Who Would You Put on the $10 Bill?
Now that the Supreme Court is considering the future of religious symbols in governmental buildings, the Left is fretting that common sense may finally prevail in this issue. Kevin Drum at Political Animal wrote yesterday:
I may be relaxed about this stuff, but enough's enough. If an explicit statement that the authority of the United States government is derived from God isn't a violation of the establishment clause, then what is? Does the First Amendment have any meaning left at all?
THE ELEVENTH COMMANDMENT....Displays of the Ten Commandments don't really raise my blood pressure much. I'm as nonreligious as they come, but really, I figure life's too short to worry too much about stuff like this. Let's just pretend it's a symbol of our cultural heritage and move on.
But then Antonin Scalia comes along to throw a pie in my face. Sam Heldman explains:
I see it reported the same way in two different places, and so I trust the reporting: that his take on the big Texas 10 Commandments monument was that it was "a symbol of the fact that government derives its authority from God," and that this is a good thing (or at least a constitutionally-acceptable thing). Here I was thinking that people didn't necessarily agree on whether the existence of God is a "fact," and that the Government wasn't supposed to take sides in that debate.
But there is, at least, this: that having staked out that position, Justice Scalia can't very well sign on to an opinion saying that the posting of the Commandments or the construction of a Commandments monument is merely some sort of secular historical blah blah blah.
In short, Drum’s problem here is simply that he believes in a false definition of the First Amendment, as do most anti-faith leftists. Consider the irony of his argument: Drum asserts that “an explicit statement that authority of the United States government is derived from God” must be a violation of the establishment clause. Yet, the United States Declaration of Independence states clearly, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
So is Drum saying that the Declaration of Independence, which was authored and endorsed by the very same men who wrote the Constitution, is itself a violation of the establishment clause? How can anyone honestly read the Declaration of Independence, which so clearly represents the ideals of our Founding Fathers, and then say that the First Amendment prohibits law-makers from referencing God?
Though it always falls on deaf ears, I suggest that Drum and his fellow religion-fearing Leftists read the Bill of Rights again, and consider the meaning of “establish a law.” Putting the Ten Commandments in a courtroom or any other governmental building does not establish a law. Establishing a religion and “endorsing a particular ideology over another” are two different things. The First Amendment does not prohibit the latter, and any reasonable individual who has studied the Founding Fathers cannot possibly believe their intent was to eliminate God from public life.
However, banning lawmakers from placing anything with religious significance in a government building does establish a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And, it elevates Secularism, truly a religion in itself, above faith in all other things, be it faith in Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion out there.
These cases aren't just about government buildings. Some time in the next few months, the Supreme Court will set a precedent for other cases dealing with public displays of faith- from singing "Oh Little Town of Bethlehem" in a school Christmas Concert, to holding onto Christmas as a federal holiday altogether. It will affect whether underprivileged parents can receive vouchers to take their children out of failing public schools and send them to successful Christian schools. Witnesses will no longer be sworn in on the Bible or on any other religious book at trial. It will end the tradition, started by George Washington himself, of adding "so help me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office.
And finally, the Supreme Court will determine whether the U.S. Mint will have to recall every dollar, quarter, and penny from circulation and print new money. Of course, maybe if the leftists try hard enough they can put Bill Clinton on the $20s and George Soros on the $100s.
14 Comments:
Thanks to glittering personalities like Wm Jeff Clinton—and his cronies ƒr/Pratt House, I might add—those bills aren't worth squat any more anyway. Doesn't the First Amend provide ƒ/a separation of cash and checks?
Some day, the religious right will actually read the documents that they quote.
The Declaration of Independence says that "rights" come from the Creator, not "laws come from God". The difference is critical. The Founders loathed the European system where the state and the church were united and kings ruled by "divine right". No founder ever suggested that the laws of the United State were divinely ordained. In fact, John Adams stated the opposite. He referred to the thirteen original states' governments as being founded "upon the natural authority of the people alone, without pretense of miracle or mystery"
Scalia is dead wrong about the authority of the government coming from God. No founder would have agreed with him and if you actually read the oral arguments you know that no other justice agreed with him either.
Furthermore, the Declaration stated the men are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". "Endowed" means that they are now the property of men, not God. Jefferson's original draft didn't even mention a creator, he said that rights were "inherent and inalienable". In any case, after the "endowment" God is out of the picture because the founders adhered to the theory of "natural rights" where rights were existent in nature and were identified by a process of reason.
When the leading candidate for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court doesn't understand the difference between rights and powers, and cannot read the Declaration of Independence, the most clearly written political document on earth, without injecting his own religious beliefs into it, then the Supreme Court is in serious trouble.
"Some day, the religious right will actually read the documents that they quote."Bob, I'm a part of the "agnostic right" and I have actually read the documents I quote. I daresay more right-of-center types have read and understood the great words than those on the left. It's the leftists who choose to ignore what they don't want to acknowledge and who try to add in what they deem should be there.
The tired old chestnut of "separation of church and state" is a classic example of this willful distortion. Nowhere in the First Amendment is any sort of proscription against religious expression by anyone, including government officials. The wording could not be more clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The prohibition was (and is) directed against the evils of a state church, and the guarantee was (and is) the basis of the right of Congress to start their sessions with a prayer. That does not constitute an establishment of religion, but only constitutes the right of the members to freely exercise their own.
In addition, there most certainly is a direct connection between our judicial system and God. Whether you're a believer or not, the fact is that the 10 Commandments made up the foundation of English Common Law, as codified by Alfred the Great and passed down through the generations. Our system of law derives from English Common Law. The posting of the 10 Commandments in public buildings is no more offensive than the posting of the Magna Carta or any other document in the evolutionary path of Constitutional law.
What amazes me is the fervor of those bent upon removing any references to a supreme being from public life. As a non-church-goer, I hardly feel threatened by what's printed on our money. No one is forcing me to believe, to belong, to worship, to donate, or anything else. I'm free to be whatever I wish to be. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." The same rule applies to what we, as a nation, choose to print on our money or post in a public building; it does me no injury.
This post has been removed by the author.
Bob, while I see some legitimate points about the Founding Father's loathing of a state religion, or the idea that kings ruled by divine right, I see nothing in your post that refutes my point: displaying the 10 Commandments does not establish a law creating a state religion nor does it prohibit the free exercise there of. Banning the 10 Commandments from government buildings, however, does establish a law prohibiting the free expression of religion.
Just because John Adams and Thomas Jefferson "Loathed the European system" does not mean they loathed the religion itself. Quite the contrary, our founding documents are peppered with references to God, the Creator and other euphamisms for Him. Therefore, claiming that "separation of Church and State," as Leftists have defined it in this generation, is the intention of the Founding Fathers is simply ignorant and wrong.
The Declaration of Independence is in fact unconstitutional according to some on the Left. A teacher in the Cupertino Union School District in California was forbidden from providing excerpts from the Declaration to students on First Amendment grounds. The Left has no shame and no concept of its own absurdity when it comes to twisting the Constitution into the document they would like it to be -- a document that would horrify the Founding Fathers.
Van Helsing
Moonbattery
"It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg"?
When religious expressions are on government property (that I pay for) and use tax money (from my paycheck) the actions you cite certainly do "pick my pocket"
My problem is with the incredible disingenuousness of the religious right. They say that if you don't want to finance supernatural propaganda then you favor "removing all aspects of religion from the public square". However, they invent a whole new meaning to "public square", one that encompasses both governmental and private activities, and they do so in order to confuse the issue. No one, certainly not I, wants to limit private religious observance.
Religionists can waste their time praying or reading the Bible if that is their desire. What they can't do is commandeer the reins of the state to spread their doctrines or distort the basis American jurisprudence. That is establishing religion.
The term "wall of separation" was not, as is commonly believed, coined by Jefferson. It was first used by Roger Williams, one of the few devout religionists who actually believed in freedom of religion. For Williams, Constantine was the most evil man in history because his joining Christianity to the Roman state resulted in severing the spiritual realm from God. In Williams' view the "wall of separation" was necessary to protect the spiritual purity of the church.
Jefferson chose that phrase when writing to the Danbury Baptists because he knew that they would immediately recognize the source. The context of Jefferson's letter was reassure the Baptists that the "wall" was there to protect the churches from the state's influence.
It was never an issue of "freedom of religion" it was always an issue of "freedom from religion"... freedom from the other guy's religion. Who else threatened to curtail the Baptists except the Methodists, Calvinists, etc?
The religious right wants to substitute the authority of God for what Adams termed "the natural authority of the people" and thereby establish an essentially theocratic rule. It isn't whether the government is run by priests that determines whether or not a government is a theocracy. Rather, it is whether the law is marred by an alleged supernatural source that establishes the nature of a government.
The Ten Commandments form no part of American law. Claims to the contrary are laughable. The Founders were men of the Enlightenment who believed that law was natural and knowable by reason. No Founder believed that Biblical revelation formed the basis of government power.
More importantly, the Bible does not recognize the concept of "rights" because biblical man does not act by right, he acts by permission - the permission of God. The doctrine of individual rights is incompatible with the Bible.
This fact is the basis behind of the recent flood of attacks on the Supreme Court by Levin and others. Rights stand in the way of theocracy, theocracy is the goal of the religious right, and the Supreme Court protects rights. Therefore, the court must be limited in its actions. A second strategy is to replace the retiring justices with Scalia clones who will ignore rights and put God at the center of the law.
Only the courts can protect individual rights because the courts are relatively free from the tide of public opinion. They were given lifetime tenure precisely to free them from the fads and fashions of the day and allow them the independence that protecting unpopular people requires. The Founders really knew what they were doing, not a day goes by when I don't see them in a better light.
So the United States has two political parties - the Socialist Party which denies that it advocates socialism and the Theocrat Party that denies that it advocates theocracy. With so much to hide is it any wonder that there is no truth in American politics?
The religious right wants a theocracy? The 10 Commandments have no historical basis in our laws? The part of the 1st Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion really doesn't mean that, but means freedom from religion? Only courts can protect individual rights? Bob, your anti-religious zeal is showing in those indefensible positions.
We can argue all day about the origin of the theory of natural rights, and whether God is involved or not. In my case you'd be arguing with someone without a dog in that fight. I have no idea. Agnostics are that way. What I can't understand is the hostility you are directing at this matter. That makes it a pretty difficult subject to discuss calmly, so I suppose I won't try after this post.
Since we're quoting the Founding Fathers, I thought this might be interesting: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." --Thomas Jefferson - as inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial.
And finally, since you have cherry-picked some quotes from John Adams in an attempt to use him as a model for anti-religiosity (if that's a word), here is another of his quotes, directly addressing one of your points: "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." --John Adams
Is that true? I don't know. But I have no problem with people, in and out of government, who believe so, and I have no problem handling money that espouses that position. The bills in my pocket don't cost any more to print with all that "God" stuff on them, so my pocket truly is not being picked, nor is yours.
I am, without question, extremely anti-religious. However, the quotes that I used from Adams were not anti-religious in any way. Both Adams and Jefferson believed in God, they did not, however, believe that the God was the source of law.
Once again, people do not read what they quote. Neither of the quotes argue that laws come from God. They both state categorically that rights came from God and all human made laws are subordinate to these rights.
That is the exact opposite of Scalia's contention that God is the source of the authority for the government to make laws, which is the point that started this thread.
As for my "indefensible" positions no one has produced a single reference to God as the source of government authority from any Founder.
Freedom from Religion: The freedom of believers is only threatened by other believers. Example:
Protestants used to force Catholic children in public schools to read from the King James Bible. In l871, in an attempt to protect the rights of the minority Catholics, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against this practice stating that Catholic children could read from the Church approved Douay version. Protestants then rioted and burned Catholic churches. Twenty one people were killed over which Bible to read.
The Pennsylvania legislature was popularly elected and had written the laws governing compulsory Bible reading. Only the courts were able protect the rights of an unpopular minority by asserting rights over law.
What kind of government is consistent with people who:
1) Continually speak of God as the source of sovereignty?
2) Believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God and should be used as the foundation of law?
I'll give you a hint: it isn't a limited republic instituted to protect individual rights.
Obviously, theocracy is the only reasonable answer!
Why is the religious right so insistent that the government pay for their monuments and prayers when there is no shortage of private money?
The answer is the same as the reason that the left fights so hard to maintain government funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endownment for the Arts even though private funding is many times greater than the public contributions.
The reason is that the conservatives want to establish the principle of church state union just as the liberals want to establish the principle of government ownership.
Both expresssly deny the motives for their actions but how else can you explain effort that is all out of proportion to the rewards unless the rewards are not financial but political?
Despite our founding fathers being religious men, it is abjectly wrong to say that our law hails from the 10 commandments. Have you even read them? There are only 4 that are even crimes: don't kill, don't steal, don't commit perjury, don't commit adultery. If you believe that these 4 things are the BEDROCK of our law, then you are a dope.
From Jefferson, discussing what our law is REALLY based upon (and it ain't the little baby Jesus):
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Why must this topic be handled with such bitterness that those holding opposing views are to be called dopes? I see no reason for the anger.
Jefferson is talking about Christianity and the early Saxon days. All quite true, of course. Mr. Jefferson was a brilliant man.
But the 10 Commandments are not of Christian origin, but of Mosaic law, a point Mr. Jefferson clearly understood.
And Mr. Jefferson was not addressing the beginnings of official English law, as set down in Liber Judicialis by Alfred the Great. This first-of-all English law books did, in plain fact, use the 10 Commandments as the very foundation blocks of the law.
Anti-religionists might find this fact somewhat inconvenient in their quest to completely divorce religion from law, but there is no denying the influence of religious belief in Alfred's great book. English law through the centuries evolved from the basics of Alfred's law, and by extension, so did our system of law. Other ancient codes were also included, but it's worth noting that Alfred saw fit to begin his written law with the 10 Commandments.
Redbeard, we are talking apples and oranges here. Jefferson is referring to the common law while Alfred's laws were the written laws of England. One of the odd characteristics of both Roman and English common law is that they are not written down. All that exists are case law and commentaries.
Also, Alfred reigned in the ninth century which still leaves at least two centuries of non-Christian English common law.
If you want an example of real Christian law you can look at the code of Justinian which begins:
We desire that all peoples subject to Our benign Empire shall live under the same religion that the Divine Peter, the Apostle, gave to the Romans, and which the said religion declares was introduced by himself, and which it is well known that the Pontiff Damascus, and Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, embraced; that is to say, in accordance with the rules of apostolic discipline and the evangelical doctrine, we should believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Deity, endowed with equal majesty, and united in the Holy Trinity.This is hardly the kind of law that we live under.
The Declaration of Independence is a smokescreen, it is NOT the document which governs our nation. The Constituion itself makes abundantly clear who the Founders believed the authority of government came from: We the PEOPLE.
Post a Comment
<< Home