The Decalogue And The Demagogue

Americans United ^ | Oct 2003 | Americans United

[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.

[k2blader]

Please remove me from any ping list you may have compiled.

Thank you.

[Ophiucus]

There's also one of Mohammed.

Yet no controversy....wonder why.....

[MHGinTN]

Well and truly said. Bravo

[Ophiucus]

What they may not do is endorse or support specific religious viewpoints in their official status. That is not "free expression", but Establishment.

I must disagree. Madison, who proposed wording of the First Ammendment to the House and later concurred with the House commitee changes, said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." (from the Annals of the House Procedings, 15 Aug, 1789)

The same day that the House passed the First Ammendment, they passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, holding that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." How could they pass that one the very same day if they intended NO interaction between government and religion?

The next day, and this is so wonderfully timely, The House asked for Pres. Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Washington's Proclamation said, in part:

"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. "And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."

Adams, Madison, Monroe, Lincoln, among others, all issue Thanksgiving Proclamations in a similar vein.

Did Washington violate the First Ammendment? No - no mention of a National Religion for All....but lot's of official mentions and appeals to God.

[CalvaryJohn]

Just the article- I almost always click on the last post to reply. FRegards,
John

[Ahban]

Bravo yourself Tigerseye, on your #19. Perhaps it would help Eric if I gave an example. If there was a federal law that officials had to be of a certain faith, that would be a prohibited federal establishment of religion.

If there was a law that said they had to perform certain religious duties, that would be an establishment. If an official CHOOSES to do these things, that is an expression of religion. It is up to the voters to decide to what degree they want their federal officials preaching at them.

In the Context of the 1st Ammendment you can't have an establishment of religion without a law. Read it again. No religious activity is can be PROHIBITED or DEMANDED by Congress, or by out of control judges usurping the power of same.

[Kerberos]

"Side note: Somehow people like yourself protest the Ten Commandments but not the Koran or Torah."

Wrong, I don't care for that either. But if we are going to allow the Ten Commandments, then we have to allow others also. That is if we really are a nation of freedom of religion.

[E Rocc]

In the Context of the 1st Ammendment you can't have an establishment of religion without a law. Read it again. No religious activity is can be PROHIBITED or DEMANDED by Congress, or by out of control judges usurping the power of same.

Jefferson and Madison both used the word "separation" in reference to the Constitutionally defined relationship between religion and government. For over one hundred and fifty years, the Supreme Court has consistently supported their definition. Any preference by a government entity for one faith or group of faiths over others constitutes a prohibited Establishment.

For example, while Moore was Chief Justice, he could go to church all he wanted. He could post the Commandments in his home, on his lawn, or in his private office. All this was done as a private citizen.

I think we can all agree that he would be forbidden from lecturing a defendant about behaving in an "unchristian" manner, or urging them to pray, while sitting on the bench as a judge. Such would be Establishment.....a clear indication that the Law favors one set of religious beliefs over others. Our point has always been that for Moore to post the Commandments (indeed a specific version of them) in the courthouse and refer to them as the "Laws of God" was the same thing: an entity of the government endorsing one particular religious belief. Moore's comments during the debate only made it clearer that that was his intent.

It seems that some deeply religious people feel that recognition of a Supreme Being is not a religious belief in and of itself. It is. Conversely, a failure to mention God under any circumstances is not an implicit endorsement of atheism or even agnosticism.

-Eric

[Ophiucus]

But if we are going to allow the Ten Commandments, then we have to allow others also.

But that's a problem - currently, the Koran is allowed, the Ten Commandments are not allowed.

That is if we really are a nation of freedom of religion.

That is what we used to be. A country with freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Now, we are heading towards a nation of freedom from Christianity.

I can understand the overall reason. The Left has a concerted plan of attack to change us completely into a socialist, cradle to grave, state. That necessitates the removal of the old rights (speech, religion, bear arms, etc.) and removal of the core traditional values of a unique American culture. A Balkanized, hyphenated, secular, morally ambivalent, 'non-judgemental' and 'tolerant' (except when it comes to conservatives because they are evil and believe in those annoying freedoms) America will be easier to play the divide and conquer game.

[ArGee]

Name-calling in the title of the article makes me highly suspicious this will ever be worth my read.

Shalom.

[Kerberos]

Thank you for your excellent, not to mention sane and rational, post! I can only hope that someday I too might be able to be as expressive with my thoughts, via the written word, as you have demonstrated to be.

But at any rate lets go through it.

“What is best, and what history shows the founders wanted, is a government neither prevents nor demands, but does allow, its officials to acknowledge God Almighty.”

And this is a tough question, should our elected officials be allowed to make references to their religious believes? Where does their function as an elected official end and their personal life begin, or are the two one and the same? I too do not think that the founders intended all religions beliefs or perspectives be removed from public life, but at the same time they were keenly aware, from a world historical perspective, of the suffering and oppression that came with a commingling of church and state.

They also were very aware of the importance of a spirituality portion of ones life and believed it to be an important component to the success of a free country. That does not however mean that they intended this country to be exclusively a Christian nation as the Christian right myth purports. They intended this to be a country where people of all beliefs could pursue their spirituality without oppression and interference from others. And I also believe that the phrase “freedom of religion” also means freedom from religion, as the religious test for office of the Constitution would seem to support.

“We want the Constitution of the United States to be respected rather than twisted – twisted beyond all recognition.”

But weather or not it is being respected, or being twisted, is it not really a matter of subjective opinion? I just love the use of the phrases here of “judicial activism” and “following the rule of law” when describing a court ruling in a case. By using the term “judicial activism” it is demonstrated that the majority here does not agree with the decision, but when using the term “following the rule of law,” it is meant that most here do agree with the decision. When in both instances what is being done is that judges are interpreting the law, as they understand it to be, which is what they are in place to do. It is part of the checks and balances of government.


“This is really not that difficult. There is a difference between a public official acknowledging God and a public official imposing God’s worship on others. That is the middle ground of liberty, and on that ground we stand.

How is it in the middle ground? Is not Judge Moore’s placing the Decalogue in the Courthouse rotunda on others who may not share those same beliefs? And if we are going to allow judge Moore to such to achieve equal treatment under the law, or achieve the middle ground does that not mean the with have to also include writings from the Talmud, the Torah, the Koran, and the Sutras? Or do the people who follow those faiths not have the same rights as Christians when it comes to public places?

Again, thanks for your thought provoking post.

K

[garybob]

Ping

[wgeorge2001]

Bravo,Ophiucus. I know that the most dangerous and despicable threat to the American Constitution and bill of rights is the anti religious left and the many liars, thieves and fools who support and elect these communistic politicians to power. I despise the liberal left and pray daily that the good Lord Jesus Christ will bring their reign of terror and bloodshed to an early end.

[Kerberos]

"But that's a problem - currently, the Koran is allowed, the Ten Commandments are not allowed."

Oh come on, you're talking about one instance where a Koran was put on display at a police station. And the article failed to mention if that was the only religious symbol of if there were others. How many Decalogue’s do you think are on display in the schools and courthouse across the country?

[Ophiucus]

Thanks. It's amazing how much things have changed in the last 25 years.

[Ophiucus]

I'm talking about multiple instances. It even happened in a small town near where I live. A homeroom in the public school had representations of the Ten Commandments, the Torah, the Koran, and Hindu scrollwork of some kind. The ACLU sued and only the Ten Commandments was mentioned in the lawsuit.

How many Decalogue’s do you think are on display in the schools and courthouse across the country?

That's a good question worthy of some research. I would bet that there are more Decalogues on display than there are McDonald's restaurants.

[Kerberos]

"The ACLU sued and only the Ten Commandments was mentioned in the lawsuit."

Then if that is true, then that's a problem. The issue with religious displays does not single out any one group. Either we allow them all in, or there all out.

[Ahban]

Kerebos, well thanks for the civility of your reply. I am blushing over here.

If the government ever got off of that middle ground, and tried to impose a worship of a particular god, even mine, I would stand against it. There is no such thing as imposed Christianity. That is not where the threat is today. Today the threat is that legitimate free expression and exercise of religion is being suppressed by the federal government of the United States in a manner inconsistent with our Constitution and History.

I think we have a sharp worldview contrast here. A God who is not God of every area of life is no God at all. If God is to be excluded from all aspects of government (and now government touches so much that this would practically expell Him from public life) then He is no God at all. I can't separate my faith from my politics, or my business, or my marriage, or anything else. If there is a "kingdom" where God is irrelevent, then that undermines the very concept of "God".

Look, there are two incompatable worldviews here. It is not like a secular world view won't offended anybody but a religious worldview will. Somebody HAS to be offended. I am not compartmentalized in my thinking. I can't go to church on Sunday and worship a God that I then think is irrelevant, and should not even be mentioned in the rest of life.

There are millions more like me. Somebody has to be offended. Someone has to be excluded. Either the radical secularists have to be offended, or the whole-life Christians have to be. You seem to think (perhaps you will reconsider) that the answer is to make the rules in advance so that the Christains are the ones to be offended no matter how many hearts and minds they persuade. For example 77% of Americans disagreed with the removal of the monument in Alabama.

Some Christians, not a majority by any means, want to make the United States a Christain nation. Since Christianity is a relationship, I am not sure you can have a Christian nation. You can have a nation of Christians though. I suppose you can also have a nation that acknowledges Christ, even while supporting the right of all of its citizens to worship or not as they please.

Let's pretend for a moment that some group of Christians want to go beyond recognition, and use the government to DEMAND a public profession of "faith" from every govenment official. Don't you see that this is simply the opposite extreme (and just as immoral) as what we have now? Secularists now use the government to FORBID a public profession of faith from every government official. Either of these extremes amounts to a religous test for office. One is a test for a particular faith, the other a test against any faith, but both are religous tests.

It does no good to hop back to the idea that they can PRIVATELY express any faith they want. A faith that can only be expressed privately is no faith at all. The real faith in that case would be in the power that one yields to when they decline to acknowledge their God, not that God Himself. Ones god, by my understanding, is whatever or whoever comes first in your life.

You are using a religous test for office to automatically exclude all of those who believe their faith must rule over all areas of their lives. This is now being done regardless of the will of We The People, and all governments ultimately derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.

So here I am in the middle. Don't use a religous test to DEMAND or FORBID acknowledgement of God by any public offical. If you are just talking about officials expressing themselves, verses Congress passing laws, there is no violation of the 1st ammendment. Let the voters themselves decide how much they want to be preached to.

I realize this means that some people might have to listen to ideas with which they might happen to disagree. Too bad-that is the price of living in a free country where government can neither FORBID or DEMAND, but rather must ALLOW, free expression, even on religious matters. I wish I lived in such a country, for I was born in such a land. I remained in place, but that country was taken from me.

Officials of other faiths have the same rights as Christians regarding public expression, but that does not mean that a public official must acknowledge all Gods or none at all. That is just another way of making all God's irrelevant, which dienfranchises those who feel that one God is more relevant than others.

I would not expect a Jew or Hindu or Moslem elected to office to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Neither would I want a law saying they can't. Public officials of all faiths should have the right to advance their beliefs. I don't want to make the rules in advance so that only one side is allowed to win- which is what the secularists are imposing on America now. I want FREEDOM.

If we elect Christains, Jews, athiests, or whatever then that is up to WE THE PEOPLE. There is no institutional commitment to Christainity, except that which is written on the hearts of the voters.

[Ahban]

please see my #38 as regards faith that is only to be expressed on a "personnel level".

As regards to your Establisment point, it is hard to draw a line where "Expression" ends and "Establisment" begins. Every expression of faith by a government official, even attending a worship service, even in private conversation, to some extent establsihes that faith.

Where does one draw that line? Lucky for us, the founders did it for us. They explicity stated that the establishing of religion that was to be denied was this kind of establishing : Congress was not to make any LAWS establishing a particluar religion.

I admire the elegance and balance of that limitation. It allows all officials to exercise their faith on the job or off. It denies one particulary important group of officials- Congress, from making their exercised religion into law.

All the trash the courts have attempted to expand these words into is just that: trash. The words mean what they say and no more or less.

[Kerberos]

“Kerebos, well thanks for the civility of your reply”

No problem. In making these posts I am, in spite of popular opinion, looking for a good argument, someone to poke holes in mine. Unfortunately what I predominantly get is the same old tired mantras.

“I think we have a sharp worldview contrast here”

And I am not so sure we do, granted there is some points we disagree on, and that may be more on method as opposed to principle, and then I believe that there are some we agree on although maybe not precisely, but at least we may be in the same ballpark. And then again, maybe I am not being clear enough on my position, a distinct possibility J
“If the government ever got off of that middle ground, and tried to impose a worship of a particular god, even mine, I would stand against it.”

As I would hope that anyone who believes in freedom of the individual would. The problem is that I see many on this board that would think that is just oke dokey, that is of course if it is their particular god that is being mandated.

“Let the voters themselves decide how much they want to be preached to”

I think some of them are.

“A God who is not God of every area of life is no God at all. If God is to be excluded from all aspects of government (and now government touches so much that this would practically expel Him from public life) then He is no God at all. I can't separate my faith from my politics, or my business, or my marriage, or anything else.”

And you should not have to expel your beliefs from any portion of your life; to do so would be akin to not having a belief in the first place, and this is where we may differ on opinion.

I follow a religion, (and I am not going to disclose what my religion is as to prevent this thread from digressing from principles into personality, and that is not directed at you) that we do not have our text hung in the courthouse and we do not insist that our children do their practices at school, and I find that I have no problem following my beliefs at home at work or anywhere else.

So I have to wonder what is it that makes it such a strong mandate for Christians to have their symbols and practices all over the place? Are they afraid that if they do not their religion will go by the wayside? And if it were to do so does that not raise a significant question as to weather or not it was meeting the needs of the people to begin with? I find that if a religion meets ones needs of finding peace and meaning of life and helping to build their spirituality people are naturally drawn to doing such, it is just part of the inner needs we have. But then again my religion has a practice of attraction, not promotion.

And we certainly have no interest in any faith based initiative program that the government has to offer. We do not want the government involved in any of our affairs and I have talked to some Christians, even some on this board, whose church feels the same. I applaud them for that decision since after al the FBI is just another socialist redistribution of wealth scheme, and I am not a socialist.

“It is not like a secular world view won't offended anybody but a religious worldview will. Somebody HAS to be offended”

There is always somebody who is going to be offended, so what. For me this issue is about principles, not if someone gets offended or not.

“Some Christians, not a majority by any means, want to make the United States a Christian nation.”

And there is the scary part, as I know these people exist. They are called theocrats and they are just as big a threat to freedom as the communist eve were Like you I tend to believe that they are a minority, at least I hope so, but I am also aware that their numbers are growing and they are also embedded with what is many times referred to as the Christian right.

I have read some of their positions about wanting to replace the codified law of the land with the law of the bible and have even seen post on this board that thinks it to be a great idea.. To me that advocates nothing short of revolution and needs to be stopped dead in its tracks wherever it is founds. There is no difference between these people and the Islamic radicals of the Middle East. They are just another brand of utopians just like the ones on the other side of the isle. The only difference between the two is the method they employ to reach their version of the utopia.

“Let's pretend for a moment that some group of Christians want to go beyond recognition, and use the government to DEMAND a public profession of "faith" from every government official. Don't you see that this is simply the opposite extreme”

Absolutely, I could not agree more and that is what we need to avoid. But as you pointed out early is that we need to find the middle way here although many conservatives would view that position as being wishy-washy and not standing on principle. Rush Limbaugh immediately comes to mind, and I love Rush’s show, but I disagree with him on this point.

And it is unfortunate that we have come to this point in our country but like it or not here we are. But the more I think about it, and honestly I miss the nativity scenes at the city display these days, but it really is more a reflection of how technology is changing the world. Meaning that we are a much more transient society than we were just 20 years ago and much more so than we were just 50 years ago certainly more so than what the framers could have ever envisioned. We have people from all over the world who are now coming to live in this country, and yes an argument can be made that we could do a better job of our immigration policies, and with them they bring their religions, customs, and belief systems.

So if we allow Christians to display their religious symbols on public property, remember that’s property we all pay for, are we not also obligated to let others display theirs? Can you begin to imagine what a fracas that could turn into? But unlike many on this site I believe that the first amendment says “freedom of religion” not freedom to be a Christian, so if the rules apply to one they must apply to all. Isn’t that they way our system of government is suppose to work?