Moore, Particular Religions and Tolerance

[Michael deHaven Newsom]

We cannot properly ignore the history of the relation between the four
religions to which I referred.  Judge Moore's choice is problematic in
light of American experience.  Indeed, given that experience, his action
is the quintessence of intolerance.

Will Esser wrote:

> Is the real problem with Judge Moore the fact that a
> "particular religion" is involved?  As Michael points
> out, Judge Moore used the "evangelical Protestant
> form" of the Ten Commandments.  The question I am
> posing goes to the heart of what we mean by
> "tolerance."
>
> Let's take a hypothetical here.  Certainly each
> individual is permitted to express their religious
> views within the context of their private homes.  For
> instance, I can hang a crucifix in each room of my
> house because I'm Catholic.  I don't believe that
> anyone would accuse me of being "intolerant" for
> expressing my religion in my household.  Likewise, I
> don't think anyone would accuse Judge Moore of being
> intolerant if he hung the Ten Commandments in every
> room of his house.
>
> I would submit that the question of "intolerance" is
> one of how religion plays out in the public realm.
> For instance, I have a crucifix hanging in my office
> at work.  It is not a sign of intolerance; it is
> simply a sign of my faith and the fact that I strive
> to incorporate my beliefs into every facet of my life.
>  I hope that people understand that simply because I
> express my faith, that I am not being "intolerant" of
> their faith.
>
> I believe that it would be a much different message
> and "intolerant" if I placed a jar of urine with a
> crucifix inside in my office.  My expression has now
> gone from one of expression of my religious beliefs to
> denigration of someone else's beliefs.  I believe that
> there is a big distinction between an expression which
> says "I outwardly express my belief" and "I outwardly
> express my rejection of someone else's belief."  The
> first is not intolerant; the second is.  And the first
> does not necessarily imply the second.
>
> I guess that being said, I don't see the expression of
> a "particular religion" as being problematic.  Judge
> Moore's use of a particular version of the Ten
> Commandments (if you're going to use them, you need to
> pick a version) does not strike me as intolerant.  By
> picking that particular version, Judge Moore was
> probably just using the one with which he was
> familiar.  I don't interpret that as a denigration of
> other forms of the Ten Commandments, or an expression
> that other forms are not valid.
>
> The real problem, and one which I leave to other
> members of this list, is whether a member of an
> independent judiciary should be involved in placing
> religious statements (whether of a particular religion
> or generally religious) in a governmental building.
> But I agree with Rick and others that the mere
> expression of *a* religion is not equivalent to
> intolerance for *other* religions.
>
> Will
>
> --- Michael deHaven Newsom <mnewsom at LAW.HOWARD.EDU>
> wrote:
> > The question of "toleration" in this case requires
> > some acknowledgement
> > of the fact that "religion" is not at stake in this
> > case.  Rather, a
> > particular religion is at stake, and the proof of
> > the pudding lies in
> > the fact that, I wager, the form of the Ten
> > Commandments is the
> > evangelical Protestant form, not the form used by
> > Jews, Catholics or
> > Lutherans.  And I have not even gotten to non-Bible
> > religions which do
> > not recognize the Ten Commandments in any form.
> >
> > To my way of thinking, the only "surprise" in this
> > case is that it has
> > taken the SPLC this long to weigh in on matters of
> > this sort.  I would
> > be concerned about any attempt to argue or suppose
> > that racial
> > intolerance and religious intolerance were separate
> > and distinct.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will Esser wrote:
> >
> > > I was simply commenting on the fact that an
> > > establishment clause action does not appear to be
> > the
> > > typical fare of the Southern Poverty Law Center,
> > while
> > > I don't think it would surprise anybody to hear
> > that
> > > Americans United for Separation of Church and
> > State
> > > had filed an EC challenge.
> > >
> > > Per its website, the SPLC is "a nonprofit
> > organization
> > > that combats hate, intolerance and discrimination
> > > through education and litigation."  Perhaps the
> > SPLC
> > > felt that Judge Moore's actions were "intolerant"
> > and
> > > therefore were appropriate subject matter to fit
> > > within their mission statement.  This might give a
> > new
> > > twist to the recent list discussions regarding
> > > "tolerance", i.e. a governmental action is
> > intolerant
> > > to the extent it gives the impression of
> > government
> > > support of religion.
> > >
> > > Will
> > >
> > > --- Michael deHaven Newsom
> > <mnewsom at LAW.HOWARD.EDU>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Why is is surprising that the Southern Poverty
> > Law
> > > > Center would file a
> > > > lawsuit in this mastter?
> > > >
> > > > Will Esser wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It was just a matter of time, but two lawsuits
> > > > have
> > > > > been filed over Judge Moore's Ten Commandments
> > > > statute
> > > > > in the Alabama Supreme Court judicial
> > building.
> > > > Not
> > > > > surprisingly, they were filed in federal
> > court.  I
> > > > > wonder how a state judge would feel in being
> > asked
> > > > to
> > > > > declare the actions of the state supreme court
> > > > chief
> > > > > justice unconstitutional.
> > > > >
> > > > > The lawsuits were filed by Americans United
> > for
> > > > > Separation of Church and State (not
> > surprising)
> > > > and by
> > > > > the Southern Poverty Law Center (a bit more
> > > > > surprising).  The story is found at:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/31/tencommandments.ap/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > =====
> > > > > Will Esser  --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
> > > > > Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
> > > > > Three First Union Center
> > > > > 401 South Tryon St., Suite 3000
> > > > > Charlotte NC 28202
> > > > > 704-372-9000
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > > > > http://personals.yahoo.com
> > >
> > > =====
> > > Will Esser  --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
> > > Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
> > > Three First Union Center
> > > 401 South Tryon St., Suite 3000
> > > Charlotte NC 28202
> > > 704-372-9000
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
> > > http://personals.yahoo.com
>
> =====
> Will Esser  --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
> Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein
> Three First Union Center
> 401 South Tryon St., Suite 3000
> Charlotte NC 28202
> 704-372-9000
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find a job, post your resume.
> http://careers.yahoo.com