The Republican Platform, the Ten Commandments, and the First Amendment

Abstract:
The Republican Party 2012 platform supports public display of the Ten Commandments, in schools, courthouses, and state capitols.  But the first words of the Ten Commandments are entirely contradictory to the first words of the Bill of Rights.

First Commandment:  “You shall have no other gods before me.”
First Amdendment:   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

------------------

First words are important. 

First words focus our attention, they establish what is most important in what we are about to read.

In any list, you will find the most important thing in the very first words.

Let’s consider two important lists:  the Ten Commandments and the Bill of Rights. 

Here are the first words of each list:

First Commandment:  “You shall have no other gods before me.”

First Amdendment:   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

These statements are entirely incompatible.

------------------

The Ten Commandments establish a Covenant between God and the Jewish people.  The Jewish people promised obedience to the commandments in exchange for support from God and liberation from slavery.

The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  These amendments declared certain rights of the people, and forbid the government to infringe on those rights.  Although these rights are not essential to the structure of government, America’s founders considered these rights necessary for a free society.  And so, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution immediately upon completion of the Constitution.

In recent years, conservatives have advocated public display of the Ten Commandments.  They wish to put the commandments in schoolrooms, in state capitals, in courtrooms, etc.  Notably, the Republican Party Platform of 2012 includes a commitment to public display of the Ten Commandments:  “We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage.”

When conservatives talk about the Ten Commandments, they always cite commandments 5 through 10, which deal with human relationships.  “You shall honor your father and mother, you shall not kill, you shall not steal”, etc.  The first four commandments are quietly neglected.   These define man’s relationship with God; specifically, the Judeo-Christian God. 

-----

An Indian woman ran a convenience store in the office building where I worked in Houston.  She had a small shrine in the corner dedicated to Shiva.  She wrote her prayers daily at the counter while waiting for customers.  At other times, in quiet ritual, she worshiped the statuette representing Shiva.   In the late afternoons, her daughter, about 11 years old, helped at the cash register after attending school nearby.  

Does this woman not have the right to raise her daughter according to her own religion?  Should the daughter come to school to face teachers and schoolmates under a placard which says “You shall have no other gods before me”?   If the woman goes into our courts, can she expect justice in halls that say: “You shall not worship any graven image”?

-----

There can be no question that the purpose for public display of the Ten Commandments is the intimidation and coercion of non-Christians.   An advocate of posting the Ten Commandments in schools wrote a very articulate essay on the topic, found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10ca.htm

*  Part of the essay appears below, in Addendum #2.

The Republican effort to post the Ten Commandments in public places is part of a larger effort to discourage religious pluralism in America.  The intent is to make America an exclusively Judeo-Christian nation, and to create a society aligned with the values of the conservative Christian movement.  These values include limiting the reproductive rights of women, eliminating homosexuality, rejecting science in favor of biblical literalism, supporting the expansion of Israel, and global confrontation with Islam.  A Republican victory in 2012 would be a blow against religious freedom in America, and would be deeply troubling with regard to our values as a nation.

http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/

If we are going to post a list of ten laws in the schoolrooms, courthouses, and capitals of our nation, I suggest that we begin with The Bill of Rights.

----------------------

Addendum #1  2005 Supreme Court Decisions

In 2005, a sharply divide Supreme Court issued two narrow and ambiguous decisions.  One decision allowed display of the Ten Commandments at the Texas State Capital.  The other decision forbade display of the Ten Commandments in two rural Kentucky courthouses.  The reasoning separating the decisions was the history of the display and local community standards.  If the display had been in place for a long time without local complaint, it was allowed.  If a new display aroused local opposition, it was forbidden. 

The decisions provide little guidance for local communities; it as if there had been no decision.  The legality of a display is now determined by whichever side clamors the loudest in a local community.

Addendum #2   Essay on Posting the Ten Commandments in Schools

*  Consider this essay, written by an anonymous advocate of posting the commandments in the schools:

 http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10ca.htm

A portion of the essay follows:

“The complete text of Exodus 20:1-17, where the Ten Commandments are delivered to Moses, must be posted and made clearly visible in every classroom of every school.  That way, God's Word will speak for itself to our children, and they will absorb the full meaning.  Take, for instance, the first two commandments:

 Exodus 20:2-6

The meaning here is unmistakable.  You had better believe in and worship the Judeo-Christian God, and only Him.  We must put down everyone who rejects our God, whether atheist or pagan, by having this posted.  The message here is that the one true God is extremely jealous, and will not tolerate any other gods being worshipped, so much so that if you commit the horrible sin of rejecting Him, your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will suffer.  Atheists and pagans must be constantly humiliated and brought to shame by seeing this message. It is their only hope of realizing the truth.

It is so important to God that you worship only Him that he orders the death penalty for those who do otherwise:   Deuteronomy 13:6-10

 Immediately after that, God orders the genocide of cities which do not worship Him.

 Deuteronomy 13:12-16

 Are you getting the picture?  God places exceedingly high importance on worshipping Him and only Him.  Absolutely no ignoring Him or turning to other gods is tolerated.  We must not allow anyone who does not worship our God to forget for one day what grievous sin they are living in.”

Religious Freedom and Contraception

Republicans have taken the idea of religious freedom and turned it on its head.

Earlier this year (2012), there was a significant political skirmish revolving around the issues of contraception and religious freedom.  The skirmish sharply delineated the parties’ positions on social issues and justification for those positions.  The event provides a clear blueprint for what to expect from each party in future debates about reproductive rights and religion.  

Contraceptive coverage is a standard health insurance benefit.   It is a matter of personal choice, but contraceptives are a medical need for those who practice contraception.  And health insurance is the usual way that consumers obtain pharmaceuticals conveniently and at fair prices.

The center of the political debate is the question of whether employers must provide free contraceptives as an insurance benefit to female employees.  The president’s health care reform law requires all employers to provide this benefit.  The objective of the rule is to remove cost as a barrier to effective birth control.  Free access to birth control allows women to decide whether and when to have children.  Effective family planning also provides benefits to society at large, including better child care, slower population growth, and lower medical expense.  At the time of the rule change, a majority of states already had similar rules in place.

Republicans in Congress, conservatives, and religious leaders opposed the new rule on the grounds that the rule infringed upon religious freedom.   Conservative Christian churches, in particular the Catholic Church oppose birth control, and therefore oppose providing free contraceptives to their employees.  The new law requires corporations owned by churches to provide contraceptives through health insurance, although churches themselves (as opposed to their subsidiary corporations) are exempt from the rule.  

In the early spring, Republicans in Congress tried to block implementation of the new rule, but failed by a narrow margin.  Over fifty Catholic institutions and other conservative religious groups have filed lawsuits in a dozen different Federal courts to block implementation of the ruling.  Some of these lawsuits have been dismissed, but I believe the issue will eventually rise to the Supreme Court.

Churches own and operate universities, hospitals, and charities.   They participate in open labor markets to hire employees.   By necessity, and as required by equal opportunity law, corporations owned by churches must hire people of all faiths.

When churches refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to employees, the church is using its position as employer to unfairly impose its religious tenets on employees.  Doctors, nurses, radiologists and janitors working in these hospitals may be Hindu, Muslim, Protestant, Jewish or atheist.  There is no religious basis for their work.  When a Catholic-owned hospital refuses to provide contraceptive coverage, it is imposing its religious beliefs on employees of other faiths. 

In attempting to block this rule, Republicans are not promoting religious freedom; instead, they are denying religious freedom.  The freedom of religion guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution does not belong to corporations, but rather to individuals.   Individuals have the right to decide which religious precepts to follow; and this decision should not be dictated by the employer.  The phrase “Religious Freedom” is absolutely Orwellian in this situation.  Allowing employers to deny contraception to employees would deny individuals the freedom to follow the religious precepts of their choice.

Social issues will be a major factor in the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections.  The skirmish over this issue provides a clear view of the positions of the parties with regard to individual’s freedom of religion, and reproductive rights and choices.   A Republican victory would instill conservative Christian religious values in many aspects of American life, in direct contradiction to the First Amendment ban on the establishment of a State religion.   And if there is a Republican victory, we can be sure that administrative rules, congressional laws, and court appointments will generally deny reproductive rights and choices to women.  

-----------

References:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/contraception/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/senate-kills-gop-bill-opposing-contraception-policy.html?src=twr