August 21, 2003
on the subject of the commandments
Michael Novak on Ten Commandments & Alabama on National Review Online
"Yet before we agree with Judge Thompson, it might be useful to make three important distinctions. On the outside wall of the federal courthouse in Montgomery is a much larger statue of Artemis, described in the Court's brochure as the Greek goddess of justice. No one asserts that that statue represents an establishment of religion. Perhaps that is because no one still believes that Artemis is a real goddess. In any case, the mere stone embodiment of her image obliges no one's conscience.
But then, in similar fashion, Justice Moore's mere stone embodiment of a portion of a page from the Book of Exodus, in the form of an abbreviated version of the Ten Commandments, also puts no obligation upon the conscience of anyone who chooses not to accept that text as authoritative.
It seems significant, secondly, that the text chosen by Chief Justice Moore is from the Jewish Testament, not the New (or Christian) Testament. That makes it less sectarian and broader. Furthermore, even if one does not take the Ten Commandments literally, as a gift by the Almighty to Moses, one may take them as a symbol for that higher law ("of Nature and Nature's God") reached by reason itself. Such a higher law has traditionally been seen (by Americans from Founding Father James Wilson of Pennsylvania through Martin Luther King Jr.) as infusing all man-made law, on the one hand, and upholding a standard beyond the power of states or nations to alter or abrogate, on the other. Only such a law is a sure foundation for our rights against the changing tempests of political fortune."
Comments
Aren't the Ten Commandments legitimate for public display simply as ancient prose, historic text? Because someone imparts or extrudes spiritual meaning from them does not lessen their historical or cultural significance and certainly can't exclude them from public display.
I find the whole argument quite ludicrous. The government argument is too legalistic and the judge's argument is too focused on religion.
Call it an historic ancient text that has been significant in the development of western law and then it is legit.
Am I wrong?
Posted by: Jonathan | August 22, 2003 04:14 PM
>I find the whole argument quite ludicrous
I totally agree Jonathan
Posted by: Anthony Ianniciello | August 22, 2003 05:52 PM
I'd encourage everyone to read the actual decision from the appeals court on the Ten Commandments saga:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre70103opn.pdf
It contains a lot of details that haven't been part of the public discussion:
- Moore snuck the monument into the building in the middle of the night, without consulting his fellow supreme court justices
- Other religous groups requested that their own displays be placed alongside the monument, but were denied by the judge (they would have degraded the significance of his monument)
- The monument was not placed there as art or for historical education, but instead for a strictly religous purpose to decree the reign of religion over all else
This monument isn't some grand tradition that has been in the state since the founding - it was put in two years ago by Moore, with the expressed goal of causing a fight and thus winning him political points in the process.
Moore has manufactured a fight and is manipulating people of faith in order to build a political base that will push him into higher office.
Posted by: Scott | September 3, 2003 02:14 PM
I say if none of us are from Alabama we should walk away. Let them b***h about it.
Quote: "This monument (think you are speaking of the 10 C's?) isn't some grand tradition that has been in the state since the founding"
Yur right it's a grand tradition that's been there since the founding of the COUNTRY not JUST the state. Read a few books...
Quote: "Moore has manufactured a fight and is manipulating people of faith in order to build a political base that will push him into higher office."
So actually it has nothing to do with his own inegrity or beliefs? So it's good PR to piss off the rest of the country to get more publicity? What the crap about that makes since please?
The funny thing is I could care less about this because whatever God is real ;) in the end is gonna kick a@@ and take names and there's nothing any of us can change about that by arguing. I'm just causing poop to stir. What I DO care about though is the upcoming release of Call of Duty by Activision. Oh baby.
Posted by: rta | September 6, 2003 07:59 PM