CT Weblog: Ten Commandments Watch Continues

I’m torn on this. On the one hand, I applaud Roy Moore for standing up for the faith and defending it against those who seek to remove religion from society. On the other hand, I believe in the separation of church and state and Moore’s religious defense of the monument on state grounds is a violation of that.

The Left Hand
Jon of Blog One Another raises an interesting point:

Helen, let’s say you belonged to a church in Indonesia. Your church was attacked by Muslim extremists: the building bombed, people hurt and killed. You identified the assailants and pressed charges against them. You, a Christian, and your assailants, Islamists, appear together in a court of law. And behind the judge, carved into the wall in large flowing Arabic script, are the words, “There is no God but Allah; Muhammed is the servant of Allah.”

How would you feel? Would you have a fair trial?

Jon’s point is this: is the placement of such a monument which conveys a religious message that may not be the one of the defendant a hinderance to justice being served? Is the message of such a monument the rules by which we are playing and are those that follow the tenets of that monument the ones who have the judicial advantage? Do only Christians deserve justice while pagans are denied?

Next question: if the argument for keeping the monument is that it represents something that influenced our justice system, shouldn’t there also be a monument to Hammurabi’s code or to Napoleon (i.e. for the Napoleonic code)? What about something relating to English common law (a monument depicting the Magna Carta)? Our justice system has many influencing origins and we shouldn’t be favoring one over the other.

Last point/question against the arguments in favor of the monument: I heard someone say on the news that it reminds us of our Christian moral heritage. (My apologies for not getting the name. I was listening to NPR on my way to the store.) So is it there so that people might see it and convert to Christianity? When exactly did our moral heritage become Christian. I’d argue that it’s Judeo-Christian at least and Abrahamic (including Islam) at most. You are not going to automatically drop your idols and believe in the Christian God just because you see 10 moral theses chiseled on a piece of stone. If it’s to inspire civic behavior, I’d argue that we are not a theocracy and therefore, not all of the 10 Commandments apply to our civic laws. If they did, the freedom of religion guaranteed to us in the Bill of Rights would not exist.

The Right Hand
As much as I argue for the separation of church and state, I think we are too overzealous in separating the church from the state. I like that the ACLU argues for my civil liberties but they take it way too far. We can’t have manger scenes in public, but we can have menorahs and crescent moons. The people at my church in Santa Cruz used to joke that we went to the MLK Convocation every year because it was the one university event that was allowed to start with prayer. (I actually had a Biology TA ask me “what the h*** [I was] doing in Biology as a Christian????” That was the last time I wore my [very tiny] cross when I went to class.) We can’t sing religious Christmas carols in school; but we can sing Hannukah songs all we want.

I can understand the anger of many of those protesting the removal of the 10 Commandments monument. It’s a sign of their faith and denying its inclusion in public is equal to denying them the right to be practicing Christians. I am not ashamed of the Gospel even if I might occasionally be ashamed by some who claim to spread it; and I reserve the right to stand up for my faith in public. I support those who are there keeping vigil because I understand their position and respect their desire that their faith not be overlooked.

The Hands Clapping
So what is the action that should be taken? Should we engage in civil disobedience (a Romans 13 violation) to prevent its removal as Dr. Dobson is calling for on his radio address? Or… is Roy Moore wrong for supporting disobedience against the government of which he is an agent and to which he swore an oath to uphold the law? (This would count as bearing false witness [breaking an oath and in effect lying], which is one of the prhibitions in the commandments that Moore is trying to protect.)

We have a 10 Commandments monument in the courthouse square of the town in which I live which has the commandments in Hebrew and English. A fuss was made a few years back and the majority of people voted to keep it, with the added thought that the inclusion of the Hebrew added a cultural memorial aspect to it. Could they maybe chisel some Hebrew on there? (That might call off the ACLU dogs.) Or… could they maybe incorporate other judicial influences into the monument, which would make it a historical thing and not specifically religious?

This is definitely not a black and white issue!

CNN.Com: Simon drops out of California recall race

I think someone in the California GOP pointed out to Simon that he lost to Davis last November — before this idiocy even started and that if he was that unpopular then, did he really think he stood a chance now???

California is generally a moderate state politically, which means that Arnold’s platform is really where most people are at politically. The fact that the Republicans are pulling out their other people shows that they must be pretty darn desperate to get the governor’s mansion if they’re going to risk being laughed at for running the Terminator.

Oh… for those who think Arnold will magically solve California’s problems (or who think anyone is going to do better than Davis), you’re in a dream world. A regime change (not even a full one because the other state offices stay the same) isn’t going to fix the budget because THE MONEY ISN’T THERE. State workers are not going to magically get their jobs back and auto taxes are not automatically going to get cut. When the Dot.Com bust happened, the state lost a ton of tax revenue because people lost jobs and those high salaries that used to exist vanished. In other words, a major part of the state economy failed and that revenue stopped coming in. California may be the world’s 6th largest economy, but it’s a depressed economy. Basically, the lives of most normal people are not going to change all that much. Teachers are still going to be out of work and former geeks are still going to be looking for tech jobs in a place that doesn’t have them. (Hint: I hear Austin is prepped to be the new tech capital.) The only difference: a legally elected governor is probably going to be ousted because our idiotic previous governor (Wilson) signed deregulation into law which caused a power crisis 4 years later that crippled the state. (By the way, where was Wilson in 2000 when all this was happening? Yep… hiding because he didn’t want to face that he was responsible for this mess.)

And for the record, I actually have worked on campaigns in local and state government in California, which makes me a whole lot more credible on this subject than some people.