Scattered across the nation are numerous monuments displaying the Ten Commandments. Most were donated to various local governments by private organizations like the Fraternal Order of Eagles during the 1960s and 70s. Recently many have been challenged as a violation of the separation of church and state, but such challenges are met with passionate reactions in defense of the monuments. Why are people so eager to keep the Ten Commandments displayed on public land?
There are, of course, very strong religious reasons. There are quite a few people who honestly believe that governments in America should reflect, defend, and promote Christian principles and doctrines. For them, displaying the Ten Commandments is simply one step in that process because they believe that the Ten Commandments reflect a basic core of Christian teachings that are crucial to maintaining the Christian nature of America.
Of course, Jesus said that the first and greatest commandment was to love God, with the second being to love one's neighbor; thus, the basic core of Christian teachings is arguably not the Ten Commandments. This would mean that its promotion by the government doesn't simply favor Christianity or Judaism, but instead a particular form of Christianity (because they are always Christian versions of the Ten Commandments, never Jewish) over other forms and other theological positions. And since when does the government have the authority to take sides in theological disputes?
There are also others who don't consider the Ten Commandments to be "religious" because they come from God, not a man-made religion. Thus, the Ten Commandments actually apply to everyone, no matter what religion they have and even if they have no religion at all. Why? Well, because God rules us all and that means that God's commandments also rule us all. Scott Carlson, secretary for the Fraternal Order of Eagles in Pleasant Grove, Utah expresses it thus:
- We don't feel it's a religious thing. The Ten Commandments rule us all, no matter our religion.
Carlson simply cannot imagine how anyone, no matter what their religion, would not be ruled by the Ten Commandments of his religion - and we should make no mistake that it is, indeed, his religion that we are talking about. Not all people and not all religions would agree with, for example, the commandments that demand that a particular god be worshipped or that a particular sabbath be kept. If those are Carlson's beliefs, that's fine, but it is wrong for him to assume that those same beliefs apply to others.
This is the religious arrogance behind the defense of the Ten Commandments - and a sad arrogance to boot, because it is so unreflective and immediate. People like Carlson don't seem to have given any thought to the concerns of others: his way is The Only Way, and even people who do not accept it are necessarily ruled by it, whether they like it or not. If they don't think that they are, then it is simply because they fail to acknowledge the existence or the sovereignty of the One True God.
So why not have the government explicitly acknowledge it? If people object, they must be in denial - and since the government is ruled by God's commands just like individuals are, then surely the government is required to help people understand their obligations to God. Thus, government defense of the religious obligations listed in the Ten Commandments is simply one step on the path to the government insistence on religious obligations in general. Theocracy, overt or subtle, is always predicated in part upon a religious arrogance.
