The Sheila Variations

Thanks. Good to hear.

Someone in Jeff's comments pointed out that the US Constitution disallows establishment of a national religion, and I read elsewhere that in fact the Massachusetts Constitution was amended circa 1833 to drop the state religion. A valid point, but I very much suspect the Alabama Constitution has something to say on the subject or the suit would not have been won. I am almost unbelievably bad at using search engines, or I might go looking, I know they are all on the Web someplace...

John:

Fascinating, and an excellent point. I did a bit of quick search engine stuff myself and found this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

At the bottom of the page is a list of all the states constitutions. Seems to be quite informative ...

I, on the other hand, am on the other side of this, even though I'm not religion.

I find our modern-day fear of "religion and government" rather paranoid and even a little bigoted.

When people fought against slavery using religious arguments, this was good. When people fought segregation using religious arguments, this was good.

But now we are afraid of religion in government, because...?

In a free democratic society, people can and should feel free to allow their religious views to frame part of their political arguments. Similarly, things like the 10 commandments have historical value, and I have no fear of their presence in government institutions even though I am not religious.

I really am rather bemused by the entire fear of the religious in this country, I really am. It seems to have little historical basis, something very new to the last generation or so, and based on a lot of misinformation about religion's role in our politics over the last couple of centuries.

Er, first sentence should say, "I'm not religious."

Duh.

Dean, there is a difference between "My religion states x, therefore I will support changing law y" and "My religion states x, and therefore I will make you look at that statement whether or not your religion is the same." From one, if you disagree you can argue or turn away - from the other, you cannot.

Putting a copy of a religious tract in your office is usually acceptable: unless you are my boss and I am of a different religion or sect, I am unlikely even to notice it. But putting it in the building lobby is a rather different thing.

Substitute Hammurabi's Code, which is more applicable anyway, and the problem goes away...

Oh, as to finding fear of the religious "new", just how many Huguenots do you know?

Well, Sheila did the hard part for me and found the State Constitutions. From that of Alabama [I marked part in bold] -

"That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."

Again, a private display or even public avowal is mostly fine - but using government funds or other resources (like a public lobby) is at best "iffy." Mind you, I think banning a crèche on the City Hall lawn is silly - as long as it is not the sole recognition of the season.

Perhaps if the Judge added a statue of Ganesha reading the Commandments, it would pass muster.

Oh, fiddle-dee-dee. Putting the 10 commandments up is not making religious war on people. Fear of the 10 commandments is paranoia--anti-Christian paranoia, in fact, and I say that as a non-Christian.

Somehow the Republic prospered as a citadel of religious freedom and plurality nearly 200 years before the courts started deciding that these things were an inclement threat to everyone's liberty. It's horseshit, so far as I'm concerned.

I also, frankly, don't see putting up the 10 commandments as granting religious preference to any sect of any kind. And I note that when that same Constitution was passed, things like the 10 commandments and statements like "In God We Trust" were probably plastered all over the place, and remained plastered all over the place until quite recently in that same state.

Why? Because no one was stupid enough to think that this was granting preference to any sect or religious mode of worship, and no one was stupid enough to think that this was a threat to anyone or anything.

Feh.

fear of religion? i don't think it's 'fear of religion', but rather fear of what religious fanatics do in the creator's name. i seem to recall that in france, the catholics killed the french protestants... hugonauts (spelling? i know this isn't spelled correctly). the protestants fled britain to the new world in search of religious freedom. martin luther nailed a list of protests to the door of a church once upon a time, and what about the crusades where 'christians went off to liberate the holy land from the infidels'.... or what missionaries have done in various countries in the name of their version of the creator? or what the inquisition did to jews in spain and portugal.

.... there was a good and valid reason for separating church and state in this country. we didn't want here what had happened before.

there are good reasons to continue keeping these separate at the same time we continue, as a country, to acknowledge that there is a creator or some force which produced the life we see around us on this planet.

in other words, no brand name.

I haven't been following this issue closely, so I'm sure I don't know all the contextual information around it, but I found the following very interesting:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hillyer082503.asp

I'm a pretty conservative guy, and I find it bizarre when people get all bent out of shape over stuff like "In God We Trust" on money (like anybody really pays any attention to that). I will admit that the Alabama monument, from what I saw on the TV, did look rather conspicuous. Oh well, I'm not from there, I'll let the locals work out their issues without interference from me.

And BTW, I found your original referenced post to be written by someone with a lot of vitriol and bile, and very little in the way of sufficiently argued facts. Maybe he was just having a bad day.

Dean, references to God (singular) and specificaly the Christian religion did and do abound. Key, however, is that no preference should be stated [or, perhaps, implicit] by the government. The Ten Commandments are pictured in the SCOTUS building - but not with in-your-face obtrusiveness, and surrounded by texts and figures from other traditions (OK, almost all Greek or Roman, but still other than Judaeo-Christian).

Judge Moore is not only in the wrong, he knows it (paying for the monument himself, installing it in the dead of night without even warning the other judges, etc.) and does not expect to win. He got his seat on the Court by playing himself in similar ways, portraying himself as a defender of the faith rather than a cynical demagogue, and is now manipulating the situation in a grasp for another office. *Judge Moore - This Commandments case is wrong Pryority for conservatives* As Pryor explained: "I continue to believe that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of our legal heritage and can be displayed constitutionally as they are in the building of the Supreme Court of the United States... (But) the rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders. The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders."

I have suggested on several sites, tongue only partly in cheek, that perhaps adding a statue of Ganesha [maajor Hindu avatar] reading the text would satisfy the Constitutional requirements.

And again, you and I may not feel directly threatened by such a display, but I wonder about Shintoists, Buddhists, and others - especially first-generation immigrants. And I do feel at least indirectly threatened by the attitude of such as hizzoner.

Interesting exchange on Ray Moore, etc.
There is no doubt that religion is a powerful and emotional force in peoples lives, in its many forms. People can disagree vehemently--and sometimes violently-- on matters of religion. Whose belief is the best one? Our founding fathers gave us a gift of a neutral, civic ground on which we could all meet and resolve our differences in a structure that could be accepted as fair by all. They left religion as an issue to be addressed solely between citizens and their God. They knew that government, to be effective needed to stay out of that relationship. Bringing religion into this equation disrupts that delicate balance and threatens us with losing the gift of self government itself. We have no shortage of churches where people can freely practice their religion and express their belief God. Why in the world invite government into that private and personal relationship?
Here's a thoughtful analysis of the whole separation of church and state issue, going back to the writings of the founding fathers themselves.
http://www.therant.info/archive/001326.html
What is surprising are Jefferson's comments ("Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, 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." ) and those of Benjamin Franklin ("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 are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. . . .")

Also, addressing Dean's fiddle-dee-dee comment, he might be interested in this web site which traces the evolution of "In God We Trust" which, if we are to believe this person's research, began in the second half of the 19th century and didn't find its way on to our currency in a required manner until the early 1900's. He writes,
"The Constitution of these United States was ratified in 1789 without a single reference to "God." At that time, 4 percent (some figures may go as high as 20%) of the populace was church-involved and many statesmen were deists, including the first six presidents. "
I understand people's desire to see their religious beliefs recognized by the government, but a cursory review of history is enough to be convinced of the wisdom of our country's founders to keep the two separate. ("a wall of separation between church and state" are Jefferson's words.) For those who want to let religion into our civic life, be careful what you wish for, it's entirely possible that you might get it. The liberties and responsibilities afforded by this nation are not a guarantee, only a perishable opportunity. We can lose it through our own well intentioned actions.