One of the great facets of the blogosphere is having the marvelous opportunity to converse with and to learn from others who we may have not come in contact with otherwise. In response to my recent post Coming to Your Local Courthouse, Tao Te Lex offers the opinion that the 10 Commandments might be viewed as an historical document rather than merely a religious one.
I will be the first to admit that this is an interesting point and one that I had not considered previously. After mulling it over in my brain (I tried to leave my mind out of the discussion as much as possible), I arrived at the question of what is religious and what is historical?
From my perspective, it would initially seem very difficult to separate the two. Any religious document that hails from the past would appear to be both religious AND historical. It’s religious because it expresses a viewpoint from a particular belief-based perspective. It could concurrently be viewed as historical because it originated in the past and it provides the evidence or source for a fact and/or something that occurred.
The problem with viewing the 10 Commandments as purely historical is that one must subscribe to the Judeo-Christian perspective in order to agree that it does indeed provide the evidence or source of a KNOWN fact.
From the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, the 10 Commandments were written by God himself onto stone tablets and presented to the people by Moses. IF God – as perceived by Jews & Christians – was a verifiable fact, then I think almost anyone would agree that the 10 Commandments were indeed historical.
But the God of the Judeo-Christian religions is NOT a proven fact. Many other religions view the Almighty in vastly different ways. Taoists don’t accept the notion of a personal god at all – for us the ultimate reality is beyond human comprehension and the bare hints of it are found in ourselves and everything else.
Consequently, if the entity that allegedly authored the document in question is ITSELF in question, it makes it next to impossible to accept a religious instrument as a historical document. If one doesn’t believe in God or in the Judeo-Christian version of God, then the very premise of the creation of the document itself would be viewed as inauthentic.
Since there is no religious document that I know of that is accepted as authentic by all people, we then find ourselves left with one of two options: either ALL religious documents are historical or none of them are.
Harkening back to the discussion of religious documents being showcased in public buildings, either ALL religious documents should be afforded this opportunity or none of them should.
Trey, thanks for considering and posting my reply about the courthouse dilemma. By saying the text of the 10 Commandments can be viewed as historical, I did not mean the original stone tablets. Whether scratched by the finger of God, recorded by Moses or written by some scribe, the text is indeed historic and at least 2500 years old. I don't think any revisionist would seriously question its existence and would allow at least that much history. Calling the 10 Commandments historical does not in any way imply the factuality of the Judeo-Christian deity nor force adoption of the Judeo-Christian worldview. From a secular point of view, the document exists and is imbedded in the past. That certain people assign religious significance to it or make unusual claims of its origin are also a matter of recorded (and current) history, but that doesn't change the fact of the text's existence or its content.
ReplyDeleteIn my reply to your post I was trying to be more specific by meaning just the role the text of the 10 Commandments played in the Founding Fathers' efforts while framing the laws of our new country. That the text 10 Commandments and some of the principles in it - among other documents as you pointed out - was used as a starting point, a foundation, for US law. As such, the text of the 10 Commandments have a place in US history and should not be hidden, censored or erased from the public mind just because it has religious significance for some people.
That said, I agree with you in that any display of historical or influential documents be broad, fair and all-inclusive. I presume the purpose of such a display is to educate and remind our citizens of our legal history. Now should, for instance, a document or artifact representing the Iroquoi Confederation have religious significance to the Native Americans, but yet that specific document or artifact played an actual role by influencing the Founding Fathers' thought, it should not be kept from its valid place in history merely because another group of citizens doesn't hold the religious worldview of the Iroquois. Displaying the Iroquois document or artifact does not force conversion or infringe rights, it's merely an accurate historical representation of an influence that led to the writing of our country's laws.
What I propose is this: that things remain as they are for the time being. Those courthouses that have the text of the 10 Commandments keep it and those that don't, don't add it (or any other documents). The Supreme Court appoint a group of investigative historians to uncover the documents, artifacts and events that were most influential to the Founding Fathers - with the goal of being historically accurate, with no yielding to political correctness or religious pressure. If the text of the 10 Commandments makes the cut - or even a text as obviously religious as John 3:16 - it should be included in the display because it can be shown to have directly influenced the Founding Fathers as they crafted our laws. History is history - or should be, anyway. And, if the text of the 10 Commandments, or the Iroquois Confederation, had no or very little influence on their thinking, it has no place in a historical display.
It's time our citizenry come to grips with our history and guiding principles. Some of the Founding Fathers were religious men. The atheists need to see that for what it is; that the Founding Fathers drew from their worldviews to devise the best, fairest set of laws they could and acknowledged and gave place to *a* Deity but at the same time built in allowances for differing and diverse religious views. The fundamentalist religious activists also need to come to terms with the fact that not all the Founding Fathers were men sharing their own specific faith. If the Founding Fathers did not hold or utilize documents or articles of faith in the shaping of our country's laws, then these documents shouldn't be included in any historical displays.
Tao Te Lex,
ReplyDeleteI have my preferences set to allow comments from anyone. I don't believe in cenorship. About the only thing I would remove from the comments section is a bunch of sexually explicit crap that didn't relate to the topic.
Now you stated that "Calling the 10 Commandments historical does not in any way imply the factuality of the Judeo-Christian deity nor force adoption of the Judeo-Christian worldview. From a secular point of view, the document exists and is imbedded in the past."
Contrast this with the Christian viewpoint on the apocrypha. Christians accept particular books as part of their canon. A book such as the Gospel According to Thomas is deemed not authoritative and therefore, from a Christian perspective, is NOT historical. They hold this contention despite the fact the Gospel According to Thomas does exist.
The other point I wish to make is that I believe you are placing too much emphasis on what we "think" the founding fathers might have used as reference points. For one thing, many of them were atheists.
Even if they all were Christian and all used the 10 Commandments as a template, I don't think that means much. The US Constitution is a living document that reflects different values at different times.
When it was first penned, it represented viewpoints that allowed for slavery and treating women as non-citizens. Fortunately, our society has matured beyond these archaic ideas.
Any document -- religious or otherwise -- that can point us in a positive direction should be fair came for showing at a public building OR we should not showcase any of the religious ones.
I appreciate your comments. They show that you are a thinker, someone who considers things deeply and avoids the all too typical kneejerk response.
It's quite alright for thinking people to disagree. In fact, in this day and age, it's refreshing to disagree on SUBSTANTIVE issues.
Trey, again, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this topic. Please allow me once more to clarify what I mean by 'historical'. I don't mean that the document is necessarily factual, accurate or truthful, but that it simply exists as a collection of words that entered recorded history at a certain point in time. I mean in it the same way as the text of the Illiad or Epic of Gilgamesh or the Egyptian Book of the Dead are historical. That's it - nothing more. And discussing these documents and even displaying them - as in a mueseum - doesn't force the viewer to adopt the religion, politics or worldview of the ancient authors. They are historical in that they were produced by a certain people at a certain time and are indicative of how they felt and what they thought.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Apocrypha and the Gospel of Thomas, I whole-heartedly agree with you - they are a collection of historical documents. But, I believe the criteria for inclusion into the scriptural canons of both the Tanakh and the Christian Bible was not historicity nor even accuracy (as in the case of poetry) but whether the books were seen as inspired and upholding what they viewed as spiritually true. In saying that, I am not implying that their description of the deity is accurate nor looking to discuss whether their choices were correct, merely stating my understanding of their criteria; I certainly could be wrong.
Back to the thoughts of the Founding Fathers, I think it is important what they thought, what influenced them and what their vision was for our country. For these answers, we need to go back to their own writings and correspondence. By these we can see the Living Document conceived, given birth and beginning to mature. Our country has a unique and wonderful legacy: here is a place where freedom is held as fundamental and diversity designed-in from the very beginning. I would think the lives, thoughts and influences impacting the Founding Fathers are relevant to the story of our country.
I agree with you in that some of the Founding Fathers were atheists and it is to their credit that they acknowledged and granted equal rights to those who believed differently. I'm in agreement with you also regarding their views of slavery and women's rights; these facts also are important for us to see the context of our laws' genesis and how they've changed over time for a complete picture.
But should a feminist be offended or assume the government is promoting squandered rights for women if doucments or artifacts from that time are part of a historical display? Or an African American think the government is forcing the reinstitution of slavery if items from that time are part of a historical exhibit? If anything, I would think these people would be proud of what has been accomplished in our little more than two centuries of nationhood and foster hope and empowerment for the future.
Again, all I'm suggesting is if the text, ideas and principles of the 10 Commandments actually played a part in the Founding Father's minds as a foundation or an influence in writing our country's laws, then it has a valid place in any comprehensive legal history and should be allowed inclusion in a display of such influences. If the wrtings and correspondence of the Founding Fathers do not illustrate or lend credibility to this, then it should not be included.
Maybe the question should really be this: are courtrooms the best place for historical displays? Maybe this type of exhibit would best be housed in a museum.
Tao Te Lex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your patience. I think I understand your points far better.
I strongly agree with your last sentence. Any or all of the documents we've been discussing should be exhibited in a museum. I simply don't feel a courthouse, city hall or public building is an appropriate place.