Among all the consequential pieces of federal legislation passed or proposed last year, you may have missed one gem: "America's Spiritual Heritage Resolution." Some salient facts about this bill: (1) it was co-sponsored by Michele Bachmann; (2) it relies heavily on the historical scholarship of Newt Gingrich; and, most obviously, (3) "America's Spiritual Heritage" is unequivocally Christian. The bill died in committee. But if you think you've heard the end of this type of thing, you haven't yet learned that Christian Fundamentalists are the hydra of American political theater. When one crazy idea gets axed, two more, bilious and hissing, sprout up in its place.
In a recent show, hydra head No. 327 was played by Reverend Chester Shartzer of Leitchfield, Kentucky (who is, surprisingly, not a Pynchon character). The Reverend had one simple wish: to adorn various public buildings in Grayson County, KY with copies of the Ten Commandments. But the Rev isn't an idiot. Realizing that the Constitution might stand in the way of using public buildings like a church bulletin board, he proposed that the County hang the Ten Commandments along with "other historical documents." This approach, he guessed, might lead "Civil Liberties" to "look more favorable toward it."
Various Grayson County luminaries thought this sounded like a great idea and greenlighted the display. Entitled "Foundations of American Law and Government," this Rauschenbergian piece of Americana included the Ten Commandments, the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Star Spangled Banner, the National Motto, the preamble to the Kentucky Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
For those of you thinking that the inclusion of the Ten Commandments in this historical pastiche seems, well, ahistorical, the exhibit's "Explanation Document" might help: "The Ten Commandments provide the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition." Which seems facially untrue, in light of the fact that (1) most of the prohibitions in the Ten Commandments have never been enacted into law anywhere in the United States, and (2) the ones that have (e.g., no killing or stealing) are rules that appear basically in any society with a criminal legal code.
None of this sat well with America's favorite communist outfit, the ACLU, which brought suit alleging that the display violated the First Amendment, which forbids, among other things, "law[s] respecting an establishment of religion." Under that clause, displays on government property are permissible so long as they (1) are not motivated by a religious purpose and (2) would not be interpreted by a reasonable observer as "endorsing" a particular set of religious beliefs.
Grayson County lost in the trial court and appealed the case to the Sixth Circuit, which is the federal appeals court covering various parts of Hillary country (Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio). In reversing the trial court, the Sixth Circuit first found that the display, a collection of "historical documents," was motivated by an acceptable secular purpose-namely, the education of Grayson County residents.
The court further found that [PDF link], given the mélange of documents in the display, a reasonable observer would view the presence of the Ten Commandments as an "acknowledgment of history" and not necessarily an affirmation of the tablets' teachings.
The Sixth Circuit's opinion is seriously flawed on both counts. As for the purpose of the display, let's check in with Reverend Shartzer about why he was so keen on including the Ten Commandments: "I'm just wanting to put a road sign in the courthouse as a directive for young people... how it's embedded in my heart, and I want it in other hearts." This sounds a lot more evangelical than educational, as Shartzer's comments at the re-hanging of the display earlier this week seem to confirm.
No more defensible is the court's holding that the display does not endorse any particular religious beliefs. The opinion assumes that gussying up the Ten Commandments with various unobjectionable documents dilutes any religious message, but this seems only to make the message less blatant, and more insidious. Mounting the Ten Commandments among various undeniably foundational documents suggests that Moses' handiwork is a canonical or orthodox part of America's legal tradition-a view that falls somewhere on the spectrum between exaggeration and outright myth. If forced to choose, I think I'd prefer that the government proselytize nakedly instead of wrapping a religious message in faux-historical swaddling clothes.
It might seem ridiculous to get worked up over a no-doubt-comical-looking diorama, housed on the second floor of a Kentucky courthouse, that will be seen by approximately no one. But attempts to "recognize" America's Spiritual Heritage™ by injecting religion and religious symbolism into the most remote corners of American life deserve our antagonism. If we let fringe elements nibble, undisturbed, on the fringe of the Constitution, their next stop will be its heart.
Previously: Bryan v. McPherson, or, Don't Tase Me When I'm Pantsless, Bro
Ian Retford is the pseudonym of a lawyer in New York City.
Thou Shalt Not File An Amicus Brief.
Also, the text reads: ". . . among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of your neighbor's wife (ie, happiness) . . ."
If the Lord didn't want me pursuing my neighbor's wife, he wouldn't have given her such a fine ass.
Strictly speaking, you're not supposed to covet your neighbor's ass.
The Ten Commandments provide the moral background of the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of our legal tradition.
I thought that was the Codex Justinianus
And Louisiana should display a copy of the Code Napoléon under a big portrait of their lawgiver in every courthouse!
Here is a teachable moment dear commenters: maybe...just maybe the ACLU (of which I am a financial supporter) got this one wrong.
Moses...Shmoses...regardless of its mythical foundations...it is a document which can be considered an underpinning of western ideals. The motives of the prime movers of the Kentucky case may very well be coming from the evangelical christian corner...but that doesnt remove the historical and civil import of the document.
I agree. Or, at the very least, in a world where you have to (and should) pick your battles, this is one I'd choose not to fight.
No one disputes the historical importance of the ten commandments as a religious document, but to choose to highlight it in the exhibit, rather than various other historically important documents from different religions, makes it a de facto endorsement of Christianity, and because this display is in a government building alongside other historical government documents, it is highly unconstitutional. The ACLU us absolutely correct in this regard.
My argument disregards the 10 commandments as a religious document. It accepts the historical reality of its role with the formation of civil society...historically. I reject religion therefore I reject any "De Facto" and view it purely on its merits as a legitimate historical document. And theoretically so should a government--reject its religious provenance--but that does not render the document and its role throughout the ages inconsequential.
That's all well and good and noble of you, except that it IS a religious document. You can't view it as anything but a religious document, since a majority of the rules contained on the document have a religious, not expressly moral, underpinning. Not to mention, as others have pointed out, it has very little to do with the formation of our civil society, especially in terms of our governing laws.
consider the fact that the creation of the "10 Commandments" was merely a codification of civil society as recognized by whatever governing body was at play at the time--there was no concept that understood there was to be evolution of ideas that allowed a separation of church and state. Rather the church was the state and vicey versey--so religion was civil law of the land- and to that extent there was a legiitimate effort to create some codes to which society was to abide by. No big whoop. Nothin to see here--just some rules and reg-a-lations.
Sorry, will, but that argument is a non-starter. The whole of the Bible is merely but an "historical document" by that logic.
Will, are you making the argument that laws and civic codes didn't exist before the 10 commandments? Because...c'mon.
Except that our legal and government heritage seems to have its roots in the Greco-Roman tradition than Judeo-Christian, what with our democracy and republic and trials by peers and all. Long before Jesus told people to turn the other cheek, the Athenians decided that blood retribution had no place in society and in place set up a series of courts which would believe that mercy should take precedence over harshness ... or at least that's what I got from the Eumenides (written around 450 BCE).
Not to quibble, but the whole trial by peers thing actually came from the barbarians (of knifecrime island).
So many right-wing idiots (and I use the term literally) honestly believe that our founding documents are based on biblical traditions. Ted Nugent (just for example) once said that Constitution was based on (I shit you not) "the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule," which anyone who can READ will tell you is complete and utter bullshit.
The problem seems to be that these people have been raised in a vacuum where they have been taught through repetition that ALL morality comes, ipso facto, from Jeebus. Ergo, anything that seems just or moral must, on the face of it, be somehow attributable to Jeebus. ALSO, America is God's Favorite Country, and the Constituion is unimpeachable in its manifest truthiness and morality, and therefore it was probably written by God, just like the gospels, through the founding fathers, who were no doubt good God-fearin' folk, because AS EVERYONE KNOWS there was absolutely none of this "atheism" or "agnosticism" or some such nonsense back in the 18th Century, and THAT'S why it says "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, which was written by Abraham Lincoln right before he signed the Declaration of Independence, SO THERE.
Still waiting to hear why those who are ruled by the Word of God need to waste their time on superfluous secular institutions like government.
As proof that some people from Grayson Co can read, I must tell you that while not all Grayson County people are like this most are like this. My senior History teacher gave us a speech lauding former classes who went rogue at graduation and had a spontaneous prayer since the school couldn't sponsor such an action.
I'm not sure what the Ten Commandments have to do with the Constitution and other foundational law of the republic, but the Ten Commandments and other Old Testament law were cited explicitly, chapter and verse, in some early state and municipal codes.
I remember seeing examples of this in primary sources in early Connecticut statutes in an exhibit entitled "The Pink and the Blue: Lesbian and Gay Life at Yale and in Connecticut, 1642-2004" (link). As I recall, the statute was printed left-justified on the page, and then the scripture and citation was printed on the right, italicized.
When the laws were enforced, the biblical penalties were occasionally imposed, although probably not consistently or literally. In the archives, there was an account of a fellow who was executed (though not stoned) for homosexual activity: specifically, he had several times lured youths to his home and masturbated them.
Is there a picture of the "historical documents" anywhere online?
I'm not really lazy, I have been looking but can't find any.
Listen Ian Retford, I may not be a big New York city lawyer or nothing, but down here where I'm from we don't have much use for all of these legal terms. If you'll excuse me, I'll be whittling a Confederate flag out of some old dug up bones.
Code names. We're using code names.
You gotta pick yours outta this hat here.
I got "Grandmaster Terry Watkins."
You can see part of the display if you watch the video in this link: http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/1100913.html?storylink=omni_popular
You would think, based on the reaction of the spectators, that the Elgin marbles were returning home.
You're seriously going to start another Hatfields/McCoys affair if you keep up this meddlesome nonsense.
Aww, look at the old people and their Microsoft Word Ten Commandments!