Researching this morning I’ve come across a very interesting piece because it shows how alive the problem of the division of the state and religion is.
Should the ten commandments be placed by government offices?
Can they be placed in public places by citizens?
If the government allows it and executes it, is it being discriminatory of other religions who cannot place their “commandments”?
If the citizens place them in the public space, aren’t they exercising their freedom of expression?
Can they be placed in public places by citizens?
If the government allows it and executes it, is it being discriminatory of other religions who cannot place their “commandments”?
If the citizens place them in the public space, aren’t they exercising their freedom of expression?
This is very interesting because it is related precisely to what is possible in the “public” sphere. What do WE allow for OUR selves?
The discussions seem futile from the different “sects” because what really matters is not what religion says what but “how human” is what THAT is. The affirmation by some that the ten commandments are not just religious doctrines but moral standards is very interesting also because in them we can begin to see that the “religious” bent becomes unnecessary and is replaced by a people wishing to stand by a moral code of behavior independent of religion. A code for human beings without a God authority to which they pay homage. A freedom from the constraints of an authority but still a willingness to act according to a code of behavior.
Public debates in the United States
This section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Pleasehelp improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (February 2010)
See also: Roy Moore, Van Orden v. Perry, and Separation of church and state in the United States
See also: Roy Moore, Van Orden v. Perry, and Separation of church and state in the United States
Ten Commandments display at theTexas State Capitol in Austin.
There is an ongoing[citation needed] dispute in the United States concerning the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property. Certain conservative religious groups[who?] have taken the banning of officially-sanctioned prayer from public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court as a threat to the expression of religion in public life. In response, they have successfully lobbied many state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Posting the Decalogue on a public building can take a sectarian stance, if numbered. Protestants and Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. However, this problem can be circumnavigated by simply not numbering the commandments, as was done at the Texas capitol (shown here). Hundreds of these monuments—including some of those causing dispute—were originally placed by director Cecil B. DeMille as a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments.[59]
Others oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property, arguing that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
In contrast, groups supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments[who?] claim that the commandments are not necessarily religious but represent the moral and legal foundation of society, and are appropriate to be displayed as a historical source of present day legal codes. Also, some[who?] argue that prohibiting the public practice of religion is a violation of the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Those in the opposition[who?] counter that several of the commandments are explicitly religious and that statements of monotheism like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” are unacceptable to many religious viewpoints, such as atheists or followers of polytheistic religions. Putting aside the constitutional issue of whether the constitution prohibits the posting of the commandments, there is clearly a legitimate political and civil rights issue regarding whether the posting of what could be construed as religious doctrine alienated religious minorities and created the appearance of impropriety by making it appear that a state church had been established, creating the impression that the very intent of the establishment clause was being undermined.
There is an ongoing[citation needed] dispute in the United States concerning the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property. Certain conservative religious groups[who?] have taken the banning of officially-sanctioned prayer from public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court as a threat to the expression of religion in public life. In response, they have successfully lobbied many state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Posting the Decalogue on a public building can take a sectarian stance, if numbered. Protestants and Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. However, this problem can be circumnavigated by simply not numbering the commandments, as was done at the Texas capitol (shown here). Hundreds of these monuments—including some of those causing dispute—were originally placed by director Cecil B. DeMille as a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments.[59]
Others oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property, arguing that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
In contrast, groups supporting the public display of the Ten Commandments[who?] claim that the commandments are not necessarily religious but represent the moral and legal foundation of society, and are appropriate to be displayed as a historical source of present day legal codes. Also, some[who?] argue that prohibiting the public practice of religion is a violation of the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Those in the opposition[who?] counter that several of the commandments are explicitly religious and that statements of monotheism like “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” are unacceptable to many religious viewpoints, such as atheists or followers of polytheistic religions. Putting aside the constitutional issue of whether the constitution prohibits the posting of the commandments, there is clearly a legitimate political and civil rights issue regarding whether the posting of what could be construed as religious doctrine alienated religious minorities and created the appearance of impropriety by making it appear that a state church had been established, creating the impression that the very intent of the establishment clause was being undermined.
The Ten Commandments on a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol
In addition, it has been argued[citation needed] if the Commandments are posted, it would require that members of other religions be allowed to post the particular tenets of their religions as well. For example, an organization by the name of Summum has won court cases against municipalities in Utah for refusing to allow the group to erect a monument of Summum aphorisms next to the Ten Commandments. The cases were won on the grounds that Summum’s right to freedom of speechwas denied and the governments had engaged in discrimination. Instead of allowing Summum to erect its monument, the local governments chose to remove their Ten Commandments.
This incident shows another practical reason why not posting religious doctrine on government property is expedient; it is unlikely that a believer in the commandments would appreciate having a shrine to another religion placed next to them,[citation needed] and taken to its logical outcome (as shown by the Summum incident), it is clear that permitting religious speech through the mouthpiece of the state is impractical, given the reality of the diversity of religious belief and non-belief in the United States. Rather than enforcing any religious belief, or irreligion, many feel that the state ought to be neutral on the subject of religion, and allow people to find their own faith, rather than have the state endorse or appear to endorse any particular beliefs. In response, still others argue that this can amount to State imposition of a minority belief of secularism and moral relativity, rather than the State reflecting the will of a majority, emphasizing the impossibility of the State so fully separating itself from any belief system.
Some religious Jews[who?] oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, as they feel it is wrong for public schools to teach their children Judaism. The argument is that if a Jewish parent wishes to teach their child to be a Jew, then this education should come only from practicing Jews. This position is based on the demographic fact that the vast majority of public school teachers in the United States are not Jews; the same is true for the students. This same reasoning and position is also held by many believers in other religions. Many Christians have some concerns about this as well; for example, can Catholic parents count on Protestant or Orthodox Christian teachers to tell their children their particular understanding of the commandments? Differences in the interpretation and translation of these commandments, as noted above, can sometimes be significant.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have launched lawsuits challenging the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Opponents of these displays include a number of religious groups, including some Christian denominations[who?], both because they don’t want government to be issuing religious doctrine, and because they feel strongly that the commandments are inherently religious. Many commentators see this issue as part of a wider culture war between liberal and conservative elements in American society. In response to the perceived attacks on traditional society, other legal organizations, such as the Liberty Counsel, have risen to advocate the conservative interpretation.
In addition, it has been argued[citation needed] if the Commandments are posted, it would require that members of other religions be allowed to post the particular tenets of their religions as well. For example, an organization by the name of Summum has won court cases against municipalities in Utah for refusing to allow the group to erect a monument of Summum aphorisms next to the Ten Commandments. The cases were won on the grounds that Summum’s right to freedom of speechwas denied and the governments had engaged in discrimination. Instead of allowing Summum to erect its monument, the local governments chose to remove their Ten Commandments.
This incident shows another practical reason why not posting religious doctrine on government property is expedient; it is unlikely that a believer in the commandments would appreciate having a shrine to another religion placed next to them,[citation needed] and taken to its logical outcome (as shown by the Summum incident), it is clear that permitting religious speech through the mouthpiece of the state is impractical, given the reality of the diversity of religious belief and non-belief in the United States. Rather than enforcing any religious belief, or irreligion, many feel that the state ought to be neutral on the subject of religion, and allow people to find their own faith, rather than have the state endorse or appear to endorse any particular beliefs. In response, still others argue that this can amount to State imposition of a minority belief of secularism and moral relativity, rather than the State reflecting the will of a majority, emphasizing the impossibility of the State so fully separating itself from any belief system.
Some religious Jews[who?] oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, as they feel it is wrong for public schools to teach their children Judaism. The argument is that if a Jewish parent wishes to teach their child to be a Jew, then this education should come only from practicing Jews. This position is based on the demographic fact that the vast majority of public school teachers in the United States are not Jews; the same is true for the students. This same reasoning and position is also held by many believers in other religions. Many Christians have some concerns about this as well; for example, can Catholic parents count on Protestant or Orthodox Christian teachers to tell their children their particular understanding of the commandments? Differences in the interpretation and translation of these commandments, as noted above, can sometimes be significant.
Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have launched lawsuits challenging the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. Opponents of these displays include a number of religious groups, including some Christian denominations[who?], both because they don’t want government to be issuing religious doctrine, and because they feel strongly that the commandments are inherently religious. Many commentators see this issue as part of a wider culture war between liberal and conservative elements in American society. In response to the perceived attacks on traditional society, other legal organizations, such as the Liberty Counsel, have risen to advocate the conservative interpretation.
Following a moral code is fine, but it should not be embedded in a religious text such as the Ten Commandments. Not everyone believes in a god or follows a religion and to force people to behave morally according to the Ten Commandments is wrong. That’s forcing a religion upon us and shoving it down our throats. That’s breaching our freedom of religion, which is also our freedom from religion. To have people follow the Ten Commandments would suggest a superiority of one religion over others because everyone’s following these certain religious moral codes and not others. It’s unfair to highlight this one religion and not give any sort of public recognition to other religions and denominations. Having a moral code to abide by is perfectly fine—we all need some sort of rules to keep us in line, but to attach a moral code to a religious belief that not everyone follows or agrees with is not the way to do it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Niki, Thanks for your comment, I definitely agree. I'm curious about your "moral code" because for the Fellowship cult people, morality had disappeared: the less moral you are the more free you are supposed to be. But beyond that, wouldn't you agree that there is a certain morality that we could agree upon that is simply "human behavior" beyond no matter what religion? If we look at the ten commandments I would find a few of them could be adapted to such moral code? Wouldn't you? Independent to whether one believes in God or not? Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteHi again Nick,
ReplyDeleteI guess my deep question here is, in having to abolish all expression of a moral or religious "code" in the public sphere, where does that sphere of the human being "live itself out?" in the people? Are we simply "shunning" the whole sphere of our spiritual life when we deny our selves the possibility of expressing it?
What I am against is the manipulation of a "religious code of behavior" by this or that religion, this or that politician to gain advantage for his self or to justify abusive actions against others. If we can agree on a HUMAN code of behavior then we would actually not be able to argue this or that religion to justify crimes so common in "religious wars".