(I’m bringing this in from the comments on “Nampa Man’s Wife in Similar Condition as… the name I will not type anymore”. I chided Adam on using the “slippery slope” argument that harvesting stem cells from to-be-discarded fertility clinic embryos would lead to harvesting organs from living breathing retarded people. Adam responded:)
BTW, you’re one to talk about slippery slopes. The foundation of the argument over whether the Ten Commandments in public display is that it will lead to a curtailing of religious freedom and the establishment of a state religion to oppress religious minorities.
As far as the Ten Commandments, I don’t know who’s making slippery slope arguments about it. I don’t. I make a very simple sticky plane argument (is that the opposite of slippery slope?) about it:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof…”
That’s it. Don’t mix church and state. Period. It is its own argument, needing no slippery slope to justify it. Government should not be in the God business, and God should not be in the government business.
Could the display of the Ten Commandments be a completely innocuous “ceremonial deism”, like having “In God We Trust” on our money? Maybe (of course, I disagree with having “In God We Trust” on our money in the first place…) Do I think that putting up Ten Commandments displays will lead to roving mobs of theo-cons tearing down mosques and synagogues? Probably not (immediately…) Or a state religion? I doubt it.
It’s just that mixing God and government at any level is a bad idea. The whole idea of religion is to accept on faith that there is an ultimate, unknowable higher authority responsible for human justice. As such, its authority can never be debated or checked by men, and its tenets must be dispensed by clergy, never questioned, with no checks and balances. Quite unamerican, if you ask me.
We are a nation of laws based on a Constitution. It is power derived from the just consent of the masses, not the dictates of a priest caste, nor words of a Scripture so ambiguous that its true meaning is impossible to discern (which “Christian” nation would we be, anyway, Baptist? Quaker? Mormon? Catholic? Lutheran? Calvinist? Nazarene?) We are to be a government for all people, separate from our religious identity, with the postulation that we are all equal under the eyes of the law and that no one religion is “more equal” than others.
You can have your faith, and you can use that faith to guide your political decisions. But you get to bring your political arguments to a neutral table, not one with copies of Bibles placed at each seat.
The problem with the displays isn’t as severe as an imagined Christian jihad. It’s just the impression that it leaves. When you’re a Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist walking into a courthouse with a Ten Commandments display, it says to you, “Welcome to a fair and unbiased court of law… in a nation dominated by a religion that says your religion is wrong. Trust us, we’ll be fair to you… you heathen!”
Just imagine the shoe on the other foot. Imagine you’re in a courthouse in Utah, and it’s not the Ten Commandments on the wall, but the Pearls of Great Price. Or maybe you’re in a courthouse in a Detroit neighborhood with a Quranic display on the walls. Or maybe you’re in “Radical” Russ District Court and there’s a picture of Jesus with a red circle-and-slash over him. Wouldn’t you get the slightest feeling of dread?
The next argument is “well, we don’t have a historic tradition of Mormonism, Islam, or Atheism! We were founded by Christians, and we are a majority of Christians, and we have a Christian history!” We could argue about that (the Founding Fathers were Deists and most demonstrably not Christian), but really the point is moot. The weight of history or majority is irrelevant. By that argument, if the Mormons keep churning out litters of little Kyles and Debbies and become a majority in the country, maybe in five or six generations we should be displaying the Thirteen Articles of Faith in courts and schools. Or if we have a huge influx of Muslims over the next five hundred years, we should display the Quran.
The Founders were clear: Government should be insulated from religion and vice versa. I don’t understand why more Christians aren’t clear on this; their own Scripture dictates a similar concept (“render unto Caesar”). What problem are we solving or deficit are we reducing by displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse? Is it expected that this religious display will somehow reduce crime or make trials fairer?
No. The only purpose in displaying such a religious icon is to assert religious influence over the secular law. I hear it when the Christians say, “the Ten Commandments are a historical reference to the idea of rule of law” in order to cloak the religious intent in secular language. I don’t hear them fighting to display the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Charta in our courthouses, after all. And since when are “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me”, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain”, or “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy” any sort of law in America?
No one is trying to squelch your religion, we’re just trying to remind you of its place. You may live your life under God’s Law, you may preach God’s Law from your pulpits, you may prosletyze on street corners and doorsteps. But where our secular law is concerned, the Founders were clear about avoiding any appearance of impropriety or favoritism toward or against religion.
My personal feeling is that Christians are feeling the heat of a populace that finds their religion increasingly irrelevant and feeling some competition from other religions. The precentage of people who say they regularly attend church is in decline. More and more people are feeling loosed from the psychological bonds of religious indoctrination. Intolerant Christians find themselves in a world filled with beloved homosexuals, kids emulating Britney Spears, a multibillion dollar porn industry, Janet’s Justin-jabbed Jiggler, an influx of non-Christian religions (eek! diversity!), more and more cursing, violence, and nudity in TV and movies, and a populace that would rather watch the Packers/Bears game than go to church (and fill up a collection plate).
The Christians are seeing their time of dominance on the wane and are desperate to restore and keep power. It used to be enough to claim the mantle of divine providence and use the fear of eternal damnation. These days, it would seem, given the choice between heaven and hell, more people are choosing hell. (Why this is a problem for Christians is beyond me. You’d think a shorter line at the Pearly Gates would be a good thing for the elect.)
But now, the old fire-and-brimstone message isn’t winning the converts, filling the coffers, and manipulating the politics like it used to (hmm, maybe I’d better reconsider that last point). The majority likes the idea of women having control of their personal medical decisions. Most people don’t mind curse words so much. While a majority may oppose gay marriage, a majority also supports civil unions for gays, and most people know a few gay people and some even count gays among their friends. Lots of people like to rent dirty movies or see shoot ’em ups at the cinema. Sin is mighty popular. While it is perfectly OK to preach the message of your Gospel and to live your life by its dictates, it is not OK for you to force that view upon others through the endorsement of government. If a man is free to go to heaven in the manner of his own choosing, he is also free to go to hell in the manner of his own choosing.
So in this last gasp, the Christians seek to embed themselves into our government institutions. They seek to use the force of government to give their message a “fair hearing” much like Bush used Armstrong Williams to get “No Child Left Behind” a fair hearing. They seek official recognition of the importance of Christinsanity where they can no longer achieve popular support.
You hear it in their rhetoric. Christinsanity is under attack! Don’t X Jesus out of Christmas! Activist Judges! Culture of Life! The entire movement is predicated on the idea that they are being overwhelmed in the public sphere, that good Christians need to fight back and reclaim America. In a sense, they’re right, in that this young country is finally growing up enough to understand and implement its founding vision of enlightenment and tolerance and reject the intrusion of personal religious dogma into the affairs of state. There’s still a long way to go, obviously.
But as far as removing religion from the public sphere, that’s not anyone’s goal, and even if it were, it would not be possible. I see at least six Christian networks in my cable package. You can’t drive a mile without seeing a church. I see billboards, highway signs, roadside crosses, and Christian symbolism everywhere I look. (Hell, that 30′ lighted cross up on Table Rock in Boise is going nowhere anytime soon. Your whole city sits beneath a blazing symbol of your religion and you’re worried about a stone monument in a park?) The Passion of the Christ grossed $370 million. The Left Behind series of books are runaway best sellers. Surely, there’s a strongly-committed group of private citizens who are making religion very visible in our society.
Our point has always been that government should not be providing these endorsements, that’s all, either through display or funding of religion. And truly, it is an arrangement that protects religion from government influence moreso than the reverse. Let the Ten Commandments be your personal guide to law; let the Ten Amendments be our country’s guide to law.
