|
Home
AU-OC
3337 S. Bristol, #251
Santa Ana,
CA 92704
orangecountyau@yahoo.com
Download our Latest
Newsletter
Current
Terror Alert Level
Thanks to Geek and Proud, Alan Penner
Communicate with other AU-OC members through our
Enrolling is easy!
Legislation in Congress:
Search Our Site:
| |
Religious Displays
Why The Ten Commandments Shouldn't Be Posted In Government Buildings
 Opponents of church-state separation are increasingly using the Ten
Commandments as a tool to promote government-sponsored religion. From city
councils to Congress, Religious Right activists and allied public officials are
pushing the display of the Decalogue in schools, courthouses and other public
buildings. Supporters of the First Amendment have several reasons for opposing
these efforts.
The U.S. Constitution mandates the separation of church and state.
The First Amendment forbids government to meddle in matters of
religion. Promotion of religious ideals is the job of America's houses of
worship. Government display of the Commandments or any other religious code
violates a fundamental tenet of American life, one that has given us more
religious liberty than any people in world history.
The Supreme Court and lower courts have settled the issue.
In 1980's Stone v. Graham decision, the high court struck down
a Kentucky law that required public schools to display the Ten Commandments. The
justices held that the Commandments are "undeniably a sacred text" and that
posting them has a religious purpose. Lower federal courts have struck down
Decalogue displays at public buildings as well. Public schools or local
governments that exhibit the Commandments are inviting a lawsuit they are almost
certain to lose. Government officials should not squander taxpayer dollars on
futile litigation.
America is religiously diverse.
The United States is home
to nearly 2,000 different religions, traditions, denominations and sects. While
many of these groups revere the Ten Commandments, many do not. If government
officials put up the Decalogue, will they also post the Five Pillars of Islam,
the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Wiccan Rede and the Affirmations of
Humanism? Government should never play favorites when it comes to religion.
Religion doesn't need government's help in promoting the Ten Commandments.
For a few thousand years, the leaders of Judaism and
Christianity have been doing a pretty good job of getting the word out about the
Ten Commandments. Interjecting politicians and government bureaucrats into the
picture will only introduce an element of politics into the arena of faith.
Believers are free to post the Commandments in homes and houses of worship.
Government buildings are inappropriate.
There is no "standard version" of the Ten Commandments.
Different religions and denominations list the Commandments in a faith-specific
order, and with different language. When government agencies and public schools
post one version and not others, they are taking sides in a frequently
contentious theological debate. That simply isn't the government's job.
The Ten Commandments are not a "secular" moral code that everyone can agree on.
Four of the Ten Commandments are specifically religious
in nature. People have fought and died because they disagreed over what
constitutes a "false god" or over the meaning of the ban on worshipping a
"graven image." Read any history of Europe if you want to see how bad things can
get when government decides to take part in debates like these.
7. The Ten Commandments are not a magic charm that can make all of society's problems disappear.
Some people treat the Commandments as
though they are a lucky rabbit's foot post them on the wall and all of society's
ills will disappear! This is an overly simplistic approach to public policy, and
it distracts us from the hard work of solving thorny social problems.
The Ten Commandments are open to different interpretations.
One Commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." Or is that "Thou shall
not murder"? The language and meaning depends on what version of the Bible you
read and your faith's understanding of it. Elsewhere we are admonished to keep
holy the Sabbath but is that Friday, Saturday or Sunday? Religious leaders
differ on these questions. They, not politicians, are best suited to interpret the
Commandments for their individual congregants.
Politicians and interest groups are using the Ten Commandments for political gain.
Let's face it, many politicians and special interest
groups seem ready these days to use religious symbols and religious language to
divide Americans and win elections. Do we really want sanctimonious,
poll-obsessed politicians many of whom don't impose the Ten Commandments on
themselves imposing them on everyone?
10. Political exploitation of the Ten Commandments borders on blasphemy.
Religious Right groups and their allies in government use
the Ten Commandments to advance their political agenda. They seek votes on
support for the Decalogue to advance their faith, and then hope that politicians
who oppose such displays can be defeated in the next election. People who
believe the Commandments are God's holy word should be appalled at this cynical
manipulation of a religious document for crass political gain.
Language in pledge should be returned to pre-McCarthy era
First Amendment Advocate, Vol. 3, No. 2, August 2002
The Newsletter of the Oklahoma Chapter of Americans United
By Susan Cogan
The news reports of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that the
“under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional has generated
a great deal of heat and very little light.
President Bush called the ruling “ridiculous.” Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle, D-S.D., called it “just nuts.” Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said it was
“political correctness run amok.” Jerry Falwell has called it an “imbecilic
decision” and called for new battles in the culture war.
The current Pledge of Allegiance was rewritten in the McCarthy era of the
early 50’s and signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1954.
The phrase “one nation, indivisible” was replaced with the more (at the time)
politically correct “one nation under God.”
I, for one, would like to see the Pledge returned to its original language.
It seems to me that it is vastly more important that Americans stand united —
indivisible — rather than be divided by religious issues. The founding fathers
could have put references to God in the U.S. Constitution, but they did not. I
submit that they left out those references for a reason. Even back then, the
fledgling states were somewhat religiously diverse. The nation certainly is now.
Those religious differences have the power to divide us: in fact, they have the
power to destroy us, and the founding fathers knew that.
A lot of people think that the motto of the U.S. is “In God We Trust.” It is,
in fact, “E Pluribus Unim” — “Out of Many, One.” Our motto acknowledges our
diversity and encourages us to unity. I think that rather than allow religious
issues to divide us, we need to look at the idealism of our past as a beacon of
hope and strive to be “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.”
"In God We Trust" is Not Our Nation's Motto
Americans United, Orange County, December 30, 2007
by Rich Gillock
Our nation's motto was suggested as far back as 1776 by Jefferson, Adams and
Franklin. As such, “E Pluribus Unum,” meaning "from many, one,"
predates our Constitution and still stands as our official national motto.
In 1956, as part of the McCarty era of Congressional ineptitude, "E Pluribus
Unum" was replaced on our currency with "In God We Trust."
The first appearance of "In God We Trust" was on the 2-cent piece
minted during
the Civil War as a statement by the Union that God was on their side during the
conflict. There seems to be no recorded instances though where this
faith-based coin ever stopped a Confederate musket ball from tearing apart the
flesh of a Union soldier carrying it.
"In God We Trust" was later added to all coins in 1908 and finally to all
currency in 1956. I guess when it comes to money, Congress no longer felt
we could trust each other. The "Pluribus" were suspect.
It is striking that two years earlier they had also altered the Pledge of
Allegiance, which had stood for more than half a century, to replace "...one
nation, indivisible..." with "...one nation under God..." In both cases
the will of Congress was to remove words that promoted national unity and
replace them with an abstract faith in God.
Sinclair Lewis wrote, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped
in the flag and carrying a cross.” During the McCarthy era, American
fascism may have offered itself as the antidote to "Godless Communism," but it
could not sink its roots deep enough into the bedrock of liberty not to be swept
away. Its defeat was in no small part due to the courage of a newsman,
Edward R. Murrow, who gave voice to the discomfort Americans felt with
demagogues like McCarthy.
However some of the vestiges of those times remain with both "In God We
Trust" and "...one nation under God..." Both clearly violate the
establishment clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution. And both
give traction to Christian zealots who want to impose their view of a Christian
nation upon all Americans. The blacklist may not be the deepest scar left
upon America by the McCarty era, it may well be the buttressing of religious
intolerance and the degradation of true faith through the "politics of God."
But while this should be an
open and shut case of Congressional establishment
of religion, the political climate is still shaped by the vestiges of
McCarthyism. It is only through education and a studied recollection of
history, something Americans are not known for, that we can re-establish a truly
United States, where “E Pluribus Unum,” once again defines our national
strength.
U.S. District Court Rules Mojave Cross Land Transfer Unconstitutional
Apr. 12, 2005
LOS ANGELES – A federal district court ruled Friday that a
proposed transfer of the federal land on which a Latin cross sits in the Mojave
National Preserve to a private party is unconstitutional.
Judge Robert J. Timlin, who held in July 2002 that the cross situated on a
prominent rock in the preserve violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment, ruled that an obscure section of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act of 2004 Act designed to facilitate the exchange of the land
on which the cross sits to the Veterans of Foreign Wars "violates (the) court's
judgment ordering a permanent injunction" to remove the cross.
"The judge's decision sends a clear message that the federal government should
not endorse one religion over another," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney
for the ACLU of Southern California. "The courts have consistently held that the
cross in the Mojave National Preserve violates the First Amendment."
In his ruling, Judge Timlin wrote: "It is evident to the court that the
government has engaged in herculean efforts to preserve the Latin cross on
federal land and that the proposed transfer of the subject property can only be
viewed as an attempt to keep the Latin cross atop Sunrise Rock without actually
curing the continuing Establishment Clause violation by Defendants."
Eliasberg said the decision clears the way for removal of the cross.
The Mojave Desert cross sits on a federal land preserve in southeastern
California between the cities of Barstow, Calif. and Las Vegas, Nevada. The
preserve encompasses roughly 1.6 million acres of the Mojave Desert. The cross
itself is located in a section of the preserve known as Sunrise Rock and has
been covered by a plywood box since 2002.
Last summer the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous
decision by Judge Timlin that the presence of a cross located on the federal
Mojave Desert Preserve is a sectarian religious symbol and violates the
Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit's opinion was
written by Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee. All three judges on the
panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
The Ninth Circuit did not address whether Section 8121 of the Defense
Appropriations Act of 2004 would allow the federal government to swap the land
for other desert land or if the section "would pass constitutional muster."
The National Park Service (NPS), the agency that is charged with maintaining the
cross, had been on notice about First Amendment violations since 1999 when the
ACLU/SC sent a letter threatening legal action if the cross were not removed. In
December of 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives added a rider to an
appropriations bill that prevented the use of federal funds to remove the cross.
ACLU of Southern California -
www.aclu-sc.org - 1616 Beverly Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA 90026 - (213) 977-9500
|
