Two Important Rulings Today from the US Supreme Court: Separation of Church From State
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION:
Ending their term with a bang Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court made two separate rulings in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments,one in a Kentucky case, and the other originating out of Texas. I will summarize them as I understand their significance.
In the first case, coming out of Kentucky, the justices ruled that the purpose behind the display of the Ten Commandments on two Kentucky county courthouse walls was clearly religious and consequently violated the separation of church from state. In this case, the Ten Commandments promenantly appeared, by themselves on the grounds of the Kentucky courthouse. In the Texas case, in s 5-4 vote, the Ten Commandements were displayed as a granite monument sitting among 17 other monuments and 21 plaques on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin.
What these two decisions appear to stand for, read together, is that when a display is mounted for clearly religious purposes and that such purposes are obvious, they are clearly unconstitutional and constitute a violation of the separation of church from state. The Ten Commandements, it was said is a sacred text and cariies an unmistakenly religious message. Justice O'Conner was the fifth vote in the Kentucky case emphasizing that its purpose was relevant in that it conveyed an unmistakable message of endorsement to the reasonable observer. Justice O'Connor went on to state that "Voluntary religious belief and expression may be as threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly infers with private religious practices." Justice O'Conner noted that the First Amendment has served us well, enabling religion to flourish in this country. The display of the Ten Commandements and its constitutionality in Texas seemed to be based upon the fact that it was not displayed alone, but existed as a monument and/or plaque among others on public grounds, concluding that if displayed inconspicously, it does not violate the First Amendment.
Please note again, that I have not read these important cases, and am summarizing them from one of the legal sites to which I subscribe.
Here is the question of the day: Do you agree with the rulings in the cases above? Do you think that the public display of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls is clearly religious, violating the first Amendment? Is there really a difference if the Ten Commandements are displayed by themselves or inconspiciously if in fact they are concluded to be a sacred text?
Thank you for your minds.
Ending their term with a bang Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court made two separate rulings in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments,one in a Kentucky case, and the other originating out of Texas. I will summarize them as I understand their significance.
In the first case, coming out of Kentucky, the justices ruled that the purpose behind the display of the Ten Commandments on two Kentucky county courthouse walls was clearly religious and consequently violated the separation of church from state. In this case, the Ten Commandments promenantly appeared, by themselves on the grounds of the Kentucky courthouse. In the Texas case, in s 5-4 vote, the Ten Commandements were displayed as a granite monument sitting among 17 other monuments and 21 plaques on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin.
What these two decisions appear to stand for, read together, is that when a display is mounted for clearly religious purposes and that such purposes are obvious, they are clearly unconstitutional and constitute a violation of the separation of church from state. The Ten Commandements, it was said is a sacred text and cariies an unmistakenly religious message. Justice O'Conner was the fifth vote in the Kentucky case emphasizing that its purpose was relevant in that it conveyed an unmistakable message of endorsement to the reasonable observer. Justice O'Connor went on to state that "Voluntary religious belief and expression may be as threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly infers with private religious practices." Justice O'Conner noted that the First Amendment has served us well, enabling religion to flourish in this country. The display of the Ten Commandements and its constitutionality in Texas seemed to be based upon the fact that it was not displayed alone, but existed as a monument and/or plaque among others on public grounds, concluding that if displayed inconspicously, it does not violate the First Amendment.
Please note again, that I have not read these important cases, and am summarizing them from one of the legal sites to which I subscribe.
Here is the question of the day: Do you agree with the rulings in the cases above? Do you think that the public display of the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls is clearly religious, violating the first Amendment? Is there really a difference if the Ten Commandements are displayed by themselves or inconspiciously if in fact they are concluded to be a sacred text?
Thank you for your minds.
13 Comments:
As I began reading your post the local news was airing the same story. Funny thing, I grew up in Paducah, KY and now live in Houston, TX. I believe the Texas ruling was based on historical significance of the monument, but I could easily be wrong about that.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And the first use of the statement 'separation of church and state' was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
Here is a review of 'Separation of Church and State' by Philip Hamburger (John P. Wilson Professor of Law at the University of Chicago): In a powerful challenge to conventional wisdom, Philip Hamburger argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment. The detailed evidence assembled here shows that eighteenth-century Americans almost never invoked this principle. Although Thomas Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation became part of American constitutional law only much later.
Hamburger shows that separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice. Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Federalist clergy of New England. Nativist Protestants (ranging from nineteenth-century Know Nothings to twentieth-century members of the K.K.K.) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life. Gradually, these Protestants were joined by theologically liberal, anti-Christian secularists, who hoped that separation would limit Christianity and all other distinct religions. Eventually, a wide range of men and women called for separation. Almost all of these Americans feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and, in response to their fears, they increasingly perceived religious liberty to require a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed. In the process, the First Amendment was often used as an instrument of intolerance and discrimination.'
I had always assumed there was particular mention of this in the Constitution. I personally would prefer a separation of church (or mosque or synagogue)and state.
So, to answer your question, I am not sure either would be in violation as strictly represented by the constitution, but rather may be based on constitutional law interpretation. I am not schooled in law or politics, they both go in one ear, get jumbled up and exit with no retention on my part.
The message was religous in nature.
The supporters argue that all laws in the USA are based on the bible. This is true for some of the commandments, but what about for the graven image commandment? Is the image of the fat green guy (Buddah) a graven image? Is Buddism illegal?
Anyway, if someone wants to put up a monument with their own money - who cares. Let them do it. As long as monuments made with private money have equal access to public land.
But putting up religous commandments in a court house is going over the top. Why not put up commandments from other religions too? And if you think that the commandments ARE the law of the land, then how would you feel about secular laws being posted in churches?
That ought to make some good sermons. I want to hear about the voice from heaven that said "Thou shalt not drive faster than 15 mph in school zones".
However, all this is moot. The religous right wing will not stop. They will keep on pushing and pushing to get their way. They want a one way door in the wall between church and state - with the doorknob on the church side.
They will view the ruling as a defeat. They will bad mouth the judges who DARE to disagree with them. They will say that if Democrats appoint more judges to the supreme court, Christianity will be under attack. As if liberals HATE the 1st amendment.
While the majority of Americans believe in one God, be them Muslims, Christians or Jews, there are Americans who either don't believe in any God, or believe in multiple Gods. Hindus still practice idol worship today. In the US, a society that supposedly embraces all religions and cultures that are willing to follow the secular law of the land, it is inappropriate to write on a courthouse, "I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other Gods." A Hindu believing person who walked into that courtroom would feel the system to be biased against him.
Other verses such as, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", while they are biblically based, have been taken as secular law as well. Therefore it shouldn't matter where the direct quote comes from.
Thou Shalt not covet your neighbors wife brings may cause problems. Who is the court to care who an individual covets. Whether adultery is against the law in that State or not, no States forbid coveting.
I personally feel that the 10 Commandments are divinely given. However, a society that open-heartedly accepts people that do not believe that cannot then impose their divine revalations on people who believe that it was not a divine revalation.
I think a dangerous question that you have not asked is, should there be interfaith relations at or are they a complete farce. If my religion tells me to destroy all idols and idolators, does God think it is a good thing that I am instead smiling at the idolator and asking him how his day was? Or am I sinning by living in a society that openly allows people who I believe are sinners to sin in public and openly acknowledge it.
This morning, I read the cases in more detail. I am personally having difficulty understanding the fine distinction that was made by the Court in its display of the Ten Commandments. If the conclusion is made that it is a sacred text, then any display, whether isolated, or one among many would seem to constitute a violation of the First Amendement.
Rockofgallerie makes a good point about the meaning of the text and how it may apply to others who are Hindu, Muslim or Buddist, on the one hand. On the other, we have money, saying "In God we Trust." Is that clearly religious? Last year, on Flag Day, the Court ruled that the Pledge of Aligance, which contains the word God, did not violate the First Amendment. Where do we draw the line?
What is clear from this ruiling, it seems, is that the Supreme Court is making room for more interpretation on the issue as to what may not violate the First Amendment.
The difference between, "In God We Trust" and the 10 commandments is that "In God We Trust" is generic. You may call him God, another Allah and a third with other names but we are all relating to the same God.
The problem with having no state religion is that the country is not prepared and was not set up for beliefs that are not monotheistic.
Religion does not belong on printed money, in court houses/lawns, in any government building, national athems, etc. If monument already exists, it/they need to be removed.
I am for complete seperation of church and state. No execptions or excuses.
Nio
Who believes in four seperate instutions: religion, health care, education, and government.
Craig,
The framers of the US Constitution, in their infinite wisdom, left it vague so that as a fluid document it could withstand the tests of time.
If you read case law, although the words separation of church and state are not in the document itself, it has been interpreted to be an issue guaranteed by the First Amendment. Many words are not in the Constitution, such as abortion, gay, black, Native Americans, etc., but this does not mean that they are not subject to scrunity nor protected and guaranteed rights as interpreted by case law.
Craig, you are missing the larger point.
The founding fathers did NOT involve the church with the government to protect both institutions from each other.
The church is protected from the government by the 1st amendment. The people who wrote the amendment remembered why people left England in the first place, to get out from under the thumb of the Chirch Of England.
And the government is protected from the church. IF the framers of the constitution wanted a theocracy, they would have just set one up. But they did not. We elect a presidents, not pastors.
The founders of this nation understood that government is a pretty sleazy institution, and wanted to keep that filth away from Gods work.
They protected the right of the Quakers to worship however they wanted, and the Puritans to worship the way they wanted. And indirectly, they also protected the rights of buddists to worship the way they want.
Wanting a wall seperating religion and the state is NOT an attack on faith, as some on the right would lead you to believe - it PROTECTS religion from the sleeze of politics.
I personally don't care whether the Ten Commandments is on display in public or not. I'm a 'Christian' (my own definition, too complicated to get into right now) but there is no where in the Bible that says that I have to impose my faith on others. Also, there's no where in there that says we have to display the 10 Commandments in public. In fact, in the New Testament Jesus tells his followers to downplay their faith by praying in a closet instead of making a show of praying in the streets.
Rock of Galillee mentions a problem that should be given an entire blog: how should the truly devout treat others? It is an excellent question, because the situation is very complicated. Are such believers expected by their god to be 'civil' when in their faith they are taught that other religions and behaviors are unacceptable? If they are to be truly devout, most fundamentalists believe that they need to 'come out from the world and be separate.'
I am speaking theoretically about this. Don't take this as sanctioning the practice.
My answer would be that if a fundamentalist feels strongly that he/she should have nothing to do with unbelievers, they need to live apart and stay apart from others. But rudeness would never be acceptable in the christian faith if you look at the example that Jesus set.
I'm with actonbell.
Maybe they can change the entire display, remove The Ten Commandments plaque, and put up a new one that goes like this:
"Hey! You're not supposed to kill people! And don't take their stuff! And don't be lyin' and cheatin' and things! Listen to your parents! Be good! "
Or something like that.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If you look at this without lawyers screwing with it, the government cannot stop people from worshipping any way they want... so what's the question? it doesn't say anything about the government deifying god, buddah or groucho marx...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home