Recently the nations highest courts have been inundated with law suits dealing with the legality of supposedly religious monuments in public places. Recently, as detailed by this LA Times editorial, there was a court case from Pleasant Grove City, Utah where a quasi-Mormon church called Summum sued for the right to display its seven major tenets alongside a monument of the ten commandments in the city park. The editorial outlines the court's ruling, which was against Summum on the basis that the government didn't have to make room for all opinions in its public places, but it also questioned the constitutionality of having even one religious viewpoint expressed in a public place.
The Supreme Court has very clearly ruled that the placing Ten Commandments on Government property does not violate the establishment clause because of the secular and moral history that they represent. It is the opinion of the editorial that this isn't a compelling enough reason and that nothing religious should be publicly displayed.
This seems like overkill to me. I think that religion is a very important part of American life and to remove any aspect of it from the public sphere would be not only unnecessary, but detrimental. Jefferson and Madison believed that religion was necessary in government because it provided the basis for morality and I think that still holds true today. I think that instead of having to prove whether or not something is religious before it may be displayed publicly, we should consider whether or not it promotes positive values, and that it doesn't discriminate against other religions. If it fits this criteria, then it should be displayed publicly, regardless of religious affiliation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I must say I disagree with the conclusion reached by the blogger. First, that Jefferson considered religion to be the basis of morality is, to say the least, quite questionable (especially given that he had a very specific interpretation of the Bible involving taking scissors to the actual document that does not look much like many Christian sects). Further, the concept of positive values is very relative and demans and belittles genuine relgious devotion; under the plan of allowing religious displays which promote positive values and do not discriminate against other religions, we are forcing the legal system to make judgements regarding which theologies are acceptable to our society; effectively a massive violation of the establishment clause. Further, by only using religion as a civil tool we are belittling genuine religious devotion. Finally, the judgement of what constitutes not discriminating against other religions is even more difficult; religions tend towards fundamentalism and exclusivity, no matter how hard a panelist of adherents who believe wildy different things about what God, god or gods have in mind for humanity may try to sit around and say that they all believe basically the same thing.
I agree with Drew, morals and values are not the same across the board. We cannot allow for the choosing of what has 'positive value' and what does not, and we cannot choose which of those values is associated with which religion. If the government is going to allow for one religious monument, they should be allowing for others as well. Yes, our country has christian roots, but that does not mean that it should be favored or 'established' over other minority religions. It is not for the government to decide what provides morals and values and in claiming that any one religion would provide such over another is out of scope for our government.
I also agree with the other two commentors. I feel that it becomes extremely cloudy if the courts have to decide which religion is more moral over another. I feel that if the court allows one, they should allow all. If they don’t have room for all of them, then they need to take them all down. I do not agree with the court’s ruling in the Texas case that the Ten Commandments have a secular and moral history either because I do not think of them as secular by any means.
Post a Comment