|
|
|
Become a
Paid Mullings Subscriber!
(To join the FREE mailing list or to unsubscribe Click Here
Thou Shalt Not Confuse
Rich Galen Wednesday June 29, 2005
On Monday the US Supreme Court ruled on a number of issues - few of which have been vexing me personally. Two of the rulings dealt with the Ten Commandments. Or more specifically when they shalt not be exhibited.
The shorthand of the two rulings are: Generally no in courtrooms. Yes on the Statehouse grounds in Austin, Texas. The Supremes have said that there are places and times for religion in American public life and for most of us that is not everywhere nor all the time.
Although courtroom case on which the Supremes ruled was based on a suit filed by the ACLU in Kentucky, in 2003 the big deal was a massive Ten Commandments display inside a courthouse in Alabama.
As usual, Mullings was way, WAY ahead of almost everyone else on this issue. In August, 2003 - that's 2003 - I covered the subject thus:
As regular readers know, I am neither a theologian nor an attorney. I do, however, try to meet the "reasonable man test" whenever possible.
Like most things in our lives, the issue of whether demonstrating one's religious preferences is a permissible activity comes down to a matter of degree.
A woman wearing a Cross (or a Muslim Crescent or a Star of David) as a necklace; or a man wearing a similar device as a lapel pin should not, in any reasonable circumstance, be a prohibited activity.
I am writing, here, of a typical insignia - maybe an inch in size.
However, if you were going into a conference with a client and one of your colleagues came in carrying a six foot cross as a demonstration of his religious beliefs you might, somewhere between getting out of the cab and getting into the elevator, make the most gentle mention of whether carrying actual lumber into a meeting was perfectly appropriate.
If I am not concerned about the lapel pin, why should I be distressed at the sight of my colleague leaning his interlocked timber up against the wall?
Obviously, most of us have no trouble seeing a difference.
Let's look at the other side of this.
The Old Testament is used as basic religious text by Jews and Christians but not Muslims. The New Testament is recognized by Christians but not Jews or Muslims. The Koran is recognized by Muslims but not Jews or Christians.
According to Minnesota State University, there are six major religions in the world: Animism, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Animism, according to encyclopedia.com is the "belief in personalized, supernatural beings (or souls) that often inhabit ordinary animals and objects, governing their existence."
What if a judge in - to throw a dart at a map and randomly pick a place - San Francisco, were a devout Animist. No problem there. Who would know and who would care?
But, if he installed a two-ton statue of a goat with a proper (to Animists) inscription (thereby flying in the face of the "no other God" and the "no graven images" Commandments of the Judeo-Christian culture) there are many - including me - who would find this expression of one judge's religious beliefs, intimidating and inappropriate.
Add to that, in a courtroom - assuming it is a criminal case - the defendant doesn't have much choice in sitting there looking at, or thinking about, the goat. No one HAS to go down Congress Street in Austin and look at the Texas State Capitol grounds.
Newt Gingrich, in his book "Winning the Future" included an appendix titled: Our Creator in the Capital: A Walking Tour of God in Washington, D.C." which is available on his website at Newt.org.
In looking for a brief explanation of Animism, Google led me to "animism.com." Guess what? I got switched to a page which stated "animism.com is for sale."
Is nothing sacred?
On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: Links to the Minnesota State University discussion of the world's major religions, a link to the Wikipedia site's discussion of Animism, and a link to Newt's tour of Washington. Also a Mullfoto and a Catchy Caption of the Day.
--END --
Copyright © 2005 Richard A. Galen
Current Issue |
Secret Decoder
Ring | Past
Issues | Email
Rich | Rich
Who?
Copyright �2002 Richard
A. Galen | Site design by Campaign
Solutions. | |
|
� 
