Words to govern by?

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of

maintaining displays of the Ten Commandments on government property

-- courtrooms, in particular. Among the arguments bandied about in

the media for keeping the displays has been the assertion that the

Ten Commandments reflect the historical makeup of the country, but

not the spiritual -- that they are an artifact and nothing more. Does

the display of the Ten Commandments in public settings -- meaning

government and school buildings -- necessarily imply an endorsement

of Christianity over other religions? Or do they simply reflect the

historical heritage of the United States without any religious

implication?

The Founding Framers of our freedom expressed a greater debt for

their inspiration to English political philosopher John Locke than to

God. Their discipleship was evident in their intellectual views and

political values. They owed more to Locke’s “2nd Treatise of Civil

Government” than to the Bible; they paid homage to nature’s God more

than to the God of providence; they were more persuaded by the God of

the philosophers than the God of the theologians. The Founder’s

worldview was a scientific rationalism, not a devotional Christian

theism.

In the book “The Godless Constitution,” we read: “For Locke, the

state’s origin was not shrouded in the impenetrable mystery of divine

gift or dispensation. The source of the ‘powers that be,’ the

magistrates and monarchs that governed, was the people.”

John Adams was united with his colleagues in proclaiming that the

state was a secular enterprise that could claim no divine

participation. The creators of American government “never had

interviews with the gods or were in any degree under the inspiration

of Heaven.” The Founders espoused standard enlightenment deism,

positing a God who hardly interfered in the affairs of men. In

matters of statecraft, Locke demonstrated to the Founders’

satisfaction that both church and state were diminished when united

in unholy partnership.

The Ten Commandments is not a founding document of America.

Disobeying the first three of the Commandments, in which the believer

swears fealty to the God of Israel, would have made blasphemy a

crime. Does American jurisprudence distinguish between monotheism,

polytheism or atheism? Did not Jefferson himself say, in his “Notes

on the State of Virginia,” that “The legitimate powers of government

extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me

no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It

neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.”

The first several Commandments regulate the propensity to sin

through idolatry, while the Constitution regulates the preservation

of civil interests.

Whether one observes the Sabbath enjoined by the Fourth

Commandment is of private concern. Adultery is not a crime and the

government has no right to investigate whether I am coveting in my

heart. Yes, the words on the two tablets have proven to be of vital

importance in molding morality, but inculcating them in the hearts

and spirits of its citizens is outside of the state’s province.

America should eschew religious aspirations. Our government does

not exist to give glory to God but to safeguard an individual’s right

to conscience; to protect his property, life and liberty; to

safeguard his pursuit of happiness; and to regulate his commerce. As

Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, the state’s purpose was not the

enshrining or proclaiming of God’s verities. As the authors of “The

Godless Constitution” put it, the Founders “wanted religion out of

politics because politics was not about salvation, or about doctrinal

purity, or even about leading virtuous or moral lives. Politics was

about economics and property.”

The American republic was established as a secular state.

In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln could have easily referred to

the government of God, by God and for God. He did not, for he

correctly identified the impulse that quickened the thoughts of those

who, four score and seven years before, brought forth a new nation.

This nation was not intended to extend God’s redemptive purposes,

whatever they might be. Rather, the nation that would not perish from

this earth was conceived to be “of the people, by the people, and for

the people.”

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

May our Jewish friends forgive us for implying that Moses is a

purely Christian symbol. Moses and the Ten Commandments transcend

both Christian and Jewish traditions because of the impact they had

on the formation of Western culture and, to our topic, American

government.

Public displays of diverse faiths affirm that we are a people of

faith, and not people of “a” faith. It is exactly the opposite of

what is being alleged. I would rather live in a society where we

celebrate each other’s differences in order to understand rather than

isolate to hate. The only person who could be offended by the

diversity is the atheist who doesn’t believe in any God.

However, the removal of all references to God in favor of the

atheist’s religion is discrimination in the reverse order. The

cultural sterilization that the secular fundamentalists have been

waging is as disturbing to me as the Taliban’s destruction of ancient

Buddhist statues in Afghanistan.

Regardless of the current or future state of America religiosity,

our history should not be purged. School textbooks have already been

cleansed, and now they are trying to do the same in the physical

monuments of the past. It is no less devious than rewriting the

Holocaust out of existence. If we allow the destruction of our

history, then we will have forgotten what we stand for in the first

place.

Currently, we are being told that America is about freedom. The

founders of this country did not give their lives so that freedom

would merely be interpreted as unlimited access to pornography in

public libraries, the right to walk down the street with little or no

clothes on, or even to make obscene amounts of money without regard

to the suffering of others. Those rights are guaranteed, but our

founders’ primary objective was to establish a place where people of

faith could exercise their religion without interference from the

government.

It is heart wrenching to see our culture now welcome the freedom

of pornography, lewd behavior and greed, but erase the freedom of

religion. It is no wonder the Islamic nations don’t want democracy.

Why would they want that kind of freedom?

If this cultural sterilization (the communists in China called

their version the “cultural revolution”) continues, nearly every

building in our national capital will be affected. The steps leading

up the Washington monument would need to be removed, many areas in

the Supreme Court itself would need sandblasting, the constitutions

of all 50 states would need to be changed, the symbols on our

currency would need to be redesigning, and that’s just a start.

It should be obvious to any curious observer that the people of

our past were people of faith. It would be less clear as to which

faith they belonged, but that’s the point, isn’t it?

I love that we can have this dialogue in the paper about faith. I

hope we can continue to do so for some time to come. The Los Angeles

Times eliminated its religion column recently; there is no guarantee

it will not happen here. Let’s affirm together that we are a people

of faith and learn about each others’ traditions, rather than try to

eradicate and isolate.

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

Are the Ten Commandments Christian? Are they “simply ...

historical?” Are they “an artifact and nothing more?”

Into the plethora of opinions about current arguments before our

Supreme Court, including helpful “Parents Talk Back” comments by

Wendy Leece and Mark Gleason in last Tuesday’s Daily Pilot, I want to

venture brief responses to these three questions in the hope of

providing perspective:

The Ten Commandments are found in Exodus 20:1-17, the second book

of The Hebrew Scriptures. They are central to all religions to which

the Holy Bible is vital including, but not only, Christianity.

Christians would be wise to remember that neither the giver, nor the

receiver (Charlton Heston, an Episcopalian, notwithstanding), of the

Ten Commandments was Christian.

The Ten Commandments are one of the rocks on which Western

civilization, including “the historical heritage of our United

States,” is built. For Americans, they are at least as foundational

as the Code of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta, but no more so than the

Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution

and Bill of Rights, and documented wisdom, which others might well

include.

If the Ten Commandments are “an artifact and nothing more,” is our

foundation shaking? I remember a cartoon of a church with a sign in

front saying “The Lite Church: 5-minute sermons, 45-minute worship

services, and only 7 commandments (your choice!)” I am glad this

could not be The Episcopal Church (although we sometimes do have

45-minute worship services with five-minute sermons).

The Ten Commandments appear in our Book of Common Prayer in both

traditional and contemporary translations preceding rites for The

Holy Eucharist, which is, with Holy Baptism, one of the two great

sacraments given by Christ to the Church. They are a consistent

reminder that the God who makes demands of us is the God who delivers

us from bondage to sin, evil and death.

Episcopalians/Anglicans often substitute “the summary of the law,”

Mark 12:29-31, for the Ten Commandments. I think we all need to

believe these words of Jesus more and more, so that they motivate our

actions: “The Lord our God is one; you shall love the Lord your God

with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,

and with all your strength.

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other

commandment greater than these.”

Shouldn’t we surround ourselves with this life-giving, loving

wisdom? Might we have these words highlighted as reminders privately

in our homes and offices, on the dashboards of our cars and as

“screensavers” -- and displayed publicly on posters and billboards?

Why would this be controversial?

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

St. Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

The consensus of the Founders, arising from their different

religious backgrounds, is clearly expressed in the First Amendment of

the Constitution, a magnificent statement guaranteeing the freedom of

each person to practice his or her religion and the freedom of all

from the tyranny of government support of one religion. This is our

historical heritage, not the Ten Commandments. Chiseled in marble

should be the words of our Founders, other important historical

leaders and the Constitution. Citizens should be informed and

inspired by our heritage.

In one experiment, researchers asked people at random whether they

agreed with a short list of propositions. Most did not, and were

surprised to discover later that the statement was the Bill of

Rights! It has been proposed that the Constitution be written on the

back of dollar bills, which seems like an excellent way to circulate

it.

But if the Ten Commandments did reflect the moral history of the

country, or even if they currently express the ethics of the majority

of Americans, I still am not in favor of Judeo-Christian Scripture

being given such pride of place in the public setting. The common

good for our time is better served by inclusion, by broadening our

respect and appreciation for the diverse backgrounds of our citizens,

especially those who are minorities. It is counter-productive to

imply that one religion occupies a special place in government and to

increase the experience of others that they are “outsiders” in our

society.

I am in favor of public displays of statements from the world’s

religious traditions and other wisdom traditions, in situations where

they can instruct and inspire, without favoring one over the other.

For example, the message of the “Golden Rule” is expressed by most of

the world’s religions, and it would be uplifting to see the various

ways this is stated in so many different ethical traditions.

Those who have pursued the placing of the Ten Commandments in

public places all the way to the Supreme Court do not regard them as

“historical artifacts.” They have a valid concern that shared values,

ethics and basic rules of conduct are no longer taught or promoted in

our society.

What is a more effective response? Teaching about religion should

be a part of the elementary and secondary public school curriculum. I

recall book reports I did in grade school in Iowa in the ‘50s on

Confucius, Black Hawk, John Wesley, Billy Graham and, of course, the

Puritans. Courses in high school should include electives in “World

Religion” or “Religion in America.”

Religious indoctrination, in contrast, should occur outside the

public schools, but it should be taken very seriously by parents. I

believe children should be trained in one religion, but then as teens

have the opportunity to either affirm the faith of their upbringing

or explore other options. It has been difficult for Zen Centers to

offer programs for children because of the small number of

participants and the emphasis on meditation. But for the first time,

our Center will begin a program for children and families this

summer.

Thomas Jefferson was reared in the Anglican Church, but his later

views were closer to those of Unitarians. Late in his life, he said,

“To love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself is the

sum of religion.”

For Zen Buddhists, “Do no harm” and “Do good for others” expresses

the heart of meditation and daily life. The Ten Commandments are not

the only guidelines.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa