I live in a mid-sized MidWestern community with a good newspaper, The Pantagraph, which does a good job of publishing editorials from community leaders.  A local pastor wrote one of those “We’re a Christian nation, the Ten Commandments are the basis of our law, etc.” editorials.  This is my response:

Dear Editor,

I just read Rev. Knight Wells’ 16 July ‘From The Pulpit’ editorial; “Commandments basis of our legal traditions.”  He writes: “The Ten Commandments have been the basis of our legal and constitutional traditions since this nation began.”  Then he quotes Andy Rooney’s list of biblical engravings on buildings all over Washington.

If Rev. Wells’ point is that our country would do well to embrace Christianity, he has every right to make it.  But he’s flat wrong about American legal tradition.

The United States Constitution, not the Ten Comandments, is the foundation of our legal system and traditions.  Other than a reference to the date, our Constitution mentions God exactly zero times, while deriving the right of governance from the people. 

Some (not all) of the founding fathers were men of faith, but their recent experience had convinced them that the government should not be in the religion business.  They wrote this insight into the FIRST Amendment. 

The Ten Commandments may be a fine thing, but the first four are plainly sectarian.  Also, the popular version derives from a movie promotion campaign some years ago.  Read the unvarnished King James Version in Exodus 34 - that would be the version our founding fathers knew best.  Then ask yourself; “Is it the basis of constitutional law?”

If we have heard enough quotes from Andy Rooney, let me quote James Madison: “The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” (1803)

The Constitution does protect religious displays on private property, at private expense. 

Thank you, - GW
(Of course, I couldn’t sign it, “Decrepit Old Fool.”  Such are the differences between blogging and editorializing on dead trees.)

1. Well thought out and well said!

   Posted by momma  on  07/25/05  at  08:06 AM

2. DoF:

   Thank you for this, it is clearly one of the best rebuttals of the current meme that the TC is the basis of all our laws, and our Constitution.

   One can be religious and still realize that the US Constitution is a secular document based on secular principles and morality, without the requirement of a religious doctrine or belief system

   Thanks again!

   Posted by John P. Hoke  on  07/25/05  at  02:48 PM

3. DOF, what is your real name, BTW?

   Posted by The Bo$$  on  07/26/05  at  02:04 AM

4. Speaking as his son, I can say that his name is Gregarious Whiner, which, for obvious reasons, he frequently abbreviates GW.  Oh the pain of growing up as a Whiner…  All the kids made fun of me in school.

   I often wonder what, exactly, these “ten commandments are the basis of our law” types’ point is.  Honestly, what does it matter, from a legal point of view, whether our laws have their origin in religion?  If these religion-based laws make it illegal for government to display religious icons (as the law-defined interpreters have ruled they do), then the origin makes little difference from a legal perspective.  If these people want to claim that the supreme court shouldn’t worry about the law, then I see no reason to listen to what they have to say.

   Posted by Lucas  on  07/26/05  at  03:07 AM

5. Gotcha. Great article Greg.

   Posted by The Bo$$  on  07/26/05  at  03:31 AM

6. Speaking as his son, I can say his real name is Gregarious Whiner

   Smart-ass.  When the Catholic Church becomes an international atheist organization, I shall be its new Pope, and I will have your disrespectful self locked in a tower. 

   My real name is George Wiman, but I seldom use it online because it doesn’t sound smooth and suave like “Decrepit Old Fool.”  I have been meaning to put it in the “About” section like Les Jenkins does on SEB.  Next time I edit the template.

   Posted by george.w  on  07/26/05  at  08:06 AM

7. Nicely said, DOF—er, Greg—um, George.  DOF.

   Posted by *** Dave  on  07/28/05  at  06:51 AM

8. Excellent rebuttal.

   Posted by Pammy  on  08/03/05  at  10:46 AM

<< Back to main

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Most recent entries

• Tell me where I put the book tape
• In which, inspired by some damn TV show, I reveal something embarrassing about myself
• Oh right, the Oscars…
• Unstoppable pedestrians
• Toyota accelerators and a sense of proportion
• Slavery, ongoing
• Alas, poor mouse, I knew him well…
• Science is culture, autotuned
• How the valuable “team player” can help you destroy YOUR organization.
• Stupidly worded poll
• Sunday morning portal to Hell
• Things I should have blogged, but didn’t
• The octogenarian meets Linux, part 3
• What would they have thought?
• Holly is doing a little better this morning

Decrepitude

A few selected articles from the last few years. Feel free to nominate others because really, I can't remember what all I've written.

9/11: five years on
Story from a picture
The Authority Gradient
If our lives are to have any meaning
What was lost
Cold and broken alleluia
Mary Mallon: being evil vs. being an evil
Artifacts of the long-gone man
A message to Republicans
Apple software review:
Because nature isn't waiting for us to wise up

Creative Commons stuff

I tried to figure out the Creative Commons and Wikimedia stuff but it was like doing your taxes in another language. Short version: it's OK if you copy my stuff as long as you give attribution and you're willing to share what you make of it with others. Here's the little logo:

This work by George Wiman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.