 |
 |
 |
|||
Legal
|
On Religious DisplaysReligious Symbols On DisplayOusted Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama believes the display of the Ten Commandments monument in publicly-owned places is a good idea. I disagree with Judge Moore because he appears to be very exclusive in what monuments or statues are displayed. I also disagree with his methods. If you or I had posted a saying or adage from the Koran and appeared before him, what do you think he would have ruled? He chose to ignore the "Rule of Law", which he swore to uphold in his oath of office because he now views his beliefs as more important than equality before the law. Judge Moore also appears to have forgotten that while our laws may be based on certain religious ideas, our laws are not religion-based. There is a distinct separation between religion and the law. While I don’t think that the display of the Ten Commandants is a bad idea, I do believe that to exclude other religious displays is preferential and, therefore, wrong. Now, if Judge Moore would agree to statues of patriarchs and cited wisdom from other religions, then I will stand with him; otherwise, I must oppose him. Freedom is not just the expression and display of our own beliefs but also the tolerance of the expression and display of differing beliefs. Perhaps Judge Moore has become so use to being the Law he has forgotten he only represents the Law. If Judge Moore wishes to promote his Christian beliefs, the bench is not the place, the pulpit is. Judge Moore has every right to believe as he does but that right must end when he attempts to promote his beliefs through his publicly held office or his legal rulings. Judge Moore appears to have forgotten that publicly-owned buildings and lands belong to everyone and that people with different beliefs should have the same right to a public display. From all that I can find out, Judge Moore only wants the Ten Commandments monument displayed. Perhaps he believes the Ten Commandments are universal or the foundation on which our Constitution is based; if so, his education is lacking and his ignorance is dangerous if left in a judicial position. Perhaps Judge Moore, as do many Christians, believes the United States of America is a Christian nation. This is what our forefathers intended - or so they would have us believe. Our forefathers remembered the unfairness of a state-sponsored religion when they wrote the Constitution. As I recall, the Constitution does not mention the word "god". Why? Because the framers of the Constitution wished to avoid the appearance of promoting a religious preference. While I cannot disagree that many of the Constitutional framers held religious beliefs, they did their best not to impose those beliefs on the nation they were creating. They wanted to create a nation not only based on legal fairness and personal equality but also based on religious tolerance. To read their various writings is not the same as reading the Constitution. Understanding the people who wrote the Constitution is good because we can guess what they had in mind while writing the Constitution. However, to assume that they would want to press or force those beliefs on others is a stretch of the imagination and a product of the desire of the reader. Too many of us don’t seem to mind other religions as long as they keep a low profile, as long as they don’t remind us they exist. We all want religious freedom but too often we want that freedom only for our beliefs. The right to acknowledge God must not be the right to denigrate other religions, beliefs, or deities. Our survival depends on our uniqueness and diversity not on our sameness and one-sidedness. If Judge Moore’s real argument is based on the "So Help Me God" phrase in the oath of office, then I agree the oath should be changed. Why? Because the oath is not relevant to people that may hold the office but have differing religious beliefs. The oath should be changed so it is more universal and does not appear to promote one deity or religion. Swearing on the Bible has already been changed in out courts if the person requests it. Yet the oaths administered for many local and national offices still contain "so help me God". If an elected official refused to utter that oath, what would happen? A major uproar would be my guess. We swear that oath on the Bible simple because that’s the way it has always been. Habit? If the person taking the oath doesn’t believe in the Bible, the oath has little meaning. They might just as well swear on their favorite novel or comic book. I suggest we replace the Bible with a replica of the Constitution. The Constitution of the State and Nation is what they are swearing to uphold, not the beliefs of the Bible; otherwise, our justice system may well reflect the Old Testament laws rather than our Constitution and other legal statutes. I know certain religious groups would complain but at least we would be more consistent in our inconsistency - or is it the other way around? Author: Don Miller
|
2003 Articles |
|||