Federal and State governments keep trying to get involved with the debate over the Ten Commandments, usually for the purpose of trying to have them posted rather than for the purpose of remaining neutral in matters of religion. Here is a listing of some interesting attempts:
Ten Commandments Defense Act
On March 7, 2002, Rep. Robert B. Aderholt (R-Ala.) introduced the “Ten Commandments Defense Act” to the House of Representatives. This Bill has three purposes: declare that state governments have the right to display the Ten Commandments on public buildings, declare that people have a right to religious liberty, and declare that the courts must not find the above to be unconstitutional.
Aderholt’s bill is interesting, in a sad sort of way. The first thing to take notice of is that it is unconstitutional on its face — Congress does not have the power to instruct federal courts to reach particular decisions. The Judicial Branch of our government is independent and is supposed to reach its own decisions, not simply follow the commands of the Legislative Branch. Either Aderholt does not understand this and needs remedial civics lessons, or he does understand it and doesn’t care.
Nowhere does Aderholt’s bill explain which “Ten Commandments” should be posted — indeed, it is doubtful that Aderholt even realizes that there are multiple versions. It may seem best that the Federal Government not decide for the States which version to post, but does that mean that it is valid for the States to make that decision? Will they post the original version? Will they try to choose between the Catholic and Protestant versions?
Another thing worth noting is that, in the Bill's “findings” (which function as premises behind the Bill — the reasons why it is being proposed) Aderholt lists:
- Disputes and doubts have arisen with respect to public displays of the Ten Commandments and to other public expression of religious faith.
This is a clear Equivocation Fallacy. The first part refers to “public displays,” which means displays which are erected by the government and in government buildings or on government property. In this sense, “public” refers to the actions of the government rather than “private,” the actions of individual people. The second part mentions “public expression of religious faith” — but this cannot be the same meaning of “public” because the government does not express “religious faith.”
What is meant here is “public” expressions which are visible to all, as opposed to “private,” which is removed form the view of others. By confusing the two, Aderholt can make it look like a government refusal to erect a permanent display of the Ten Commandments is an infringement on people’s right to public expression of their religious faith.
