A lot of religious conservatives are upset that the Supreme Court invalidated the Ten Commandments display in Kentucky counties. They sincerely believe that the government of all citizens should endorse the religious beliefs of just a few citizens - their religious beliefs, naturally.

Dave writes:

To me, there is one simple fact in all law of the United States and the various countries on whose law we framed ours. The Ten Commandments are the first real “codification” of principles of law under which our civilization has lived for millenia [sic].

Actually, they aren’t — Dave seems to be unaware of the Code of Hammurabi, for example. Historical knowledge is often lacking in those who promote the Ten Commandments, though.

Sure they are a religious symbol. Of course, they come to us from Judaism. But they are our foundation whether we be Jewish, Christian, or Muslim. To throw them away is to embrace secularism, which is a religion of its own sort.

Dave doesn’t seem to understand that America is made up of more than just Jews, Christians, and Muslims — and even among those Americans who do belong to one of those groups, not all agree that the state should pick out a particular translation and version of the Ten Commandments to endorse above all others.

Secularism is not a religion, it is by definition the absence of religion. The rules of football are secular. Traffic laws are secular. The government of America is and should be secular, not religious, because neither elected politicians nor appointed government bureaucrats have the authority to pick out any religion or religious beliefs for endorsement, promotion, or encouragement.

If we are evolved from dust and the universe was created from a “really big bang,” look out because there is absolutely no reason for me to be kind to you.

If Dave actually believes this — if he really, truly believes that he doesn’t have any reason to be kind to anyone unless his god exists and will punish him otherwise — then Dave probably qualifies as a sociopath. That would mean that we may all be better off if he were placed under psychiatric observation in order to prevent him from harming himself or others.

Fortunately, most ethically, psychologically, and emotionally mature adults don’t need threats of eternal hellfire and punishment in order to be kind to others — and that probably includes Dave. Most mature adults refrain from theft, murder, and rape because they actually care about other human beings, not because a cosmic bully issues orders. Thus, it’s less likely that Dave really doesn’t treat people well for any reason other than he is ordered to; it’s more likely that this is just a thinly-veiled argumentum ad baculum.

In comments, Steve writes:

We must be free to publicly express our religious views, whether we believe there is a God, or we believe there is no God. The operative word is “publicly”.

I’ll never understand why people like Steve can’t understand the simple fact that “public” has multiple meanings. Everyone is free to publicly express their religious views, in the sense that they can go out in public and express themselves rather than being forced to keep their beliefs private or hidden.

This right does not, however, entail an obligation on the part of the state to help them express their religious beliefs, to endorse their religious beliefs, or to erect monuments in honor of their religious beliefs. The state does not, in fact, have the authority to pick out particular religious beliefs for such favored treatment — not even if a majority of citizens would like that to happen.

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Ten Commandments
• Secularism 101