Posted on 03/22/2005 8:04:09 AM PST by Crackingham
The Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month in a potentially explosive set of cases that will determine whether the Ten Commandments can be displayed in or around government buildings. At issue is whether the displays constitute a government endorsement of religion or simply a recognition of the role that the Ten Commandments have played in American legal history. Proponents of the public display of this code claim that it's the basis of the American legal order, and its placement in or near courts is a legitimate recognition of religion's role in the formation of law. Yet the founding legal document of the nation, the Constitution, mentions neither the Commandments nor God. It clearly stipulates that the nation's legal framework expresses the will of "We the People." When, in the First Amendment, the Constitution mentions religion, it is only to limit government's control over religion - forbidding the establishment of religion or the regulation of its exercise.
Those who advocate such public displays nonetheless maintain that the deeply religious attitude of the Founders can be observed in other places. They rightfully point out that the Declaration of Independence makes a number of references to God. But the declaration doesn't maintain that God has handed Americans their laws. It states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and that this is "self-evident." That is, the declaration holds that we know by natural reason that we have rights; it is not necessary to receive a historical revelation to know that God has endowed all people with them. Human beings may derive their rights from God, but humans are charged with the task of establishing governments, and this process grounds the legal legitimacy of those rights.
It's clear that the founding documents of our government support an understanding of legislation and political legitimacy quite different from that supposed by the Ten Commandments and Bible. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution endorse a political order based on human freedom such that we can govern ourselves. The Commandments, however, are divinely ordained mandates. Rather than being the foundation of our democratic political order, they represent a very different - possibly incompatible - way of thinking about authority and law. So it's far from clear that the Commandments are, as Kentucky has claimed, "the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."
Supporters of the displays simply assert the claim "that the Ten Commandments influenced American law and government can hardly be questioned" (from petitioners' brief, McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU of Kentucky). But such declarations do not constitute evidence.
For the most part, supporters don't regard the weakness of their position as a problem. Their strategy is to downplay the explicitly religious message of the Commandments. The displays, they argue, represent the government's "acknowledgment" of the Commandments' role in the development of our legal system, and as such aren't an endorsement of their particular religious principles or commitments. These displays therefore have a clear secular purpose that falls within the accepted interpretation of the First Amendment.
However, to argue that a public display of the Ten Commandments can serve a merely secular purpose is to undercut their sanctity. It is to ignore the very reason people regard them as sacred and want them displayed - and read and lived by. The Ten Commandments are not exhibited simply to provide a history lesson to those who have business with the court.
Justice Antonin Scalia recognized this during oral arguments when he chastised the lawyer defending the displays: "It's not a secular message.... If you're watering it down to say that the only reason it's OK is it sends nothing but a secular message, I can't agree with you. I think the message it sends is that law is, and our institutions come, from God." He didn't stop there. The Ten Commandments, he claimed, are "a symbol of the fact that government ... derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds."
If Justice Scalia really maintains these views, then the Commandments ought to be displayed on account of their immanent religious message, not as history, because they make a claim regarding how government derives its very authority. Scalia has also held - in a statement at the University of Chicago - that government's moral authority ultimately rests on God (and, by implication, not on the people), citing Romans 13 as his proof text. If that is the case, however, Scalia might want to amend the Preamble to the Constitution to reflect this, because the purpose and structure of a divinely ordained government would be much different from our political tradition.
BTTT
Aren't the 10 Commandments engraved on the doors leading into the Supreme court bldg in Washington?
If the Supreme Court rules against the Ten Commandments its going to cost the taxpayers a ton of money to have them removed from the front of the Supreme Court building.
Translation: "Don't believe what you read... I will tell you what it means... Look at the monkey!"
Wouldn't the government be better off (by being limited, in the reach of all its branches) in following just one truncated commandment: "Thou shalt not"?
double standard on the part of God haters? nothing new under the sun.
Ping to self.
"...going to cost the taxpayers a ton of money to have them removed"
I'm sure somebody would want to give them a good home. You can start an adopt a tablet program. Group together, pay for the removal and buy a prominent piece of property downtown somewhere and set them up with huge spotlights.
As for the laws of the country, I firmly believe that if the law has merit for society as a whole, you should not have to rely on "because God said so", you should be able to argue your case based on facts and logic.
Most of the Ten Commandments are "self evident" so to speak and easily arguable in terms of respecting the rights of another, never having to refer to where YOUR conviction originated.
Others are not so easy to argue, for example coveting your neighbors wife. Is it good, no. Is it worthy of prosecution? I don't believe so. If you don't actually take any action other than to covet, then no, and even if you have a fling (Thou shalt not commit adultery) , that is an issue between two losers and one rightfully angry person, not a criminal offense in my opinion.
Some are a direct infringement our rights (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) That is pretty much the antithesis of freedom of religion
The laws of the U.S. were based on many many things from Hammurabi on up the time line. We chose some and threw out others.
There are only 10 commandants, and last time I looked, there were a few more U.S. laws than that. Thats a pretty small base for a pretty big building.
Also, the Ten Commandments are foundational to our legal structure, not the origin or destiny. You correctly point out that we have more laws than just these 10... see previous point.
"Your whole argument boils down to this one statement: ... in my opinion."
Opinions are all we have my friend.
And no, my whole argument boils down to official government approval of a single family of religious belief is wrong.
Our high schooler was there last week on a class trip. Only the Roman numerals I through X appear on the two tablets.
The guide claimed these numerals represent not the Ten Commandments but rather the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights.
(And here I didn't even know the Bill of Rights was carved onto stone tablets. /sarc)
"Those who believe in the origins of the law don't rely on their own fallible opinion."
The "Infallible." source you refer to so often results in disagreements on the details of implementation as to have resulted in one major split, one major schism and hundreds of variations some of which have even added more books in the last 200 years.
So, even if you consider it infallible, people are not, and it is people that implement the law. Therefore for a government to sanction a law and suggest that it is from an infallible source which therefore precludes questioning it's validity and then to implement it with inevitable human failings is dangerous and more appropriate to dictatorial regimes than a democratic republic.
" Also, the Ten Commandments are foundational to our legal structure, not the origin or destiny"
One more thing...
I'm not sure what you are saying, could you please rephrase?
"...forbidding the establishment of religion ..."
Doesn't the 2nd Amendment state that no law shall be made "respecting AN establishment of religion", not THE establishment of religion. I interpret this as meaning any organized institution of religion, not merely a set of beliefs that might define a religion.
PC aint it great? Lying to the school kids.
I am not suggesting the government take a religious belief or advocate a religious position. I am suggesting that our founding documents (of which the Declaration of Independence is one) recognize God's natural law as foundational to our legal structure. What you find in the Bill of Rights aren't a list of rights we are allowed by the government but strictly imposed limits on the government from infringing on our God-given rights. Read the Declaration and the Federalist Papers and you will see that was the intent.
God is the grantor of rights; government is the taker. (Hey! New tagline!) That is the legal reasoning behind the Constitution.
" God is the grantor of rights; government is the taker. (Hey! New tagline!) That is the legal reasoning behind the Constitution."
Gotcha.. It is catchy, some times the best stuff just falls out accidentally.
"What you find in the Bill of Rights aren't a list of rights we are allowed by the government but strictly imposed limits on the government from infringing on our God-given rights. Read the Declaration and the Federalist Papers and you will see that was the intent."
Exactly, and I have read them. But the Declaration and the Federalist Papers are not the Constitution nor are they binding law. The Federalist Papers I would give the most weight since they were a direct argument for the Constitution by some pretty key players.
However, when actually penning the Constitution they chose other language to express their convictions. I don't think this was an accident. I find it hard to imagine them sending it off to the printer and slapping their head saying "OH NO, we forgot God".
Many of them were Christians, nobody says they weren't (well maybe some do, but I'm not). Others are better described as Deist or Agnostic (which is where I put myself).
Ages change, people don't (do a search on google for graffiti in ancient Rome it's funny), their arguments probably sounded very much like ours today with people on different sides wanting different things included. The Constitution was the result. It is a compromise that provides for a form of government the goal of which is to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
Religion is simultaneously both an incredibly cohesive element in society and a powerfully corrosive one. You cannot endorse a religion (any religion) without alienating a segment of "the people" and essentially relegating them to "also ran" status at best.
For the sake of "justice" and "domestic tranquility" the government was formed to secure the "blessings" of liberty, not the blessings of anyones god.
You express our point of view very well but I do take exception to your closing statement. You are wrong in this as shown by the writings of our founders (yes, including the Declaration). They viewed liberty as a blessing of God and said so very clearly in their writings (and President Bush has expressed this foundational view in many of his pronouncements on our encouragement of liberty abroad).
However, they also recognized that there is no true liberty if there is no freedom of conscience. That is why the 10 Commandments are a part of our legal heritage--they express a code of conduct for civilized order. We didn't include matters of faith because to do so is to deny true liberty.
The Constitution isn't about us, it's about the government. It is an enumeration of powers as delegated by the people to its government. The only mention of religion is the denial of governmental prerogative to anything of a religious nature... that prerogative resides with the people and the states respectively.
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.