I don't like either side here -- or more precisely, I agree with Judge Moore's claims that the Ten Commandments are important, but I think this is less about freedom of religion for him and more about winning popularity (and maybe higher office). It seems he has deliberately inflamed leftwing secularists and basically positioned himself to lose this so that he can get more support from the evangelical/fundamentalist base. Sadly, this will probably work; we tend to have, dare I say it, overly simplistic discrimination regarding politicians. Bush good, Democrats bad. Moore good, ACLU bad. It's the curse of decent people everywhere (not to say that evangelical=decent or non-Christian=mean by any means) that generally, all people of goodwill tend to impute their own good motives to others who may be more malevolent. Basically, the Judge is shooting us in the foot here for his own personal gain. He's reinforcing every stereotype of the Christian as anti-intellectual, overbearing and tending to the theocratic. Not helpful.
All the same, I do think that everyone who cares about the future of the rule of law and of the Republic ought actively to support things like prayer in schools, religious-themed mottoes, etc. Why? These things are symbols, true -- the morality of the nation does not depend on whether there's a stone monument in the courthouse of a backwater state. But symbols are important. They do shape our perceptions of reality.
Wait, you say. I'm an atheist/agnostic/bright/whatever. If symbols are as important as you say, well that makes it all the more important that sectarian, Judeo-Christian symbols be removed from the civil forum, so that all viewpoints can be treated equally in the marketplace of ideas.
Wrong. You've jumped to conclusions. The function of these symbols in the public square is not to promote Christianity or organized religion or even belief in God.
To tell the truth, these symbols don't do any substantial harm to secular ideas either. Note that the United Kingdom has no concept of separation of church and state, with prayer in schools, the whole bit (heck, they've still got an established, state-funded Church) but is more or less a secular nation. Unless all those reports of atheists being burned at the stake are being suppressed by the Puritan Theocracy, of course.
What religious gestures by the government do do is focus our attention on this fact: that there is a higher authority than Congress or the Supreme Court or the President or even the Constitution. Some call it "Natural Law". I call it God, and I'd rather you believed in a personal, omnipotent God -- but that's not the point for this discussion. The important thing is that every lawyer and scholar and politician acknowledge that the Law is not a social construct. Things are not wrong because they are criminalized; things are criminalized because they are wrong. We can argue over whether certain things ought to come within the purview of the state (like legalization of drugs) but that is, again, beside the point. What needs to be clear is that there is an objective morality outside ourselves and outside the society as a whole. The Law needs to reflect that morality; when it does not, as it did not for blacks until 1863 and 1964, for women until 1920 and later, and still, argue proponents for gay rights, today -- the Law must be changed not to suit the whims of public majorities or the Supreme Court, but to come more in line with what is just.
We disagree about some points of the natural law, but on most, Americans are in full agreement:
-Human life is sacred. Everyone has a basic, inherent right to live.
-Everyone must be free to follow his own conscience and beliefs. Everyone has a basic, inherent right to liberty.
-Private property exists. Everyone has a basic, inherent right to do with his own property what he feels will make him happiest.
Sound familiar?
We hold these truths to be self-evident
(Not subjective -- clear to all who care to look)
That all men are created equal;
(The rights that follow are inherent to every man, not just a special class or race)
That they are endowed by their Creator
(again, this is not subjective in any way; there is a Law outside of ourselves and our society that makes these rights inherent)
with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The important thing is not the symbols themselves; it is that seeing these symbols everywhere ought to remind us constantly that there is a Natural Law, a yardstick by which we should measure our actions as well as those of our society and government. When you see "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill, you should remember to spend your money wisely. When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, you need not believe in a higher power to recognize that the government or the Constitution or the People can and have been horribly wrong; how would we know that if morality were merely what the government or the Constitution or the People said it was? Or, on another tack: which would you feel safer under, a government that acknowledged it was not the source of its own authority, or a government that believed itself to be self-perpetuating and ultimately sovereign?
Posted by Tim at August 28, 2003 11:53 PMI do disagree with a number of points here.
I don't believe that there is any higher authority. No matter what you call it, or how you blur it.
There's just us.
The function of prayer in itself is not to promote a particular belief, but the function of promoting prayer in schools is to promote a particular belief. Which is why it is not allowed.
Though you're right that the function of Judge Moore's monument is political rather than evangelical.
You're right again about there being an objective morality - though we surely disagree on the origin of this morality.
When I see "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill, I think that someone in a position of power is fundamentally misguided.
The source of authority of any government has to be the people governed by it; anything else is mere tyranny. That is what the framers of the constitution realised
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 29, 2003 01:59 AMHaving said all that, I'm not only not a constitutional scholar, I'm not even an American. And in Australia, we don't have separation of church and state enshrined in our constitution. But we don't have a state religion either. Australia is one of the most secular nations on Earth - and not because our leaders decided it should be that way, just because that's how we are.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 29, 2003 02:10 AMAnd the "brights" are still wankers.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 29, 2003 02:29 AMHow can I put this... the big fight over the religious symbolism is because that's where the line is being drawn. The christian right (remember the Moral Majority) has made it clear that if you don't believe as they do then you aren't worthy of their time. And that is diametrically opposite what America is about. Prayer in school? No biggie, except that some nut with a bible will take that and use it as a springboard to outlaw the teaching of evolution (Kansas). There is a line, but both sides want to draw it, which leads to situations like this.
In this particular case, I don't have a problem with the monument to the 10 Commandments. I DO have a problem with a judge deciding that God has jurisdiction over the Constitution he swore to uphold. If he wants to be a soldier for God and it interferes with the duty he chose to do, then he should resign immediately. He's an extremist.
Posted by: Ted at August 29, 2003 08:26 AMHey Pixy,
We here in the US don't have "separation of church and state" enshrined in our Constitution either. What we have is directive that the Federal government not establish a national religion or interfere with any individual's practice of religion.
The fact that this case made it to the Federal courts is a testiment to how far away from the reality of the Constitution the Federal courts have drifted.
I agree that Justice Moore is doing this for personal gain. I also vainly hope that this case goes before the SCOTUS and they rule that the Federal courts have no jurisdiction.
Posted by: DarthVOB at August 29, 2003 11:28 AMPixy:
And the "brights" are still wankers.
Not that there's anything WRONG with it...
Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 29, 2003 12:11 PMBut Pixy, the people can be tyrannical too. A lynch mob can consist of 49 people who think the fiftieth needs to, um, permanently stop using oxygen. The people are clearly tyrannical here. Of course, if that happens in a civilized country, the police arrest these people for breaking the law. But what happens if, say, this is an island nation with only 50 people? Those 49 are the majority. But they're still wrong, no?
Posted by: Tim the Michigander at August 29, 2003 03:54 PMBut hey, we're all agreed on this: brights are wankers. (although certain of us seem to think this a good thing :) )
Posted by: Tim the Michigander at August 29, 2003 03:57 PMYes, the people can be tyrants too. That's why, although it is necessary that government takes its authority from the people, that in itself is not sufficient for good government. That's where justice and mercy and all that stuff comes in, and things get tricky...
Thanks DarthVOB. I sort of knew that, but I didn't know it clearly enough to say the right thing.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 29, 2003 10:34 PMPixy - to your comment: "When I see "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill, I think that someone in a position of power is fundamentally misguided."
Mmmmm, yeah, that would be Joe McCarthy. Both this and the addition of "under God" to the pledge came in the 1950s. We just HAD to distinguish ourselves from the Godless Communists, you know.
Posted by: Sherard at August 29, 2003 11:12 PMGood discussion. But who the heck are "the brights"? Is it like "the media"? Jus' askin'...
Posted by: Tuning Spork at August 30, 2003 01:18 AMWow, you missed that whole meme a while back? Basically bright=open-minded person, generally non-theist (?), on the same model as homosexual -> gay. Objectors (like me) thought it was bad because it deliberately inflames emotions in what is already a very volatile topic (God's existence) while pro-Brightists like Dean thought it was a great way to describe how they felt. One discussion on Dean's World about it is here.
Posted by: Tim the Michigander at August 30, 2003 02:46 AMThanks for the link, Tim.
As I've noted, I'm a non-theist myself, and many of the "brights" are people I greatly respect. (James Randi, for example, and Daniel Dennett.)
My reaction stems from two things: first, I don't like the name, and second, I have an aversion - a very strong aversion - to being put in a group.
I certainly have nothing against Dean Esmay, who fortunately seems to have taken my remark in good humour.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 30, 2003 05:06 AMHi. This is my links.
pantyhose dvd http://pan.ganbangi.com/ wet panty pictures http://pan.ganbangi.com/wetpantypictures.html pantyhose gallerys http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhosegallerys.html free teen panty pics http://pan.ganbangi.com/freeteenpantypics.html nylon fetish http://pan.ganbangi.com/nylonfetish.html pantyhose models photos http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhosemodelsphotos.html feet pantyhose footjobs http://pan.ganbangi.com/feetpantyhosefootjobs.html pretty panties http://pan.ganbangi.com/prettypanties.html new panty pics http://pan.ganbangi.com/newpantypics.html panty latin gallery http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantylatingallery.html sheer seamless pantyhose http://pan.ganbangi.com/sheerseamlesspantyhose.html free panty photos http://pan.ganbangi.com/freepantyphotos.html mature panty pics http://pan.ganbangi.com/maturepantypics.html pantyhose magazine http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhosemagazine.html pantyhose rape http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhoserape.html pantyhose thumbnail galleries http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhosethumbnailgalleries.html pantyhose and nylon emporium http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhoseandnylonemporium.html pantyhose girl models http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhosegirlmodels.html panty boy stories http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyboystories.html mature nylons http://pan.ganbangi.com/maturenylons.html pantyhose secretaries http://pan.ganbangi.com/pantyhosesecretaries.html