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.
Hmmm..... I think we are on the same page right up to the conclusion.
"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 I am not questioning that. Many were religious people and had convictions based on religious principles, no argument there.
The Declaration while of great importance was a document of separation. It was not written to form our new government.
The Federalist Papers were personal reasons for for why New York should agree to the Constitution and no doubt held the opinions and beliefs of those that wrote them.
"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."
And here is where we begin to drift apart. They do express a code of conduct for civilized order, and for some people(including some, maybe most of the founding fathers), they are the source. The Ten Commandments are not the source for everyone although most people can agree on the principles.
"We didn't include matters of faith because to do so is to deny true liberty."
I think you are arguing for my point now :) The Founding Fathers chose to write a secular document although many of the principles for them personally may have and in some case were without a doubt based on religious principles. They still put that aside when it came time to actually define the government. They had the presence of mind and conviction of faith to trust the principles laid out would stand on their own merit without a mentioning what their personal opinions as to the source were, which in some cases was not the God of Abraham.
"The Constitution isn't about us, it's about the government"
Exactly, and although I'm not religious myself I'll be the first in line to back up your right to to believe and practice as you wish (assuming you practices don't injure another). The fact is the judiciary is one of the three branches of government and courthouse lawns are government property and therefore posting religious documents on courthouse lawns is an endorsement of one religion over all others. If the Judge wants to wear a cross or a star of David great, I have no problem with that, thats his body. The courthouse is not private property.
The Founding Fathers put their beliefs in a nonreligious language to create a government for all Americans of all faiths. That has served us well and I am loath to change it.
Here is the crux of the argument. This is where the secularization begins--by inventing language and personal understanding into the Constitution. Believe it or not, our government wasn't designed to be religion-neutral. Many of the founders argued that the system they put in place required a moral and religious people for it to work... our system is ripe for abuse when objective moral standards (as provided by an unchanging Creator) are cast aside. Their fears are easily shown to be true when you look at the last 60 years.
At our founding, our government very clearly endorsed one religion over any other--Christianity. We had Christian observances, Christian prayers, Christian chaplains, et al as part of our governmental structure. The Constitution deals with establishment of religion. There is no establishment of religion when men of faith occupy positions of authority and continue to be men of faith. Too much today we are told that public servants are to put their religious convictions aside in public policy. Rubbish. If they are people of character, their religion is engrained in that character and should provide a solid foundation for their governance.
Whether or not governmental property should be adorned with religious icons I can't say. I can say that they have been since before the Constitution and have only recently come under fire. Take a walk around Washington, DC and see the monumental (pun intended) task it would take to eradicate religious artistry from our capital city... and then look at other cities across the country. No one can argue that religious artistry isn't part of our unique American heritage.
No. We weren't founded with a religiously neutral government. We are simply witnessing what happens when humanists establish their faith as the law of the land... and it isn't compatible with the heritage we were given.
"our government wasn't designed to be religion-neutral"
Well obviously we disagree on this point or we would not be here.
"Many of the founders argued that the system they put in place required a moral and religious people for it to work."
Note, that is "many", not all.
"Their fears are easily shown to be true when you look at the last 60 years."
Every generation has had it's chicken littles (not trying to be insulting just make a point) that have cried about the moral decay of their times. The reality is the last 60 years has been no worse than the previous 60 (segregation for example) and both are much better that the 200 years before that (slavery, lynch mobs, legal and common abuse of heroin and cocaine, etc). It is easy to look back of "the good old days" with nostalgia and forget all the bad parts.
"our government very clearly endorsed one religion over any other"
Examples of legal documents pertaining to the founding of our country, not opinion pieces such as the Federalist Papers.
"There is no establishment of religion when men of faith occupy positions of authority and continue to be men of faith. Too much today we are told that public servants are to put their religious convictions aside in public policy."
I have no problem with men of faith in positions of authority, I know some others do but I am not trying to argue their point, they can do that for themselves. It is not possible nor desirable to put convictions (religious or otherwise) aside. In the case of the judiciary, however, it IS necessary to, on occasion to be able to rule against your personal convictions if they are not supported by the law, judges are bound by the law regardless of their convictions.
"Take a walk around Washington, DC and see the monumental (pun intended) task it would take to eradicate religious artistry from our capital city... and then look at other cities across the country."
I know many exist but I'm not familiar with the exact time line, so I have an honest question. What monument(s) with religious artistry were constructed in the same time period (say within 20 years) with the signing of the Constitution?
In the case of the judiciary, however, it IS necessary to, on occasion to be able to rule against your personal convictions if they are not supported by the law, judges are bound by the law regardless of their convictions.
Here we are again at the crux of the problem. I agree with you that judges are supposed to set aside their personal feelings when ruling. However, you can easily see where this isn't happening at all levels of the judiciary. If judges simply applied the law as written, we wouldn't be in much of the situation we find ourselves. Instead, they find rights not expressed and look to foreign norms and treaties not ratified to support their opinions. Obviously, you can find examples on both sides of the political spectrum but you will note I'm not advocating an activist judiciary for conservative values either. No rational American wants Christianity reinjected forcefully back into our culture. We simply want the force to stop from those who oppose our heritage.
I'll give you a perfect example of the above... the recent ruling on juvenile execution. The majority opinion based much of their ruling on foreign norms and a noted "trend" in states' laws. On the contrary, they rule for abortion rights even though we are one of only six countries who legalize it and for gay marriage even though the recent election showed a conclusive "trend" against the practice. Obviously, they are only in favor of foreign norms and local trends that support their point of view.
The Constitution is a living document--it contains the means for amendment. It is anathema to our method of government to have one branch override the deliberative and representative bodies as the cultural trump card. Contrary to popular modern understanding, the judiciary isn't the ultimate authority in this land. If it is, we waste an awful lot of money on useless elections. No, WE are the power in this country and we act through our elected representatives. If there is conflict in law, the court can point it out--it has no authority to resolve the conflict in favor of its own point of view.
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.