You know, I thought about trying to write this posting, imagining that I was a Justice on the Supreme Court, and was writing a Dissenting Opinion in the 10 Commandments case, and then I concluded, the heck with this--I'm just going to write this in my never to be humble style, and let the chips fall where they may. So fasten your seat belts folks--here it comes!!!
Needless to say, I would have upheld the constitutionality of posting the 10 Commandments, not only in our court houses, but in our public schools as well. And I will explain why, by using the Supreme Court's own three-prong test that was established in Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 US 602 (1971).
First--Does posting the 10 Commandments have a secular purpose? Without a doubt they do. While the first 5 are specifically and unmistakably religious in nature, the second 5 deal directly with how we treat our fellow man, i.e., do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, etc. Therefore the secular purpose is well established.
Second--Does posting the 10 Commandments advance or inhibit religion? Since there is no specific version, i.e., Christian, Catholic, Baptist, etc., this answer would seem to be rather obvious.
Third--Does the posting of the 10 Commandments foster an excessive governmental entanglement? Entanglement with what? It's not like there is going to be someone holding a copy of the Commandments crying OBEY THESE OR GO TO HELL!!!!---GET REAL!!! They're framed and posted on the wall, and a person is free to look at them or not. No one is beating them over the head with God's Law.
Another thought--in the opening of the Majority Opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy asked one particularly important question--Should Bowers v. Hardwick, which was the controlling ruling in all sodomy cases, be overturned? The Court, did not however ask whether Stone v. Graham should have been overturned, which it clearly should be.
Given the results of the latest USA Today poll on whether it should be constitutional to post the 10 Commandments on government property, and 59% said it should be constitutional, This ruling by our Highest Court is very difficult to understand, and represents just one more example of a judiciary that is running totally out of contol.
Finally, Article III Section 1 of the United States Constitution provides that Judges/Justices shall "hold their Offices during good behavior." QUESTION: DO THE ACTIVITIES OF OUR JUDICIARY CONSTITUTE GOOD BEHAVIOR?
Jun 29, 2005
How Would I Decide The 10 Commandments Cases????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have to disagree with you on this issue. It’s a step in the wrong direction, in my opinion, but not a significant step. As you note the first five commandments are specifically religious in nature. The last five are common to most civilizations. I have no problem with grandfathering in many of the customs and symbols of the past but going forward it is best not allow the expression of doctrine – and the Ten Commandments are just that: commandments – i.e. exhortations.
I have no problem with the teaching of religion in public facilities. Religion is part of history. And I have no problem with ceremonial symbols. Nor do I have any problem with the common usage of the word “God” as it is taken literally by some and figuratively by other. I do have a problem with exhortations – even obvious ones – when presented as part of a religion.
My main objection is that the Supreme Court is deciding this. I’d rather people figure out the proper decorum by having a civil debate among ourselves and acting as we each see fit. You and I would simply disagree and act differently. And the towns we live in might make different choices. But hopefully it would be a respectful disagreement.
Mr. Pappas--You make quite an interesting argument, although I respectfully disagree. The Ten Commandments are much more than just an exhortation, they have laid the very foundation for the moral and civil laws that we know today, and go far beyond the point of merely being part of a religion.
The main problem that I have with the various judicial rulings regarding the 10 commandments as well as other religious liberty issues, is that our courts have departed from the original intent of the Founding Fathers, who viewed the judicial branch as the least powerful of the so-called separate but co-equal branches of our federal government.
I would also disagree with the teaching of religion as though it were another "school subject." This would reduce the Bible to just another text or reference book. I am also curious to know what you refer to as a "common usage" of God's Sacred Name. (BTW: It's not just another word)
The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It neither infers nor does it imply the so-called separation of church and state that has been attributed to it. As you may know this is an adaptation of Thomas Jefferson's quote from his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801-"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." The changing of the word "between" to "of" alters the entire meaning of this phrase.
You may also be aware that Justice Hugo Black, writing the Majority Opinion in the Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education decision, took Jefferson's quotation completely out of context, and helped launch this complete state of confusion we are in today with respect to the expression of religious beliefs and principles in the public arena.
While it is obvious that we disagree on this issue, I complement you on making a thoughtful argument.
You raise many worthy points that give me much to think about. Perhaps, if I get around to working out my own position, I’ll write an extended essay on my blog. If so, I’ll drop by and give you the heads-up. I always welcome intelligent feedback. Keep up the good work.
Dave, excellent outline of the position. I would add that I like pappas's suggestion that the Supreme Court should leave it alone and allow the people to decide. An ideal that I have tried to push here on Abortion as well. The federal government should stay the hell out of it and allow the states via referendum or other means to set their own laws.
PA-This would fall right in line with my posting a few months ago on citizen initiative and referendum. And I absolutely agree with you and Mr. Pappas about the Supreme Court,(and the lower one's too) staying out of these matters.
BTW-PA & Mr. Pappas--Here's the the citation on the Supreme Court case referenced in my previous comment:
Everson v. Board of Education 330 US 1 (1947) Sorry I forgot to include that earlier.
Post a Comment