Replies

Is displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings wrong?
There is room for give and take on both sides of this argument. On either hand we find emotion-laden issues. I assert that both parties have inadequately articulated their viewpoint. Once we tease the elements of the issue apart, we can focus more clearly and fairly on the values which I believe both sides hold in common.

The view from the right wing goes something like this: Judge Moore has a right and a duty to acknowledge God. He does this via the display of the Ten Commandments in a public building. They maintain that not to do so is an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

The other side of the picket line counters with: The display violates the First Amendment and the separation clause. Judge Moore was ordered by a federal court to remove the display. To allow the display to remain is tantamount to imposing a religious viewpoint on an unwilling public.

Let’s see if we can winnow out the truths and the untruths on both sides of this religious war. First let’s talk to the conservatives.

Conservatives need to realize something: Your sincerely held religious beliefs are not relevant here. Wait! Bite your tongue a moment and listen. OK. So Christianity is the American religion. It is superior to Islam, Judaism, or any other ism. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall one day confess that Jesus is the Christ. Fine. That is a perfectly acceptable religious belief. But that belief alone is not a good reason to display the Ten Commandments in a public building.

Are there good arguments for the display of the Ten Commandments? Yes, there are. But don’t believe for a moment that it has anything to do with the truth, or your beliefs about the truth. To argue such is to feed the fears of those who say that you secretly desire to forcibly convert others to your church. Is that what you want?

No. There are many reasons why you do not want that. Primary among them is the fact that other religions are on exactly the same ground as you are when you defend that position. They too believe they have the truth. They too feel an inherent right to worship as they see fit. They are also guaranteed freedom of religion expression in our Constitution. That line of reasoning applies to their religion as well as yours.

So we conclude then that the contents of your belief system are not the basis for your rights of religious expression. That being the case, what is the basis for your argument?

Hold that thought while we talk to the liberals. Liberals are correct about something. To prefer one religion in a quasi-official capacity doesn’t seem to represent our American ideals. How does a nation fairly represent all the differing religious beliefs of its people in a governmental entity? That’s a tall order, and doesn’t seem to be practical. Even if it were practical to do so, what about the separation of church and state?

Liberals too need to realize something. Your sincerely held belief system is also no basis to deny government officials their rights to religious expression. Your fear that some holy power will engulf our government and enslave our citizens is simply that, a belief. An unfounded belief, when you look at American history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others of our founding fathers, were, by your standards, on the extreme lunatic right wing fringe, yet they were decisively on the side of freedom rather than on the side of enslavement of any sort, religious or otherwise.

Furthermore, your belief that government officials cannot express religious sentiments in an official capacity is without merit. It is not only without merit, it is a contradiction and a paradox. How can religious freedom be guaranteed to the individual while being denied in the collective? The short answer is that it cannot. Should it be denied at all? How can a democracy, or republic, be said to fairly govern every citizen, while favoring those with no religion at the cost of those who have one? And even if it could, wouldn’t that be imposing your religious views? Are the contents of your belief system better than the contents of other’s belief systems because your beliefs exclude God? (Mommy, that man over there with the cross made me believe something against my will! Take his cross away!)

So now we come to the crux of the argument. The left believes that the right is trying to impose God upon us, and are willing to excise God from our government to thwart them. This is hardly a neutral position. It is the promotion of an anti-God stance. It is banishing religion to places where it won’t get in the way of ‘right-thinking’ people. Is this a neutral stance?

The establishment clause was clearly intended to promote strict neutrality with respect to religion. It was not intended to prohibit individuals or collectives from pursuing their religious rights. Rather than uproot every religious symbol from public life, the liberals among us should be encouraging the exploration of religion. And this should occur not with an eye to establishing a particular religion as pre-eminent, but simply for the sake of furthering the American ideal.

We have heard for many years that liberals are in favor of tolerance. This is modern liberalism’s most touted virtue. Peculiarly, tolerance as practiced by the left does not extend to certain individuals and groups. Tolerance for religion in general is not practiced. There are exceptions made for those religions that seek to promote politically liberal causes, but a true tolerance for other’s beliefs does not figure much into the liberal equation.

Let’s get back to the right wing. What is the basis for a religious expression in America? Is it to focus on narrow religion represented by one belief system, no matter how widely practiced? On the contrary, it is to acknowledge the profound gift that America has brought into the world. It is to give expression to the wonderful diversity of beliefs, religious and secular, that are tolerated and respected rather than oppressed or marginalized. It is to encourage them to co-exist without domination, exploitation, or oppression of each other, or by the government. That is the basis for the conservative position that religion shall not take a back seat to secularism. Imposing secularism upon a religious nation is as abusive of religious freedom as favoring one religion to the exclusion of others.

Religion has always been part of humanity. It is fair to say that it always will. To prohibit a government from acknowledging that fundamental fact seems tyrannical. Indeed, it was the tyranny of such a government that began the whole conversation a few short centuries ago.