©2002 Ed Buckner, Council for Secular Humanism, www.secularhumanism.org
The answer to questions like these is based on a simple notion that, at times, we can all have trouble remembering. And it does not depend on whether one group or another is “tiny” or even in the minority. As Jefferson wrote, “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.). Only two concepts are relevant in these cases: 1.) U.S. citizens are not unanimous in their views on religion (and the differences are important ones) and 2.) Neither the majority nor any government acting on behalf of the majority has any right to make any religious decisions for any citizens. If a fundamentalist questioner can be persuaded of the truth of these two ideas, then it follows as a matter of straightforward logic that governmental neutrality regarding religion is necessary and desirable, as much for any Christian as for any non-Christian.
Posting a religious or anti-religious document is and assuredly should be every citizen’s right, and it is a right that is nowhere in the U.S. under any serious threat from government or the courts. But asking the government to post similar documents in a way that suggests that the government endorses the religious ideas included in the document is a direct threat to the same individual religious liberty. And of course it is not just “posting” that is a concern here; the 5,300-pound granite Ten Commandments monument that Judge Roy Moore had to sneak into the Alabama state judicial building under cover of darkness is an even more obvious example of what should not be tolerated (as the federal courts have now correctly ruled).
And it is nonsense to argue, as some have, that if the government does not directly pay for printing or engraving or framing a document like the Ten Commandments (whichever version is used), then posting it is acceptable.
For any public school teacher who reads this—or anyone else who gets involved directly in the struggle over using the Ten Commandments in any way in a public school—I strongly recommend getting a copy of The Decalogue: Bible Scholarship for Use Today. This comb-bound book by Brant Abrahamson and Frederic C. Smith is right on target, with thoughtful, scholarly discussions of the different versions of the Ten Commandments, the development of “The Golden Rule,” comparisons of ancient and modern history-writing, suggested activities, and more information for teachers as background. Probably few fundamentalists would accept using this in the schools, but that is part of the point. The book is scrupulously respectful of diverse views and, if it was actually used by a classroom teacher, should satisfy believers and secular humanists alike. You can order a copy (duplicatable) for $2.50 ($1.50 each for three or more) postpaid from The Teachers’ Press, 3731 Madison Ave., Brookfield IL 60513. For more details, call 708-485-5983 or see their web-site: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/tchpr.
To any Ohioan who asserts that the state slogan banned by a federal court a few years back is “neutral,” ask if the opposite wording would ever be acceptable as a slogan for the state: “Belief in God is irrelevant to accomplishing anything” or “Nothing fails like prayer” or “With God, no more is possible than without God.” To any Kentuckian or Alabaman who asserts that posting the Ten Commandments in all the schools or in the judicial building is acceptable, ask if posting one of the Humanist Manifestos (at the expense of, say, the Council for Secular Humanism) would be acceptable? If the reply is that such a slogan or manifesto would offend most Ohioans or Kentuckians or Alabamans instead of just a few secular humanists, ask if a majority of voters did become secular humanists, would that make one of these acceptable? It is crucial that, as secular humanists, we understand that not all Christians are our opponents on church/state separation. It was a Presbyterian minister in fact who brought the suit, with plenty of help from the ACLU, that resulted in the court decision on Ohio’s slogan. It should be stressed that offending a few thin-skinned atheists is not the problem with an official religious slogan; the problem is that if the majority has the right to endorse any religious (or anti-religious) idea, then a later majority will have the right to endorse some other different or even opposite view. All of us (secular humanists, Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc.) are either in some way now in the minority about religion or could easily be in the future. The important thing is not who is offended or who has the votes—the important thing is to protect religious liberty.
Rob Boston. Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State, Prometheus Books, 1993.
Edward M. Buckner and Michael E. Buckner, editors. Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church, 2nd edition, Freethought Press (Atlanta Freethought Society), 1995. (Still in print and available from AFS, by the way.)
Copyright notice: The copyright for the contents of this web site rests with the Council for Secular Humanism. You may download and read the documents. Without permission, you may not alter this information, repost it, or sell it. If you use a document, you are encouraged to make a donation to the Council for Secular Humanism.
CFI SUMMIT
OCTOBER 24-27 2013
TACOMA, WASHINGTON
Joint Conference of the Council for Secular Humanism, Center for Inquiry, and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry
The transnational secular humanist magazine
Renew your FREE INQUIRY subscription