The inevitable result of the Ten Commandments cases

The Supreme Court has said local governments kinda sorta can promote the Ten Commandments on public property, so long as the display features some diversity with other symbols and/or documents. For those who want government to intervene in religious matters, the high court’s guidance is ambiguous, but helpful enough to move forward with plans to get more religious monuments erected at city halls and courthouses nationwide.

As is sometimes the case, however, these guys should be careful what they wish for.

In Pleasant Grove, Utah, for example, a Ten Commandments memorial, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971, sits in a secluded area of city property that is intended to honor the city’s heritage. Pleasant Grove is now facing litigation about the display, not from civil libertarians, but from another religious group that wants equal treatment.

The Summum religion has sued the city of Pleasant Grove for the right to display the other set of laws they say Moses brought down the mountain.

The city has refused to allow the Salt Lake City-based religion to erect a monument enumerating the Seven Aphorisms, principles they say underlie creation and nature, with a public memorial that includes the Ten Commandments.

Summum leaders believe these were initially passed only to a select few who could understand them, but that Moses also delivered a lower set of laws, the Ten Commandments, which were more widely distributed.

I’m not an expert in the Summum, but as I understand it, the group’s Aphorisms include statements such as “Summum is Mind, Thought; the Universe is a Mental Creation,” and “Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates,” and “As above, so below; as below, so above.” I haven’t a clue what any of this means, but that’s not really the point.

These people see one religious tradition’s sacred text endorsed in a public and they’d like their beliefs to receive similar support. It’s not an unreasonable argument.

A lot of people seem to believe America needs more religion in its “public square.” The Summum agree. The religious majority, however, have considered their requests and responded, “Uh, we didn’t mean you guys.”

This won’t do. Those who want state-sponsored religious displays shouldn’t be allowed to get picky about which religions get endorsed and which get left behind. The government cannot be in a position of deciding which religions are “real” and which are “bizarre.”

Want more religious monuments in front of city hall? Fine, but you better start saving room for quite a few religious groups. It’s a diverse country, you know.

Aha.

It’s cases like these that allow us to see the true motives of the people demanding that their religious symbols get placement in public settings.
I had always wondered if anyone genuinely thinks that someone would have a meaningful conversion experience just by passing by a tawdry display, or that the world would be a better place. It didn’t make any sense, so why do it?

Then the answer occured to me: this is simply a demonstration of raw exercise of power–forcing one’s will against the wishes and preferences of others. The intent is clearly to show that we live in a “Christian” nation. The displays will be evidence of this, and it is not in the fundies’ plan to allow other displays. They seem to be using a drip, drip, drip approach here. A small step first: get the courts to agree with putting your religion on public property. Next, resist attempts by other religions to do the same. Third, now we are a Christian Nation and have all of the trappings and propaganda reinforcements in place, we tear the other religions/non-fundie denominations right out of the soil, root and all.

It’s a little bit of slippery slope reasoning, but it’s the only plan that makes sense to me. Religions may not be rational, but religious leaders are in their scheming.

  • “Uh, we didn’t mean you guys.”
    That’s what these morons have been preaching since
    they’ve been around. (more or less 5000 years) If
    they really wanted to do something useful, they could
    try living by the Ten Commandments.
    Call them what they are – modern day Pharisees.

  • I guess this is plan B. If you can’t stop the Ten Commandments and the like from entering the public sphere, then let 100000 lawsuits bloom: every freaking alleged religion in the universe gets its stuff displayed too. Everything: Hinduism, Islam, Taoism, Buddism, Shintoism, native american religions, african religions, UFO cults, homeless guys who claim to be prophets or Jesus, etc.

  • But, and this is a big but, the Supreme Court
    argreed in both cases that if the purpose of
    the display is essentially religious in nature,
    then it’s unconstitutional. If one religious
    monument is unconstitutional, you can’t
    turn it around by adding another, or two, or
    a thousand – you only make it worse.

    Read the controlling opinion in the Texas
    case. There seem to be two main arguments
    for the favorable ruling: 1) that the damn thing
    stood for 40 years and nobody complained
    about it, so what’s the big deal? 2) that it
    was a mere part of a complex of 17 historical
    monuments and 21 markers, so it was a
    heritage thing, not a religious thing. Never
    mind that they had a brief that the Ten
    Commandments are NOT the basis of our
    laws – apparently they didn’t read that.

    But the point is, this was a pretty shaky
    decision, and it does not apply to the new
    monuments going up, by either argument.
    New monuments are not 40 years old,
    and they ain’t going up as historical markers –
    they’re going up as religious monuments,
    and that won’t fly. We haven’t gone that
    far – yet.

  • When I was an undergraduate at San Francisco State College (mid ’60s) there was a long-established “Free Speech Platform”. Anyone who reserved it could do whatever wasn’t criminal on that small stage (and even a bit more than that if it wasn’t harmful). Bag lunch on the huge amphitheater lawn could be enlivened by Wobblies, folksingers, John Birch Society ranters, home-made theater, Sexual Freedom League nude-ins, Young Republicans, religious nuts, SNCC and SDS appeals, speeches and fund-raising for ballot propositions … you name it. It was free and first-come, first-reserved.

    When I arrived at State I was just getting over the process of abandoning the Roman Catholic regime in which I had been raised (including three years in a Franciscan seminary). I was dazzled by all that went on on the platform. BTW, Berkeley was still fighting for what we took for granted, later termed Mario Savio’s “Filthy Speech Movement” by the press.

    I remember at the time reading several biographies of Alexander the Great. When he got to the Indus Valley he was amazed at what-we-would-call a “town square” (I no longer remember which city) in which hundreds of different religions and philosophies were constantly being practiced and preached. He invited a bunch these guys to go along with his army for as long as they wanted, even sending a number of them to Athens to push their point of view … part of his “cultural diversity” program.

    How much more sophisticated that ancient Indian capital (and Alexander) was, compared with our parochial, Fundamentalist blowhards and 21st century political cowards.

  • Just wait, the “Pharisees” (xtians) will start whining about being persecuted (yet again) real soon. Not even realizing that they are reaping what they have sown.

    Hannah, liberal Christian

  • Heck, everybody knows that it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created the universe and everything within it. Don’t believe me? Check this out: http://www.venganza.org/

    “May we ALL be touched by his noodly appendage.”

  • Hank – thanks for the clarification of the Supreme Court decision. I didn’t realize that it was so narrowly decided. The Utah case may put a whole new wrinkle in the having displays on government property.

    Personally, I think that the Hindus have a lot of neat idols. I especially like Ganesh. Also, having a meditating Buddha sitting on the lawn of government property would suit me just fine. It would remind me that there is a kinder, gentler religion.

  • LynChi,

    I very much agree on the Buddha. But, in addition to the meditating one, I insist (in the name of religious diversity) on my other favorite, the Happy Buddha, aka Hotei, aka god of drunkenness and happiness. See a bunch of examples here and my favorite among them here.

    For some reason I’m reminded of D.H. Lawrence’s creed a spoof of the one Ben Franklin wrote in his Autobiography. Franklin’s began:

    1. Temperance
    Eat not to fulness; drink not to elevation.

    Lawrence changed that to:

    1. Temperance
    Eat and carouse with Bacchus, or munch dry bread with Jesus, but don’t sit down without one of the gods.

    Woohoo! Here’s to Hotei-Bacchus … may he live in every public square! And if the Fundamentalists don’t like it, too bad.

  • Ed – “Fundament?” That is so funny.

    I have the laughing Buddha. He is in a semi-reclining positon. I guess he is just relaxing after all that Bacchus stuff. 🙂

  • I love it. I’ve been telling people in the religious right for a long time to be careful what they wished for with this kind of crap.

    Because I’m looking forward to founding my own religion with a few friends and demanding equal treatment in all things, including displays in public places and government buildings.

    So yeah, bring it on, as some dipshit said about an unrelated matter.

  • Comments are closed.