Robert Meyer
Some folks want the Ten Commandments to be homeless
By Robert Meyer
Once again, multiple cases concerning the public display of the Ten Commandment have arrived at the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Of course everyone knows that the First Amendment of our Constitution says that we must have a separation between church and state and that the government may not acknowledge God. Well, actually the Constitution says neither, but why sweat the small stuff?
Of course anti-theists of various stripes will point out that the Constitution never uses the phrase "fair trial," but such a construct is embodied therein. True enough. However, it is not a question of whether the Constitution enshrines the notion of separation, but rather how such an idea of separation is understood. One might say that the currently developed doctrine of separation had its origin in American jurisprudence with Hugo Black and the 1947 Everson decision.
I find it humorous that secularists want to make something out of the fact that the Constitution never mentions God, or a reference to Christianity until the last sentence. Of course if failing to mention a word is the criteria for determining the nature of the document, then we are remiss in neglecting to point out that the word "secular" never appears in the Constitution at all. One might suspect that if secularism was the overarching concept, it might at least merit some mention.
How one moves from the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...," to the conclusion that it is unlawful to "endorse" or "acknowledge" God in public is hard to fathom — at least until you realize that the same linguistic and conceptual deconstruction has caused this generation to question what "marriage" is, or what "moral values" are.
Legal scholar Justice Joseph Story points out that: "The real objective of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." What a far cry from the warped meaning it is given today.
On September 25th, 1789, Congress asked President Washington to declare a national day of Thanksgiving commemorating the framing of the First Amendment. In his address on October 3rd, Washington declared, "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor..." Notice Washington called it the duty of all nations, not merely the prerogative of individuals in their bedroom closets.
We might ask how these monuments, many erected in the late 50's or early 60's, and currently the object of wrath for anti-theists, got through the constitutional gauntlet, if indeed they are deemed unconstitutional. The Ten Commandments are the victims of the "living, breathing, devolving Constitution theory" without a doubt.
Even in the religious camp, there are those who remind us that worshiping a piece of granite with an inscription is an idolatrous practice. After all they say, the words are to be written on our hearts. But why would you want to hide in your heart, what is forbidden either to be seen or heard? If people are positively motivated by religious observance privately, how can the same become anathema publically? Funny how these advocates are hastily willing to be ideological bedfellows with the folks who make no pretense about hating the very concept of God. They will play right into the hands of the militant secularists by claiming that acknowledgment of God is too profound an experience to be expressed publically.
When atheists tell me that religion is harmed by public acknowledgment, I can only wonder how thick this smoke screen really is. If the Ten Commandments are "no big thing," then why are some "offended" and so anxious to have them removed? And why is the offense of a vocal minority, an object of concern under the rubric of the First Amendment to start with? Should we make a habit of accommodating those with a perpetual chip on their shoulder, a la Michael Newdow and his ilk?
Don't suppose the real issue here is about venerating a hunk of stone standing on public property. It is whether we have a right, much less the duty, to do openly as George Washington declared above. There are those with nothing better to do, committed to denying you that right for their own good pleasure.
© Robert Meyer
Once again, multiple cases concerning the public display of the Ten Commandment have arrived at the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Of course everyone knows that the First Amendment of our Constitution says that we must have a separation between church and state and that the government may not acknowledge God. Well, actually the Constitution says neither, but why sweat the small stuff?
Of course anti-theists of various stripes will point out that the Constitution never uses the phrase "fair trial," but such a construct is embodied therein. True enough. However, it is not a question of whether the Constitution enshrines the notion of separation, but rather how such an idea of separation is understood. One might say that the currently developed doctrine of separation had its origin in American jurisprudence with Hugo Black and the 1947 Everson decision.
I find it humorous that secularists want to make something out of the fact that the Constitution never mentions God, or a reference to Christianity until the last sentence. Of course if failing to mention a word is the criteria for determining the nature of the document, then we are remiss in neglecting to point out that the word "secular" never appears in the Constitution at all. One might suspect that if secularism was the overarching concept, it might at least merit some mention.
How one moves from the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...," to the conclusion that it is unlawful to "endorse" or "acknowledge" God in public is hard to fathom — at least until you realize that the same linguistic and conceptual deconstruction has caused this generation to question what "marriage" is, or what "moral values" are.
Legal scholar Justice Joseph Story points out that: "The real objective of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." What a far cry from the warped meaning it is given today.
On September 25th, 1789, Congress asked President Washington to declare a national day of Thanksgiving commemorating the framing of the First Amendment. In his address on October 3rd, Washington declared, "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor..." Notice Washington called it the duty of all nations, not merely the prerogative of individuals in their bedroom closets.
We might ask how these monuments, many erected in the late 50's or early 60's, and currently the object of wrath for anti-theists, got through the constitutional gauntlet, if indeed they are deemed unconstitutional. The Ten Commandments are the victims of the "living, breathing, devolving Constitution theory" without a doubt.
Even in the religious camp, there are those who remind us that worshiping a piece of granite with an inscription is an idolatrous practice. After all they say, the words are to be written on our hearts. But why would you want to hide in your heart, what is forbidden either to be seen or heard? If people are positively motivated by religious observance privately, how can the same become anathema publically? Funny how these advocates are hastily willing to be ideological bedfellows with the folks who make no pretense about hating the very concept of God. They will play right into the hands of the militant secularists by claiming that acknowledgment of God is too profound an experience to be expressed publically.
When atheists tell me that religion is harmed by public acknowledgment, I can only wonder how thick this smoke screen really is. If the Ten Commandments are "no big thing," then why are some "offended" and so anxious to have them removed? And why is the offense of a vocal minority, an object of concern under the rubric of the First Amendment to start with? Should we make a habit of accommodating those with a perpetual chip on their shoulder, a la Michael Newdow and his ilk?
Don't suppose the real issue here is about venerating a hunk of stone standing on public property. It is whether we have a right, much less the duty, to do openly as George Washington declared above. There are those with nothing better to do, committed to denying you that right for their own good pleasure.
© Robert Meyer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
