US says no to Ten Commandments in court
-27/06/05
The United States Supreme Court announced verdicts in two controversial cases today, both concerning religious inscriptions and signs on public buildings.
They are broadly seen as a victory for those people of all faiths and none who wish to maintain the traditional US separation between church and state. But they also reflect a division of interpretation among those charged with upholding the law.
In one instance the nine-person Supreme Court, the highest in the land, ruled against the fixture of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky court buildings, because they held that such displays violate the American Constitution.
In another case, however, they declared that a public monument containing the Commandments situated outside a law court in Texas was acceptable because the inscription was not directly on or in the building itself.
This second ruling will be seen as too ambiguous by those against a church-state link.
Over the past few years there has been a legal battle of attrition across the US over the appropriateness or otherwise of religious displays in public buildings and spaces.
On one side stands the religious right and those who wish to see the USA as a ‘Christian country’. On the other side are secular advocates, the American Civil Liberties Union, and those who want to keep their faith from being turned into a state sanctioned religion.
The argument is often perceived as a straight disagreement between religious people and those of humanist or other convictions. But it is more complex than that.
Some Christians also oppose the placing of religious symbols and enscriptions on public buildings. They say that the Gospel’s character as non-coercive love is violated by attempts to impose it, and by efforts to maintain a position of privilege for the church.
The Ten Commandments (or Decalogue) form the heart of the Mosaic tradition in the Bible, and they are important both to Jews and to Christians. The most quoted version is to be found in Exodus 20. 2-17.
Some see them as universal moral laws, while say that they also contain temporal assumptions which have been superceded in both faiths ñ such as viewing women as the property of men.
ìThese Commandments make sense in the context of a religious community trying to live a particular kind of life,î a Mennonite commentator told Ekklesia. ìPeople of faith are invited to to express their love of God practically through love of neighbour, refusing to kill, and giving up things like lying and cheating. You cannot force that on people. It is about witness not compulsion.î
The US religious right say that the Decalogue is the answer to their nation’s ìmoral decayî. But when it comes to the divine injunction not to kill, they do not apply it to US military might, the death penalty and the bearing of arms by civilians.
The latest Supreme Court rulings will certainly not lay the issue to rest.
US says no to Ten Commandments in court
-27/06/05
The United States Supreme Court announced verdicts in two controversial cases today, both concerning religious inscriptions and signs on public buildings.
They are broadly seen as a victory for those people of all faiths and none who wish to maintain the traditional US separation between church and state. But they also reflect a division of interpretation among those charged with upholding the law.
In one instance the nine-person Supreme Court, the highest in the land, ruled against the fixture of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky court buildings, because they held that such displays violate the American Constitution.
In another case, however, they declared that a public monument containing the Commandments situated outside a law court in Texas was acceptable because the inscription was not directly on or in the building itself.
This second ruling will be seen as too ambiguous by those against a church-state link.
Over the past few years there has been a legal battle of attrition across the US over the appropriateness or otherwise of religious displays in public buildings and spaces.
On one side stands the religious right and those who wish to see the USA as a ‘Christian country’. On the other side are secular advocates, the American Civil Liberties Union, and those who want to keep their faith from being turned into a state sanctioned religion.
The argument is often perceived as a straight disagreement between religious people and those of humanist or other convictions. But it is more complex than that.
Some Christians also oppose the placing of religious symbols and enscriptions on public buildings. They say that the Gospel’s character as non-coercive love is violated by attempts to impose it, and by efforts to maintain a position of privilege for the church.
The Ten Commandments (or Decalogue) form the heart of the Mosaic tradition in the Bible, and they are important both to Jews and to Christians. The most quoted version is to be found in Exodus 20. 2-17.
Some see them as universal moral laws, while say that they also contain temporal assumptions which have been superceded in both faiths – such as viewing women as the property of men.
‘These Commandments make sense in the context of a religious community trying to live a particular kind of life,’ a Mennonite commentator told Ekklesia. ‘People of faith are invited to to express their love of God practically through love of neighbour, refusing to kill, and giving up things like lying and cheating. You cannot force that on people. It is about witness not compulsion.’
The US religious right say that the Decalogue is the answer to their nation’s ‘moral decay’. But when it comes to the divine injunction not to kill, they do not apply it to US military might, the death penalty and the bearing of arms by civilians.
The latest Supreme Court rulings will certainly not lay the issue to rest.