The news today was filled with the case argued before the Supreme Court over public display of the Ten Commandments. My question is…
Is this the right battle and worth fighting over?
Grace Fellowship of South Forsyth
Spreading the fame of God by making disciples of Jesus Christ.
The particular battle you mention, I believe, is not worth the fight. The underlying principles, however, are. Let me explain.
The Ten Commandments are part of the Law. They’re rules. If we fight so fiercely for them to be displayed on government property, we run the risk of giving a very wrong impression of our motives: (1) that we are, after all, just a bunch of judgmentals who want to force our faith on others, and (2) that Christianity is a set of restrictive rules that you must follow and never have any fun in life. Many people think those things already–why confirm their suspicions?
I think the certain people involved in these cases should definitely fight for their own rights to display the 10 Commandments, but I don’t think it should be a nationwide Christian effort. The 10 Commandments don’t save anybody, even if they’re chiseled in marble and hanging over a judge’s head. We don’t want to give the impression of believing that they do. Would it be nice for courtrooms, monuments, government buildings, etc. to have the foundation of the justice and liberty they protect on display? Sure. But I don’t think that’s the issue, and we may well be following a rabbit trail if we fight for it.
What is the issue, you ask? Separation of church and state. That’s the only rationale being used against the display of the 10 Commandments, and it completely goes against the words and the spirit of the Constitution. It’s simply an excuse for discrimination against anything Christian.
Here are two articles that are good reads. One’s about Chief Justice Moore’s fight for the 10 Commandments and the other examines the origin of the phrase “separation of church and state.”
Has Chief Justice Moore Gone Too Far?The Wall That Never Was
Whenever these types of cases come up I always ask myself what I would think if the situation was related to Islam instead of Christianity.
In other words, would I think it was OK to place a listing of the five pillars of Islam in a public/government place (I know they don’t usually publically display these as a list but theoretically …).
Or in another case from a few years ago, what would I think if the pledge of allegiance said “one nation under Allah” instead of “one nation under God”?
A case can be made for historical reasons for keeping some items and not others. This nation was founded by many who would have considered themselves to be Christians and in some sense it is a part of our heritage. Hoever in this specific case this judge intentionally placed the 10 Commandments in this location just to pick this fight. This is not a historical monument and cannot directly be related to things such as having “In God We Trust” on the dollar bill.
Yeah, I tend to look at it along those lines as well. We have the power of majority now, and we should wield that power the same way we would want it wielded against us if we were in the minority (which is a likely possibility given this country’s changing demographics).
I also agree that it is a far different thing to erect a brand new monument than it is to allow historic ones to remain. The reality is that we live in a post-Christian, pluralistic, secular society. We may not like it, but we are going to have to play by different rules that we did fifty years ago.
What Judge Moore did in Alabama strikes me an in-your-face attempt to push the issue. I think this type of blatant provoking of hostility ultimately undermines our efforts to stop the erosion of the original intention of the First Amendment—to protect our freedom to worship as we wish. It’s a little bit like shooting an abortion doctor. It allows the other side to say “See, they are dangerous and pushing their views on us.”
In the current cultural and political wars, there are enemies on lots of fronts. We must pick our battles wisely. I’m not sure this was one of those.
I disagree with the statement, “We have the power of majority now, and we should wield that power the same way we would want it wielded against us if we were in the minority.” If you mean that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us, than I agree. But if it is used to opt out of causes or movements because we might end up imposing our “christian” agenda on others through the government, than I think that is a cop out. I understand that we need to weigh which causes we involve ourselves in and this particular one might not be as important as say abortion, but to each christian their own cause to champion. We shouldn’t use the potential future threat of retribution from some other religious or secular majority (which already exists) to cause us to not participate
Pat, I’m no advocate of copping out, but I guess the question is whether or not this is something worth fighting for or not. I guess I’m not even sure it is right, much less worth the fight.
Moore’s statue in Alabama starts with “I Am The Lord Thy God; Thou Shalt have no other gods Before Me.”
What if it read “There is no other God except Allah, and Mohamed is His Prophet?” Would you have a problem with that? If so, is it any different than what Moore did?
I would vehemently disagree with it, but not have a problem with it. If he were a muslim judge, his belief system is already in play in how he percieves the world and metes out his justice. For all we know, he has a copy of the Koran up there with him. I understand that Judge Moore is somewhat ornery and not necessarily the best representative we could have. But, remove his not so subtle in your face technique, and the question remains-do we want to cede this issue and run from the secularists or not? I understand a Muslim judge could post his 10 commandments, but I don’t think the issue is about Muslims, Mormons, or any other religious group. It’s against the secularists who want to eradicate every vestige of God and the Bible from all of society. I am willing to let that Muslim guy hang his thing in his courtroom if we can hang our thing in our courtroom. What do you think? In my opinion, the great danger in this country is the polictically correct secular humanists, not other religious groups.
Pat, I would be in your camp on this issue. If your fighting a forest fire you have to deal with every hot pocket one way or another, you can’t let it smolder. This issue is not only a major front to “Christians” but also on the Biblical family. So I feel we need to deal with this . Once God is removed all else is easley defeted.
I just love the dialogue! Yes! Thinking! I am torn.
I understand that the pivotal issue is not a “Christian” society or “Christian” values running through society (i.e. no government or society is “Christian” only people are Christian and the systems of this world by definition cannot be redeemed). However, I do not want to walk away from ideals that reflect a Judeo-Christian heritage/standard of right and wrong. Would I “fight” for the pro-life position? Yes. Are we called to the fight of the pro-life position? Yes, if that “position” involves saying that a child is always a child and to slaughter any unborn child is wrong regardless of a religious bent. However, I see a tremendous problem with people and organizations adding on to legitimate positions through various rabbit trail issues that include items such as, tax deductions for families, free-trade or national defense, “to keep them Reds down.” Should I sign up for that cause? Should national defense or free-trade be part and parcel with a pro-life position? No. (Ken, where are you?). This is exactly why I get chapped when I hear the name Jerry Falwell. He throws everything from tax breaks for families to taking America back to be a “Christian nation” […again] along with a pro-life” position. OK. Maybe I am spreading out the topic too thin, but that’s why I like blogs.
There are some issues that strike at the heart of a Christianity simply because it is right due to Biblical morals. There are other issues that we need to recognize do not rise to this level. When we lump them in together we water down our message and open ourselves up to being distracted and entering the world system instead of transforming the people within the system.
10 Commandments? I don’t think I would go nuts over this – Jesus didn’t. I would encourage people to take stands as they personally saw fit. However, I roll up my sleeves to get dirty over the killing of babies. Every Christian should stand hard on this issue!
Dan, I agree with you that standing for the “pro Life” cause is a position of great worth. I also belive that the family as we know it and our Christian beliefs are under atack on very small fronts ie… Gay tolarance being taught to public school 5,6 & 7 yr olds, Safe sex, No prayer in school, no displaying of the Tem Comandmants, same sex marriage. The list goes on until all of these have landed on the other side of the fence and we stand around asking how we ever got to this point.Yes we do need to seperate and define these causes and roll up our sleves and get dirty.
The answer the this question looks different depending on whether you look at this from what the theoretically perfect government looks like OR if you look at this as a battle in the war between the secularists and the Christians.
If you look at this from the perfect government angle then I do not think the Ten Commandments should be posted in a government building. It is not the judge’s courtroom but a courtroom of the United States government. How would one tell if the monument or plaque, etc. was meant to show the personal beliefs of the judge vs the beliefs and intentions of the government he works for?
On the other hand if this is seen as a battle in the great war then you cannot back down from the fight. It is similar to the fight against gun control. The NRF dislikes gun laws not because the individual laws seem to be so restrictive but the fact that if a single law is passed that it will set precedent for greater loss of freedom. That is the biggest danger in cases for the Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance; will the decisions set precedence which will be used to take away more religious freedom?
When these issues come up it causes an internal struggle for me. Do I side with what I think the government should do? Or do I side with Christians against the secularists for fear that the government will encroach on more areas of my faith?
I guess this exposes me for the idealist that I am. Since I agree with Matt’s argument that it’s not proper for the government to promote or endorse a particular religious viewpoint, I cannot support it, even if it would ultimately help my cause. It would be a case of using the ends to justify the means.
I kind of agree with Bob’s comment about extinguishing anything smoldering in a forest fire, but this issue seems like a fire that our side started. In addition, the battle with those who would try to eliminate any expression of religion from the public square, we have a raging inferno that is consuming thousands of acres. With those kinds of fires, the firefighters have to use their resources strategically, conceding some forests to save others. Maybe that stretches the analogy a little, and maybe it’s OK to just fight everything, but I’m not so sure.
That seems to be the stand that the NRA has taken. But, I would probably be a supporter if they took more reasonable stands instead of having a knee-jerk reaction of fighting everything the other side tries to do.
The Twilight of Atheism
C.S. Lewis, writing as the demon Screwtape, in The Screwtape Letters #7
Let’s not confuse permission to hang a plaque or some other object in a courtroom with the government endorsing a particular religion. The government allows those over 21 to drink, but doesn’t necassarily endorse it. As a matter of fact, they sponsor ads that promote responsible drinking, when the law says that anyone over 21 can drink all they want-as long as they don’t get behind the wheel of a vehicle.
The great battle is not the preservation of the 10 Commandments, it is the battle against the secularist and his attempt to ban any reference to God from any part of society. Happy Holidays everyone!
Pat, I have to disagree. In fact that is the whole debate. Where do you draw the line between the government allowing something religious to take place in a government setting vs the government endorsing that religion? This whole case wouldn’t be an issue if the judge had the Ten Commandments posted somewhere in his private chambers.
To move this example into the private sphere – if I see religious symbols or plaques in an individual’s cube or office then I might think of that individual as being a certain religion. If I find the same items in the lobby of the office I would assume that the company had those religious beliefs.
To me if one places the Ten Commandments in a public area of the courthouse then it has the very strong potential of being taken as a statement (i.e. endorsement) by the government itself.
Of course, like I said in a previous post, if this is a 200 year old courthouse and if it always had the Ten Commandments posted outside of it then I would definitely make the case that they are historical and should remain.
Why the difference? Because, like it or not, our country has changed in its make up. At one point in time we could be seen as a Christian nation. I do not think we could even come close to calling ourselves this, and in fact I would not want to. I do not want Christianity to be associated with our culture and our country. The beliefs of the average American are greatly different from those of the Christian faith.
I’ve got to agree with that. I once heard it said that those outside of the US know us best by our TV shows. And evidently, two of the most popular programs outside the US are Baywatch and TBN. Many of those folks recognize the US as a ‘Christian nation,’ backed up by TBN of course (that’s bad enough on its own). So then Baywatch appears to be the logical outflow of American Christianity. It’s no wonder the world wants none of it.