Ten Commandments Up All Over A Public School

It is 2013. Am I stupid or just blindly optimistic for being surprised that a US public school has the Ten Commandments up everywhere?

Because there is such a school. Until May 15 of this year, which is 2013, they had the Ten Commandments posted in multiple places throughout the building. This is a public high school in Muldrow, Oklahoma, by the way, and you can read more about it here.

But, basically, they were threatened with a lawsuit after an anonymous student filed a complaint. The school relented, because I guess that they were aware that they were clearly in flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Members of the community complained that this was somehow persecution. The usual stuff that comes up with these things. Let me just clarify a few things:

The Ten Commandments are an integral part of religious doctrine for most Jews and Christians. They are found in the Torah (the first five books of what Christianity refers to as the Old Testament). These religious laws were, according to the narrative in Exodus, passed down to the Isrealites through Moses by their God, Yahweh.

The US government and its institutions cannot endorse any particular religion or establish an official religion. Which means that posting a set of religious laws is Unconstitutional. These laws are not only decidedly religious in origin, but they actively exclude American citizens of other faiths.

 

Let’s just break these things down:

1 – “You shall have no other gods before me.” This is, quite possibly, the most offensive and non-secular law within the Decalogue. It makes sense as a law within the Abrahamic faiths—it does not make sense as something in a public school where a student who, privately or publicly, is not a part of that faith will have to see it (outside of the context of someone’s school project or actual religious scholarship) hanging on the wall. In particular, many people within the US and elsewhere on the globe, are polytheists. We are exactly the sorts of people and are members of exactly the sort of faiths that the First Commandment is opposing. This should never be displayed on a public building in a way that suggests that I am unwelcome in the country of my birth.

2 – The second one is a little wordy. But this is the one about no graven images—no idols. Well, a lot of faiths use idols in their religious practices and many adherents possess these images out of devotion. A lot of overlap with the first one as to why this is offensive.

3 – Don’t take the name of the Abrahamic God in vain. That’s a specific restriction on members of that religion. Irrelevant to everyone else.

4 – This one is about the Sabbath. Not working on the Sabbath. Not bound by that restriction. I have done a great deal of work on both Saturday and Sunday, including going to my place of employment, homework, housework, yardwork, writing. Another specific restriction for the Judeo-Christian community.

5 – “Honor your father and your mother.” Well, not everyone has parents worth honoring. My father happens to be an awful person. While this one is not always good advice and while it is religious in origin, this one is not nearly as offensive as the first two.

6 – “Do not murder.” Well, yeah. Even if you believe that some people absolutely need killing, US law (and most laws) outlaw killing people under most circumstances.

7 – “Do not commit adultery.” Ridiculous. Even if interpreted by a narrow interpretation (“if you’re married, be monoamorous”), no government institution has a right to tell you anything of the sort. More widely interpreted, it’s a statement against not only extramarital sex, but premarital sex. Aww hell naw.

8 – “Do not steal.” Agreed! Inappropriate on a school’s wall because it, you know, is a religious doctrine, but in a vacuum, I have no problem with this rule.

9 – This one is about bearing false witness against your neighbor. I’m fine with this rule.

10 – The tenth one is really weird. This is the one about coveting your neighbor’s “possessions” (including livestock, servants, and wife—who does not seem to count as a neighbor). This one draws more of a “what the hell” response than the kind of moral outrage that some of the earlier ones elicit. (Though I should note that some people interpret this as a law against “mental crimes” of envy, while it is also argued that the original translation makes this a law against theft—specifically from your neighbor, which seems a little redundant with number eight)

 

The Ten Commandments are not and can never be secular symbols. They are not and can never be anything but a set of religious laws for a set of religious adherents. Hanging them up throughout the year (again, as opposed to displaying them as a part of a student’s classwork, such as a report on Judaism or Christianity or something along those lines) is absolutely an endorsement of particular religions over others. Unacceptable for any religion—mine included.

I think that it is fair to speculate that many of the people protesting the removal of the Ten Commandments would also protest the installation of, say, religious laws from the Qur’an. They would also protest a sign that began with “There is no God.”

Those two examples are how the Ten Commandments look to the rest of us.



You Might Also Like ...

My State Almost Tried To Ignore The Constitution

I live in North Carolina. That’s the United States east coast. My state has the Biltmore in the beautiful mountains to the west, Charlotte with major banking institutions in the southwest, well-known excellent hospitals and a major hub of technology businesses in Research Triangle Park, and our coastline in the east has beaches, a warm ocean, and the North Carolina sound is known for both Blackbeard’s activities and Roanoke Island (where an early colony vanished, leaving the word: “Croatoan” as the only clue regarding their disappearance). Large portions of The Hunger Games and Iron Man 3 were filmed here.

So, I like my state. Did we join with the bad guys* during the Civil War? Yes. Were we the home state of one of the worst US Senators in living memory, the late Jesse Helms? Unfortunately, yes. BUT for most of my life, we’ve had a Democratic governor. In 2008, North Carolina turned blue and voted to elect President Obama. We have a good education system and some wonderful universities (including Duke, of course—I did not go there for college, but I participated in some wonderful Duke programs in my early teens).

So, when I say that my state’s behavior on the governmental level since 2010 has been scary and out-of-character, I mean it. I cringe when my state is mentioned on The Daily Show because it used to be that we would get mentioned on the news because a hurricane had devastated our east coast or because of a record-setting outbreak of tornadoes in Raleigh in April 2011 that had meteorologists from all over the country in a tizzy.

Now, in 2010, as happened all over the country, a wave of scary, fringe-right Republicans (and I do mean fringe-right) came into office. In spring of 2012, there was a vote and Amendment One passed—strictly defining marriage between one man and one woman as the only legally recognized domestic union in the state. Politicians from both sides of the aisle argued fiercely against it, but it passed. For the record, the parts of the state with universities in them? They voted against Amendment One. As seen in the map below.

The counties in which I have lived and a county in which I intend to live? All voted against Amendment One. The state’s urban areas all fell under this category. But, like the rest of the world, North Carolina is getting better with time.

That said, we got a little scare as the speaker of our (currently terrifying) state house of representatives put forward but then buried (after a few days of embarrassing national media attention) a bill which would have attempted to render North Carolina exempt from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Stupid, right? The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution is there for a reason. And the First Amendment is . . . I mean, really important. You can read more about that story here.

It kind of gets worse, though. Spurred by interest in the topic, a poll found that one-third of those Americans who participated (hopefully they oversampled some demographic, because that is just too high a fraction) would favor making Christianity the official religion in their home states. It also found that one-third would favor making Christianity the official religion of the United States.

One. Third. Of Americans.

Guys, that’s terrifying. I don’t even want my religion as the official faith of my state or country, much less someone else’s.

Honestly, I was more comfortable when it was just a few state representatives in my state acting up while they’re still in power. Embarrassing, sure, but just a bump in the road of progress.

One-Third of Americans want an official** state religion. If that’s true, I don’t even know what to do about that. It’s scary.

 

*Guys, Lincoln and the Union weren’t perfect, but let’s not ever pretend that the good guys/bad guys line is not obvious. I don’t like the states having the power to set different ages of consent or requirements for a driver’s license, and you can disagree with me if you like. But the Confederacy was fighting for the rights of the states to own human beings because of their race. Those are called the bad guys. And I say “we,” because it’s not like I’m from NC because my parents happened to move here. My maternal grandfather’s grandmother remembered the Civil War, including the parts about her family’s slaves. Which they owned in some numbers, apparently. That makes me all kinds of uncomfortable.

**Talk about official state religions is a great time to use the “Muslim Test.” When conservative Christian politicians try to draft legislation to let prayers be said over a loudspeaker at a public school sportsball game or something like that, just see how they would respond to their own idea if it were in the form of Muslim prayer. As an outsider, I don’t see much of a difference between the idea of living in an officially Christian nation or an officially Muslim nation, but the sorts of people who draft this kind of legislation tend to see a huge difference.



You Might Also Like ...

Tweeters Taking on Facebook … Over Women’s Rights?

Graphic of Facebook and Twitter Duking it Out
Social networking is, whether we like it or not, a part of life.

The fact that things come up on the interwebs that are just morally repugnant … well, I’ve always written it off as kind of a necessary evil, a sort of “let’s laugh at the ignorant” kind of thing.

There’s a contingency on Tweeter, however, that seems to be taking matters into their own hands.

From Women’s ENews:

Thousands of people across the globe are joining a Twitter campaign asking Facebook to remove pages that promote rape and sexual assault, Change.org said in a Nov 3 press statement. The social media action is part of an ongoing campaign on Change.org with more than 180,000 supporters. People are locating offensive Facebook pages and tweeting them with the hashtag #notfunnyfacebook to pressure Facebook to remove pages that violate the company’s terms of service. One such page title reads, “What’s 10 inches and gets girls to have sex with me? My knife.”

While I have a kneejerk reaction to jump on this bandwagon (after all, I can see myself contemplating joining a group called, say, “Herman Cain is a Sexual Predator” or something), I have some obvious reservations.

The most significant concern this raises for me is, ironically, the Constitutional right to express your beliefs, an argument more commonly espoused by the radical right as it fits their needs.

Do you sound like a freaking moron if you, as a much-maligned high school principal did last year, join a Facebook group entitled “Dear Lord, This Year You Took My Favorite Actor, Patrick Swazie (sic). You Took My Favorite Actress Farah (sic) Fawcett. You Took My Favorite Singer, Michael Jackson. I Just Wanted to Let You Know, My Favorite President is Barack Obama. Amen”?

Absolutely.

Does the First Amendment allow you the legal freedom to show your ignorance, bigotry, and blatant disrespect?

Um … yes.

The fact is, there are Facebook pages that promote all sorts of horrible things, from pedophilia to violence against women to trash-talking the size of your ex’s penis (I wish I was joking on that one, and no, I’m not a member) to how to set up a casual hook-up.

Oh, and, uh … Twitter’s not exactly immune from this sort of thing itself, as Anthony Wiener could tell you.

I’m clearly a loser … Facebook pages I belong to are generally based in literature or Star Wars. (And, to be completely upfront, I have a Twitter, too, which I love as it offers far more anonymity than Facebook)

That being said, the nature of my profession necessitates that I hold much of my personal life back in the social networking world.  Even if I—as Katie Loud the human being, not the schoolteacher currently teaching your kids allegory through George Orwell’s Animal Farm—wanted to join an anti-Herman Cain Facebook page, I wouldn’t.

It’s a matter of respect.

So while I find a lot of these pages pretty hard to take, I pretty much keep myself to myself in terms of the me that exists on Facebook.  Even if I were not in a profession held to a higher standard than most, I would make a moral, personal choice to not be mean … that’s just not who I am.

Others certainly have the right to feel differently, and I’m glad that the Twitterphiles are speaking out about their concerns.  I even agree with the moral bottom line of their argument.

I am bothered by their choice to focus on sexual assault pages on Facebook to spearhead their attack.  I am very vocal on my feelings about sexual assault, but I’m also bothered when it’s used as a rallying cry to make a point that I’m not sure I agree with.

What are your thoughts on this one?



You Might Also Like ...

Crisis Pregnancy Centers On the Radar in San Francisco

Photo of Pregnancy Test
It’s always sunny in San Francisco!

Now, I’m not being as flip about the significance of the abortion debate, I’m really not.  If you’re anti-choice, that’s your prerogative, and I totally respect that.  To you, in fact, the news out of Frisco is probably not something to be happy about.

Still, in times of such bizarre political upheaval, it’s kind of refreshing to see a law … well, you know, upheld.  The city’s Board of Supervisors passed a 10-1 reaffirmation last week on a proposal that “would bar pregnancy crisis centers from engaging in false or misleading advertising practices.”

In other words, crisis pregnancy centers will be legally required to put their cards on the table in terms of the degree of services they provide.

From SF Gate:

The legislation targets centers that oppose abortion, and the idea is to assure that women with unplanned pregnancies don’t seek counseling there with the expectation that they’ll be provided a …

Continue reading



You Might Also Like ...