[First Amendment]

Many people apparently think a government is illegitimate if it does not explicitly endorse some weakest-common-denominator Christianity.

Since the 10 Commandments are accepted by every variety of Christian as well as Jews, how is this a sectarian thing? Even if Moore is a believer in some specific brand, the 10 Commandments monument is not a member of any particular church.

[E Rocc]

Since the 10 Commandments are accepted by every variety of Christian as well as Jews, how is this a sectarian thing?

Is this supposed to be irony?? Obviously there are "sects" who are not Christian or Jewish, and do not follow the Commandments. Buddhists and Hindus, for example, use a lot of what could be called "graven images".

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785

-Eric

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Since the 10 Commandments are accepted by every variety of Christian as well as Jews, how is this a sectarian thing? Even if Moore is a believer in some specific brand, the 10 Commandments monument is not a member of any particular church."


This argument frequently comes up but I don't think it's well-grounded.

Consider first that on your reading a government declaring that we must attend services of either sect A or sect B of Christianity would be constitutionally valid, because it doesn't promote a particular church.

Consider second the actual text of the first amendment. In paricular, compare and contrast:

(1) "establishment of a religion"

(2) "establishment of religion"

Even if you were right (and remember, for the reason above I think it would involve an extremely uncharitable interpretation of the text), on your view one would expect the text to include phrase (1). But it doesn't include that phrase. It includes phrase (2).