Lily on the Ten Commandments, Response 2

Lily on the Ten Commandments, Response 2

Okay, I probably should pipe up and clarify my position on the Ten Commandments issue, at least where I stand at the moment. (Subject to change, of course, because Mike's and Andrew's insightful comments are always challenging me to go deeper to refine my own thoughts!)

First of all, when we reflect on the profound role that the Ten Commandments have historically played in Western legal culture, it is easy to forget that, while they are AN influence, no one could argue that they are the only influence. [We can argue all day about the extent of their historical significance; my own thoughts on the role they have played (and still play) were a subject of my earlier post.] Consequently, I think that they are properly displayed in the decorations at the U.S. Supreme Court and other such locations, where an attempt has been made to acknowledge their importance while, at the same time, maintaining their context amongst other pillars of the Western legal system. I think having a picture of Moses holding the Commandments in a sculpture is not significantly different from having a picture of Blackstone or Hammurabi with their respective codes, when all these figures are presented together as part of an integrated pictorial commentary on the history of American law.

Where we run into problems is when the Commandments do not appear to be presented in a way that reflects a sensitivity to their role in the larger picture of the American legal system. When they are presented in isolation on a public school house wall, or in the lobby of a courthouse, or on the grounds of the state capitol, I honestly don't think it is obvious to the casual observer that they are being presented for historical reasons rather than religious reasons -- even if the underlying reason for putting them there WAS primarily historic.

I hope this clarifies that I am not arguing that our country is founded solely on Judeo-Christian law. But I think that the Judeo-Christian perspective plays an important role in the rich tapestry of our legal history, and it is no more wrong to acknowledge that than it is wrong to acknowledge Blackstone and Hammurabi. In fact, what if we had a sculpture with Blackstone and Hammurabi, but neglected to include Moses solely because we didn't want to have a monument with a religious figure in it? This very well might violate the establishment clause, too, since the government may no more discriminate against a particular religious tradition (or religion in general) than it may advocate for it.

I also wanted to clarify a point in Mike's most recent 10 Commandments post, which Andrew has also addressed: NO ONE is arguing (seriously) that I can't parade around on the state capitol grounds tomorrow with a sandwich board painted with the Ten Commandments. Of COURSE I can do that, and so could any of us. But, importantly, I have to buy the sandwich board and the paint with my own money. I cannot do it with the taxpayers' dollars. Why? Because the government is not allowed to make any law (or allocate any money!) respecting an establishment of religion.

Also, to respond to Andrew's and Mike's inclusiveness comments: Oddly enough, I don't see the debate over inclusiveness as entirely relevant. Suppose every person in America was Christian, and we had no de facto diversity of religion at all. Given our constitutional jurisprudence over the last several hundred years, even in that scenario it would still NOT be okay for the government to spend a bunch of taxpayer money to put up religious monuments in isolation, such as crosses, or tablets with the Commandments or the Beatitudes on them.

Many thanks to both Mike and Andrew for their courageous and honest exploration of these extremely difficult issues. Discussing them with you is a great privilege!