I'm a values evangelical

Noah Feldman's proposed church-state solution is no solution at all. [NYT]

Feldman, an NYU law professor and author of a recent book on the separation of church and state.
In his New York Times essay he tries to stake out a middle ground, but he mischaracterizes both sides of the debate in order to position himself between them.

He claims that two camps dominate the church-state debate in American life: values evangelicals and legal secularists.

One school of thought contends that the right answers to questions of government policy must come from the wisdom of religious tradition. You might call those who insist on the direct relevance of religious values to political life ''values evangelicals.'' Not every values evangelical is, technically speaking, an evangelical or a born-again Christian, although many are. Values evangelicals include Jews, Catholics, Muslims and even people who do not focus on a particular religious tradition but care primarily about identifying traditional moral values that can in theory be shared by everyone.

Allegedly, values evangelicals are locked in mortal combat with the forces of legal secularism:

On the other side of the debate are those who see religion as a matter of personal belief and choice largely irrelevant to government and who are concerned that values derived from religion will divide us, not unite us. You might call those who hold this view ''legal secularists,'' not because they are necessarily strongly secular in their personal worldviews -- though many are -- but because they argue that government should be secular and that the laws should make it so.

Feldman gives us a vacuous definition of VE so that he can ostentatiously pluck nuggets of wisdom from both sides:

Despite the gravity of the problem, I believe there is an answer. Put simply, it is this: offer greater latitude for religious speech and symbols in public debate, but also impose a stricter ban on state financing of religious institutions and activities.

According to Feldman, VE is independent of sectarian affiliation and, it would appear, from religious faith. He sets the bar is set so low that almost every non-anarchist, non-relativist is a Feldmanian values evangelical. Apparently, if you believe the American Republic should facilitate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you're a values evangelical, too. You don't have to believe in God or belong to a church, you just have to think that there are some moral values that are universally acceptable.

Feldman argues that schools, courthouses, legislatures, and other public institutions should be allowed to display sectarian artifacts as long as they don't spend any public money on them.

His proposal ignores the fundamental point of contention. Ultimately, it doesn't matter who pays for a 10 Commanments statue or its upkeep. The issue is whether a public institution officially authorizes such a monument for display. It's disingenuous to argue that publicly displaying a monument isn't an endorsement. Shown below are former Alabama Justice Roy Moore's 5,300 pound Commandment colossus and the 6-foot obelisk looming outside the Texas state capital.

Compare these to the Supreme Court frieze in which Moses is depicted alongside Solon and Confucius as an important figure in legal history:

Feldman argues that religious monuments foster social unity by representing shared "traditional values." If that's really the issue, why not evoke those values directly rather than borrowing from imagery of a particular religion.

Justice Antonin Scalia and others have argued that 10 commandments modules don't violate the Establishment Clause because they don't actually endorse any particular religion. In his view, these statues are generic monuments to theism, generic divine essence, values, or something equally generic.

It's ridiculous to argue that 10 Commandments monuments symbolize universal moral values as such.
Some of the Commandments express universalisable principles (no murder, no theft, no perjury). Others are parochial requirements an ancient sect (no blasphemy, no work on the sabbath). Rules 1 and 2 would directly contradict the Establishment Clause if anyone actually tried to legislate them (no other gods, no graven images).

Commandment monuments evoke an extremely cliquish chapter of monotheistic mythology--that time when the God of Abraham handed down the one and only moral Law to the leader of a small nomadic tribe.

Christians who put 10 Commandments monuments in court houses and legislatures are like street gangs tagging their territory. Intimidation is intimidation, no matter who pays for the spray paint.

Comments

[Doug]

I agree with everything you said.

[Satan luvvs Repugs]

Your remark about "tagging" is spot-on.

One of the repug moronoscenti has been trying to withhold funding for federal marshals that remove 10C monuments from federal property.

Well, maybe the "who buys the spray paint" can work in reverse: auction off the 10C monuments. You buy it, you remove it, it's yours.

If a local church wants it, great. If a national atheists org wants to buy it for demolition, fine. If some artist wants a monument to smear with feces and blood and display in a gallery? Well, maybe someone can outbid them.

Too bad the christian taliban would never let it happen.

[The Continental Op]

"Justice Antonin Scalia and others have argued that 10 commandments modules don't violate the Establishment Clause because they don't actually endorse any particular religion."

A perfect example of Scalia's nonsense (I'm trying to keep it clean). In fact, the Ten Commandments as posted by Judge Moore, at the Texas capital, in the Kentucky courthouses, and elsewhere each specifically endorse a particular religion. Surely Justice Scalia is aware (as I believe the fact was mentioned during oral arguments) that Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Jews recognize different versions of the Decalogue. Though the differences may seem trivial to us nonbelievers, they most assuredly are not to those who take their religion seriously. By posting one particular version of the Ten Commandments -- I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess it is the Protestant one in almost every case -- the state is indeed endorsing that particular sectarian creed.

[Trystero]

I'm always surprised in these situations that there isn't more discussion of the possibility of *other* monuments. In other words, I would like to see the question asked "Well, if he can install a 10 Commandments monument, can I install a monument containing passages from the Book of Mormon? How about some passages from Dianetics?"

I realize this may be an untenable position for those of us who would also enjoy a little freedom *from* religion, but I would so like to see the look of dawning realization on the faces of ardent TC monument supporters. Of course, much more likely would be sputtering protestations about how "it's not the same", but one can dream.

(Given the frequent references to "our" Judeo-Christian heritage, I think "dawning realization" would be quite rare. And nice one, guys, for including a people who faced serious bigotry in this country at least until the 1940s, just so you can say "see--we're open to *all kinds* of religious traditions." Especially ones that share the SAME FREAKING BOOK!)

[stork]

I believe in a strict separation of church and state simply because the founding fathers intended the United States to be a commercial nation, not a religious one.

With that said, I think your argument against state endorsement of religion by virtue of monument is hollow. Would "Pisschrist", because it was government funded, be an endorsement of anti-religion? Would a public school library that has Nietzche's Anti-Christ be a state endorsement of anti-religion? If you want true separation of church and state, then any work or monument funded or purchased by the state has to go. Get rid of the ten commandments monument, yes, but also get rid of Nietzche, the Communist Manifesto, or any other work that disparages religion as well.

[stork]

I think though, we need to have a special exception for copyrights and religious teachings. No religious text should be allowed to be copyrighted. Or, more particularly, any institution that claims a tax exempt status should also not be allowed to hold copyrights or intellectual property of any kind.

[khr]

"no work on the sabbath"

This is more of a labour law than a religious one, and, arguably, could be part of an universal ethics

[R. Mildred]

Isn't a much more important point about the 10C monuments that they are inherently blasphemous, or does worshipping graven idols not class as blasphemous in the relativistic world of evangelical faith?

[ol cranky]

Actually, in the most recent cases, both Scalia and Rehnquist argued that the displays not only are inherently religious but that they also represent the promotion of a religious message. Then Rehnquist went on to say this does not violate the establishment clause.

To be honest, Scalia should continue recusing himself from separation of church & state issues because he has made public (non judicial) comments that he personally believes the country could (and should) mandate Christianity as a state religion due to his understanding that the first amendment only prevents the country from establishing a specific denomination as the endorsed state religion.

I think the real reason Breyer OK's the Texas monument was due to the fact it was not originally place there to promote religion, but to promote a movie (these monuments were given to communities to promote the movie the Ten Commandments) and, possibly, because it's not a literal representation of any particular bible

[Alon Levy]

Italics off.

[Barbara]

I skimmed the article and found it, ahem, wanting.

These monuments, like valedictorian school prayer, Christmas nativity displays and the like, play one role in their communities: assertion of cultural supremacy by a group that thinks equality is tantamount to persecution. Been on top too long. Don't like being "replaced" or even the possibility of having to share . . .Just a replay of the civil rights movement in Biblical overtones. The shaman must be placated. I lived in the South for too long.

[Herbert Browne]

If there are people/ groups who want the ten commandments memorialized, fine... just let it be done in the original (Aramaic?) text- NO Translation, please. There you'd have it- truth in representation- free of the spin supplied by the cultural filters through which the 10C have passed, over time. (And i feel tht the same treatment should be accorded Hammurabi's Code, etc) ^..^

[Herbert Browne]

If there are people/ groups who want the ten commandments memorialized, fine... just let it be done in the original (Aramaic?) text- NO Translation, please. There you'd have it- truth in representation- free of the spin supplied by the cultural filters through which the 10C have passed, over time. (And i feel tht the same treatment should be accorded Hammurabi's Code, etc) ^..^

[Herbert Browne]

If there are people/ groups who want the ten commandments memorialized, fine... just let it be done in the original (Aramaic?) text- NO Translation, please. There you'd have it- truth in representation- free of the spin supplied by the cultural filters through which the 10C have passed, over time. (And i feel tht the same treatment should be accorded Hammurabi's Code, etc) ^..^

[Herbert Browne]

If there are people/ groups who want the ten commandments memorialized, fine... just let it be done in the original (Aramaic?) text- NO Translation, please. There you'd have it- truth in representation- free of the spin supplied by the cultural filters through which the 10C have passed, over time. (And i feel tht the same treatment should be accorded Hammurabi's Code, etc) ^..^

[Markg]

The christian right, VE's in Feldman's euphemistic language, don't want my child to pray in school because they think it's good for him or for the country, but because they want to jam their values down my throat.
As for the 10 commandments, since when is Moses a historical figure or the comandments an actual historical document? Anybody got any proof?

[Thad]

Italics off.

Sadly no.

When someone leaves them open, you usually have to include multiple closing tags to get this to work.

[Thad]

Goddammit. Even that didn't work. Ol Cranky, what did you do?

[Thad]

Okay, I took the liberty of hacking Ol Cranky's post to turn off the italics.

[For the record, he had "</a>" instead of ""</i>" at the end of his post -- for some reason, that made it impossible to subsequently close the italics tag.]

[C.J.Colucci]

Why would anyone think that the Values Evangelicals might accept a proposal from someone named Noah Feldman, who teaches at New York University?

[stork]

If you guys want to remove every religious work from public spaces because they offend you, that is fine, but let us also remove all anti-religious works from public schools and libraries as well. No Nietzche. No Marx. No Napoleonic writings that condemn the pope. Anything that insults any religious should go, as, after all, the government should be entirely neutral on any matter of religious debate. And certainly any NPR discussion about religion should be defunded.

If consumers want to pay for their own religious material, fine, but don't foist any view, pro, or against, on anyone.

If you lefties are on board with that, then that is fine. Otherwise, you are just as much a Taliban of the left as you decry the right, japanese car driving frauds.

[Josh Umar]

Actually, I drive an oldsmobile.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Stork, you're attacking a straw man. Nobody is suggesting that we tear down the Supreme Court friezes or remove religious artwork from public galleries. Of course publicly-funded artists should be allowed to make pro- or anti-religious art. I don't even care that much about nativity scenes and other holiday decorations in public buildings. It's not in the best taste, in my opinion, but it's not in the same league as a 6-foot concrete obelisk looming over everyone who enters a state capital.

The issue is whether it is appropriate for a courthouse or a legislature to install a monument to one religion or to mandate any kind of religious observance.

[m]

Did Scalia provide grounds for eventual impeachment when he said that non-monotheists could be disregarded?

[Dan the Man]

Did Scalia provide grounds for eventual impeachment when he said that non-monotheists could be disregarded?

Well, at least that gives me a good excuse to ignore Mormons. Antonin Scalia told me so!