Linford: Ten Commandments
Keep the Commandments personal
Dan Linford
Linford is a member of Virginia Tech Freethinkers.
Re: “In Giles, a brave stand for liberty,” June 16 commentary:
Christians, along with non-Christians, should oppose the Ten Commandments being displayed in Giles County Public Schools. After all, it is the church’s and parents’ responsibility — not the school system’s — to provide religious instruction to children.
June 29, 2011 - 7:40 AM
Some people’s freedoms extend only to what others deem “acceptable.” In May, 2010, 5 California students were sent home for wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. What, exactly, made that act unacceptable on that day? Either we have our freedom(s) or we don’t. I’m not naive, I know why they were sent home. The question would be would the same thing happen to a student wearing a Mexican flag T-shirt on Flag Day here in the U.S.?
As I understand the sequence, God gave the Commandments to Moses to deliver to the people…not as a personal gift.
Dan, Thanks for your commentary on my article of June 16 about Giles Co. and the Ten Commandments. Thank you also for writing in a gentlemanly way without the name-calling and insults that usually accompany such rebuttals.
Please allow me a few comments. The Ten Commandments in the Protestant Bible are a direct translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and are Jewish to the core. The fact they are usually displayed in an abbreviated form doesn’t mean they are a different “version.” That argument, I believe, is a smoke screen.
Also, the signers of the Declaration of Independence were for the most part Christians belonging to various denominations. I agree with you Franklin and Jefferson were not Christians, but Deists of a sort. However, Franklin did believe in a personal God. That is plain from his speech in the Constitutional Convention when he called on the delegates to pray to the “Father of Lights.” His further comments about if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without God’s notice identifies this Deity as the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. (See Matthew 10: 29.) Many of Franklin’s quotes show he believed in a personal God who reigns in the affairs of men.
Regarding Jefferson: when he was president, the largest church service in the country at that time was held in the Capitol, and Jefferson attended regularly. He wrote a book, “The Life and Morals of Jesus Christ,” and had it distributed to members of Congress. He approved using the Bible as a reading text in Washington D.C. public schools, and authorized government funds to send missionaries to the Indians. So, whatever he meant in his private letter to the Danbury Baptists by “a wall of separation,” he obviously didn’t mean the total separation of government and Christianity as you folks are twisting it to mean.
But in the end, all of the arguments referenced above and those about the recent additions to the Pledge and currency, etc. are only smoke screens to avoid the real issue. It cannot be refuted from history that America’s concepts of liberty under law, the equality of all men under the law, our moral code and common law all came from the Judeo-Christian worldview, that is, the Ten Commandments and the Scriptures that followed. We would not be America otherwise. So no historical display of founding documents is complete without the Ten Commandments. More importantly, Americans have the right to tell the truth about our heritage. The bullying ACLU and federal courts have no real right to interfere. That is the real issue. So let’s stick to that, okay, and quit wasting time chasing rabbit trails.
If the Founders, the Constitution, the laws, the people and the ideology were all as perfectly aligned and in agreement as you seem to think Mr. Taylor, I fail to see how the ACLU could “bully” anyone, any court or any group. Militias, the KKK, the Secessionists, and several other groups have all tried to “bully” this nation into getting their way and, well, we see how successful they have been. Whether you acknowledge it or not, there is precedent, history and decided law on this subject. Which is why Giles County will lose.
Do you feel the same way about the federal courts in all efforts or just the ones you oppose?
Do you agree that the Code of Hammurabi predates any version known of the Bible?
Dan, that was one of the most balanced and articulate opinion pieces on this matter that I’ve read. I also learned some new things, so thank you!
Searching Bear, I agree with you that the kids in the first part of your post were mistreated. Individual students have the right to wear whatever flag on their shirt that they wish no matter how offensive some might find it on any day of the year. A student wearing an American flag on his shirt on Cinco de Mayo is protected free speech, just as the student wearing a Mexican flag on Flag Day is protected. If this case occurred as you say it did (and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying) then these students should have contacted the proper legal representation, possibly the ACLU. This would have been a direct and obvious violation of the individual rights protected by the constitution.
In fact, I addressed something similar in my Op-Ed when I wrote “I would encourage those students who hold Christian beliefs to proudly display their beliefs, including the Ten Commandments, on their own lockers and on their own belongings, embracing their own expression of personal freedom.”
The ACLU recently defended the right of students to hang the Ten Commandments on their own lockers (this was at Floyd High School in Virginia.) It is not the position of the ACLU, nor is it my position, that people should stop practicing their religious beliefs. People have the right to express their own religious beliefs in various public ways. It is my position that the United States government — and by extension public schools — should not endorse any religion over any other (and this extends to what are legally defined as “effective religions” such as atheism. These are perspectives or philosophies which are not religions but are treated as religions for legal purposes — see James J. Kaufman v. Gary R. McCaughtry, et al, for the legal precedent.)
You wrote that: “As I understand the sequence, God gave the Commandments to Moses to deliver to the people… not as a personal gift.” That’s arguably true in some branches of Judeo-Christian theology (though in Judaism the Commandments were to be delivered specifically to the Jews who are understood to be “G-d’s Chosen People”. Therefore, there is some theological contention as to whom the Commandments actually apply. I refuse to provide value judgements on these theological issues and will let the reader decide for him or herself as to what to believe.) Nonetheless, I am not arguing that people should abandon the Ten Commandments or that people should stop trying to “spread the word”. Both of those activities are protected under the Constitution and the relevant legal precedents. If anyone feels that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, I would encourage them to contact legal representation. What is not protected — and what is actually currently illegal — is for the government to take a stance regarding religion. School systems have no more legal right to hang the Ten Commandments than they do to hang the Noble Eightfold Path (a central doctrine from Buddhist scripture pertaining to how one should live a proper life.)
Tom, You have identified almost all of my arguments as a “smoke screen” and said that I avoided the issues. Let me first say that it is not my intention to fail to address the issues. It is my intention to address concerns about whether or not the Ten Commandments should be hung in Giles County School (or any other public school in the United States). Whether or not the Commandments should be displayed is the issue we are considering. In my Op-Ed, I have addressed the issue on three different levels — theologically, historically, and legally. It is my impression that you are also addressing the issue on these three grounds. If you are not addressing the issue on at least one of these levels and I have misinterpreted what you have said, I do apologize. In that case, I would very much like to know on what level you are addressing this issue.
Allow me to explain what I believe to be your position on these three counts. As far as I can tell, you believe that displaying the Commandments is justified from a historical perspective because you believe that the rights granted by the Constitution were inspired by the morality or ethical codes implicit in the Ten Commandments. Legally, you think that the ACLU and “bullying” federal courts do not have the right to tell Giles County School what to do. Theologically, you think this is justified because, presumably, this is the “right (and Christian) thing to do”.
We disagree on all three counts and I believe I have provided arguments to justify my disagreement. However, I will proceed to provide a rebuttal to your latest comments.
You noted that the Ten Commandments in the Protestant Bible (by which I assume you mean the KJT?) are “a direct translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and are Jewish to the core.” However, if you talked to a Jewish person, you would find out that they do not use the same translation or bible verses as Protestants do, nor do all Protestants agree on which verses or translation to use (I’ve met some Protestants who prefer the NIV or the NRSV. In conducting research for my Op Ed, I consulted a variety of sources including religioustolerance.org, an Ontario based non-denominational group of religious scholars who collect information on a very large number of different religions.) You did not address the issue of Catholics using a different version. Furthermore, if this is historically justifiable as you claim, the most pertinent issue is what version what used by the Founding Fathers. You still have yet to provide historical evidence as to which version that would be. Although you disagreed with me about the religion of some of the Founding Fathers, you did agree with me that Franklin and Jefferson were not Christians in the traditional sense. That being the case, you would need to provide evidence that they used the Ten Commandments at all in formulating the Constitution. Even if they were Christians in the more traditional sense, you would still have to show that their formulation of the Bill of Rights was religiously motivated and that the Ten Commandments are directly responsible for the construction thereof.
In fact, the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights contradict each other on several counts. My friend Nicole summed this up nicely:
“70% of the Ten Commandments aren’t addressed at all in American law codes. Last I checked, we were still allowed to disrespect whomever we pleased, have whatever deities or idols (or lack thereof!) we care to have (in whatever order we want), party all day on Sundays, swear however we like, covet anything we… want, and, in many states, have sex with anyone willing and of age and sound mind (at any rate, there’s no federal law governing adultery); only murder, theft, and bearing false witness are illegal on a federal level. Beyond that, I think I can go out on a limb and say that most – if not all – legal codes have always and still do include admonishments against murder, theft, and lying to get other people in trouble and/or cover your own [butt]. There is no real evidence or support for the claim that the Ten Commandments are historically significant in the codification of United States law.”
As far as Jefferson attending Church, there were many deists at the time who regularly attended a Christian church. However, they often refused to take Christian sacraments or participate in many of the rituals. This is the case with Jefferson, and it is similarly the case with many of the other Founding Fathers (it was certainly the case with Washington.) Going to church was understood as a social and cultural activity in addition to a Christian activity. As in many modern rural communities, the church functioned as the center of a community. You wrote about Jefferson writing the “Life and Morals of Jesus Christ” and distributing it to members of Congress. This is true, and, in fact, I mentioned this in my Op-Ed. This work was the heavily edited version of the Bible that I mentioned. Jefferson denied many of the supernatural aspects of Jesus while keeping many of the more philosophical, secular points. He directly edited out all mention of miracles and the divinity of Jesus. His denial of trinitarian theology would be heretical in most modern Christian groups (and actually would have been heretical at that point in time.) I would argue that this book is the New Testament secularized in much the same way as others have done with philosophical texts from other traditions. Besides, distributing a religious document does not alone constitute a violation of the separation of church and state. Only if he distributed such a document in his capacity as an agent of the government would his actions been inappropriate. People who work for the government still have all the freedoms granted to them by the Constitution. Therefore, any person who happens to work for the government can voice whatever opinion they wish so long as they do so in a non-governmental capacity (i.e. so long as their statements do not constitute an official endorsement of the position by the government.)
As far as his funding missionaries to the Native Americans, it’s true that Jefferson did a number of seemingly contradictory things. He declared all people to have been created equal, yet was the largest slave owner in Virginia. Apparently, he didn’t believe that the freedoms which all people are naturally endowed should be given to non-whites.
Today, we interpret the statement about all people being created equal differently than Jefferson would have. The constitution is a lived document which is amended by Congress and interpreted by the Supreme Court. That’s why slaves were allowed under the original interpretation of the Constitution but repealed under the addition of the thirteenth amendment in 1865. Likewise, the first amendment has been interpreted under legal precedent. Explicitly, the Establishment Clause states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” and the free exercise clause states that Congress should not pass any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (the former indicating that Congress cannot pass a law endorsing any particular religion and the latter indicating that they cannot pass a law controlling the degree to which someone participates in their own religious beliefs or lack thereof.) These are limits on the kinds of laws Congress can pass. The fourteenth amendment extends these restrictions to the states. Supreme Court precedent further restricts the power that the government can have over religion and the degree to which the government can become entangled with religion. Still, the relevant issue is whether or not these same regulations exist for public schools.
Today, the relevant legal precedent for schools is the Lemon Test as established in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971. Until a Supreme Court case overturns the legal precedent established in that case and other similar cases, the Supreme Court will continue to look back at that case for guidance as to how to proceed. That’s the current legal situation, and it implicitly means that the federal courts do, in fact, have the legal right to tell Giles County public schools what they can and cannot do. Members of Giles County are free to sue the school board and they have the right to seek legal representation with the ACLU. Likewise, others are free to disagree with me about this issue.
Hey Dan,
If you’re still monitoring this thread, I want to let you know of my appreciation for all the effort you put into entry 5. But I don’t believe you and I will ever agree on much; not because of any difference in our intellects but because we are coming from two radically different world-views, and so we naturally see just about everything in a different light.
I come from the Biblical Worldview, that is “In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth (and mankind) with the logical implications that follow, specifically to this argument, God’s right to establish law under which all men are equal.
I suspect you come from the matter/time/chance worldview with the logical implication that the highest authority is simply the opinion of man. And so we will always come down on opposite sides of practically any issue, be it the basis for law, abortion, gun control, you name it.
It seems obvious your side is winning. Your worldview already is that of most news media, the courts, entertainment industry, public education, etc. I only hope you will be as happy with the new, pagan America as I was with the old America, but somehow I doubt it.
Well, I suspect neither of us has the time to keep going with this blog thread. But I urge you to go to my website: http://www.iLuvgoodnovels.com and click on my gallery of articles. A lot of them concern Jefferson, the Ten Commandment, etc.
Best regards,
Dan, one of the best articles I’ve read on this subject. Well done and I agree 100%.
Tom, I don’t know if you are still monitoring this thread, but I wanted to respond to some of your latest comments. I want to thank you for remaining cordial. I agree with you that people far too often become emotional with issues that are as contentious as this.
First, I wanted to say that I do not believe my personal religious beliefs are relevant to the discussion here. You might feel that I come off as biased in some manner toward some particular paradigmatic world-view. Perhaps I carry within my conceptual framework certain unspoken and unacknowledged assumptions which inevitably lead me to a different conclusion from yours. If true, this would result in a fundamental inability for us to communicate. However, I do not believe this to be the case.
There are many Christians who feel that the Ten Commandments should not go up in public schools. They feel that religion is a private personal matter and that all people have the right to practice whatever religion they please. To them, so far as our American system of law is concerned, these kinds of personal freedoms are what makes it worthwhile to live in this country. It is one of the things that separates us from authoritarian regimes in which people do not have the right to practice as they wish. Many of these same Christians believe that ultimately all people are subject to God’s law, but it is believed that these kinds of final judgments will not be made until after death. They believe that it is not something for people to decide. I will not comment here as to what I personally believe because, again, I do not think it to be relevant. I just ask you to consider my previous statements as an alternative theological perspective.
Second, a person who accepts a religion different from yours need not accept that the opinion of people is the highest authority. In fact, the world over, most people who are non-Christians simply believe in a different God or gods from yours. To them, it is that God or gods with whom ultimate authority rests. In still other religions, there are supernatural forces which supersede over the authority of gods. Most polytheistic religions have what is referred to as a meta-divine principle, which is a supernatural or mystical influence whose authority surpasses even that of the deities. As an explicit example, in ancient Greece it was believed that even the gods were subject to Fate.
However, I take it that when you refer to the “matter/time/chance world-view” you really mean an atheistic world-view. Again, I will not comment on what I personally believe, but I will say that ultimate authority for many atheists arises from the universe around them and not from people. In their defense, the universe is clearly more powerful than mere people. A single asteroid hurled from the depths of the cosmos could instantly annihilate our world entirely. In the face of an asteroid, all people are equal. For atheists, Jefferson’s phrase carries meaning too.
Physical law is a demonstrable authority. It is a separate question as to whether physical law derives from God or from somewhere else (or whether it derives from anywhere at all.) I think it would be horribly unwise for anyone to fail to acknowledge that there are forces in our universes which surpass the reach of any person.
Still, for many atheists, the origin of human laws (as opposed to physical law) are the kinds of constraints that are necessary for the stability of a society. Many of these naturally emerge as a product of social and cultural development and still others are the result of direct innovation by intelligent and resourceful individuals. For many atheists, morality and social obligation emerged in the same manner. These kinds of rules and laws have a universality in the sense that there are certain universal principles which are necessary for the stability and longevity of any human society. If there ever were human societies in which murder were permitted, they presumably no longer exist since everyone in those societies have killed each other off by now (or the society underwent a revolution and banned murder. Still, that would change such a society to something completely different than what it started as so that my statement still stands.)
Regardless, the reality is that the United States government derives its power from the people. We do not live in a theocracy. If God exists, He certainly has the right to “establish law under which all men are equal.” I do not disagree with you there. The relevant question here is not whether God has the ability to establish whatever kind of law you want to name (in fact, God could establish any kind of law He pleases.) The relevant question here is whether or not the laws in our country, as they are currently established both by legal precedent and by amendment, allow Giles County Schools to endorse one particular religious document over overs. Secondarily, there is a relevant issue about whether or not the present legal status of this action is the correct one.
Lastly, I wanted to comment about what you called the “new, pagan America”. This terminology is rather confusing to me, since I am not pushing for pagan beliefs. In modern parlance, the word “pagan” is used to refer to pantheists and nature-worshipers. I do not see how “news media, the courts, entertainment industry, public education, etc.” are moving more towards pantheism or nature-worship. A pagan display would also violate the separation of church and state.
I have a hunch that you don’t really mean “pagan” as I understand the word. From context, I find it difficult to decipher what you do mean. Perhaps you mean more “atheistic”. Yet, there is some evidence to indicate that atheists are one of the most distrusted groups in the United States and are therefore far from becoming more loved. In 2006, researchers from the University of Minnesota performed a nation wide poll that appeared in American Sociological Review. In an interview, Penny Edgell, the associate sociology professor who ran the study stated that, “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years”. You can read a press release about the study here: http://www.asanet.org/press/20060503.cfm. Other statistics indicate the country is still mostly Christian, with a staggering 253 million adherents in the United States (81% of the population). By contrast, there are only 4.94 million atheists in the US. That’s only 1.6% of the population. In case you did actually mean “pagan” in the usual sense of the term, I have those statistics too. According to a Pew survey from 2008, there are about 1.2 million “New Age” believers in the US, which includes all self-identified pagans. That’s about 0.4%. I don’t think we’re at risk of a pagan take-over (whatever that would mean.)
As a final comment, I have already read through much of your website. I do have several comments on its content, but that can be tackled some other time.
I wanted to add some more information about the statistics I cited. The study from the University of Minnesota stated that approximately 3% of the US population are atheists, while a different figure I cited stated that 1.6% of the population are atheists. These are figures taken from different studies, but everyone agrees that the atheist population is less than 5% of the American populace. That’s a very small minority, much smaller than the approximately 81% of the population who self identify as Christians.
Nonetheless, the reason that we have laws and legal precedents like this in place is to avoid a Tyranny of the Majority. In setting up this country, it was seen necessary to lay down checks and balances for everything and everyone. This is why even if the majority of the population thinks we should have separate drinking fountains for whites and blacks, we still can’t do that. There are laws and legal precedents in place to protect everyone, including minority groups. The 19% of the populace who do not self identify as Christians have protection under the law which ensures that their rights are not trumped by those of the majority. Of course, the rights of the minority do not trump those of the majority either. This is one reason that the government should not become entangled with religion.
Dan Linford, you positively nailed it with this paragraph:
“There are many Christians who feel that the Ten Commandments should not go up in public schools. They feel that religion is a private personal matter and that all people have the right to practice whatever religion they please. To them, so far as our American system of law is concerned, these kinds of personal freedoms are what makes it worthwhile to live in this country. It is one of the things that separates us from authoritarian regimes in which people do not have the right to practice as they wish. Many of these same Christians believe that ultimately all people are subject to God’s law, but it is believed that these kinds of final judgments will not be made until after death. They believe that it is not something for people to decide.”
That is precisely how I feel. I attend church weekly, I believe in God and I believe in the final judgment. I also believe in the rule of law and separation of church and state. The Islamic countries are a perfect example of the tyranny of a theocracy. The Founders knew what they were doing and what they wanted to perpetuate. Favoring is establishing and it is wrong.