Promoting one’s Religion

Perhaps I am influenced by the teachings of my own religion, but I do not understand why anyone needs to flash her or his religion around town to feel comfortable with it. After all, religion is a matter of faith and a very personal matter as well.

Of course, this is leading to my feelings about the recent cases dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments in a court house and on the grounds in front of the Texas capitol. The Supreme Court recently ruled that the former must be removed, but the latter may remain. The decision has, perhaps, left Conservative nation disappointed, and while those in Liberal nation have expressed agreement with the decision, this Liberal was not happy with the Texas half of the decision. Following is a copy of my letter to the New York Times on the subject, which was not published by the Times:

To the editor:

When the Chief Justice states that "the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning,” he does not sufficiently advance an analysis under the First Amendment, since all religious symbols have both a religious and historical meaning. And when he states that “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause,” he does not tell us why.

In fact, the question is not mainly what religion is and what it is not. The principal question in the recent cases regarding the display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses or outside a state capital is, when the government seeks to display a religious symbol, can the government give a clear rationale as why doing so does not run afoul of the First Amendment. The burden is on the government to show that it is clearly not promoting one religion over another or establishing one of its own making by such displays.

In other words, the burden is on the government to show that its action in displaying a religious symbol is in the context of some permissible purpose. For example, a discussion of the history of the law in a public classroom would be deficient unless it included the Ten Commandments, in their various versions. Similarly, a course in comparative religion would also necessarily include discussing the Ten Commandments. Such purposes do not promote the Ten Commandments.

However, the naked display of the Ten Commandments in or around government buildings is more difficult to explain in a permissible context. It is the job of the government to explain it, however, not the people.

There will also be times that the government may technically be in violation of the First Amendment either due to the course of history or in some immaterial way. Examples might be including the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance or by including the words "in God we trust" on our money. Such violations are not significant and largely ignored by the public. In such cases, our Courts would be reasonable in not applying its decisions retroactively or beyond what is necessary to correct a material violation.

As with any discussion of Constitutional rights, a line must be drawn somewhere to define them. Had the Founders wanted a simple way to draw a straight line, they would have given us one ruler.

Bruce Neuman

The red herring in all of this is the often made claim by Conservative nation that the First Amendment does not require that we be free from religion. What a silly point that is. In fact, the very reverse is true. We are all free to practice our religions to our heart’s content, including in very public ways, and we have made the most of that freedom. Just turn on the television and religious programming is everywhere. Churches line our streets, children attend religious schools and religious symbols abound. I agree that the First Amendment does not require that we be free of religion; it only requires that the government be free of religion, and it’s a good thing too.

Aside from the Constitutional issues, I can not understand why it is important for some to display religious symbols on government grounds. The promoters of such displays are obviously trying to promote their religion above others, but why? Religion is not an athletic event, despite the fact that we practice religion and often have to wear uniforms to pray in.

There are times when public religious displays do not bother me in the least. Christmas time is a good example. I am not a Christian, but I love looking at Christmas trees and Christmas lights, whether they are on homes or in government places. Whatever their conflict with the First Amendment is immaterial in my eyes. In fact, I see such displays as an invitation for all to partake in a joyous celebration.

However, symbols such as the Ten Commandments (remember these are commandments from God) go to the heart of one’s religion. Even within the Judeo-Christian religions the text of Commandments are not the same, there being differences between the Protestant, Catholic and Jewish texts (see http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm). A historic reference to the “Ten Commandments” is one thing, but the display of the text of the Commandments on government grounds implies something quite at odds with the First Amendment. So, why do it?

The principles underlying the First Amendment are friendly to all religions and to all who do not believe in any particular religion or in no religion. That is the genius that underlies those principles. We should all embrace them as such. America may be a Christian nation in terms of its numbers, but not in terms of its laws.

BN