I am among the millions of people who claim dual citizenship in the United States and one of the faiths which consider the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament to be sacred writ. With all due respect to Ben Stein, I think that there are compelling reasons for people fitting this description to oppose display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and other public locations. Found in the Hebrew Bible in two variant versions – compare Exodus 20:2-17 with Deuteronomy 5:6-21 – the Ten Commandments (or “Decalogue,” to borrow the Greek equivalent) comprise ten (by most enumerations) of the 613 obligations (mitzvot) which the early Jewish Rabbis considered to be the substance of the Hebrew Law (torah). These ten occupy a special place in the memories of both Jews and Christians; while the story depicts Moses relaying the entire Torah from his epiphany on Mount Sinai (or Horeb in the Deuteronomy version) to the newly emancipated Hebrew community, only the Decalogue is divinely chiseled onto stone tablets. Representations of this early legal code have long been crafted by Jews and Christians alike to memorialize the lawgiving narrative and communicate God’s basic expectations for their human-human and human-divine covenant relationships.
Recently, as is well documented, the public display of the Ten Commandments has become a symbolic battleground in a bitter contest between competing political ideologies, primarily in the United States. Some who believe that institutionalized religion is appropriate for the private, but not public, sphere have fought to remove images of the Decalogue from government property. Conversely, some who consider a “Judeo-Christian” morality to be integral to the fabric of American culture have worked not only to protect existing public displays of the stone tablets, but also to erect new ones. As the debate has taken on a life of its own, it has blurred and obscured the actual religious meanings and political principles which make the relationship between church and state a complex question. This has become a polarizing issue, and far too frequently one’s religious perspective goes hand-in-hand with one’s position on this political issue. Secularists and those affiliated with religions other than Judaism and Christianity – and certainly those with no religious affiliation at all – are expected to oppose the public displays. Jews and Christians, especially those connected to more socially conservative houses of worship, are expected to defend the public display of the Ten Commandments as though their core theological convictions are under attack.
Yet I am not persuaded that fiery rhetoric and clichéd talking points should determine the outcome on this issue. I am equally not persuaded that those of us who consider Exodus and Deuteronomy to be sacred tomes should kowtow to the sentiments of political correctness, to support the removal of the Decalogue (and other religious symbols such as crosses and nativity scenes) from public view simply to be polite and non-confrontational toward those who might find religious displays offensive. Rather, my objections to public displays of the Ten Commandments – particularly in American courthouses – are primarily objections to the rhetoric which largely-conservative commentators use to justify such displays, typically in order to serve some larger political agenda. The following are the five reasons why I, a deeply-committed Christian, am opposed to the public display of the Ten Commandments.
1. Defense of these symbols is often a veneer. In the age of the talking point and reductionist politics, the use of symbols often becomes a convenient way to avoid embodying the principles these symbols represent. When the then-Presidential candidate Barrack Obama was accused of being un-American because he frequently did not wear an American flag pin on his lapel, he responded:
“The truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11…that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism…I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. Instead I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”
As anyone who has been cut off in traffic by a car with a “Jesus fish” on its bumper understands, symbols are no substitute for character. Gandhi once quipped, “Your Christians are so unlike your Christ;” Saint Francis approached evangelism with the maxim, “preach the Gospel at all times; use words if necessary.” The use of religious symbols and evangelical language is shallow and hypocritical if not accompanied by integrity, morality, and character – these latter virtues are far better testimonies to the merits of religion than the defiant public display of a handful of bible verses.
2. The claim that America was founded as a “Christian nation” is at best a gross over-simplification and at worst a myth fabricated in order to manipulate contemporary sensibilities. Many of the prominent “Founding Fathers,” were in fact not Christians in the sense that contemporary evangelical, mainline Protestant, and Roman Catholic churches understand the term. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and a host of others were Deists, or at least influenced by deist philosophy. They conceived of God as a divine watchmaker – this impersonal, inaccessible deity set the universe in motion then sat back and watched history unfold completely independent of any transcendent intervention, miracles, or divine-human relationships (Jefferson famously edited the New Testament to remove all references to Jesus as a divine miracle worker and render him merely a moral philosopher). The position of these Founding Fathers was far from any orthodox theology of divine immanence.
Further, the idea that the United States could be a “Christian nation” is theologically problematic. The only “Christian nation” which the New Testament envisions is the Kingdom of God, which transcends national, cultural, and ethnic boundaries. Were the United States to be a “Christian nation,” she would have to do more than celebrate Christmas as a federal holiday and display the Ten Commandments in her courthouses. If she were held to the same standards to which the New Testament holds the Christian community, the United States would have to embody Christian principles, including the mandate to love one’s enemy, eschew power, put away the sword, give freely without any expectation of repayment, and – because she is very rich – sell all her material possessions, donate the proceeds to the poor, then take up a cross of discipleship. The consumerism and materialism which characterize so much of the American ethos – Jefferson’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was a modification of John Locke’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property,” and indeed most versions of the American Dream equate property with happiness – seem to be at odds with most versions of core Christian values. In short, the United States is not a “Christian nation,” and simply displaying representations of the Ten Commandments in public locations does not change this reality.
Hi Tasi, I enjoyed reading this and sense echos of your Duke Divinity School education, particularly in Part 2!
A small quibble to mention — you may want to check out some of the arguments and citations from the Christian Nation folk (as well as other historians and sources) regarding Founding Fathers regarding religion.
Alas, I can’t dig up the references for you right now, but I’m fairly sure that Washington, John and Sam Adams, and many of the other Founding Fathers were explicitly Christian or extollers of the Christian Faith who also drew from other explicit Christians or extollers of Christianity such as Locke, other European philosophers, and the Puritans.
Jefferson and Paine were definitely deists by all accounts I’m aware of (Paine was even acidly anti-religious) but from what I remember from my history courses and independent reading, labeling the Founding Fathers exclusively or primarily “Deists” is as much if not more of a distortion than saying they were all “Christians.”
Of course, that many of the Founding Fathers were Christians does not in itself mean the U.S. is a “Christian Nation,” especially depending on what is meant by this term.
Religio et Eruditio,
Ben
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the wonderful feedback. From the research I have been able to do, it seems that Washington, as well as John Adams and even the Presbyterian minister James Madison were confessionally Christian but still influenced by deism to a certain degree. Others, such as Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin were more explicitly deist. Deism was not so much an institutional religion, so you are very correct that it is difficult to label someone a “dyed-in-the wool Deist.” I tried to qualify my comment with the phrase, “or at least influenced by deist philosophy,” but in rereading the article I see that my claim was still overly ambitious.
The larger issue, whether people like Locke, whom you point out was a “specific extoller of the Christian faith,” begs the question of the compatibility of Enlightenment values (in the sense that Locke defined and appropriated them) with biblical Christianity. That is beyond the purview of this article, save my question about the Creator-endowed inalienable right to property.
Thanks for the heads-up and the insightful comments!
Bingo, Tasi. I can’t even WAIT to read Part 2, which I will also undoubtedly comment upon in the positive.
Thanks, Tim!
I don’t think I really care whether Christian symbols get displayed in public/governmental places, but if I was looking for such a Christian symbol, the 10 Commandments tablets would not be it. What’s so exclusively Christian about honor God, don’t kill, steal, lie, etc.? I suppose if the Decalogue included the prologue (“I am the LORD, your God who brought you out of Egypt, therefore…”) that would qualify it as a Jewish symbol and put it on the way to being a Christian one, but as a-contextually understood (as I imagine most understand it in a courtroom display), the Decalogue is the kind of good “deist” dogma even the least Christian of our founders could have embraced and did.
More important to me than negotiating the church-state stuff is combating the supposition that the Decalogue is an any context the most appropriate symbol for Christianity. Only a sub-Christian legalist could think otherwise–the law came through Moses, grace and truth Jesus Christ! I am not an expert on Christian iconography, but I don’t think the ancients were known for adorning the wall of the catacombs with the 10 Commandments.
How about raising a great big crucifix on the lawn of the county courthouse, making Mr. Jefferson roll in the grave, and giving folks still above ground a better reason for debate?
Thanks, Ben, for your comments. Many of those who consider the Decalogue to be not ten commandments but rather eleven statements do include “I am the LORD your God…” as the first, and that certainly is the context for the rest of the Decalogue. Still, your point is well taken that the Ten Commandments are the central confessions of neither Judaism (for which Deuteronomy 6:4-9 plays a crucial role) nor Christianity (where the Sermon on the Mount sets ethical and relational norms). To that extent, I agree with you that the issue itself is much ado about very little of substance. My objection is to the justification and rhetoric which supporters of the displays use. Thanks again!
Wow ~ powerful as ever.
I am too more moved by actions of Christians rather than the display of words, jewlery or symbols of the faith. Sometimes these simply tend to draw a “bulls eye” on the Christian if they waver from the preseved Christian perspective.
Will be looking forward to the “rest of the story”.
Best wishes
I am in fact glad to glance at this blog posts which
contains lots of helpful facts, thanks for providing such data.