The Ten Commandments and the U.S. Constitution:The Ten Commandments (a/k/a. Decalogue) can be freely displayed almost anywhere in the U.S.: in and around private homes, in businesses, in offices, etc. However, it cannot be shown by itself in public parklands, government offices, public schools, etc. With very few exceptions, courts have repeatedly ruled that if the Decalogue cannot be shown in isolation. That would be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state which is contained within the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The separation principle involved three concepts:
Placing the Ten Commandments in a public school room or in the rotunda of a Justice Building would violate the first two of the above criteria: It would promote Judaism and Christianity over other religions. (Recall that almost half of the Ten Commandments refer to the necessity of worshiping Yahweh alone.) Its presence in a government building would also promote a religious lifestyle over a secular lifestyle. It would also give the impression that the courts are Judeo-Christian institutions. Non-Judeo-Christians might well be concerned about the possibility of them receiving justices at the hands of such courts. However, the exhibition of the Decalogue would be constitutional if it appears as one element in a cultural display -- a grouping of religious and secular legal documents. In most cases, court rulings are respected and implemented quickly. However, after Chief Justice Roy Moore he was ordered to remove the granite monument containing the Decalogue in the Justice Building in Mongomery, AL, he refused to comply.
Why does the U.S. Constitution require separation of church and state?Briefly, when the Constitution was written, its authors were well aware of the evils and massive loss of human life that had been experienced in Europe in prior centuries because of inter- and intra-religious conflict. They reasoned that the best way to avoid importing religiously-based hatred, oppression, mass murder and genocide into the New World was to separate church and state, religion and government, into two separate entities with a minimum of interaction.
What are Chief Justice Moore's legal arguments?He has argued that:
While Chief Justice Moore's arguments may gain a great deal of support among fellow Southerners who might wish that they are valid, it is extremely unlikely that any would be accepted by an American court today.
Who is involved in the conflict?The conflict over the Ten Commandments monument appears to be fueled by many factions:
Exactly what principles are involved in the conflict?It is important to understand precisely what is involved in this case:
What does the Bible say about obeying governments and courts?Jerry Falwell, and other speakers at the 2003-AUG rally appear to recommend that Judge Moore and the public at large refuse to obey the rulings of the court. The Montgomery Advertiser, in its coverage of the rally, noted: "A common belief among people interviewed at the rally was that Moore has a right to civilly disobey a federal judge's orders if they (sic) believe God's law is supreme." This belief appears to conflict with several passages in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament) which state that it is a citizen's duty to obey the magistrate:
On another note, Exodus 20:4 states: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." This is the first of the Ten Commandments, according to Roman Catholic church and some Lutheran denominations. It is the second Commandment according to other Christian denominations and Jews. A good case can be made that the monument installed by Chief Justice Moore can be considered a religious "graven image." It is a likeness of the Bible -- a "thing" that is on the earth. It is ironic that the creation of a monument to the Ten Commandments may be considered forbidden by one of the Ten Commandments.
Reference used:
Related essays on this site
Copyright © 2003 & 2004 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
|
Page Translator:
