Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments monument has found its way to a closet in the Alabama Judicial Building, but if one Alabama congressman has his way, Roy’s rock and Decalogue displays just like it will be in schools, courthouses, and other government buildings nationwide — and there’ll be nothing the federal courts can do about it.<\/p>\n
For the fourth time in four Congresses, Rep. Bob Aderholt (R-Ala.) has introduced his “Ten Commandments Defense Act.”<\/a> Apparently, Aderholt, a huge Roy Moore fan, is hoping the controversy in his home state over government-sponsored religion will finally give his beloved legislation the oomph it needs to become law.<\/p>\n If early co-sponsors are any indication, Aderholt’s bill stands a decent shot at passing the House. As of this morning, the stupid bill (H.R. 2045) had 85 co-sponsors, roughly equivalent to about 20 percent of the House of Representatives.<\/p>\n One of the co-sponsors, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said, “There can be no doubt that a nation without a deep and strongly held system of values and a sincere faith cannot long endure. We’ve all seen the headlines: violence, drugs and examples of moral decay.”<\/p>\n [sarcasm alert] Yeah, this makes sense. Our country has problems and if we slap one religion’s sacred text on some public walls, we’ll suddenly find that everything’s okay. We put “In God We Trust” on the money and that’s why people don’t steal anymore. And that’s why no one ever does anything immoral in motel rooms — the mere presence of a Bible in the nightstand drawer is enough to stop sin dead in its tracks.<\/p>\n Another one of the brilliant co-sponsors summed up nicely why this bill is so obviously unconstitutional.<\/p>\n “I believe that God is real,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind). “I believe He blesses nations that acknowledge Him to this very day. So this [bill] matters.”<\/p>\n In one respect, Pence is right. The bill does matter. It represents the most obvious federal attempt to ignore church-state separation since Bush unveiled his so-called faith-based initiative. Second, in a nation as diverse as ours, a federal law to allow government sponsorship of one faith tradition’s sacred text is a recipe for divisiveness. We’d all be better off if the government remained neutral on religion and allowed each of us to make up our own minds on matters of faith.<\/p>\n Before you write in to tell me that the Commandments are shared by multiple faith traditions — Catholics, Protestants, and Jews — let me remind you that different traditions celebrate different versions of the Decalogue. Despite what George W. Bush said during the 2000 campaign, there is no such thing as the “standard” version of the Ten Commandments. For the government to post one version would be to ignore and slight the other two.<\/p>\n Perhaps most importantly, I believe callous attempts to exploit the Commandments for political gain borders on blasphemy. Folks like Aderholt and Moore have chosen to wield their faith as a political club. To hear them tell it, to stand with God is to stand with state-sponsored religious displays — and to stand against state-sponsored religious displays is to stand against God. This is absurd demagoguery. These fights aren’t between the religious and the irreligious; they’re between those who insist government has to officially promote religion against those who believe religion will flourish in an environment free of government interference.<\/p>\n
\n
\nLet’s quickly acknowledge why this bill is misguided. First, the Ten Commandments aren’t in any danger, so they certainly don’t need a federal “defense act.” The Commandments have done pretty well for themselves for centuries; I suspect they’ll continue to do well even if we ignore Bob Aderholt’s proposal. As my friend and regular-reader Claudine reminded me this morning, religion doesn’t need “help” from politicians.<\/p>\n