The Tiresome Ten Commandments
217 years after the Bill of Rights was finally ratified and became the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, a significant percentage of the population doesn’t seem to understand, yet, what Separation of Church and State actually means. Most people understand the “Freedom of Religion” aspect of the Amendment (which doesn’t actually use that exact phrase) to mean that they have the freedom to impose their particular flavor of religion on everyone, especially on the courthouse steps. So once again, we have another bunch of probably well meaning but misguided religionuts up in arms about having another set of stone tablets removed from the front of the Haskell County (Oklahoma) Courthouse, by order of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Actually, the case was simply sent back to the District Court to enter an order consistent with the Appellate Court ruling, but the bottom line is that the Ten Commandments are, again, a governmental no-no.
[EDIT: Here's the opinion, in case anyone wants to read it.]
This is really getting old. As usual, the ignorant elected officials, who think their religion is the cats pajamas, just can’t fathom why anyone in their right minds are against the Ten Commandments, which they say they follow, but rarely do.
The latest ruling prompted Haskell County Commissioner Mitch Worsham to say, “Whoever was the judge in this, I feel sorry for him on Judgment Day.”
Of course, Mr. Worsham is one of those religionuts who doesn’t understand that his “Judgment Day” may not be observed by any number of people who want to use the Court House every day. His viewpoint, like that of most fundamentalist Christians, is narrow, condescending, and exclusive, and as the 10th Circuit noted, the imposition of those tablets “has the primary effect of endorsing religion.” His religion in particular, but also religion in general.
We’re not talking about a small plaque on the wall next to the entrance, or a bronze tablet in the garden. No, what Haskell County tried to erect was an “…8-foot granite slab planted in the Haskell County courthouse lawn [which] makes the Ten Commandments easy to read and hard to miss from the state highway that doubles as this town’s main thoroughfare.” (Why is it that Christians always have to do things so BIG?)
And apparently the Buckle of the Bible Belt has recently passed a law that authorizes a privately funded erection of a Ten Commandments monument on the lawn at the state capitol. In light of this 10th Circuit decision, they will be looking at that a little more closely, as will the ACLU.
Like the Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design issue, the Ten Commandments issue has a way of evolving in order to try to skirt court rulings disfavoring it. The Courts have consistently ruled that if there is a religious intent behind the monuments, then it is a violation of the 1st Amendment to erect them. So, the proponents have taken to a new tactic of de-emphasizing the religious nature of the monuments, in favor of their “historical” significance, arguing that the Ten Commandments have played a huge role in the shaping of our laws.
That’s the rhetorical equivalent of claiming that the Intelligent Designer of all creation was an alien from another planetary system – not god. It’s a red herring, in other words. We all know that the Ten Commandments arise out of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, and that our laws presently derive little from them. Let’s be serious. How many state, local or federal laws contain requirements that you worship only one god, or admonitions against taking the Lord’s name in vain, as the First two commandments require? Since when is it illegal to covet your neighbor’s wife or his possessions, as the last two prohibit? Dishonoring your parents, not keeping the Sabbath holy, committing adultery? All legal, last I looked (though a possible grounds for divorce with regard to the last one).
That’s 70% of the commandments that have little or no bearing on our laws, and in fact at least three of them specifically force religion on you. The remaining three are based on common sense, and certainly existed long before the first book of the Bible was written. Don’t lie, steal or murder. What society would survive without those three? You don’t need Moses to come down from Mt. Sinai to tell you those three are not conducive to a stable society. What? Did the Jews, and everyone before Moses, really believe those three were OK before Moses showed up with the other seven?
The bottom line is that when god-fearing Christians decide to spend my tax money, or even spend privately raised funds, to place 10 religious based admonitions on my tax funded and maintained property, then that clearly has the primary effect of endorsing religion, because there’s really nothing else it’s endorsing.
I wish some of the local and state officials that come up with these rationalizations for forcing their religion on us had the attitude that one of the commentators to the first link had:
From a legal standpoint, I agree with the judge. It is not the job of the state to promote religion.
As a Christian, my faith in God is strong and a constant driving force in my life. Without him, I am nothing.
As an AMERICAN (and human being in general), I support the rights of others to believe as I do, believe in something else or believe in nothing at all. I will have a VOLUNTARY religious discussion with someone, but will not attempt to convert him/her OR prove the existence of God or any other deity.
There are appropriate places for this display, but on courthouse grounds is not one of them.
One’s religious beliefs should be, and are, protected by the First Amendment. A corollary to that is that those same religious beliefs, being beliefs, are personal to the individual, and should not be forced on the population as a whole.
Besides, we all know you have to be on drugs to believe that shit.
Excellent post. I agree that this Ten Commandments stuff is getting tiresome. The fundies are committed to their cause and they are persistent as hell. Those are usually positive traits, but, in the Fundies’ case, they are simply the characteristics of people who are unwilling adapt to changing social and political environments. I can only hope that inability/unwillingness to adapt will lead to the same conclusion for religious fundamentalism that it leads to for species.
the chaplain
10 June 2009 at 8:52 AM
Funny how the violation of person is missing from the 10 Commandments. There’s no mandate against rape (except for women as property) or assault or abuse. I suppose those aren’t valid laws to these types of Christians since they don’t exist in this set.
Ordinary Girl
10 June 2009 at 11:27 AM
Even the three commandments that make sense don’t shape our laws seeing as how they only pertain to Jews, in Biblical context, ie don’t murder (any Jews), don’t steal (from any Jews), etc. Moses and his cohorts had no qualms about murdering Canaanites or other “non chosen” peoples.
Great post.
Taylor
10 June 2009 at 1:40 PM
Hey sorry to post an unrelated comment, but I’m genuinely seeking your expertise here, should you be willing to share it.
cl
10 June 2009 at 3:37 PM
Compensating?
Excellent post. I seem to remember a courthouse in the Annapolis area (I may be wrong on this (I saw it back in the mid-1980s)) a small brass plaque with the ten commandments on it. It had been put up when the courthouse was built back in the late 1700s. That (and similar situations) are the only situation where a ten commandments display could be considered historic.
If we use the fundogelical right’s argument, should we have a 20-ton granite sculpture of the Magna Carta? or Jefferson’s “The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom”? Or any of the documents which actually have a clear historical connection with the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights?
(((Billy)))
10 June 2009 at 5:22 PM
Why isn’t anyone erecting a hanging negro monument on any government property? You know, for it’s “historical significance”?
PhillyChief
10 June 2009 at 6:46 PM
Dishonoring your parents, not keeping the Sabbath holy, committing adultery? All legal, last I looked (though a possible grounds for divorce with regard to the last one).
Not anymore than, say, failing to keep the sabbath holy. At least not in California for the past 50 years. If you don’t get along with your spouse you just file irreconcilable differences and get divorced. I assume the rest of the nation has caught up by now. (I know, I know. Californians can’t get too pompous at the moment).
The point is, adultery (like the other 8 of 10 commandments) is not illegal. Neither are most of the other of “god’s laws” as defined in other parts of the Old Testament. In fact, many of those laws, themselves, are both illegal and immoral in modern culture. I refer to laws regarding women, slaves and prescribed punishments.
The Christian claim that we “get our morals from Yahweh and the Holy Bible” is simultaneously absurd and frightening.
John Evo
11 June 2009 at 10:30 PM
Don’t you have these posted on YOUR front lawn?
Barry
14 June 2009 at 7:12 AM
Better yet….a lighted one.
barrygoldwater
14 June 2009 at 7:20 AM
Barry
There you go! Now you’re getting the hang of it, Barry. Exactly. They belong on private lawns, not in front of public courthouses. There’s still hope for you yet, (even though you’re dead).
Yes. Illuminated from on high, as they say. Maybe get a big star to light the way.
Spanish Inquisitor
14 June 2009 at 10:37 AM
Hey at least I have CLOTHES.
Barry
14 June 2009 at 6:25 PM
My guess is it would be offensive to most people if you didn’t have clothes.
PhillyChief
14 June 2009 at 7:01 PM
Or maybe you print them out and burn them ritually.
No way Chief….people would PAY.
Barry
14 June 2009 at 10:21 PM
How would we know from THAT picture? Conveniently cropped.
Spanish Inquisitor
15 June 2009 at 8:30 AM
Check the neckline. Plus have you ever seen me without clothes during my numerous public appearances when I was alive?
Barry
15 June 2009 at 8:37 AM
You’re from Arizona, nudist capital of the world. I’ll bet the women love that faux collar at Sunny Resorts.
Spanish Inquisitor
15 June 2009 at 1:28 PM
Ever seen a picture of the commandments where they’re in English? Of course not. So they’re unAmerican and shouldn’t be posted anywhere in the country! Right? Right! And Charlton Heston was obviously a commie freak pushing that foreign stuff over here.
Ric
16 June 2009 at 6:22 PM
Interesting. Maybe the whole ten commandments in English is made up. Gee one would think you MIGHT not be the first to discover that. Go figure.
At present I’m sporting my faux collar in FL.
Barry
18 June 2009 at 7:10 AM
That’s definitely faux Esperanto on the picture in Spanqi’s post, and the guy certainly looks like Chuckie H. Thus, conclusive evidence that Esperanto was actually invented several thousand years ago and morphed into Hebramaic, and also evidence that Chuckie was actually a cybernetic being, else he couldn’t have lasted all those thousands of years until his recent decommissioning.
And isn’t the quality of the digicameras from those days amazing? Just look at that detail. Wow!
Oh, damn, I missed my scheduled drug dose this morning. Nuts. Gotta start over.
Ric
18 June 2009 at 8:52 AM