[Note: I started writing this before Moore was suspended. Besides the work I put into it, which made me want to post it anyway, there was the fact that the post is primarily about the reasoning behind the Rule of Law. Therefore, I feel that what is said here needs to be said regardless of what happens with Moore now.]
The Ten Commandments Judge has decided that he will not accept the ruling of the Federal Court which ordered the removal of the idol to his god which he planted on government property using government funds while insisting that this government belongs to his god and we must acknowledge that god.
He refuses even though all other justices of his own court have overruled him.
He has decided that he will not honor the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which refused to take the case on appeal.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case means that it has decided that there is no need to rule upon the merits of this case. They are essentially saying, “The decision of the lower court [in this case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals] is final.”
That doesn’t mean they will never re-evaluate the issues involved in the case. What it does mean is that, unless or until they do, the lower court’s ruling is the law.
For this case, the law is well-decided: The government may not sponsor or endorse any religion. Judge Moore’s insistence that we utilize government funds and government spaces to acknowledge any god—whether Buddha, Krishna, She Who is Seated on a Throne of Five Corpses, the Citipati, or Jehovah—has been discussed by me elsewhere [n1] and is quite clear.
Here, I want to talk about the Rule of Law. For without Law, the United States cannot continue to exist as a free and civilized society. Dictatorships and anarchies, perhaps, can function without the rule of law, but the land our Founding Fathers established cannot.
A clear understanding of the Rule of Law is required even when—perhaps especially when—it comes to religion. As Robin Lovin puts it:
This link between the rule of law and a well-ordered community, which Murray articulated almost incidentally in his account of religious freedom, needs more focused attention. In an age of globalization, it is the primary moral requirement that religion imposes, not only in its relations with government, but also in the emerging pluralistic systems of authority generally. The traditions of moral theology require the church to be a witness to the importance of the rule of law, exemplifying it in its own life and demanding it of other authorities in the complex network of relationships in which life must now be lived in a global context. – “Church and State in an Age of Globalization”, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 1 at p. 15.
In actuality, religious considerations are irrelevant here; it doesn’t matter if you are for a melding of the Church and State or for a Separation of Church and State. Yet Lovin’s comment demonstrates that even a governmental structure which acknowledged G-d—any god—would require some adherence to the Rule of Law. “[The] function,” Calvin Massey notes, “[of the Rule of Law] is to provide steady, predictable application of norms generated by the political participants.” (“Rule of Law and the Age of Aquarius”, 41 Hastings L.J. 757, 764-765.)
So long as the gods of human beings are instantiated by human beings—that is, until some god physically manifests him-, her-, or itself into our plane of existence (and, for you fundamentalists, physically remains here to rule)—it is necessary to provide for some ultimate earthly authority to decide how to live in spite of the inevitable disagreements among vessels of lesser stature.
So some appreciation of the Rule of Law is necessary even of a justly-administered theocracy. It’s all the more true in the United States of America. Our Founding Fathers were products of a civilization which was primarily oriented around Judeo-Christian values and it is undeniable that the Republic they intended to build was based upon those values. In response to Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason, they were reportedly united in their distaste for its publication.
Ben Franklin (may have) said:
[T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . .
Samuel Adams wrote to Paine:
Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?
The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, stated:
I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task will derived advantages. . . . As to The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth or of mankind.
[Note: I wish to credit the author of “Were the Founding Fathers ‘Deists,’ ‘Freethinkers,’ and ‘Infidels?’” for the last three quotes, whoever he or she is or was. ]
The first thing of note concerning these phrases, however, is that none of them advocates a government sponsorship of religion. They clearly held strong religious beliefs. And it doesn’t actually matter whether they were christians or deists, because in either case they did not advocate any governmental entwinement with religion.
Benjamin Franklin, for example, also made this comment against the idea of a religious oath or test being required for government service (and note what he hopes for the future evolution of understanding):
I am fully of your opinion respecting religious tests; but, though the people of Massachusetts have not in their new constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that people were one hundred years ago, we must allow they have gone great lengths in liberality of sentiment on religious subjects; and we may hope for greater degrees of perfection, when their constitution, some years hence, shall be revised. If Christian preachers had continued to teach as Christ and his Apostles did, without salaries, and as the Quakers now do, I imagine tests would never have existed; for I think they were invented, not so much to secure religion itself, as the emoluments of it. When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors [that is, those who “profess” religion] are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. . . .Excerpt of letter written by Benjamin Franklin to Dr. Richard Price, October 9, 1780. Works of Benjamin Franklin (Sparks ed.), VIII 505-506, in Bigelow ed, VII, 139, 140. Church and State in the United States, Volume I , Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., LL.D., Harper & Brothers (1950) pp 298.
Even if these men were christians (see Remsburg’s “Six Historic Americans” for a refutation that Franklin actually said the above-quoted words, or that any of these men were actually christians) and not merely deists they had a quite healthy fear of individuals or groups who might seek to impose their understanding of what “G-d” required of them upon that Republic.
Samuel Adams, also quoted above, was worried about governmental control of religion. Concerning the power of government over the mode of worship chosen by individuals, he said:
Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty, in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former. – Samuel Adams,
The Rights of the Colonists
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence
to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772
Adams did not think government should promote religion. He did, however, believe government should prevent the practice of some religions, or at least exclude them from toleration. Specifically, he thought “Roman Catholics and Papists” should be excluded from government. (Ibid.) It would be interesting to see Moore’s supporters push that point today!
Supreme Court Justice John Jay, along with John Rutledge, opposed a motion made by Thomas Cushing to have prayers in Congress, because of the religious diversity of the members. He did not believe it appropriate given that there was no way to construct a prayer that would be acceptable to all. This is true even though, as many christians like to point out, one of his most famous quotes was:
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
Jay’s advocacy of looking to the character of the people who were elected was well known in his time. But, as his actions in the Continental Congress show, he was opposed to government expression of support for particular religious beliefs.
This is a point which eludes modern christians such as Judge Moore and his supporters. There is absolutely nothing wrong with practicing religion, or even with allowing your religious beliefs to motivate your political activities. What is wrong is utilizing the machinery of government to do that. What is wrong is utilizing government funds to support a particular religion. The job of government in respect to religion is to ensure an environment in which it can be freely practiced (or not) by each individual or group as part of the exercise of their own liberty interests.
Madison and Jefferson frequently wrote about this. Christians who wish to convince everyone that “America is a christian nation!” and then insist upon government sponsorship of christian principles have not read the Founding Fathers very carefully. Nearly all of the Founding Fathers and others responsible for setting up this country made statements indicating their religious sentiments; religion was important to them. A careful reading of their statements will show that none of them intended that their beliefs should be supported by government, only tolerated. They wished to be left alone to worship as they saw fit. Nothing more.
Madison, sometimes called “The Father of the Constitution,” firmly believed that such things as official days of prayer and other governmental indications of religious orientation were inappropriate. He stated:
They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion. – from “Detached Memoranda”, quoted here and here.
Kate Cohen‘s note also quotes Thomas Jefferson saying:
Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government.
As a final quote on this topic, George Washington, our First President, negotiated the Treaty of Tripoli (and John Adams signed it when he was President), in which is stated:
The Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. – quoted here, where you’ll also find other interesting questions concerning Faith & Freedom.
In fact, the government of the United States was founded on the principles of the Rule of Law. This is the essential principle of the U.S. Constitution. (Sid Galloway even complains that failure to understand this is “Why…American churches [are] failing to stand strong as real salt and light in the country today”.)
A pure democracy which does not follow the Rule of Law is subject to capriciousness because, contrary to some humanistic beliefs and supported by many religious beliefs, including judeo-christian writings, human beings are fallible. The Founding Fathers, in fact, were so certain of this tendency that they saw a need that “some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of” government officials. (James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787; see here.) Thus they included the possibility of impeachment of government officials in the U.S. Constitution, indicating they were not above the Rule of Law. (See Article II, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.)
The importance of the Rule of Law to our form of government is most succinctly stated by Thomas Carothers:
The rule of law can be defined as a system in which the laws are public knowledge, are clear in meaning, and apply equally to everyone. They enshrine and uphold the political and civil liberties that have gained status as universal human rights over the last half-century. In particular, anyone accused of a crime has the right to a fair, prompt hearing and is presumed innocent until proved guilty. The central institutions of the legal system, including courts, prosecutors, and police, are reasonably fair, competent, and efficient. Judges are impartial and independent, not subject to political influence or manipulation. Perhaps most important, the government is embedded in a comprehensive legal framework, its officials accept that the law will be applied to their own conduct, and the government seeks to be law-abiding.
The relationship between the rule of law and liberal democracy is profound. The rule of law makes possible individual rights, which are at the core of democracy. A government’s respect for the sovereign authority of the people and a constitution depends on its acceptance of law. Democracy includes institutions and processes that, although beyond the immediate domain of the legal system, are rooted in it. Basic elements of a modern market economy such as property rights and contracts are founded on the law and require competent third-party enforcement. Without the rule of law, major economic institutions such as corporations, banks, and labor unions would not function, and the government’s many involvements in the economy–regulatory mechanisms, tax systems, customs structures – Foreign Affairs, c.1998, Vol. 77, No. 2 1998, reprinted here.
Without the Rule of Law, true freedom is impossible.
It is this freedom which the government endorses and keeps alive when it takes a neutral position—neither including monuments supporting nor making laws disallowing—the religious beliefs of any particular group.
And this Rule of Law is what has christians gnashing their teeth and swearing they will not obey the Constitution of the United States of America nor any of its agents.
But this Rule of Law must apply equally to everyone, or it is no good for anyone.
To Judge Moore and his supporters: Practice your religions without the support of the government. Place your monuments on property owned by your own establishments. Put them in all your front yards, if you will. They have no place in buildings owned by the People, some of whom do not (gasp) wish to see our government telling us that our religious views must take a back seat to yours.
|
|
|
|
22 responses so far ↓
1 Harryl // Aug 25, 2003 at 8:32 am
An excellent summary of the subject matter, with some good links. Thanks.
2 joe // Aug 28, 2003 at 12:52 pm
That is exactly NOT what Roy Moore stands for.
Please read his own words.
This is NOT about a Christian, Muslim or Jewish interpretation of a state religion. It’s about the constitution of the state of Alabama.
And btw, the ‘Ten Commandments’ is in the sacred texts of three aformentioned religions.
Christianity IS making a mockery of itself lately with prayers being requested for the deaths of Supreme Court Justices, openly gay Bishops being elected, etc. Feel free to mock them, but as a fledgling law student you have a responsibility to acknowledge when your bias is out of order.
This is that case.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003926
3 joe // Aug 28, 2003 at 1:10 pm
Additional Commentaries…..
The First Laws
Eugene P. Podrazik – Casper, Wy.
I might also point out that the Ten Commandment is the creation of the rule of law. By God giving these commandments to Moses, a system of justice was created that place a set of rules over man that superceded any human authority. The Ten Commandments created a system of justice that subjects all of mankind to an absolute and uniform standard.
The attack on the display of the Ten Commandments is a frontal attack on the rule of law. Moreover, it is a suppression of legal scholarship that is just a reprehensible as banning the study of Blackstone.
Making Atheism the State Imposed Religion
Michael Holman – Beaverton, Ore.
Justice Moore makes a wonderful argument. I have just one more question for all who would disagree with him: Would interpreting the First Amendment to remove religion from the public sector be a defacto endorsement of atheism?
My personal favorite….
While We Fight Over This…
J. Reynolds – Houston
God occasionally creates controversies of this nature in order to give taxpayers a little relief. As long as our government officials and functionaries are kept busy haggling over disputes involving the Bible, they don’t have time to excrete additional laws confiscating more of our earned income. Thank you, Lord.
And since you repeat a common theme of personal liberty on your site…
Standing With Moore
Tom Kresnicka – Arlington Heights, Ill.
Justice Moore is right on target. The federal judiciary has claimed way too much power, and I for one, am glad to see someone in position standup to their unauthorized and totally unconstitutional abuse of that power. If you believe in the Constitution, you have to believe in Judge Moore and stand with him!
4 Winkola // Aug 28, 2003 at 1:25 pm
Feel free to mock who?
The point of the article “Thou Shalt Not Revolt” is not mock anyone. As a matter of fact, I specifically noted that much of what christians have said in the Church/State debate is true: Our Founding Fathers were religious people, for example. I also noted that “There is absolutely nothing wrong with practicing religion, or even with allowing your religious beliefs to motivate your political activities.” And, in fact, that comment immediately follows a quote from John Jay that encourages people to consider the moral character (which would normally include their religious stance—or at least how they handle it) of the people for whom you vote.
Some people arguing in favor of separation of church and state do not acknowledge or recognize this as being legitimate. I do. There is nothing in the separation of church and state that requires us to put down or interfere with religious practices of individuals—only of governments. This means that while “Mr.” Moore may worship however he personally pleases, “JUDGE” Moore may not use government facilities or government monies to “acknowledge” his G-d.
The issue here is not whether religion is good or bad. The issue here isn’t whether people should worship G-d or not worship G-d. The issue is most definitely not whether government should try to stop the worship of G-d, because, quite clearly it should not. And I would personally fight as hard against a government that tried to PREVENT the practice of religion as I would against a government that SPONSORS the practice of religion.
The point of the article is this, and nothing more: The machinery (that is, the administrative offices, processes, etc.) and funds of our government may not be used to promote any religion.
As to the words of Judge Moore, he specifically notes that he would NOT support using government space or funds to support a non-christian religion. (See http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/.) He has stated unequivocally that “This case is not about a monument and not about politics. It’s about the acknowledgement of God.” (See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/23/national/main569801.shtml.)
All I have said is exactly what virtually every court, including the Supreme Court, of the United States has said: It is not legal to use government facilities and government funds to endorse religion.
It is especially not legal to do this while simultaneously excluding other religions. When the First Amendment to the Constitution states “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” that is exactly what it means. At the same time, honing in on the term “respecting,” there is no need to make any law DISrespecting any religion.
As I said elsewhere (see http://www.winkola.com/archives/000051.html), this doesn’t mean I hate religion. Nor do I desire to mock it (although I may periodically mock individual practitioners).
Finally, let me thank you for taking the time to post a comment to the blog. I appreciate your participation in the discussion. I hope my response clarifies that this post was not intended to mock anyone. The one and only issue involved here is that government funding and display of religious monuments is unconstitutional. Nothing more, nothing less.
5 harryl // Aug 28, 2003 at 2:35 pm
To respond to the comments by “Joe”
“I might also point out that the Ten Commandment is the creation of the rule of law.”
It is but one system of law, created by one culture (and later adopted by others that descended from it), but does not represent the only system of law. Complex legal systems developed independently in the east and in the new world prior to contact with cultures dominated by the ‘revealed religions’ of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
“By God giving these commandments to Moses, a system of justice was created that place a set of rules over man that superceded any human authority.”
While I can see the point being made here, what about other systems of government which have, in the views of their practitioners, non-human inspiration?
For centuries, the Japanese Emperor was a divine figure to his people, and thus his law, in their eyes, also superceded human authority.
The Egyptian Pharaohs continued to rule that country long after the slaves have left, and were also seen as divine. For that culture, they lived under a system of Justice that superceded human authority.
The ten commandments codifies a set of behaviors that is emergent within most civilizations. But that does not mean it can be applied, in this form, to every culture or that it applies to every member of every culture. Christ gave his followers a ‘new commandment’ that simplified these commandments into one statement. This, to me, shows that the commandments are but one form of underlying principles, which could be further simplified in one word: “respect.”
“The Ten Commandments created a system of justice that subjects all of mankind to an absolute and uniform standard.”
Considering not all of mankind follows the religions which have the ten commandments in their dogmatic texts, this is far from true. Buddhists, Shinto’s, Pagans, Atheists, Zoroastrians and many others practice a set of laws that are not based on the ‘Book’, but reflect the same principles.
Besides, I believe “there can be no justice while laws are absolute.”
An absolute interpretation of “Thou shalt have no gods before me” would mean one has to acknowledge that there are other Gods, but Adonai should be respected first and foremost.
An absolute interpretation of “thou shalt not kill” would condemn every soldier who defended his country and kin.
An absolute interpretation of “Thou shalt honor thy mother and father” does not take into account those parents who abuse their children.
“The attack on the display of the Ten Commandments is a frontal attack on the rule of law.”
Again, I would disagree. There is a difference between the rule of law, and a single set of statements that reflect one culture’s influence upon the development of that rule of law.
“Would interpreting the First Amendment to remove religion from the public sector be a defacto endorsement of atheism?”
No. Atheism is the adoption of a specific set of believes which say there is no “God”. No one has asked for a monument to be placed in the rotunda displaying any statement refuting the existence of the divine.
If anything, the government position on religion is closer to agnostic; the government, representing every system of belief of the electorate, cannot say that any one is true or false, for to do so would be to endorse or disenfranchise it. Individuals within government are welcome to their own religious point of view, but should separate their elected or appointed position from that personal opinion.
Regards,
Harry
6 joe // Aug 28, 2003 at 11:17 pm
OK, let’s simplify.
What object is at the right hand of most judges while they are at the bench?
A gavel.
If the judge doesn’t hit the silly little block of wood with the little hammer, is it a mistrial?
No, because the gavel is SYMBOLIC. It represents tradition and authority but holds no authority in and of itself.
Is a statue of the ten commandments legitimizing a state religion?
No. It is SYMBOLIC of the history and traditions of law in this country.
The three documents that the state of Alabama hold higher than any other are the Constitution, the Declaration Of Independance and the constitution of the state of Alabama. All three documents refer to a Creator or G*d (to respect the tradition of our web host).
When the reference to G*d is removed from those documents, when reference to G*d is removed from all Federal, State and local buildings, when all reference to G*d is removed from our money, then you can remove that statue in question in Alabama.
Once you strip away the high profile Justice with goals of being governor and the silly Christians praying outside you get down to the real issue, that this country was founded on a belief in a Supreme Being. Refering to that Being in historical and symbolic terms should not be a crime in Alabama or any other state in this country.
On another note, it has been a pleasure debating the two you. And I’m not even a law student….
Adios.
7 Winkola // Aug 29, 2003 at 7:53 am
I’m not sure you need to be a law student to understand this (referring to your comment that you’re “not even a law student”). It does help, though.
You see, while you’re correct that there are some symbols in the world, including some that even appear to support the idea of a god (and THIS time, the lowercase version is appropriate, as you can see (I hope), because no specific god is mentioned; that’s part of the problem with Judge Moore’s act), it isn’t the case that all symbols are benign as to this question.
Our problem is that, as the country disintegrates (which is happening, but discussion of it is outside the scope of this comment), the drive to include more symbols which are not benign increases. When our country truly WAS filled with people who believed in G-d, this wasn’t a big issue. In fact, as the Supreme Court has noted “[f]or most of our history as an independent nation, the words of the constitutional prohibition against enactment of any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ were commonly assumed to mean what they literally said.” (ACLU v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. (2001) 243 F3d 289, 293.) This is because we didn’t need symbols. The symbols have become important only as the country begins to disintegrate and people mistakenly believe that covering everything with comments and monuments about a G-d whose precepts they don’t truly follow will reverse the trend.
That comment probably makes people angry. I’m sorry for that. I believe what I said is true and I believe monuments and comments are not the solution to the problem. That’s why I said it; it’s not to make people mad. I’d prefer people begin to LIVE their supposed beliefs, rather than put up fake monuments to try to force others to do so. “I the Lord, in My grace, have summoned you, And I have grasped you by the hand. I created you and appointed you A covenant people, a light of nations—opening eyes deprived of light, rescuing prisoners from confinement, from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not yield My glory to another, nor my renown to idols.” (Isaiah 42:6-8; Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society.) YOU are the monument. And just “who” or “what” is more renowned thanks to Judge Moore? I suspect it’s a piece of stone. And who is obtaining the glory and adoration of those supporting the monument right now? I believe it is Judge Moore himself.
G-d does not value the monument. In your own belief system, if He wanted that monument there, it would not have been moved.
Somewhere (can anyone remember where?) it is also said, “You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters below the ears. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” (Deuteronomy 5:8-9.) But people were falling on their faces outside the windows where the monument was kept. Why did they do this there? Because of the injustice, you might say; they did it before G-d and not the monument. If that is so, however, why do they not fall on their faces elsewhere when G-d is more strongly affronted than by the removal of a piece of stone that the judeo-christian tradition gives every indication is probably NOT pleasing to him.
Just as in Exodus 32, where the people created an image to make them feel better because they were tired of waiting for Moses to come back from his meeting with G-d, so here today the people make monuments because they are tired of waiting for someone who will REALLY shine. They cannot be a monument to G-d themselves, so they create a substitute and honor it, respect it and cry over what is done to it, rather than over what they do to G-d.
All of this, however, is beside the real point at issue here. We, the people, have a Constitution which states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion (the second aspect of the clause is not at issue here). And, again, “[f]or most of our history as an independent nation, the words of the constitutional prohibition against enactment of any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ were commonly assumed to mean what they literally said.” (ACLU v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. (2001) 243 F3d 289, 293.)
It is only in recent times this has become a big issue. But I submit to you both that it is unconstitutional and that stone monuments are not the way the judeo-christian G-d wishes to be made known in the world.
Now, go and be a light unto the nations. For, as someone else once put it, “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” (Matthew 5:14, found at http://www.siteofgod.homestead.com/TheWord.html.)
8 joe // Aug 29, 2003 at 10:07 am
Just for fun, please take no offense….
“I’d prefer people begin to LIVE their supposed beliefs, rather than put up fake monuments to try to force others to do so.”
So, you’re saying you have empathy for the people holding prayer vigils outside the courts building?
So, does this mean that you admire Roy Moore for his stand? Aren’t these people living their
beliefs? If these people truly believe, is this monument fake? Wouldn’t it be true to them?
“YOU are the monument”
Is G*d essentially pleased right now that those faithful are holding their vigil? Are they the monument that pleases the Creator, not the one made of stone?
“And just “who” or “what” is more renowned thanks to Judge Moore? I suspect it’s a piece of stone. And who is obtaining the glory and adoration of those supporting the monument right now? I believe it is Judge Moore himself. ”
The decision about who is obtaining glory and adoration is really only for the Creator to make. If He / She is well pleased with those few holding vigil, and deems that enough, then this whole thing is a success.
What is more ‘reknown’ wouldn’t bother the Creator, would it? That’s for humans.
Just as a personal point, it is, in my opinion, highly dangerous to interject biblical passages into any discussion regarding government and politics. Once you introduce theology, you introduce interpretation. Even members of the same sub divisions of a ‘major’ religion (Christianity, Judism) will differ on interpretation of the same passages (‘Orthodox’, ‘Non Orthodox’, ‘Progressive’, etc).
Enjoy your weekend.
PS On another personal note, congratulations on your marriage to Bunny. It was a no brainer from the outside perspective, you’re made for each other. On the few times we have met, she was obviously the “city that …cannot be hid” in your life.
9 joe // Aug 29, 2003 at 11:21 am
I have been emailing a friend of mine some of the fun we’ve been having.
This is also an example of the consequences of introducing theology into a discussion of law.
I believe law students are supposed to boil cases down to core issues. Interpretations of scripture may fog the discussion but at its core, its still about what laws are on the books, which law supercedes which other law, who has actual jurisdiction and is this a ‘religious’ or ‘historical’ monument.
The following are his words, enjoy…..
I would say a few additional things. First, I believe God is not that interested in this particular issue to a large degree. There is however plenty of biblical foundation to display these kinds of things. This however also has nothing to do with this argument. This is an issue of law.
Using the biblical quote about idols has no application here at all – this scripture was addressing other religions worshiping false idols. This is a common mis-direction of people trying to defense an indefensible position. Very Clinton-esque.
Your friend says “G-d does not value the monument. In your own belief system, if He wanted that monument there, it would not have been moved.” Another silly statement. God allows absolute free will to his people. He would not “will” a monument to be placed in a certain place, or at a certain time….
Further pointless argument – “You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters below the ears. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.” (Deuteronomy 5:8-9.) There is no image, and people were not “bowing down”, they chose to pray and display their anguish publically – their choice, and having nothing to do with this discussion – again, pointless distraction to make the argument look bigger and better, and to try to embarrass the defenders of this issue.
He then says “Just as in Exodus 32, where the people created an image to make them feel better because they were tired of waiting for Moses to come back from his meeting with G-d, so here today the people make monuments because they are tired of waiting for someone who will REALLY shine.” What is this??? Now your friend supposes to read everyone’s mind? This is a blatantly ignorant assumption with no basis in fact or reason. It is my belief that at the least, Judge Moore has always respected the foundation of the law being the 10 commandments. Not arguing whether he is correct or not, he has displayed these commandments in his chambers for many years. But again, nothing to do with the law other than that it establishes that the 10 Commandments have been on display in his courtroom for many years.
To quote your educated friend “In fact, as the Supreme Court has noted “[f]or most of our history as an independent nation, the words of the constitutional prohibition against enactment of any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ were commonly assumed to mean what they literally said.” (ACLU v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. (2001) 243 F3d 289, 293.) ” I have no problem with this statement, and it does not address the issue in question. Displaying a monument with the 10 commandments does nothing to “establish a religion” by our government, any more than the statement on our money “In God We Trust” does. No laws are being passed, no rights are being violated, and no one is being forced to believe anything.
These things simply acknowledge a commonly held belief in our nation that there is a God, and a moral foundation is important to our society. As Judge Moore states, the Alabama Constitution specifically invokes “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state’s supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state’s constitution. If you don’t like their law, change it. Do not however act as if it doesn’t exist.
If you believe that the U.S. Constitution trumps the state constitution, I would ask for a concrete argument where the federal government has an “interest” at stake in this state issue.
Further, regarding the ‘respecting an establishment of religion’ , if this is really the foundation of your argument, then your response must be the same for the monuments in Washington D.C., almost all of which have mentions of our creator and God, as well as most if not all federal buildings displaying statues of Greek Gods.
“Your side” is remarkably silent on these issues, as well as the issue of “In God We Trust” on our money.
The modern argument for separation of church and state falls so far from our nations founders and their intent, it is truly laughable.
My God doesn’t need state support. He does however require my allegiance. When my government attempts to silence even the most benign attempts to honor His goodness and wisdom, I have to stand up and say “back the truck up”. If our nations children are forced to be indoctrinated in public school with every nutball belief except that God may exist, when our society has slipped to the level that the “F” word is now protected speech when shouted at a teacher in class, something must be done to remind us all the value of decency and morality.
At the very least I and my fellow citizens should be allowed to display (at our own expense) a foundational belief in a God (no mention of Judiasm, Christianity, Muslim or Buddhism or any other religious sect is necessary), as many of our forefathers did that this nation was founded and laws built around a moral foundation that came from good people and from Holy guidance.
Whether Judge Moore is an idiot or not is not an issue, nor is his motivation. What matters to me is that our laws are respected, and that equal measure is given to how laws are interpreted.
That is all for now. Oh, and I am not angry, nor particularly hung up on this monument and where it sits. I live my faith in my daily relationships and in the causes I support with my time and money.
10 Winkola // Aug 29, 2003 at 11:48 am
First: As to your comment about injecting biblical passages into discussions of politics, I’m not sure I understand it. For one thing, as I recall, the discussion is ABOUT religion and politics; for another, you—and not I—indicated your belief that the law of the United States of America was insufficient grounds for the discussion. (“By God giving these commandments to Moses, a system of justice was created that place [sic] a set of rules over man that superceded any human authority.”) I decided to respond to you using words from the tradition you appear to regard as being above the law, because I believe even those arguments—which are completely unacceptable in a court of law or other governmental arena, but not in a private discussion on this website—are contrary to the activities of christian individuals or groups attempting to utilize government entities and funds to support their religion. For another thing, I don’t see a discussion of religious principles as being dangerous, even when injected into a political discussion by individuals so long as they are not acting in any official capacity. The problem is with a GOVERNMENT imprimatur and/or participation in religious activity or discussion.
Second: To your questions.
“So, you’re saying you have empathy for the people holding prayer vigils outside the courts building?”
My mistake. I didn’t realize that was how your god lived. Last I heard, his ministry was about working to save people; not monuments. I would have thought he’d consider lying prostate before a stone to be a waste of time when there are people suffering, starving and homeless in that same town.
“So, does this mean that you admire Roy Moore for his stand?”
No, it does not. I also seem to remember your god saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” And, through his representative, he also said,
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, custom to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.” – Romans 13:1-7.
Now, either there’s some kind of inconsistency in the words of this purported holy inspiration, or someone has failed to understand why your god allowed the removal of the monument.
Furthermore, Judge Moore took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He apparently forgot to say, “I promise to do this unless I decide otherwise for religious reasons.”
I don’t even understand the question about the monument being fake, so I can’t address it. Last I heard, it was a real stone. Whether it was a fake stone or not seems to me irrelevant to this conversation. If your comment about it being “fake” and “real to them” has to do with the words carved into it and the ideas they represent, I fail to see how that addresses the points I made and removes it from the category of a sculptured image of something on earth. The golden calf was just as “real” to the Israelites who created it because they became impatient when Moses didn’t come down with his message from G-d on their timetable and they needed something to make them feel good.
“Are they the monument?”
They SHOULD be the monument, according to the beliefs they espouse in word but deny in act. Or, better, the light. Right now they’re showing the world how to make a mockery of their god; not how to “live as Jesus lived.” So where is the time better spent? And where is their god best glorified? Prostate in front of a monument?
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.” (Matthew 25:41-43.)
So to summarize: This discussion we’re having is occurring on two levels. One is legal; the other is religious. As to the law, only the legal arguments count. I happen to think that the religious points also mitigate against attempting to subvert the government (your just-posted friend’s comments to the contrary notwithstanding). When government facilities or government funds are utilized to display a religious monument, they impliedly approve it. This is what they cannot do under the law.
Incidentally, the Constitution doesn’t say the government may not establish a religion (although that is implied by what it does say). It says, “may make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion.” This has been interpreted to mean the government may not perform an act which appears to support a religion. Setting up a monument inside the rotunda of a court building is not DISrespectful and it is not NEUTRAL. (And Judge Moore’s words make the lack of neutrality quite clear.) It is an act RESPECTING judeo-christian religion.
I now believe I’ve beaten this horse to death.
11 Winkola // Aug 29, 2003 at 12:05 pm
Oh, one more thing since your friend, at least, appears to have missed it.
“The core issues” is a phrase which makes no sense out of context. For example, in a trial for murder, the core issues will center around legal concepts and proof of murder. In a discussion about murder on a website, it’s entirely possible that the moral rightness or wrongness of murder might be an issue. In a trial for burglary, issues which do not come up in a trial for murder will be discussed and these will be legal issues as well; unless the trial was also about murder, no issues relating to murder would come up there. On a website, a discussion of burglary might (as with the murder example) go into the moral rightness or wrongness of burglary. Any of these might, on a website, pontificate on scriptural admonitions concerning them, whereas this would not be appropriate in a court of law or other government meeting.
Hopefully, this makes it clear why context is important in deciding what the “core issues” might be.
Last I checked, my website was not a court of law. This leaves me free to discuss not just the legal issues involved regarding topics posted here, but also moral, political, social, religious or any other issues involved in those topics. I keep a separate website regarding legal topics ( http://www.TechStop.com/blog.html ) where I try to stick only to the legal issues of things about which I write. That’s why there is stuff about Judge Moore there and stuff about him here; in the stuff written there, I do not discuss any of the religious elements.
The “core issues” of OUR discussion are these:
1) Legal arguments requiring separation of Church and State.
2) Religious arguments requiring separation of Church and State.
You, from what I can tell, disagree with me on both issues, but most heatedly on issue #2.
You (and your friend, if he desires) may post here regarding your feelings, thoughts or ideas regarding any of those issues. I will respond to those as I feel driven (or not). This isn’t a court of law and I’m not a government official, so I think I’m going to be okay regardless of which issues we tackle here.
In fact, this brings us back to MY original “core” issue: There’s nothing wrong with support for or discussion of religion OUTSIDE a governmental context. If Judge Moore were a minister on Sundays and came to court during the week, so long as he did not utilize his position or other government resources to promote or support religion, I’d argue forcefully with anyone who tried to have him removed as a judge merely because of those non-governmental activities. It’s that he’s marshaled the rotunda of a courthouse and government funds to promote and support his religious beliefs that has me (and others) arguing that he has violated the law.
I neglected to thank you for your comments about my marriage. I am, indeed, a lucky guy living in a relationship which (if I believed in it) I would say was “made in heaven.” I could not have asked for a more wonderful wife.
12 joe // Aug 29, 2003 at 12:40 pm
“Last I checked, my website was not a court of law. This leaves me free to discuss not just the legal issues involved regarding topics posted here, but also moral, political, social, religious or any other issues involved in those topics. I keep a separate website regarding legal topics ( http://www.TechStop.com/blog.html ) where I try to stick only to the legal issues of things about which I write.”
My apologies, I was attempting to form and defend a legal arguement, not an arguement of such wide social, religious and legal issues. That’s why I mentioned the theology not being appropriate statment. I was in the wrong forum, or courtroom, depending on how you see it.
13 Winkola // Aug 29, 2003 at 1:01 pm
For the record: You have no reason to apologize either for your point of view or for how you presented it.
I disagree with you is all. These days—if we follow the politicos—it’s not really acceptable to disagree and remain civil, but I intend to try it anyway. 😉
If I sounded like I was taking offense such that you needed to apologize, then either I misspoke or you read more into my comment than I intended.
It was my belief (as noted above) that you did inject a religious issue into the conversation. And I see NOTHING wrong with that whatsoever on this website, although it wasn’t part of my original article and/or the argument I was originally trying to make. However, I did thereafter respond to it.
Personally, I enjoy the legal argument much more than the religious one, since I don’t consider myself very religious (although I’ve studied them). But that doesn’t mean you have to apologize for making one (or for responding to me responding to you when I thought you were making one)!
I appreciate your presence in the conversation.
14 joe // Aug 29, 2003 at 1:31 pm
“I appreciate your presence in the conversation”
You could show your appreciation by adding more Bunny photos ! (Very big grin….)
15 harryl // Aug 29, 2003 at 1:47 pm
“This is also an example of the consequences of introducing theology into a discussion of law.”
Which is exactly why I believe religion has no place in the legal system. They make for interesting discussions but should go no further. Those who follow the Christian path should not require the assistance of the laws of the land to bring their “message of salvation” to those who do not share their doctrines. In fact, one has to wonder why they feel that the laws should support their point view at the expense of those who follow a different path.
Your friend says:
“First, I believe God is not that interested in this particular issue to a large degree.”
An excellent point to which I agree wholeheartedly. So in who’s interest is this debate raging? There is a Christian radio station getting a lot of publicity out of this. There is a career judge getting a lot of publicity out of this. A number of churches are raking in donations because of this.
“Is a statue of the ten commandments legitimizing a state religion?”
This, to me, brings up the issue that in reality, the first four commandments are religious in nature, uniquely related to the worship of G-d. When promoted by the government, they could be quite offensive to the followers of other religions who do not happen to worship the God of the Hebrew Scriptures. Placing them in a place of government endorses the viewpoints outlined in these commandments.
Let’s look at the first three (the fourth, keeping the Sabbat holy is less relevant, and the remainder are good moral instructions without overt religious overtones), and why they should not endorsed by a legal system that is supposed to respect everyone’s point of view and be impartial.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” – Protestant version
“I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.” – Catholic version.
“I am the Lord thy G-d, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”- Hebrew version.
All three version elevate the vision of the divine inherent in the revealed religions above those aspects of the divine worshipped by others. While it recognizes the existence of other Gods, it promotes one of them. In a multi-cultural society, many view this as discriminatory. It claims that this deity has authority over them, even if they have not chosen to worship that god.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” – protestant version (Catholic version is only one line, the Hebrew version almost identical, So I will not quote them all in full)
This is a direct affront to many religions, mot notably those who practice the Hindu faith, where statues form an integral part of religious life.
It goes on to equate the worshipping of others with a hatred of a particular deity, in essence, it’s presence in a government building tells those who are not a member of the three revealed religions, that their children, “unto the third and forth generation” will suffer because they do not follow a particular path.
It then states that mercy will be shown to those who “keep my commandments”. So, for a Hindu defendant to receive mercy, must he convert so that he obeys the first commandment?
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” – protestant version
What does it mean to take His name in “vain”? Let’s look up the word “vain” in a Webster’s dictionary:
vain 1. Having no real substance, value, or importance; empty; void; worthless; unsatisfying. “Thy vain excuse.” … 2. Destitute of forge or efficacy; effecting no purpose; fruitless; ineffectual; as, vain toil; a vain attempt. …
So, from the point of view of the atheist, who does not believe in any real substance to the name of God, this states that the God (who’s ‘words’ are there because an official believes they are the foundation of the law), then they cannot be found guiltless.
Your friend said:
“Is a statue of the ten commandments legitimizing a state religion?
No. It is SYMBOLIC of the history and traditions of law in this country.”
It is symbolic of the belief of some individuals that we are not all equal under law, that mercy is for those who follow a specific set of religions, and those who do not follow it are automatically guilty.
Is this the message we want to give those seeking justice?
Regards
Harry
PS, I rarely find discussion of this topic to be so well reasoned and respectful. It is a credit to all points of view expressed.
16 joe // Aug 29, 2003 at 2:34 pm
Yes Harry, rational people can agree to disagree and still remain cordial. It’s refreshing to be amongst them in the rare times it happens.
I think it takes a certain amount of confidence in your beliefs and your values not to attack someone who seems hell bent on attacking things you stand for. When I am faced with someone who is all emotional and not reasonable in a discussion I usually shut up. It’s just not worth the effort to try to convince someone in that mindset that there are alternative points of view. In fact, many of my wife’s friends think I’m the quiet one :)~ .
And one last thing, when faced with the frustrating task of facing someone with little or no reason, it is a proving ground for what you actually are inside. Do you show mercy in this instance or attack? Do you work for peace or do you provoke?
Just because someone is ‘wrong’ does not give open license to destroy. I would suggest that, in far too many instances, a reasonable disagreement escalates because it is common practice to ‘have to win’. In my silly little mind, I’d prefer to take peace & comfort in knowing my opinion is valid and I avoided a fight instead of having a ‘winning’ record. My opponent may walk away thinking he ‘won’ but I walk away knowing that my opinion has not changed in the least. His efforts were fruitless.
Only my two cents and not applicable to anything important.
17 Winkola // Aug 30, 2003 at 12:00 am
Joe, it’s been a good discussion; I hope we’ll have more. I’ve learned a few things from it. My wife said a couple of things about it:
1) “It’s good to see you sharpening your mind.”
2) “Who’s Joe and why does he want my picture?”
😉
18 joe // Aug 30, 2003 at 8:37 am
1) From my experiences with you, your mind is already very, very sharp. One of my purposes in posting was to test if I could maintain a position against such a mind.
2)In regards to your wife’s question, I will be like Socrates and answer her question with a question….when a woman is that attractive, what (straight) man wouldn’t want more Bunny pics?
Enjoy your weekend.
Btw, interesting article about our topic on CBSNews.com. Backs your position.
19 Winkola // Aug 30, 2003 at 9:51 am
Good ol’ “Joe.”
My first inclination is to think that you’re Joe T., but that would be too easy. But you’re enjoying this enough to be him. 😉 Your comment about the mental sparring fits Joe, also. But, as I said, that would be too easy and there are a couple of comments that don’t seem to fit Joe T. (Although, he could act differently now that he’s not my boss. ;))
I know he works in Fresno, as you appear to, and you appear to live in Clovis, but I don’t know if Joe T. does.
Hmmm…an interesting mystery (for now).
20 joe // Aug 30, 2003 at 12:53 pm
Let’s play ’10 question…or more…’
I’ll answer ONE of your questions for every picture of Bunny you post.
The only question not allowed (or any form of the question, I have to be careful with this fledgling lawyer) is ‘who are you?’.
Just like a witness, I will answer in a form that favors me. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes not exactly. But unlike a witness I will honor the spirit of the game and not be totally evasive.
I’ll even go first, I’m not your old boss.
21 Winkola // Aug 30, 2003 at 1:13 pm
I guess you owe me about six answers now, then, eh?
22 joe // Aug 31, 2003 at 1:28 pm
OK, if you’re not going to post NEW pix, here are six answers….
1) Yes
2) No
3) Maybe
4) Not even close
5) You’d be wrong
6) Guess again.
Six NEW pix gets six new questions and six new answers.
Leave a Comment