Thou Shalt Not
A quick word on the epidemic of brain damage that seems to have broken out in Alabama over this Ten Commandments thing. The U.S. Constitution can be a tricky document, but it has a couple of very straightforward statements in it. Here’s one:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or infringing upon the free exercise thereof.”
The clear meaning of this sentence is that the framers intended that, in the United States, no religion should have the authority of government, and government should not have the authority of religion. The combination of Church and State was popular in Europe at the time, and it wasn’t working out so well for them (wars, persecution, crusades, Inquisitions, corruption, ignorance, hypocrisy, etc.). Consequently, the establishment of religion – not a religion; any religion, the whole idea of religion – in the administration of the civil authority of the government is therefore expressly prohibited.
Now the moron-American judge in this case claims that the ruling against the Ten Commandments infringes on his rights under the “free exercise” provision. I wonder what law school is proud to have this splendid mind as a graduate, who cannot distinguish between his rights as a citizen and his obligations as – God help us – an agent of the government of the great state of Alabama. His personal religious beliefs are completely beside the point, just as his personal right to bear arms is beside the point if his courthouse bans concealed weapons. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The other argument I’ve heard in this case is that honoring the Ten Commandments in an American courtroom is OK because our justice system is based on Judeo-Christian ethics, as embodied in scripture. Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Then there’s the historically accurate way.
In truth, the framers of the Constitution recognize only one legitimate source of authority for the laws. It’s not God, not scripture, not the monarchy or the aristocracy or the Code of Hammurabi. It’s the people, according to a doctrine of government called Popular Sovereignty, based in the humanist philosophy of the 17th and 18th century.
This is not to say that the founders were irreligious. Some were; others were quite devout. But even those true believers were willing to acknowledge that while God rules in heaven, man rules on earth. Every citizen is free to consult whatever faith and tradition they please to arrive at their personal morals, but the just laws of public life arise solely and exclusively from the human-centered political process of open debate, without recourse to claims of divine authority.
The idea of a human-centered morality is the real bone that fundamentalists have to pick with modern society. They believe, with faith and sincerity, that only God can lead people to right. And that’s fine for them. But guess what – it’s not America. Here, they lost that argument 225 years ago, when this country was founded on the explicit rejection of that idea. The country they live in is the result of a great experiment in secular humanism – one that produced the freest, most vibrant, and prosperous country in the history of humanity. America has succeeded where every state founded on religion has failed. It is our example of success in separating Church and State that inspired Europe to cast off the chains of two thousand years of institutional and coercive faith, and that hopes to inspire the Muslim world to do the same.
Shame on these idiots for undermining the core principles of our freedom at a time when we are at war against blind zealotry and fanaticism. I may share citizenship with the people who have made spectacles of their ignorance on the steps of the capitol in Birmingham, but I have no problem calling them what they are: dangerous and fundamentally anti-American fools.
3:40:04 PM 
|
