You know what? This whole episode started with a decision of controversial legality, but it has become the circus it has become due to an overreaction to that decision followed by an overreaction to that overreaction.
Like it or not, the Ten Commandments have had a significant influence on law and legal history, not to mention ethical practice in civil life (which is also a big contributor to law and order). For that matter, other religious history and/or religion has had a positive influnce on law and legal thinking (cf Wilberforce and opposition to slavery). The influence of the Ten Commandments historically seems commensurate to me with the Arabic use of the number 0 in the field of mathematics; if you really wanted to, you could ignore its effects, but you couldn't escape them.
But the legality is controversial; the handful of people who actually voiced a complaint were lawyers, and they should know. Personally, I'm not as convinced it's against the letter of the law with respect to church and state as some of you are. The separation of church and state is present to safeguard against bias and favoritism with respect to particular organized religion. It is not a dictate that the US government is to be atheistic, but that it is to be "apathetically agnostic" - "we don't know which religion if any is correct and we don't care." If the Ten Commandments have a place in the history of law and jurisprudence, then it may be of dubious political capital (and even wisdom) to memorialize them; but it is not unconstitiutional to do so, if indeed the state is properly invested in the business of memorializing history at all. It is an implicit responosibility of the state to not knowingly misrepresent the truth, and the concerted push to remove the monument borders on total abdication of this responsibility, using one part of the constitution to bash another part (freedom of expression by way of personal choice of monument within the confines of appropriateness to legal history, as part of the mandate of one's job) into submission. The state winds up taking sides by pretending not to take sides, under the guise of avoiding the appearance of discrimination; however, the only way to not take sides with respect to history is to represent it accurately, regardless of who is pleased or offended by it. The lawmakers should leave revisionist history to the pointy-headed intellectuals. Well, them and the artists and entertainers with their craven pseudo-enlightened agendas. (Pocahontas, anyone?)
That being said, the situation of those who oppose the decision wrapping themselves in the banner of the religiously persecuted is counterproductive, as it obscures the issues rather than clarifying them. I understand why they're doing it - the doctrine of separation between church and state has been applied in wrong-headed fashion before, and certain causes they are likely to espouse have also fallen under disfavor in important ways - but emotional knee-jerk reactions are not likely to bring the situation any closer to a profitable resolution.
As for your reactions to the quickvote, isn't it a little presumptuous to ascribe a scary absence of thought (or presence of motives) to people who you do not seem to have made an effort to understand?
Oh, and Cnoocy, I'm in the middle of preparation for a move, so while I haven't finished sitting down to answer your "good question" from the gay marriage thread a while back, I will not forget to do so. I will post back to that thread when I have that done.
First: I'm completely in agreement that "emotional knee-jerk reactions are not likely to bring the situation any closer to a profitable resolution," which is why I post them to my journal, rather than sending them to my duly elected representatives. That said, I do enjoy the chance to discuss these issues, so I have no objection to the existence of your response.
Now to rebut some of the content: It's not that the 10 commandments are being presented as a piece of the history of law, it's that they are being used to represent the idea that God, specifically the one who dictated the commandments to Moses, is "the very source of our rights and liberties and the very source of our law" which is certainly a valid opinion for an individual to hold, but a disastrous one for the state as an entity to hold, in that it implies that those who do not share faith in that source of rights and liberties may not be entitled to them. As a non-Christian, this is terrifying to me. Hence my remark about rule of the majority. I've known plenty of non-Christians living in Alabama, and the last thing the Supreme Justice of the state should be saying is "this nation was founded upon the laws of God." They have enough to worry about without having their recourse to the law threatened.
Quoting cnoocy (mostly because I like to have the material I'm referring to right in front of me):
It's not that the 10 commandments are being presented as a piece of the history of law, it's that they are being used to represent the idea that God, specifically the one who dictated the commandments to Moses, is "the very source of our rights and liberties and the very source of our law" ...
I would say that this was underreported where I am in Canada, but in all honsety, I might have been underattentive due to my impending relocation two provinces away.
... which is certainly a valid opinion for an individual to hold, but a disastrous one for the state as an entity to hold, in that it implies that those who do not share faith in that source of rights and liberties may not be entitled to them.
I concede the point on a matter of practice rather than theory. I think you would find that Baha'i practiced as prescribed would not have this problem (but Baha'i is not at isue here); I think you would also find that Christianity practiced as prescribed would for the most part be likewise, but many, many people practice Christianity nominally or selectively. Unless my understanding of American history is incomplete or erroneous, there was a significant amount of Christian influence in how the constitution and bill of rights were framed, including not only the clause about freedom of religion (and IIRC, also the clause about freedom of association, which is pivotal to true democracy), but also the clause about separation of church and state.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting a thearchy of any sort for any western nation; I'm not sure it is even appropriate for modern-day Israel (which isn't one) or modern-day muslim nations (which tend to lean in that direction). I believe that one of the Gospels mentions rendering to God what is God's and rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, does it not?
At any rate, if Christianity was being practiced as prescribed in this instance, I don't see the justice in question relying on the defence he is relying on. (Or to beat around the bush a little less, I think he is out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner in this instance.) The "Christian" thing to do here would have been to arrange for the monument to be moved elsewhere, and it would probably be most appropriate to do it at personal expense.
I'm not sure yet whether I believe this particular justice is being wignorant or "incompetent" here however. Your Alabaman friends may not be comfortable with this (heck, I don't think *I* am), but I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't all a ploy to gain grassroots support for a run for governor.
As a non-Christian, this is terrifying to me. Hence my remark about rule of the majority. I've known plenty of non-Christians living in Alabama, and the last thing the Supreme Justice of the state should be saying is "this nation was founded upon the laws of God." They have enough to worry about without having their recourse to the law threatened.
Money, sex, and power attract the unscrupulous (well, they attract the scrupulous, too, but that's not the category where the most dangerous individuals fall); they always have, and they always will, and religion in the modern era has two of the three. The fact of human nature that attracts some pedophiles to the priesthood is also the fact of human nature which attracts some politicians to go centrist against their own principles (Rob Lowe, anyone? ;-), and which prompts others to torture and intimidate their own people under the banner of Islam. One needs to watch out for these types everywhere, and not just in the easily identifiable groups of people who are different from us.
Along these lines, if you'd have said that the suspension of this particular justice as a "victory for the US constitution" (which it was), I'd have probably not said anything contrarian. I honestly think we as a society are better at picking off the problematic outliers of our society if we handle them on a case by case basis instead of making generalizations and falling into an "us vs. them" mentality. At the very least, we are not giving their committed but unthinking minions ammunition for their own "us vs. them" hobbyhorses. Rest assured, there will be more, and they will be Democrats, Republicans, Unitarians, Vegetarians, Rastifarians, and any number of other visible or invisible minorities.
Anyway, disagree with any of the above at your leisure.
PS: Sorry about the formatting on the previous post
Okay. Let's see. Your point about "Christianity as prescribed" not discriminating against the unbelievers is valid up to a point. It's been established (and probably this is a theory/practice distinction) that having two classes of citizens, regardless of how sincerely the government may wish to treat them equally, creates a disparity in rights between the two classes. Certainly I would have no fear of being mistreated for my beliefs if I lived in the kingdom preached by Jesus in the Gospels. (heh. I might have to go into that sometime.)
The other point about not falling into an "us vs. them" trap is also well taken, though it's a bit much to read a full-blown mentality out of a 16-word post. And I don't have anything against the rights of Christians, I am just pleased when those in authority recognize that the equal application of those rights involves not applying favoritism. And I don't have a good response yet to the question of why we'd keep the Lincoln Memorial even if a Cult of Lincoln were to spring up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cnoocy
Wow.
Date: 2003-08-21 11:04 am (UTC)Cnoocy, you kick butt. I'll go read that newslink now.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 12:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 01:04 pm (UTC)A contrarian opinion
Date: 2003-08-23 09:03 am (UTC)Like it or not, the Ten Commandments have had a significant influence on law and legal history, not to mention ethical practice in civil life (which is also a big contributor to law and order). For that matter, other religious history and/or religion has had a positive influnce on law and legal thinking (cf Wilberforce and opposition to slavery). The influence of the Ten Commandments historically seems commensurate to me with the Arabic use of the number 0 in the field of mathematics; if you really wanted to, you could ignore its effects, but you couldn't escape them.
But the legality is controversial; the handful of people who actually voiced a complaint were lawyers, and they should know. Personally, I'm not as convinced it's against the letter of the law with respect to church and state as some of you are. The separation of church and state is present to safeguard against bias and favoritism with respect to particular organized religion. It is not a dictate that the US government is to be atheistic, but that it is to be "apathetically agnostic" - "we don't know which religion if any is correct and we don't care." If the Ten Commandments have a place in the history of law and jurisprudence, then it may be of dubious political capital (and even wisdom) to memorialize them; but it is not unconstitiutional to do so, if indeed the state is properly invested in the business of memorializing history at all. It is an implicit responosibility of the state to not knowingly misrepresent the truth, and the concerted push to remove the monument borders on total abdication of this responsibility, using one part of the constitution to bash another part (freedom of expression by way of personal choice of monument within the confines of appropriateness to legal history, as part of the mandate of one's job) into submission. The state winds up taking sides by pretending not to take sides, under the guise of avoiding the appearance of discrimination; however, the only way to not take sides with respect to history is to represent it accurately, regardless of who is pleased or offended by it. The lawmakers should leave revisionist history to the pointy-headed intellectuals. Well, them and the artists and entertainers with their craven pseudo-enlightened agendas. (Pocahontas, anyone?)
That being said, the situation of those who oppose the decision wrapping themselves in the banner of the religiously persecuted is counterproductive, as it obscures the issues rather than clarifying them. I understand why they're doing it - the doctrine of separation between church and state has been applied in wrong-headed fashion before, and certain causes they are likely to espouse have also fallen under disfavor in important ways - but emotional knee-jerk reactions are not likely to bring the situation any closer to a profitable resolution.
As for your reactions to the quickvote, isn't it a little presumptuous to ascribe a scary absence of thought (or presence of motives) to people who you do not seem to have made an effort to understand?
Oh, and Cnoocy, I'm in the middle of preparation for a move, so while I haven't finished sitting down to answer your "good question" from the gay marriage thread a while back, I will not forget to do so. I will post back to that thread when I have that done.
Re: A contrarian opinion
Date: 2003-08-23 09:28 am (UTC)First: I'm completely in agreement that "emotional knee-jerk reactions are not likely to bring the situation any closer to a profitable resolution," which is why I post them to my journal, rather than sending them to my duly elected representatives. That said, I do enjoy the chance to discuss these issues, so I have no objection to the existence of your response.
Now to rebut some of the content:
It's not that the 10 commandments are being presented as a piece of the history of law, it's that they are being used to represent the idea that God, specifically the one who dictated the commandments to Moses, is "the very source of our rights and liberties and the very source of our law" which is certainly a valid opinion for an individual to hold, but a disastrous one for the state as an entity to hold, in that it implies that those who do not share faith in that source of rights and liberties may not be entitled to them. As a non-Christian, this is terrifying to me. Hence my remark about rule of the majority. I've known plenty of non-Christians living in Alabama, and the last thing the Supreme Justice of the state should be saying is "this nation was founded upon the laws of God." They have enough to worry about without having their recourse to the law threatened.
Re: A contrarian opinion (part 1, 'cuz I'm over the length limit again.)
Date: 2003-08-25 07:09 pm (UTC)I would say that this was underreported where I am in Canada, but in all honsety, I might have been underattentive due to my impending relocation two provinces away.
I concede the point on a matter of practice rather than theory. I think you would find that Baha'i practiced as prescribed would not have this problem (but Baha'i is not at isue here); I think you would also find that Christianity practiced as prescribed would for the most part be likewise, but many, many people practice Christianity nominally or selectively. Unless my understanding of American history is incomplete or erroneous, there was a significant amount of Christian influence in how the constitution and bill of rights were framed, including not only the clause about freedom of religion (and IIRC, also the clause about freedom of association, which is pivotal to true democracy), but also the clause about separation of church and state.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting a thearchy of any sort for any western nation; I'm not sure it is even appropriate for modern-day Israel (which isn't one) or modern-day muslim nations (which tend to lean in that direction). I believe that one of the Gospels mentions rendering to God what is God's and rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's, does it not?
At any rate, if Christianity was being practiced as prescribed in this instance, I don't see the justice in question relying on the defence he is relying on. (Or to beat around the bush a little less, I think he is out to breakfast, lunch, and dinner in this instance.) The "Christian" thing to do here would have been to arrange for the monument to be moved elsewhere, and it would probably be most appropriate to do it at personal expense.
I'm not sure yet whether I believe this particular justice is being wignorant or "incompetent" here however. Your Alabaman friends may not be comfortable with this (heck, I don't think *I* am), but I'm starting to wonder whether this isn't all a ploy to gain grassroots support for a run for governor.
Re: A contrarian opinion (part 1, 'cuz I'm over the length limit again.)
Date: 2003-08-25 07:11 pm (UTC)Money, sex, and power attract the unscrupulous (well, they attract the scrupulous, too, but that's not the category where the most dangerous individuals fall); they always have, and they always will, and religion in the modern era has two of the three. The fact of human nature that attracts some pedophiles to the priesthood is also the fact of human nature which attracts some politicians to go centrist against their own principles (Rob Lowe, anyone? ;-), and which prompts others to torture and intimidate their own people under the banner of Islam. One needs to watch out for these types everywhere, and not just in the easily identifiable groups of people who are different from us.
Along these lines, if you'd have said that the suspension of this particular justice as a "victory for the US constitution" (which it was), I'd have probably not said anything contrarian. I honestly think we as a society are better at picking off the problematic outliers of our society if we handle them on a case by case basis instead of making generalizations and falling into an "us vs. them" mentality. At the very least, we are not giving their committed but unthinking minions ammunition for their own "us vs. them" hobbyhorses. Rest assured, there will be more, and they will be Democrats, Republicans, Unitarians, Vegetarians, Rastifarians, and any number of other visible or invisible minorities.
Anyway, disagree with any of the above at your leisure.
PS: Sorry about the formatting on the previous post
Re: A contrarian opinion (part 1, 'cuz I'm over the length limit again.)
Date: 2003-08-26 09:01 am (UTC)Your point about "Christianity as prescribed" not discriminating against the unbelievers is valid up to a point. It's been established (and probably this is a theory/practice distinction) that having two classes of citizens, regardless of how sincerely the government may wish to treat them equally, creates a disparity in rights between the two classes. Certainly I would have no fear of being mistreated for my beliefs if I lived in the kingdom preached by Jesus in the Gospels. (heh. I might have to go into that sometime.)
The other point about not falling into an "us vs. them" trap is also well taken, though it's a bit much to read a full-blown mentality out of a 16-word post. And I don't have anything against the rights of Christians, I am just pleased when those in authority recognize that the equal application of those rights involves not applying favoritism. And I don't have a good response yet to the question of why we'd keep the Lincoln Memorial even if a Cult of Lincoln were to spring up.