|
Gifts for all occasions in the Galleria! Add your comments on this week's "What is the Deal?" column at Uncle Hiram's Bulletin Board. August 24, 2003 What is the Deal with the Thin Gray Line? By Jan A. Larson "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; .. " - Amendment I, U. S. Constitution The first clause of the above simply states that Congress shall make no law establishing religion. This seems straightforward enough. Congress may not make any laws that force an individual or group to worship (or not worship) in any particular way. The second clause states that Congress also may not make any laws that restrict the population from practicing their chosen religion in whatever way each individual may see fit. It is a matter of historical record that the Founding Fathers placed great deal of emphasis on their religious faith and incorporated the ideals of that faith into the foundation of American government. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them .." - Declaration of Independence The Founders viewed God as being self-evident. Only the manner that one chose to worship (or not worship) God was of consideration. The Founders certainly never imagined that the meaning of those sixteen words in the First Amendment would change so much in 200 years. Through judicial precedent, the seemingly clear "establishment clause" has been transmogrified into the prohibition of any government, i.e. taxpayer supported, institution of any kind displaying virtually anything with a religious connotation, albeit with some exceptions. The phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, the display of Moses and the Ten Commandments in the U.S. Supreme Court building and the practice of both houses of Congress opening each session with prayer are rooted in the history of the nation. Of course there are those that would prefer to see all religious references eliminated from all government institutions. The thin gray line lies between the establishmentof religion by government institutions and the freedom to practice religion by the people that occupy positions of authority in those same government institutions. Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore finds himself standing on that thin gray line. Justice Moore installed a monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building and has defied a federal court order to have it removed. Initially I found myself supporting the efforts of Justice Moore to retain the monument. Now, however, I've come to the conclusion that he is wrong. Justice Moore has taken his freedom to practice religion and brought it across the thin gray line into the Alabama Supreme Court. Moore sees the monument as merely reflective of the history of the law. Others see the monument as representing Moore's personal religious convictions in an official capacity. The Judicial Building does, after all, belong to the people, not Justice Moore. The placement of the monument in the Judicial Building does suggest a particular point of view with respect to religion by the court. While just about everyone with the exception of anarchists and terrorists would likely agree that the Ten Commandments provide a worthwhile guide to living one's life, the fact remains that the Ten Commandments are not universally taught and accepted by all religions. Justice Moore wishes to acknowledge God as the historical foundation of the law. I perfectly understand Justice Moore's position and, in fact, agree with it at least from the purely historical perspective. Justice Moore's method of acknowledging God is, however, flawed. The installation of the monument and the manner in which it was displayed does much more than convey Moore's acknowledgement of God in the historical context. It establishes an environment in the Alabama Judicial Building suggesting that business may be conducted in a manner consistent with Christianity but not Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam. I have a great deal of respect for a man of principle like Justice Moore, but I wonder if the Founders had come from the Far East rather than western Europe, would he be as adamant in his defense of a monument to Buddha? -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
Visitors:
|
||||||||||||||
