Owens on Commandments, 2

Owens on Commandments on display, 2

Several issues must wait, excited though I am to address them: the first amendment as a structuring mechanism ( I think it reflects the resounding purpose of our Nation); and incorporation through the 14th amendment (we're just going to have to save that one, Mike)...

Then, there are several nuggets I'd thought to add to the waiting list, yet realize they are important elements of this discussion: moral vs civic sources of law, being one I see in Lily's discussion. Mike and Lily leave me with a plethora of juicy sub topics that fight in opposition of my hope to soundly and concisely address our main topic, Commandment displays.

The crux of my disagreement:
"...to recognize particularly the role of Christian and Judeo thought in our nation's history, its moral movements, and yes, even its governance."

In both Mike and Lily's responses, I see an appeal to supposed historical fact; namely, that our Country is founded on Judeo-Christian law. My use of "supposed" is likely a startling rhetorical choice, and I use it carefully. Certainly, I acknowledge the profound influence that this religious heritage has on Western thought, and on the people that gathered to form together our Constitution. But our Constitution is not founded on the Western idea of God. The framers made a deliberate choice not to include that word in the fundamental document. We know the choice is deliberate, because "Nature's God" and the "Creator" find a place in the Declaration of Independance. But that document, that severed us from England and made us NOT a country, is quite different from the one that made us one.

While Judeo-Christian thought surely has a pronounced place in the context and subconscience of the Drafters, in English law, and in our society today, Ten Commandment displays such as the ones in Court last week work against what our Country is founded on; namely, the provence of the individual conscience (at least, as from government...I do believe in community's influence).

Mike is quite right to argue that religion, through the first amendment, is made special in our Country. We believe, as a national community, in the profound importance of earnest belief and thoughtful deliberation. For that reason, we do not allow the government to direct our faith and we accomodate citizens' efforts to practice their faiths.

It seems to me that, when we read religion clause as one (what is normally separated into Establishment and Free Exercise), and we allow in the context of an increasingly pluralistic (vocally, anyway) society through the centuries, we must interpet "establish" broadly--and that interpretive choice, as I understand it, is the issue here.

In the cases Mike apparently disdains, the Court is trying to answer, hard though it be, that question. What is it to establish religion in a pluralistic society?

As to the inclusive nature of these displays, I simply don't view it as such.

I would be interested to see the results of a study: how many religious monuments have been offered for display on public property? and of those, which do governments subsequently display? Our hunches on this may be revealingly different. Mine is that the 10 Commandments have a higher success rate than, say, a Witchcraft display. But I'm guessing that's a hypothetical we don't want to get into. It tells, though, my presumtions and fears here--that governments, in displaying such monuments, are, again, making a choice of religions. Further, here, the monument displays the Protestant version of the Commandments, not their Hebrew script (" I am the Lord, thy God, took you out of slavery...").

More to the point, I just don't see how it's inclusive to pick a central piece of a religion and display that with governments imprimature.

Finally, a word on accomodation. That is a free exercise issue. My borad reading of "establishment" should not imply a contempt for religion nor the public display thereof. Nor, really, careful government assistance and collaboration with religious institutions. People with signs in the park, no problem. Here, there is a clear line betwen accomodation and establishment: where is it that a reasonable person would think the government, as opposed to the people, makes the religious choice?