You Can’t Tell Me What I Shalt and Shalt Not Do!
Today I visited the Texas State Capitol and I saw the controversial Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds. This week, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments in a case brought by Thomas Van Orten who seeks to force the State of Texas to remove the monument. He claims it violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of separation of church and state.
Texian Weblog © Copyright 2005, Jason E. Heath
Now, I’ve read the U.S. Constitution several times. I took a Constitutional Law class in college. I still have my Con. Law textbook, and several copies of the United States Constitution. I have never read the line “separation of church and state” in the Constitution. I have read it in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association, but while TJ was a great man, we don’t run our Republic according to his letters.
Here’s what the Constitution does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . .(Amendment I)” This is called the Establishment Clause. It prevents the Congress from creating a state religion. For example, Congress couldn’t give tax money to only the Episcopal Church, that would be “respecting an establishment of religion.” Congress could do that if it gave money to all the other churches that ask for it, too. Now, explain to me how a Ten Commandments monument is “respecting an establishment of religion.” Is it that only the Episcopal Church believes in the Ten Commandments? No, all Christian churches believe in the Ten Commandments. Not only all Christian churches, but all Christians, even those who don’t belong to a church. And not only all Christians, but also all Jews, all Muslims, even Buddhists respect the Ten Commandments as a good moral code to live by. Therefore, no one religious sect is being promoted above the others, and therefore the Constitution is not being violated.
But let’s go back a second. The U.S. Constitution says “Congress shall make no law. . .” But Congress didn’t put this Ten Commandments monument on the Texas Capitol grounds, that was done by the Texas State Legislature. So, let’s see what the Texas State Constitution says about it: “No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes. (Article I, Section 7),” and “no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. (Article I, Section 6)” But again, this monument does not benefit “any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary.”
But this isn’t all that either Constitution has to say on the subject. After the Establishment Clause, the U.S. Constitution says, “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means that all citizens enjoy the right to freely exercise their religion without interference from the government. This right extends even to public grounds, such as the Texas State Capitol grounds.
The Texas State Constitution is much more specific. It says, “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship. (Article I, Section 6)” In no way does this monument violate the Texas State Constitution. Even with this monument on the grounds, all men still have the “right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” Nobody is being “compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship.” No authority is controlling or interfering “with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.” And like the U.S. Constitution, the Texas State Constitution protects public worship.
I bring up this part about free exercise because not only are some people seeking to remove monuments from public grounds, but they seek to remove faith out of the public square altogether, such as prohibiting student-led prayer in public schools. However, this would be a violation of the constitutionally protected right of free exercise. The Constitutions of the United States and the State of Texas do not demand that the State be atheist, but instead tolerant of all faiths and religions. The Constitutions do not demand that the State of Texas remove the Ten Commandments monument. In fact, the Constitutions demand the opposite, that the State allow such a display. Prohibiting such a display would not only violate free exercise, but would also show preference to a mode of worship, that being Atheism. A mode of non-worship is still a mode of worship. Since Atheism cannot prove by science that there is no God, then it is a faith just like Christianity.
At the risk of making this post even longer, I want to bring up one more thing. I do not believe that the Constitution is what causes some people to seek the removal of Ten Commandments monuments. I believe it is what I call morephobia (MORE-ay-FOBE-ee-ah): the fear of morality. I believe that some of these people do not like being reminded that there is a universal and natural moral standard by which we are all judged, whether by God or society. They would rather that they be allowed to live in whatever amoral fashion they choose. I also believe that people should live their lives as they see fit, but I also believe that a strong and healthy democracy depends on the morality of the citizens. Therefore, ethics and morality should be promoted by the State, and they are. An education that lacks any kind of moral lessons would not be considered an adequate education. Good citizens are not only well-read, but they also have a strong moral code. They should be taught that taking something without paying for it is wrong, that you should always tell the truth, that you shouldn’t murder another person, and certainly you should listen to your parents. All of these lessons are included in the Ten Commandments. So again, the State should keep the Ten Commandments monument in an effort to promote morality.
–J.E. Heath
Response to Court decision
Captivated by my wisdom? Get more at per-fidem.org.
Comments? Email us.
Weblog




2 Comments:
From rgb:
I agree with your heart that the constitution's intent was establishment, not separation. I also agree with the results being wrong, as in the case of the Monument. But the reality is that the statement that the "Constitution" does not mention separation of church and state is not correct. The constitution consists of the original words, plus all the case law and judgments made since that time. The decisions and interpretations, even if misguided as they are in this case, are still part of our body of law and are part of the constitution until changed. So we have evolved into a not only a religion neutral government, but a religion hostile one, which we must reverse, it seems to me.
From Patrick Tomlinson (comment edited for lenght):
. . .Having government dollars used to purchase and display monuments of the Ten Commmandments on public land clearly and unequivicaly sends a message of favortism to people of Judeo-Christian faiths. Many millions of our citizens in the U.S. are not of a Judeo-Chistian faith and are therefore excluded from representation in these monuments. . . So obviously not all religions are being treated equally and represented fairly with these monuments.
Further, Heath's argument that somehow banning the government from purchasing these monument violates an individuals free exercise rights are preposterous. No one is advocating the religious rights of individuals acting as private citizens should be restricted in any way. . . .[This court case] is only trying to prevent the government from taking sides.
Maybe Heath would care to explain to us in detail why he thinks that disallowing the government from using tax money to erect religious monuments in any way restricts an individual from practicing their religion. The truth is it doesn't. I think Heath and those like him know this, but just can't pass up the opportunity to get special treatment for their religious beliefs from the government. What would his reaction be to having a statue of a Pegan Earth goddess erected in place of the ten commandments? He would be livid, but the same false arrguments that he uses to deffend the government errecting his monument could be used to protect that statue or a statue of Shiva, or a giant Buddha. After all, these statues wouldn't mean that anyone is being "compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship."
Patrick - pstomlinson@hotmail.com
Reply from J.E. Heath:
First, the State of Texas did not use taxpayer money to erect this monument. The monument was donated to the People of Texas by the Fraternal order of Eagles. If taxpayer money were used, I would be opposed to it as well. But, this is an example of a private organization exercising its Right to religious expression. Forcing the State to not allow this display would be a violation of that right.
Second, I would have no problem with another religious group wanting to erect a monument of their own. So, a statue of Shiva would not be a problem. Now, a GIANT statue of Buddha would be a problem because of its size, but a smaller monument (about the same size as the Ten Commandments monument) would be fine. This is what Freedom is all about.
Finally, Those who oppose the display of this monument hold the self-contradictory position that Freedom must be defended at the cost of Freedom. Their idea of Freedom of Religion is NO religion. They say that such a display forces a religion on those who do not believe. If this Ten Commandments monument were the only religious monument allowed, I would agree. However, my position is that ALL religions should have this opportunity. If the government were to deny that opportunity to all religious groups, then the government would be supporting the philosophy of Atheism above all faiths, and that cannot be allowed. So, for the sake of Freedom, this monument, and others like it regardless of faith, must be allowed to stay.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home