 1918... article 11 or 13, I believe, iirc.
You're just another leftie is all...
CGVet58
One would think that all of the Bill of Rights would apply to all States with or without the Fourteenth Amendment. If they didn't just what State would they prevail in? However, since 'Establishment' did not occur in the Moore case it is irrelevant unless you include the court that fired him for opening with a prayer. Who did they pray to?
That's pretty much considered a given by the courts these days.
Gee whiz that carries a lot of weight. It is pretty much considered, by the courts these days, that sucking a babies brains out while it is being delivered doesn't violate its right to life. The courts these days consider all types of abortion to be a private matter. The courts these days pretty much consider the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right ... of the State.
... there are also sculptures of Hammurabi and Mohammed in the Supreme Court...the theme is the history of written law, not religion.
There are many exceptions to that all around the country. Judge Moore's monument has a number of Founding Father's quotes on it so its theme is historical not religious ... by your criteria. That its theme might be solely religious is inconsequential. Its display does not constitute the making of any civil law nor does its display compel anyone to do or think anything they don't wish to do or think. There is no force of law behind it therefore nothing, religious or secular, has been established.
You might appreciate this screed on treason that I wrote a little while ago.
I REALLY hate to disagree with you, Ahban, but I must. It is not Christians I trust with the guardianship of my rights but God. A strange concept for a Buddhist to hold? So be it. With all due respect, the majority of citizens in this country, to this day, are Christians and we find ourselves where we are today, perhaps in spite of them, in big trouble.
The essence of my point was that our rights are said to issue from a source above and beyond man's will, a source named as "our Creator", and this is said in the black and white of our most primal document the DoI. It is that concept being bound in a civil code, which Judge Moore refers to as "organic law", that sets our civil law apart from all others. The existence of God is not an issue here as His existence is not provable to the non-believer and needs no proving for the believer. Individual belief is not an issue either for the believer should have no problem trusting that God is the author of rights. What problem is there for the non-believer? If he truly believes that God doesn't exist then those who do can't make it so by saying it is so. The non-believer's choice is this; accept that rights are inherent to life and that codifying them in civil law by naming "our Creator" as their source is the only rational way to secure them from men or accept men as rulers.
That is not to argue the point that Christianity wasn't the religion of almost all of our Founding Fathers. It was and those who have reverence for the truth will admit it. It is not to argue that the concepts of freedom and justice our Constitution was framed around weren't Christian concepts. They were. (It also doesn't ignore that other religions embody many of those concepts as well. But that is historically irrelevant since our Founders weren't of other religions.)
IMNHO it is vitally important for all Americans of all faiths and non-faiths to understand and embrace this. The alternative is to accept privileges granted by men because men can't grant rights and if we wipe the concept of a higher authority from our founding documents the only authority left in civil law is man's.
Been tried. Kills millions. Enslaves millions more.
It is truly amazing to hear of all the things Judge Moore's monument is capable of doing. Without a legislature convened or a word written a law is created. Without a word of law on the books to enforce and no one enforcing this unwritten law people are compelled to ... do something ... I'm not sure what. That's entirely in the realm of superstition. I thought these secular humanists were above all that. Where is the rational logic? Where is the clarity of thought? Where are the direct responses to even a few questions posed to them? They don't believe in the sanctity of life yet a few words from a Judge's mouth or a large piece of granite constitute a mojo so powerful it makes them tremble.
Looked into the eye of the tiger.. Read it and growled..
However unfortunately thats all that will happen Growling.. Any mass moves by americans united agaisnt the almost routine daily acts of treason will be huffed at by a big part of the republican party backed up by virtually ALL DEMOCRATS.. evidenced by the absolute non reference of Ann Coulters book Treason in any serious confrontational dialogs. Although totally backed up by fact..not to mention total inaction on the psuedo-secret democrat intelligence commitee memo.. Americans especially white americans have almost wholly become cowards in every genre except talk radio which is just a bitchfest. So your screed is in my opinion correct generally but 20 years too late.. American republicans have become domesticated and penned by the democrats.. evidence: check out current republican voteing records.. they were bell'ed like a cat after Newt Ginrich was caged and put on display as a rabid extremeist in the Georgia Zoo.. Pity about ol' Newt, him getting de-balled like that.. he growled real good... before the operation.
Ok, war time goofy. Your call.
Not that you can show me apparently.
What is apparent to you? Anything? A fairly dim bulb even for this type of thread.
You said the government was preventing someone from practicing religion. That is incorrect despite your imbecilic contention that a government group is preventing another government employee from practicing religion by keeping him from using the public money and building to push his own brand of religion. A right being violated which does not exist except in the minds of demented theocrats. It's so upside down it would fit perfectly in your bizzaro world.
Now, goofy, you are dismissed.
What a wonderfully obscure reach for a point. I had to do some digging in history and I found a few interesting things.
Evidently this point of the treaty refuting the basis of the US government on Christianity is an old one. Even Washington objected to its use by atheists, saying it was "a most flagrant misquotation for evil purposes."
The treaty was prepared in Arabic and the translation was made by the US Consul, Joel Barlow, a proponent of secularism. The passage in full is:
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."
Seemingly a reasonable item to assure a Muslim nation in making peace with a Christian enemy. However, this Article XI does not appear in the Arabic version of the treaty (the English and Arabic translations appeared side by side in the treaty). Of all the other translations made, Barlow's Article XI does not exist. The most authoritative, oddly enough, is a 1930 annotated version by Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje, from Holland. How Barlow's addition came to be is a mystery - even more a mystery is how the wrong treaty got ratified.
But even though ratified, the treaty has little bearing. During 1801 and 1802, the Bey of Tripoli attempted to forcefully 'renegotiate' and started a war with the US. US warships blockading Tripoli made the Bey reconsider. A new treaty was signed and the treaty of 1805 does not have a refutation of Christianity as the basis of government. The old treaty, with its mysterious Barlow article, was annulled by war and replaced by this new treaty. From a legal or Constitutional point, the old treaty was erased from law.
Ultimately, an out of context article in one version of a treaty - a treaty, not an Ammendment, not an excerpt of a Founding Father during the debate on the Constitution. Treaties are only legal documents to govern affairs between two nations.
Judge Moore is told he can't acknowledge God if he wants to keep his job. Ever hear of the Free Speech Clause of the 1st Amendment? Doubt it, you seem to be the ignoramus illiterati variety of bonehead.
Now you are truly excused. Buzz off dingbat! ; )
By now it's been stated a hundred times that the monument was funded privately. Sheesh!
That you can't or won't confront the issue directly. Obviously. I'm betting that in your case it's 'can't.'
But even though ratified, the treaty has little bearing. During 1801 and 1802, the Bey of Tripoli attempted to forcefully 'renegotiate' and started a war with the US. US warships blockading Tripoli made the Bey reconsider. A new treaty was signed and the treaty of 1805 does not have a refutation of Christianity as the basis of government. The old treaty, with its mysterious Barlow article, was annulled by war and replaced by this new treaty. From a legal or Constitutional point, the old treaty was erased from law.The Treaty was ratified by a Senate which contained a number of Founders and Framers, was negotiated by the administrations of Washington and Adams, and was proclaimed by Adams. Combined with the fact that God, Jesus, and the Bible are not mentioned in the Constitution (except for the date) and the contemporary comments of Jefferson and Madison regarding Separation, it is clear that the Constitutional goverment of this nation was completely secular.
-Eric
...Washington's religious views were a bit vague...I guess the happiest thing about being ultra-dogmatic is you never have to support your arguments.....LOL.HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, you guys crack me up.
Hey, Eric: ever considered that the saddest thing about being an atheist, is that you have to lie like a liberal?
"One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of his Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it: 'With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who in the course of conversation at table said that on the preceding Sunday he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal? arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning'"
(Annals of the American Pulpit, Rev. Wm. B. Sprague, D.D, Vol. v, p. 394).
The same Dr. Abercrombie told the Reverend Bird Wilson, a noted religious historian of the 19th century, "Sir, Washington was a Deist".
There's no question that Washington believed in God. However, his public words were those not of fundamentalist Christian, but of a Deist. Personally I suspect he wavered between lukewarm Christianity and a devout form of Deism, but one cannot, with historical accuracy, claim that he was a conventional Christian believer.
-Eric
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.