WWJD (What Would Jack Do)
Those loopy Christians and their silly superstitions. I’m talking, of course, about the picture of Jesus in the Slidell courthouse. It’s not a bad picture per se, just of some imaginary guy reading from the bible with a quote (oddly in Russian) that says “To know peace, obey these laws”. So my little interpretation seems to suggest that people are expected to follow the laws of the bible, among which are the 10 Commandments. That’s cool I suppose. I mean we are a mostly Christian nation right? But I think even the most devout Christians should really stop and think about the implications. I’m not even talking about the implications of Religious Freedom and Separation of Church and State.
I’m talking about following the Bible as a legal document. The first problem is that it suggests that you can’t follow the Constitution of the United States because it puts the law of man above the law of God. So you can’t really argue that you have a constitutional right to have the picture up there since you’d be breaking the first law and have to be stoned to death. Nice hu.
But beyond that, if you’re going to suggest the Bible as a Legal text then you not only have to decide what is right and wrong based on it, but what the punishment should be. For example, let’s look at rape. “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.” (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) And if the victim is married and doesn’t cry out for help “If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.” So, uh, that’s kinda cool.
And really, there’s going to be a lot of killing in Slidell if the citizens really wanna follow the bible as a judicial text. Here’s a quick list of the people that’ll have to be killed if they live in Slidell: Anyone caught working on Sunday (Exodus 31:12-15), Anyone who’s gay (Romans 1:24-32), Anyone of a different religion (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), Any woman not a virgin on her wedding night (Deuteronomy 13:1-5), nonbelievers like me (Chronicles 15:12-13), Anyone having sex outside of marriage (Leviticus 21:9), Adulterers and whoever they’re having sex with (Leviticus 20:10), Anyone who curses their parents (Leviticus 20:9), Fortune Tellers (Leviticus 20:27), and people who don’t listen to priests (Deuteronomy 17:12) just to name a few. In fact, Slidell will be obligated to attack the surrounding communities and destroy them if even one person in that community was of another religion. (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)
It isn’t all bad though because slavery would make a comeback as long as you bought them from foreigners (Leviticus 25:44-46) The only exception being if you want to sell your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:7-11) The medical crisis will be over since they won’t need doctors; they can just pray for a cure (James 5:14-15)
But maybe all this isn’t fair. Maybe I’ve taken it all out of context and exaggerated it horribly. Well, maybe I did but feel free to look up the references I’ve listed if you’re that damn bored. Maybe I’m misinterpreting some of them - that’s certainly possible. Also possible is that I’m just an asshole. But so everyone can make up their own mind I’ll post the 10 Commandments and the punishments for breaking them (pulled from various resources) without commenting further.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
death by stoning.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
death by stoning.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
death by stoning.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
death by strangulation
5. Thou shalt not kill.
death by decapitation
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
death by strangulation
7. Thou shalt not steal.
death by strangulation
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
death by stoning
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.
death by strangulation
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods.
death by strangulation
Related posts:
I’m not much a Christian, but I don’t really get your point about the Constitution being put above the law of God. Seems an unlikely position for the Founding Fathers to take, given that a good deal of them were quite religious. I’m not quite sure I see what in the sign suggests the bible as a legal text, given that the book isn’t identified as the bible, and Jesus was, at least as told in the New Testament, advocating a pretty big break from the harsh sentencing guidelines of the Old Testament. As far as whether it has a legitimate presence in a courthouse because the laws are outmoded, certainly no one would argue that a picture of Hannurabi or Draco would be out of place in a court house even though their legal texts were even more, well, draconian. But I guess you’re free to read as much into the picture as the christians are. What’s probably scarier is that some of them attend churches that attempt to understand and interpret those Old Testament verses. I wouldn’t ever assume to think that I could interpret something written 2-8,000 years ago, and I have a couple college degrees. Personally, I’m of the opinion on this that it’s a picture of a man in a courthouse, that means something perhaps to the people who choose to have it and means absolutely nothing to those that don’t believe. And just like a picture of Mohammed in the courthouse, I’d worry less about it, and more about the impartiality of the judges - or in Louisiana, about ANY functioning judiciary. How the ACLU attempts to read “separation of church and state” to mean “no religious iconography on any public grounds” is a bit confusing, seeing as how it existed at the time the Constitution was written and no one was really pitching a fit about it then. But I guess christians and heathens alike can read a document to mean whatever they want.
Well….I will honestly say I DO NOT think your misinterpreting anything you’ve read. I have actually read it myself…as you know, we do have several family members to attend church every Sunday! And I will say…I see it the same way. I do have my own opinions on the bible it’s self…could have been written as a joke…or…Some one doing some serious drugs for that time in history…and it’s gotten really out of control! Do I believe in a higher power?? When all else fails I do…is that wrong?? I look at it this way…I find it hard to believe in a book that tells me that “my kind” is living in sin where I should be stoned to death…When I was born this way!! So…It’s just hard for me to believe…that the God they teach about in church…who is so full of love…would be the same God telling “US”…we need to stone someone!! Maybe I am just an idiot!! Love ya and the site!! Your the most talented..:) But everyone who is writing on this site is doing a really great job!! I have a lot of fun looking around!! Wish they would add Cincinnati to the site!!!
…….OK, God doesn’t want anyone to kill someone else…but if you do your going to have your head cut off! Isn’t that murder also…so..wouldn’t they inturn have to have their head removed!! Sounds like one big cycle to me!!
Bible crap. People of the “Book”. (I could go further, but I’m holding my tongue in case there’s a desert-religion penalty for speaking truth.)
You are right on target as pertains to the edicts of this business that is called “religion”. And it is a business: witness the Archdiocese’s abandonment of their properties post-Flood, and the abandonment of their parishioners because they wish to downsize and concentrate the money gathering potential for the Vatican.
I’m not trashing Spirituality here: I believe in the Goddess. She doesn’t have these harsh edicts, but there is a price to be paid for harming others. There is also a celebration of joy for just being oneself, to be able to revel in one’s own being, a Child of the One.
I don’t find much revelry in the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran, and I’ve spent decades researching those tedious documents. These books are the worst examples of the sickness of certain Human minds available.
The only edict I’ve ever believed to be tenable is this one: Be yourself, treat folks kindly, and love Life. THERE IS NOTHING MORE.
HMM - Jack’s dead on about separation of church and state - although some of the Founding Fathers were religious, the ones most associated with the writing of the Dec. of Ind and Constitution were not. (Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Washington, Franklin). Those that were - such as Hamilton - believed that to place religion in government and vice versa corrupted /both/. If you accept that the Constitution is the foundation of our democratic society and government, then you must accept the idea of separation of church and state on some level. Leaving the 1st Amendment issue aside for a bit, the Constitution itself prohibits, explicitly, the religious test as a prerequisite for office and citizenship. (see Article VI) This is a reaction to the historic abuses of the Church of England vis-à-vis not only Catholics, but also Quakers, Shakers, Baptists and other fringe Protestant denominations. Add in the 1st Amend.’s anti-establishment clause, and it’s pretty clear where they stood. They were not anti-religion (well, not all of them). They were against government sanctioned/controlled religion and religiously controlled government. TJ especially objected to the mixing of religion and government - aside from the Dec. of Ind., he is most proud of his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1786) passed by the Va. House of Burgesses. He and Adams, with the support of the respective Senates, explicitly stated in treaties with the Muslim states of North Africa that the United States was NOT a Christian nation and derived its authority from secular sources, not religious ones such as the Bible.
As far as the ACLU, they are on firm footing - the Supreme Court, the ultimate authority on the Constitution, again given that you accept that said Constitution is the foundation of our government and society, has repeatedly drawn a line between church and state, although that line is blurred occasionally: McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962), Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968), Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985) et al.
As to a picture of Mohammed, that’s a moot point because Islam prohibits iconography of the Prophet. The fact that there may, or may not, have been religious iconography in courthouses at the time of the framing of the Constitution is again a moot point. An issue such as the 10 Commandments in a courthouse (or segregation in public facilities or a married couple’s right to consensual sex or birth control or any other constitutional interpretation) cannot be broached by the court system until a complaint is filed by a plaintiff with standing in the case and in the proper jurisdiction. The circumstances that allowed that to happen as far as seperation of church and state did not develop until the late 19th/early 20th century. In fact, the Founding Fathers and their generations thought it was a no-brainer - they assumed everyone got it, that the Constitution was crystal clear. No religious test. No establishment of religion. It would be interesting to examine the pervasiveness of religious iconography in courthouses and other government spaces (other than schools) between 1776 and 1840 (the time of the 2nd Great Awakening). A potential thesis is in that one.
Anyway, Jack, and the ACLU, are right. Thus spoke the Great Oz.
That’s interesting, but it glosses over the fact that “separation of church and state” does not appear in the constitution, and thus, no matter how old, is a legal fiction created by activist judges. If it’s derived from the first amendment’s “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” that is a tenuous argument for prohibiting religious iconography inside a court house. If you wish to prevent religious iconography, why not have the legislature pass a law prohibiting it? Instead, the ACLU would have the Supreme Court whip out its divining rod and decipher whether Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists indicated a desire to prevent pictures of Jesus on public grounds, prayers before civic functions, christmas celebrations in city parks, or the existence of student prayer groups at public schools. In fact, article VI seems to indicate the exact opposite. If the writers of the Constitution went through the bother of preventing religious tests specifically, then came back later and supplemented it with Amendment 1 banning establishment of a religion, why would we not interpret that to be the sum of their interpretation of the Federal government’s requirements, and that everything else was a reserved power of the states to decide (that’s looking past the issue of whether Article VI and Amendment 1 should even apply to a state or just to the Federal government). It gets back to my point - Christians read what they want into the picture of Jesus, atheists read something else, and everyone seems to read something into the Constitution that’s not there.
It’s strange….the whole thing. See, I wrote the post the way I did to avoid the church and state thing because everything I hear about this kind of stuff is about separation of church and state. And honestly, I don’t have much to add. Seems to me it doesn’t matter how explicitly the Constitution says to keep religion out of the government because we’ve seen how it can go wrong, there would still be contention. And I can prove it.
Thou shalt not kill.
Pretty fucking explicit, wouldn’t you say? Yet, there seems to be some confusion amongst people of nearly every faith. So I’ll defer the political side of the argument to you cats that wanna play in that sandbox. At least I’m learning something about constitutional interpretation.
And for the record, I don’t even like the ACLU and generally disagree with them. In this case I agree with them but I wish there was a way they could do it more gently. I cut them a break on that because no matter how considerate they can try to be people are still going to act an ass about it. So, since we’re a disgustingly litigious nation, they’ll just have to sue and let the courts decide. By the way, does anyone know how many times the Supreme Court has addressed the church and state issue? I assume there are conflicting precedents?
This all reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker: “Don’t pray in our schools and we won’t think in your church”.
Awesome!!
It’s actually hard to keep it seperated when the President himself can’t do it!!
Jack, I’ll agree wholeheartedly with your last sentiment there. And as a libertarian, I actually usually agree with the ACLU. I just don’t think that federal lawsuits and federal legislation are the way to solve something that couldn’t be a more local problem than a picture of Jesus hanging in a local courthouse.
Actually Jack, the precedents were pretty consistent until the last 10 years. Here’s a good link for a general overview.
BTW, HMM, I /said/ that the FF saw Article VI and Amendment 1 as pretty self-explnatory as far as the position of the federal government on religion. However, in my opinion, and that of the Supreme Court, display of religious iconography is not a state/local issue as covered by Article 4 and Amnd. 10. As the Supreme Court has said repeatedly, it is a federal issue via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
James Madison is cited incessantly by jurists and jsutices as the definitive interpretor of the Constitution. He was adament about the necessity of seperating religion and government and vice versa. Consider Madison’s Federalist No. 10 -
“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” (occasionaly, the population screws up and we get dumbasses as leaders.)
“The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.” (big issues - such as the role of religion in governemnt - are a federal concern)
“A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source”
(the federal government has a responsibility to protect the nation from religious groups that assume political power)
An hypothetical I present to my classes - what if it were a copy of the Koran displayed on the courthosue wall? Or, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita? Or the collected sayings of Confuscious? What would the reacion be? The passions ignited by religion, the passions that led to the Crusdes, the pogroms, the religious wars of Europe, the violence in Northern Ireland, the 6 Day War and the current debacle of the Middle East, were viewed as dangerous to a republican society. The FF were absolutely determined to prevent a reoccurence here and hence made it very clear where they, and the government they created, stood.
I am curious whether in the same Slidell court room witnesses are forced to swear their affirmation of “truth” on a bible?
If the answer is yes, would the ACLU not be better employed in getting behind the rights of Non - Christians and removing the bible from the court room instead of a piece of artwork from the wall?
If we remove the bible….what would they swear people in on?? And just a question…If it is such a “big deal” to have ANY religion removed from goverment facilities…then why did they start the swearing on the bible in those buildings to begin with. Just my view…but seems to me, they were trying so hard to remove themselves from where they came from…that they actually moved this country closer to what they were trying to get away from in the first place…and come on people…we are so well deverisified now…your not going to be able to please anyone…now matter what happens.
I am just a simplton though!!
I am just a simpleton though!!
They’ve already fought that battle - you are not actually required to swear the oath to tell the truth on /any/ sacred text, Bible or otherwise. You never have been, really - that was more of a custom. (and many of the cases predate the ACLU - I found one as far back as 1790)
Intestingly, the oath of office for the president and other members of the government, as stipulated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, does NOT contain the words “So help me God.” (I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.)
to clarify - There never has been a requirement to “swear” on the Bible or any other sacred text. You only have to affirm that you will tell the truth under penalty of law for perjury. No sacred books, no god/s no divinity, nothing but a promise.
I have never been a witness, but I think I would feel odd saying to the judge I am not going to swear on the bible because I know that all I have to do is affirm that what I am saying is true.
Tradition aside I don’t think that there should be a bible on hand at anytime as part of a legal swearing process. My word should be good enough and the bible is not necessary; especially if I don’t even believe in it.
That is just an opinion of course.
The painting of Jesus is art and as such is a subjective thing which I frankly don’t think has much bearing in the whole scheme of the legal system.
Very good stuff about the whole ’swearing on the Bible’ thing. Makes me wonder what the jury perception of someone refusing to swear on a bible would be. Sounds like a good psychology thesis (probably already been done).
I don’t think I can buy the ‘art thing’ Raspootin. The reason is because ‘art’ is a very generalizing term. And various forms of art, and especially the content of and/or the context of art has been considered offensive coutless times through history (for good or bad…Robert Mapplethorpe for example). I just can’t buy that calling something art is a ‘get out of responsibility free’ card. If we were arguing that art has no place in a courthouse then you’d be exactly right. But it’s the content of the painting that is being called into question. If it was a picture of a fruit bowl no one would give a shit - except for me because I find them objectifying of fruit. Tomatoes not withstanding.
I know you understand this Raspootin, but I think its important to keep in mind that art and religion do not always make the best bed-fellows. Many people take art very seriously, and many people take religion very seriously and that makes for a potentially volatile situation. But mostly I hate to see art as a construct being pulled into a nasty little political/theological situation like this. Art should be beautiful….like a termite.
Even Republics with the safe guard of a Secular Constitution fall victim of mob rule. When the bases of right and wrong are founded on might makes right, any mental disorder which spreads rapidly through the public body via per pressure, such as all religious and national superidentities, leave the individual free thinker in harms way. When mass amounts of individuals let the intoxication of gang power penetrate their decisions, no Free, Equal and Rational society is possible. They are the prisoners and the guards. Faith is for the birds and the birds are dinosaurs.
are you toying with me Reverend?
it does upset me to no end that art is being slung threw the mud like this. i know, i know..it’s a portrait of Jesus. but still.
I was trying to be cute…lol
Thanks for throwing the Reverend thing in there too.
Ann - I do agree with you that the 14th amendment has been relatively consistently been held to endorse Federal involvement in questions of church-state separation. But I didn’t say I agreed with it, nor almost any 14th amendment jurisprudence. I also agree that James Madison is held in such regard, also erroneously, for a document that represented a compromise by many and a ratification by thousands.
But your quotes from Madison do not lead to the conclusion that the court is the right jurisdiction for such a suit. “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm” implies that they will not be at the helm of the Supreme Court as well - and that the better solution is to allow as much popular control of these decisions as possible. “The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures” would provide relief if Madison had envisioned a Federal government that saw such a penumbra of rights flowing from its limited grant of powers in the Constitution. For a Constitution that doesn’t even contemplate judicial review, this is hardly an endorsement of federal jurisdiction on such an issue. “A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source” is an endorsement of a strong Federal government - but interestingly, Madison’s examples of dangers were all economic not social, all appear to be powers expressly delegated under the commerce clause, and his solution was a Republican government of a large size - not a legislating judiciary.
I like your hypothetical - but, I don’t think it holds much weight. If Confuscius was painted, holding a book of scripture, e.g., under which in a foreign language said “To Know Peace, Obey these Laws,” I don’t see how that would be held to be any more than at most an endorsement that our laws flow from that of Confuscius, which would be misleading, perhaps, but not offensive. Since to the average observer the Russian inscription means nothing and the laws are not shown, its curious how it’s any different than the famous lawgivers who appears on and in the Supreme Court Building itself, including Moses, Muhammed, and Confuscius. In fact, the only people upset about the Muhammed image appears to be Muslims who object to his image.
Even ignoring the recent jurisprudence, which has considered these cases, this picture would probably still pass the Lemon test. It serves a secular purpose of merely being artwork, it does not appear to have the primary purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion, and there has not been any resulting excessive entanglement in religion.
HMM, that’s a very interesting point in that if the laws aren’t actually shown then its probably not an overbearing religious symbol (if I’m understanding you correctly). But what of the implied presence of certain laws given the book is documented to be the bible and the person known to be Jesus? Is any weight given to that in terms of advancing a religion? What about other more subtle things like the form and composition of the painting, which smacks of the kinds of gothic pieces I generally associate with religious art. Maybe that’s my own bias though. I should note that I have a deep appreciation for that style.
Either way, you’re defense certainly compliments Raspootin’s more agnostic view of the painting as a piece of art. Could it be viewed as merely a cultural representation? Could all of us Secular types be reading too much into it? Are we just being reactionary?
I’d hate to think so, but I do like your argument as it applies to this particular piece.
http://www.tjcenter.org/ArtOnTrial/publicspaces.html
I think the ACLU and government oversteps their bounds when determining what is offensive or not.
Just because one person perceives an inappropriateness that does not make a painting not art - it just makes it a work of art that offends certain people.
I don’t like the idea of government regulation of art in public buildings. Pulling a piece of artwork out of a courtroom is simply another type of record labeling or book burning and an infringement, mockery in of itself on the First Amendment.
I am who am and though shalt head mine word. Fuck religion and all the torment and pain it has caused every human being who walked this earth.
These are all figments of some dirt eating suedo-knuckledragger from 8,000 years ago passed down to any fucktard who would believe it.
They thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. They thought the sun was a god and that women were property. They thought donkeys were okay to have sex with.
Thank You , goodnight.
As a Slidellian, I think this is sort of silly. I am sure that there are religious icons all over the court buildings in Orleans parish. It does seem a bit blown out of proportion. The picture has been there for many years - and it suddenly brings outrage today? Why is it suddenly offensive? Should all religious markers be removed from all public buildings? What about our national motto, In God We Trust, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust
Should we get rid of all our pennies, as well? If we start with the picture in Slidell, then we have to look at all the ways religion has been infused into our popular culture.
But, at least it is a non-Katrina news story for a change - and we do need that.
Should all religious markers be removed from all public buildings? What about our national motto, In God We Trust
Yes and yes.
I guess, over the last couple of days in reading all this input the thing that keeps drifting into my head is: What do we gain from incorporating religion, however subtly into the government? Putting the “dangers” of a government sponsored religion aside because everyone is aware of the dangers but you could argue that the dangers are not an absolute certainty. So what is gained?
Is government improved? Well, I’m gonna have to say no. If for no other reason than anything that suggests something other than utter neutrality in government is going to undermine its credibility. And even if it doesn’t really, but allows for perceived tendencies to one thing or another, then the people it represents (other than those it’s leaning with) will become distrustful. I mean, really, if you’re a Muslim accused of anything at all in this country, do you have confidence that you’re going to be treated fairly throughout that process? It’s hard for me to imagine that - it really is. I would like to think, in that situation, I would be treated fairly but I’m relying on that all important neutrality to assure myself of that. Why is there so much distrust of the government by the African-American community? Well, historically, they haven’t exactly been treated fairly. Why are they allowed to have “Black Caucuses” whereas if I was to suggest there be “White caucuses” Al Sharpton’s dumb ass would donkey punch me? Because the caucuses and other things that tend to favor under-represented groups help to raise their trust in the government which keeps them involved and from becoming disenfranchised. Do I agree with it? Do I think it’s the right way to do things? No, but that’s a problem I have with the whole lobby thing and I think some, if not all, of those groups are born out of special interest. But is it working? Seems to be helping. And really, I don’t have a better suggestion of how to give a voice to the under represented other than to allow them to throw money at politicians to convince them to do what you want. So I guess Government gains nothing in the presence of Religion.
What does religion gain from having a hand in Government? Shit, that’s a long list. But really it just comes down to one thing: Legislating Morality. Religion has every reason to involve itself in the workings of the government since it ensures their interests are protected. I mean God can send you to hell and all, but the government can put you in jail, which is going to make waiting for that trip to hell very uncomfortable. And the view from the Religious Right is that they should be in government because they’re more moral, more honest, and in short just simply better people to be trusted with the responsibility of leading people. Statistically, even if you take Catholic Priests out of the equation, it would take a whole lot of fuzzy math to prove that they are collectively more of anything than anyone else. But really, I disagree with that superiority thing because anyone that sure of anything isn’t thinking critically. But that’s me and I’m a big fan of the philosopher king thing.
And I know this is philosophical bullshit and doesn’t apply to making decisions about the picture. The constitution is the great decider on that as interpreted by the Judiciary. But I still think its important to think of things in more abstract terms for a second if only for getting a slightly different perspective.
**also, I didn’t mean to minimize my statement about termite in earlier comments. I do think she’s beautiful and always have.**
JACK, I agree that this does skirt the line on the implied presence of the laws in the book Jesus is holding. The courts usually look at context when they consider these cases, so they would certainly consider that. Probably the most troubling issue would be if this were the only artwork in the hallway. That said, I can’t agree with the opinion of Robert Sutton and others that all religious iconography should be expunged from public buildings. THAT would be violation of the separation of church and state, because then the state would be actively and excessively involved in supressing religion. For instance, if all artwork with religious connotations were removed from the Smithsonian. The blessing and the curse of the Lemon standard for these cases is that there is no bright line, and if you believe that this is an issue that should be litigated, it must be relitigated repeatedly.
All this is why I love your site. You are ALL great!!! I love the fact that everyone has an opinion…and everyone is freely expressing it!! Thanks for clarifing the “bible ” thing for me!! ( as far as being “sweared in”!! Hope everyone has a great day!!!
*muah* ;)
fyi people! i am on my way to the Slidell courthouse to replace the portrait of Jesus with one of Reggie Bush. ;D
heh heh.
HMM,
Granted in no. 10, the examples are mainly economic, but Madison /did/ use social and political examples as well. He just said the most /common/ source of faction was the distribution of property - the have v. the have nots. I do not believe Madison, or any of the other contributors, envisioned a strictly economic basis for the Constitution, no matter what Charles Beard says (I heard his wife actually wrote the bulk of that work - have you heard that as well?) Anywhoo, my larger point was Madison feared, as did all the FF except Tom Paine and sometimes TJ, mob rule as Robert Sutton pointed out. He saw the protection of minority rights as essential to avoid that end. The separation of religion and government is just an extension of that idea.
BTW, how can you say the Constitution does not contemplate judicial review? Article III, Section 2, while not using the words “judicial review,” certainly makes an argument for it: ‘The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States; –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ” And of course, there is Marbury v. Madison (although Marshall strained to get his conclusion, Madison, TJ, et al. accepted the principle of judicial review fairly easily, implying a belief that it was there all along.) If the Supreme Court does not have the authority to determine if a law or act is a violation of the Constitution, who does? (and don’t say “the people” via conventions in the states using the amendment power - that’s a cop out and wholly impractical.)
As far as removing all the lawgivers from the Supreme Court building, the fact they are ALL there clears the hurdle of Lemon, doesn’t it? ;-) To me, the heart of Lemon is the idea of compulsion - an individual is placed in a position that s/he has no choice to whether to view or say or ingest religious meaning. If you have to go to the courthouse to file a deed or plead to a traffic ticket, you have no choice but to see that painting. The fact the inscription is in Russian is irrelevant - it’s obvious who it’s a portrait of and the book he’s holding. (Isn’t that a nice little absurdity - Jesus holding the Bible?) As I mentioned to Leigh, I think this whole thing is ridiculous. The ACLU should concentrate on other things, but I digress.
Expanding on my hypothetical - I discuss religious freedom with my classes. I was discussing some of their responses to an essay question with an admin in the department. Another admin overheard the conversation. She interjects that she doesn’t see why we can’t have prayer in schools. I asked what prayer - hers, mine, the Wiccans down the street? Well, Christian of course. OK - which version of Christianity - Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Amish, Mennonite? Or, I suggest, perhaps we should alternate faiths and everyday have a different type of prayer- on Fridays her grandchildren could kneel to the east and recite the Koran. “Well, NO! I’d sue!” she said. She never got the irony. She quit because the department was “too unGodly” for her.
Other hypothetical: It appears you are a strict constructionist - given that, how would you have dismantled Jim Crow except via the “due process” clause?
HMM brought up the Lemon Standard so I had to look it up let me know if this information is flawed. Wikipedia can’t always be trusted.
So the Lemon test basically necessitates a case-by-case assessment right? I mean we’re walking a very blurry line. I’m not sure I understand the implications or application of all three prongs. The following is how I understand so please correct me or add info (all invited).
So the first one suggests that if there’s a non-religious reason to have the painting there, for example, as decoration, then there’s no problem? I can buy that, but can anyone think of a n example of something having no secular purpose that might find itself in this situation? I guess an alter being set up in the lobby would be one…lol
The second one is probably often misunderstood. See I never considered that the complete removal of religious iconography as being a problem, but the Smithsonian example makes it clear. If the government is obstructing religion that’s really just as bad in some ways. Is the insistence of no theology a theology kinda like nihilism is a philosophy. I’d really never thought about it that way. Maybe in this case its the fact that its the purpose of the building itself that makes me feel like it should be more sterile. If it was in, say, a Post Office, I don’t know that it would even get my attention or seem important at all.
Now the third one, I don’t really understand at all. “Excessive Government Entanglement”? Is there some other legal precedent that clarifies that expression or defines it more? Anyone know an example of that? Is it just an odd way of saying there shouldn’t be a state sponsored religion or an “official” religion of the U.S.?
Moving on, along the lines of Termite’s Reggie Bush comment, she wouldn’t even have to replace the existing picture. If I’m understanding what HMM said about whether it was the only picture in the hallway/room. Again, if I’m understanding this correctly, adding a picture of Reggie Bush next to the one that’s there would add more credence to the first prong in saying the painting in question is merely one of several pieces of art we have.
So if that is one solution and would close the contentiousness of it down then I have to wonder whether the Lemon Standard really addresses all aspects of the situation. I doubt anyone would say, ‘well, its just a painting like the others except it has religious implications’. But it might make it more difficult for the ACLU to feel it has a case.
And I’m very interested in Ann’s Jim Crow question. I haven’t been ignoring you Ann, I’m just not as familiar with the writings of James Madison - maybe I should be ’cause it sounds pretty interesting. I like the bigger point you bring up (that is often ignored) that of the people, by the people, and for the people is great and all, several of the Founding Fathers (FF) were really very scared of the People.
I have to think they were right in being scared as they certainly had plenty of reason to be. I look at some of the more recent Louisiana election results and I just think ‘we gotta fix the school system’. Then I laugh at myself for being so pretentious.
And I like Ann’s hypothetical about a religion every day. I think people should learn as much as they can about all religions, especially at an early age. Of course, that’s because I think the best way to build an atheist is to put each religion in the context of other religions. When you have to pick one over another with an understanding of both things get very difficult.
Hubba hubba hubba, who ya gonna believe? :)
The Lemon Test is just one of several the Supreme Court developed to deal with various thorny issues. Thehy devise such tests to clarify - ironic,no? All tests are as equally vague and open to interpretation. Gotta love their legal reasoning sometimes: hedge hedge hedge. The idea of Lemon is that all three prongs must be met, otherwise the display/action is unconstitutional. Excessive Government Entanglement is closely related to “all deliberate speed,” - all in the eye of the beholder. A state dept. of education buying Bibles to be used in religious instruction - clear violation, well it used to be, anyway. Permitting an ordained minister to host pizza lunches during school hours while discussing the Bible in the commons area of a public school (you have to listen the the religious discussion to get the pizza), still a violation. Allowing student-led groups such as a Bible-study group to use classroom space after hours - a little tougher. Creches on City Hall lawn - tougher still, especially if there are secualr items such as Christmas trees and snow men hanging around.
The painting is an interesting situation - it does have definite secular value (well, we assume so - it could be hideously ugly). The key for Slidell will be purpose/intent. If whoever bequeathed the painting to Slidell attached a note, saying they think the Bible is the basis of America or some such, it’s out. If Slidell purchased it, then they have to justify why they chose THAT painting to be placed in the courthouse, as opposed to a nice landscape or a portrait of Slidell himself, a noted diplomat. The abscence or presence of other paintings/works of art in the general vicinity is also a crucial point, as HMM pointed out. (If someone has been to the courthouse, I’d love to know the context of the painting and if it’s a nice peice or not etc.)
BTW, Madison is fascinating - he was TJ’s voice of reason many times. His political writings are an interesting window into the thinking of the Framers of the Constitution, to be sure. His letters are also a hoot - he and TJ has an ongoing discussion about Merino sheep and how they were their ticket to financial freedom. Of course, TJ’s died, I believe. Poor TJ. I can suggest some good books on Madison et al if you’d like, Jack. :-)
I think I should believe myself, from my own direct experience of God as I understand Him/Her.
Others might need priests, preachers, & that’s well ‘n good….the Bible is probably basically a good book (I’m no authority), & if someone feels they need to rely on it or whatever, fine. One question though (not meant disrespectfully for those individuals who do like the Bible): who wrote it? who edited it? what were the politics at the time, and is it a true reflection of Christ’s love & ethics? for instance, they deliberately left out the entire Gospel of Mary Magdalene the Beloved of Christ.
As far as separation of church and state, t’would be nice, but it’s highly possible the corporatacracy and religious rightists will just be so empowered by mal-ethics it’s gonna happen anyway that they’re married.
Oh - a p.s. on Lemon - I have found, but could be wrong - that the presence of children in the equation is of particular importance, especially younger children who have not yet rached a level a reasoning to discern whether or not they want to participate in whatever religious issue is at hand. There is a case in Tangipohoa Parish, I believe, dealing with a school allowing Gideon’s to disperse Bibles inside the school. The principle called everyone to the commons, where they lined up and were essentially compelled (via peer pressure and adminstrative pressure) to accept the Bible. The parents of a student filed suit. They’re Catholic - Gideon’s are King James.
Oversight on my part for not including the picture. I haven’t been to the courthouse (not much on pilgrimages) but I did find, this is the picture in the courthouse. Until just now, when I looked for it again and found the blog.nola story I had been under the impression that a print of this was the picture hanging there. Don’t know why I thought that, but has anyone actually gone to see it?
I know its been there about 10 years but has anyone heard where it came from since that might be important too?
It seems a lovely piece (unless it’s a cheap reprint like the Renoirs you can buy for $10 at abanonded gas stations on a Sat. afternoon)- I love Russian icons. Wouldn’t put one in a courthouse, though, but then I’m a heathen.
Ann, I like what you had to say, but I’ll have to wait till after work to respond!
I’m still loving Termite’s suggestion to exchange the existing picture for Reggie Bush. ..lol
Thanks for making me laugh out loud this morning sweet bug.
What does religion gain… it just comes down to one thing: Legislating Morality.-Jack
The primary thing religion gains from the State is virtual Allodial titled land. The belief that families own their land outright is a delusion because each year every land owning humans rightfully pay property tax. Since the laws are so lose about what makes up a legitimate church, Mr. Reverend, any God fearing pervswasive person is encouraged to build their fort and their supernatural army which is protected and served by what’s supposed to be a secular unbiased body. The reason the Majority fear a more humane form of government like socialism is because they know that gang power propels itself. If the good schools are private, the hospitals and medicine private and to be openly a non-believer a suicidal business decision, the number of church goers will flourish. The thought that Churches are “non-profit” is ludicrous. The Church profits it’s members and no one else. When the charity card comes into play I laugh at the string of Logos, usually icon saturated.
For instance, if all artwork with religious connotations were removed from the Smithsonian….-HMM
Having religious art in an art museum is just a wee little bit different than having it in the Supreme Court.
If the government is obstructing religion that’s really just as bad in some ways.-WWJD
Governments can not obstruct a religion or any ideology. No gas chamber or scud missile is big enough. No legitimate government would say that individuals can’t “believe” something, because intelligent people know it’s impossible to do so. Only fascist governments are concerned about what consensual adults due behind their club walls. But in public buildings, a poster of Reggie, a painting of Abraham or a sculpture of Niche are not appropriate. Secular establishments need to follow strict lines that brake down the walls within the species. If that means only non representational art is allowed in the public schools, courts, and halls, so be it. But the real problem was never the government, it’s the people that constitute it, with their heads up their supernatural ass. It seems people are afraid to be just people. Chose your breed, chose your creed, chose your party, they would love nothing more than for you to lose yourself.
Personally I would not even have a picture of Jesus in my bathroom. However, I am trying to understand the legal basis that the ACLU is coming from.
Obviously I am not a lawyer, but is this what is happening?
The ACLU says the religious ICON is in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: One must not advance a religious message using a public building.
It is also a violation of The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment: Congress can’t make laws with respect to an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there of.
Then the ACLU looks to The RFRA and says that the Religious Icon is definitely in violation (as backed by the 14th Amendment) of the First Amendment as it gives the perception that if you do not believe in Jesus Christ that you will not get a fair trial?
Just trying to get it straight in my mind.
To this end the piece should be removed. Art is art, but if it suggests that relgion and the legal system work hand in hand - there is a clear problem.
The piece does not look like an original as the colors are all wrong. In fact it might not even be Jesus at all as a lot of Russian Orthodox Icons were of Martyrs that all look a lot like jesus :) I smile as I don’t think anyone really knows what he looked like…or if he ever existed at all outside the bible.
Raspootin, the portrait is a print and was a gift given to the courthouse.
my circle of art peeps tell me it’s not Jesus but that of a ‘High Priest’.
yes, Raspootin, you have the gist of it. But, it’s irrelevant whether or not it’s of Jesus or a high priest or Mary or Buddha: the content of the painting has religious specificity (i.e. Christian) in a governmental context, implying governmental endorsment.
I think a field trip to NOMA for the Windows of Heaven Exhibit is in order…
If you are into Russian Icons it looks like a good show.
oooh - how long is it there?
Through August 26th.
Bring on the Reggie Bush pic and I’ll be happy.
I can’t really say I feel strongly either way on this issue. But I felt the need to tell you how much I enjoyed reading it.
This was an excellent post, coupled with thought provoking and amusing comment’s. All the perfect ingredint’s for an oustanding read.
Thank you all.
Hey Jack - I couldn’t find an email for you. Can you post something about this travesty of justice and askwhy the ACLU isn’t all over this?
The Jena Six