The Ten Commandments
July 3,2005
If there is one issue I'm really passionate about it's probably the "separation of church and state," because of the consequences that religious divisive influence can have on our democratic system. It's not that I'm opposed to God, for I am pro-God and pro-religious freedom and tolerance. When I read the article below from Agape Press, "What If the Supreme Court Isn't to Blame for Its Lack of Moral Clarity", the following excerpt particularly caught my attention:
- "A Church that wants the Ten Commandments freely displayed on public grounds should perhaps also be a Church that has those imperatives written across her heart and memory and, more to the point, her practice."
The writer, without coming right out and saying so, seems to be making a case for establishment of Ten Commandments in public places, but he blames people of faith (churches) for a lack of moral clarity for the court not going all the way to allow the Commandments in. He may have a valid point about the blame. A few years ago when I took the first Disciple Bible Study, from Exodus 20, I took special note of The Ten Commandments. I decided to record them on a small calling card on which I carry in my credit card holder. So, literally, I carry them on my heart when I drop the folder in my chest pocket, or I may sit on them in my hip pocket. The point is I have them as a reminder of my faith heritage and a moral compass. This is not to say that I'm better than anyone else, but I tell you this to reinforce the point of the writer that in the "heart" is where the commandments should be. They should not be now placed on government property (any more than what is already there as a historical value). It's not government's place to promote religion or display components of religious creeds. It's a treacherous, slippery slop. Don't misunderstand, I'm not for removing any references to God that currently exist on our money, institutional building, pledge, or to prohibit prayer in public gatherings. However, there must be a balance that protects our religious freedom as well as acknowledges our one God. The court got it about right. If you will ---- post the commandments conspicuously in front of the church, whether they are the Protestant or Catholic version.
While there may be no hard scriptural evidence for separation of church and state, at times this references is used: Matthew 22: (15-22 ) "?Render ??therefore to Caesar the things that are ??Caesar's, and to God the things that are ?God's.?"
To carry the Agape writer's point of moral values a step further, one should ask the question: Are the Ten Commandments an end-all to our complete and necessary guide in moral values? I think not. How about paying closer attention to and striving to live closer to Jesus' teachings by which He made indisputable points through His many "overstatements." Remember: "Sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and come follow Me."
In lieu of a religious creed posted on government property - how about a secular creed such as Rotary's 4-Way Test of the THINGS we SAY, DO, and BELIEVE:
- Is it the TRUTH?
- 2. Is it FAIR to all concerned?
- 3. Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER FRIENDSHIPS?
- 4. Will it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned?
Does anyone want to agree to post that on the courtroom door?
(The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State) http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
This site is helpful site, which in addition has clarification of misinformation about Thomas Jefferson's view of separation of religion and public education.
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The Agape Press:
In the Fight What If the Supreme Court Isn't to Blame for Its Lack of Moral Clarity?
By Matt Friedeman July 1, 2005
(AgapePress) - The Supreme Court, far from being enlightening on the display of the Ten Commandments, botched it badly by making even constitutional scholars scratch their heads and utter a collective, "Huh?" over two cases handed down this week.
Way to go, Supremes.
But why the incoherence? Columnist Bill Murchison made a point that puts the blame for the legal murkiness right where it belongs ... almost.
Says Murchison:
"It strikes me -- correct me if I am wrong -- that cultures, not courts, set constitutional tone; that the incoherence of our church-state jurisprudence proceeds less from the court's incoherence than from society's unwillingness to say what its own will is."
Whose fault? Our fault, intimates the columnist.
But should we be even a bit more particularized with the laser beam of blame since, after all, the issue at hand is the Judeo-Christian tradition handed down from Mount Sinai?
What if they muddying of the waters is the fault of (gasp) the Church? What if the Supreme Court and the constitutional scholars and the various levels of government and the business community and law enforcement and the educational establishment and the arts community and .. well, every institution, culture and people group that make up a collective "culture" ... lack moral clarity because of an anemic, inward-bound, self-aggrandizing Church that is confused about the verity of its Scripture, the tenets of its faith, the purpose of its existence, the priestly service it is called to exercise and the impact it is to have on contemporary life?
If Murchison is right and the culture is to blame, then who is at fault for the culture?
A Church that wants the Ten Commandments freely displayed on public grounds should perhaps also be a Church that has those imperatives written across her heart and memory and, more to the point, her practice.
My hunch? Not ten percent of those who think the Ten Commandments belong in the public square could name all ten. Could we be contending for something we do not know and which we hardly apply?
Missionary/evangelist E. Stanley Jones once asked Gandhi how Christians could "make Christianity naturalized in India, not a foreign thing ... but a part of the national life of India and contributing its power to India's uplift? What would you, as one of the Hindu leaders of India, tell me, a Christian, to do in order to make this possible?"
Gandhi replied: "First, I would suggest that all of you Christians ... must begin to live more like Jesus Christ. Second, practice your religion without adulterating it or toning it down. Third, emphasize love and make it your working force ..."
Jones shared that later with a British High Court judge and he remarked "That's genius."
It is genius. And culture-changing. And Supreme Court-altering.
Matt Friedeman (mfriedeman@wbs.edu<mailto:mfriedeman@wbs.edu>) is a professor at Wesley Biblical Seminary. Respond to this column at his blog at "EvangelismToday.blogspot.com." << TenComandmens7-1-05.doc >>
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Response:
Yes, I think you are right. Following the core of Jesus' teachings is far more important. But I don't think that you can enshrine Jesus' teachings as laws. Jesus is not about forcing people to do right but persuading people to accept the Spirit of God to work change from within a person. I think many right-wing Christians have forgotten this.
Now, many will say that the Civil Rights movement would never have succeeded if religious leaders had not pushed for changes in laws. But I really don't see how not having a display of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom hurts someone in the same way denying someone the right to vote or the right to eat alongside of me in a restaurant.
Now, I can see the Right advocating for their anti-abortion position. One can make the case that abortion is a moral issue where the innocent are harmed, if one buys the proposition that a fetus is a human being. I'm not sure that I buy that proposition. That's not to say that I advocate unrestricted abortion. I think we should discourage abortions, especially as a form of birth control and especially after the third trimester.
Oh, well, I would like to spend more time developing these ideas, but I need to review my lesson plans because I have to be at work by nine AM.
Mitch
No comments:
Post a Comment