10 Good Ideas
Over in the comments for this post, there's been some additional discussion of the whole Ten Commandments controversy.
My beloved comrade in blogging seems to feel strongly that the Judge is a fool, and furthermore a damned fool for insisting that the Commandments be displayed in his courthouse in defiance of a higher court order. I agree. He does undermine the rule of law by defying the ruling of the higher court. It could be grounds for impeachment.
But all of this is beside the point. The issue is that people are offended that the Ten Commandments are displayed in a court of law. That this is happening in Alabama merely gives people an extra frisson of joy, because they can safely conflate religion with backwardness. It's Alabama, right? All of the stubborness we see in this judge, and the contempt of the press is window dressing for the central image - the screaming of the offended.
Why are they offended? It cannot be because of the actual text of the Decalogue:
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Okay, we'll let that one slide. But the "graven image" bit in the protestant translation could be a useful admonishment.
- Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Taken generally, foul language isn't nice.
- Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day. As long as I get Saturday off, too.
- Honor thy Father and thy Mother. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not kill. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not commit adultery. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not steal. No problem here.
- Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Again, no problem here, though it is curious that it doesn't prohibit lying in a more general sense.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife. Fair enough, and good advice.
- Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods. And likewise here.
These are sensible precepts for living. No one, be they Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic or Martian could honestly complain that these rules are offensive.
They are offensive because they are Christian. We are encouraged to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, despite much evidence that it is not. We are to tolerate all faiths, all creeds. Except one. Curiously this is the one faith that the majority of Americans embrace. Does the presence in a courthouse of the Ten Commandments amount to a tacit promotion of Christian doctrine as the fount of jurisprudence? Yes. Because they are. We live under a Christian law. This is unsurprising.
What should we do, adopt Bushido or Sharia? Why is this an issue? Those commandments are the center of our law. Do we make murder legal because killing is forbidden in the Commandments?
The Bill of Rights forbids the establishment of a state religion. It does not forbid the government, or officials of our government from having religious beliefs or expressing them. It does not prevent us from acknowledging that the root of our law is Judeo Christian. The founders believed that religious faith was not merely compatible with liberty and the health of the republic, they thought it essential. We should not be so quick to banish it from our sight because the usual suspects are offended by it, as they are offended by so many other things that are good.
on
| § 7
§ 7 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Buckethead, as sensible as
Buckethead, as sensible as the precepts may be to the most devoted of secular humanists, the problem is NOT that they are Christian rather than Buddhist, Muslim, or Subgenius, but rather that they are sectarian at all.
And in a State Supreme Court, which is charged with deciding cases on the basis of the law alone, such displays are out of place. If the underpinnings of our law go back to the Ten Commandments, so be it. But they also go back to the Magna Carta, Black's Common Law, Locke, Paine, and a hundred other pithy thinkers. To draw out the Commandments from all the other foundations of our law is to place them above the others, and suggest that the law in the Alabama State Supreme Court is guided by them above all. As honorable as this may be, it is not right. If that WAS the intent of Justice Moore-- and he has given no indication to the contrary-- than he is wrong.
Justice Moore is not prohibited from having or expressing his own religious beliefs. But, since his place of work is so public (literally) and his position so important, I argue that he does NOT have the right to put up that display. It's not a matter of whether the United States was founded as a Christian nation. It's a matter of whether Christian laws trump state and federal laws in the Alabama State Supreme Court.
The Constitution does not
The Constitution does not forbid this. The Bill of Rights only forbids an establishment of religion on the Federal level. Into the 1830s, several states had established state religions. Not that I think we should go back to that, but the federal court is misreading the constitution.
Further, I don't think that the display of the Commandments has any necessary implication that they are above the laws of the State of Alabama. Have we heard that in any case Judge Moore ignored the laws of his state to enforce the strictures of Leviticus? Not that I have heard.
And do you really think that this much fuss would have been raised if it wasn't a Christian set of commandments? Would anyone have been upset at the Magna Carta, which was after all written by a bunch of rapacious, feudal, deadwhitemales?
The fact that the Commandments are "sectarian" does not mean that they can never be displayed. 90 percent of this country is Christian, but we are never allowed to defer to their sensibilities. And the other 10 percent should not be bothered by something that has direct relevance to the traditions of the nation of which they are a part.
"And do you really think that
"And do you really think that this much fuss would have been raised if it wasn't a Christian set of commandments? "
You're kidding, right?
" Would anyone have been upset at the Magna Carta, which was after all written by a bunch of rapacious, feudal, deadwhitemales? "
Yes! Besides which, it wouldn't make much sense, whiteness or rapaciousness aside.
"And the other 10 percent should not be bothered by something that has direct relevance to the traditions of the nation of which they are a part."
This is a state supreme court building we're talking about, not a dentist's office. Venue is important here. Furthermore, 90 percent of this country was brought up in an ostensibly Christian culture-- 90 percent of the country are not Christians.
Whatever the actual
Whatever the actual percentage is - it is a large majority. And it's getting to the point where a dentist putting a fascimile of the Ten Commandments on the wall could be sued for creating a hostile work environment because his hygienist doesn't obey #1, 2, 4, 6 and 9.
Seriously, what harm does this do? If you are a Buddhist, and you walk by it, are you oppressed? Or an Atheist? Oh, the incredible oppression of having to look at the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments don't reach out and squeeze your brain or something.
As long as the judges inside the court are doing their job, and I have seen no indication that they aren't, there shouldn't be a problem.
Ok. Fine. But putting the
Ok. Fine. But putting the Commandments out in the rotunda of the courthouse acts as an advertisement-- "here we stand."
Imagine if the same justice put a large statue of U.S. Chief Justice Taney in the rotunda, with a quotation about States' Rights.
Or an engraving of Hammurabi's code.
Or excerpts from Jewish law.
The placement of such a thing in the house of law, regardless of its message, 1) serves to editorialize outside the bounds of the law that the court is working within; and 2) serves to intimidate, in a sense, some of those who come as defendants-- indeed that is partly why it is there.
REGARDLESS of the message, it shouldn't be there.
Finally, the judge in question seems to be quite the character. no time to link-hunt, but look up the Fox and CNN profiles of the guy.
By all accounts, Judge Roy is
By all accounts, Judge Roy is a publicity seeker at best, and the other eight judges only acted after the federal court ruling gave them political cover.
But what message do our law courts send? No message? Do we stop administering the oath before testimony? Do we expunge all mention of God everywhere in the public arena? Just to satisfy a bunch of hypersensitive whiners?
If you're arguing for tolerance, it has to include everyone. There is little tolerance from the left for the beliefs, opinions and traditions of Christianity. Look at the recent incident with the catholic candidate being grilled in the senate. If you believe what the Catholic church has taught for millenia, you are unfit to be a federal judge.
The obvious tension in the
The obvious tension in the Moore affair is that Anglo-American, as well as all Western law was shaped directly by medieval church law. It is somewhat presumptuous to assume that the law can be simply secularized by ignoring its religious roots. Of course, many Americans who proclaim themselves to be athiests will continue with various cultural practices that have roots in Christianity but simply ignore that connection.
It would seem to be that many people would post or acclaim the Decalogue without finding any particularly religious meaning therein. The commandments that refer most specifically to religious practice, #1-4, barely register as having specific meanings. Christians barely explore those meanings, and they are not without problems for Jews and Muslims. Should they pose problems for people who are more clearly polytheistic or who deny a central diety? Again, the usual presentation makes the purpose of the commandments very unclear. Moore could have put up a monument of ten Roman numerals: the relevance to the development of law would have been referenced without making specific recognition of the content.