Posted on 06/27/2005 9:29:53 AM PDT by Teófilo
According to the Associated Press:
A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state.Commentary. I am a common citizen and I know I lack most of the qualifications needed to sit on the highest court of the land, but even I can thread a logical argument together. The First amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In the mind of the Founding Fathers, "establishing a religion" meant that the state would establish by law a single denomination in order to derive moral legitimacy from it, and at the same time making that denomination a subject of the state's largesse. I fail to see how erecting a monument to the Ten Commandments "establishes a religion" in the sense the Founding Fathers intended it. In fact, I see nothing wrong with the state endorsing "the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God" and the First Amendment, as long as the state refrains from establishing a church. Obviously, some very influential intellectuals in our Nation's history thought otherwise, and now we are seeing the results across the land, in the thought of a distinguished jurist, and in the agitprop of secular Left and Right wing groups who want to free their minds from any accountability to external moral imperatives.Sending dual signals in ruling on this issue for the first time in a quarter-century, the high court said that displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotion of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits...
...Dissenting in the Texas case, Justice John Paul Stevens argued the display was an improper government endorsement of religion. Stevens noted in large letters the monument proclaims 'I AM the LORD thy God.'"
"The sole function of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State Capitol is to display the full text of once version of the Ten Commandments," Stevens wrote.
"The monument is not a work of art and does not refer to any event in the history of the state," Stevens wrote. "The message transmitted by Texas' chosen display is quite plain: This state endorses the divine code of the Judeo-Christian God."
Like any other American, I don't want the state telling any church/synagogue/mosque/ashram/whatever how to conduct its internal affairs or what to believe, nor do I want the church/synagogue/mosque/ashram/whatever tell the state how to conduct the business of government. Each institution has its own autonomous sphere. Yet each institution is oriented toward the same goal, which is the integral good of man.
Yet, we cannot deny where we came from, nor the sources of our cultural heritage and moral and legal traditions. These are worthy not only of commemoration, but also of honor, of pietas, of filial respect on behalf of the citizens and the branches of government. This respect may take many shapes, of which a sculpture or statue is but one of them. A country with no memory is a country with no future. Somebody, please, tell that to Justice Stevens.
Talk about unclear rulings! This one takes the cake. Cowards.
I don't think it's really that unclear. Does the display promote Christianity above (or in the absence of) other historical foundations for the law? Are the Commandments posted because they're the Word of God, or because they're part of our legal tradition?
You can disagree with the rulings, but they certainly seem consistent with what they've been saying for some time now.
I support the separation of Church and state. The reason this was so important is the legacy of Europe – where Catholics oppressed Protestants and sometimes even other Catholics such as the monastic organizations and later on when Protestants oppressed Catholics. And of course the centuries where so called “Christians” marginalized Jews. On the other side of the coin, this principle was to keep secular politicians from infecting religion. The lack of separation lead to corrupt Medicis from holding the post of Pope.
With that said, is a symbol of morality and justice really a threat to that ideal? Somehow I see this controversy as more of an attack on Christianity and Judaism than a defense of the principle of separation.
For some reason I take this personally. It “feels” to me that I am under attack as a Christian. Am I wrong to feel this way?
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.