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.”

A Graphical Look at the United States Budget

This post shows the 2012 Federal Budget and Deficit in graphs.
------------------------------
This blog has previously looked at the 2012 United States Federal budget.   We'll now look at it graphically.
http://debatablypolitical.blogspot.com/2012/09/rome-didnt-fall-in-day.html

Current Federal spending is about 3.9 trillion dollars annually, whereas tax receipts are about 2.6 trillion.  This leaves an annual Federal deficit of about 1.3 trillion dollars.

The spending categories which have traditionally been considered sacred: Social Security, Defense, Medicare, and Interest, account for about 60% of Federal Spending.  It's simplest to look at the charts.

If we overlay the spending categories with the funding picture, we can see that current tax revenue barely covers the "sacred" categories.  

We cannot virtually eliminate all other functions of government to pay for defense and elder care.  To reduce the deficit will require tax increases, as well as cuts to the "sacred" categories of Social Security, Defense, and Medicare.

The Arms Race Against the World

Mitt Romeny's foreign policy advisors are from the same group of advisors which led the United States into war in Iraq.  The primary point of neo-conservative foreign policy  is to build military capability beyond challenge, but that level of military spending is unsustainable considering our current budget deficits.  It is an arms race against the world.
-----------------------

Maureen Dowd recently wrote a column about the Republican Presidential campaign and its advisors for foreign policy in the Mid-east.   Dowd received criticism for what some considered an anti-Semitic bias in her comments, and support from others who saw no bias. 

For my part, I think she was on-target.  Foreign policy under a Romney administration would be directed by the same group of Neo-conservatives that guided the Bush administration into Iraq.   I recall the Neoconservative vision that the Iraq war would cost less than $50 billion, and that pro-American democracy would spread from Iraq throughout the Middle-east.    You might say it’s funny how that worked out. 

The total cost of the war in Iraq to Americans is now estimated at over $3 trillion (not including costs to other nations, including Iraq).   As for the spread of pro-American democracy in the Mid-east, you can judge for yourself based upon recent events.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/the-critics-of-maureen-dowds-critics-135768.html

------

Let’s look at Neo-Conservative thinking with regard to foreign policy. 

Neo-conservative foreign policy is based on the idea that America is the world’s sole superpower, and should remain the world’s sole superpower.   The ideology is expressed as the “Bush Doctrine”, which is considered synonymous with Neo-conservative foreign policy.

There are four points to the doctrine.

1)  America should keep a military capability beyond challenge in the world.  Neo-conservatives believe that other countries will recognize America’s power as benign.  They believe that weaker countries will choose to align themselves with the United States, rather than opposing America’s military power.

2)  America holds the right to use pre-emptive (first-strike) military force, as considered necessary. 

3)  America will choose to act unilaterally as needed, bypassing the United Nations, bypassing the process of building an international consensus, and ignoring the opinion of the international community with regard to military action.

4)  America should promote democracy globally.   This facet of the policy was considered particularly important in the Islamic world, where democracy was considered a crucial element in combating terrorism.  Neo-conservatives believe that promoting democracy, by force if necessary, will create a safer and more pro-American world.

[Primary Source: The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War; http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf]

The Neo-Conservative world-view ignores the realities of human psychology, the rights of other nations to self-determination, and the costs of carrying out this vision.

In considering a superpower with a commitment to pre-emptive military force and unilateral action, weaker nations are unlikely to consider America’s power as benign.  The Bush Doctrine creates fear, and provides every motivation to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, which may be the only weapons which could deter an American attack.  Thus every nation which might be potentially in opposition to the United States is motivated to build the greatest military capability as possible.  Further, neo-conservatives never considered the possibility that emergent democracies might be in greater opposition to America than the preceding dictatorships.

America’s military spending amounts to nearly 5% of annual GDP.    Our annual military spending is greater than military spending by China, Russia, Britain, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, combined (after adjustments for purchasing power).   In fact, America’s annual military spending exceeds the GDP of all but the top 18 nations on earth, at a time when we are running budget deficits which threaten to bankrupt the country.

Foreign policy under Mitt Romney as president would implement the same principles as foreign policy of the Bush presidency.   It would be directed by some of the same people who were involved in the Bush presidency.  And it would be informed by the same naïve beliefs that caused America to fail to distinguish between the secular, dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein with the theocratic religious fanatics of Al Qaeda. 

The recent events in Libya, and the responses by the presidential candidates provide a clear example of what can be expected from each candidate in the event of international crisis.   President Obama’s slow, careful, measured response produced the most meaningful results: Libyans themselves stormed the headquarters of the Islamist militias who killed the American ambassador.  Which is a more effective foreign policy than another American invasion.

-------
References:

I found criticism of the Neo-conservatives similar to Dowd’s piece in various places.   The Neo-conservative viewpoint is rooted in an arrogant idea of American infallibility, and American global military supremacy that we simply cannot afford.   Specific to the Mid-east, the Neo-conservative view supports the idea of Greater Israel.   Some suggest that we went to war in Iraq, not because Iraq posed a threat to the United States, but because Iraq posed a threat to Israel.

Views similar to Maureen Dowd’s can be found here:

Iraq:  A War for Israel; Mark Weber, Institute for Historical Review,

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

The Real Reason for the Iraq War; Lee Whitnum, author & congressional candidate

http://leewhitnum.com/Iraq_the_real_reason.html

The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War;

http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf

Cost of Iraq War; Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/03/AR2010090302200.html

Comparison of Obama's and Romney's response in regard to the crisis in Libya is found here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-world-were-actually-living-in.html?_r=0