Long premise short:
Does the presence of a statue displaying a Greek deity in a US courtroom violate the Separation of Church and State in the same regard as a statue of Moses or Jesus would?
Why or why not?
No, because no one ever tries to convert anyone to Olympian religion. In other words, nothing is being forced upon anyone with a Greek Deity statue.
Same applies with the aforementioned Moses. Judaism is officially non-prosetlyzing. And there are Hellenic pagans, to be fair.
Couldn’t some particularly strict Christians view such a statue as a false idol?
Marc
Well, there are a number of representations of Moses on the Supreme Court building, and there are also a number of statues of Greek deities there, and I don’t think either constitutes a violation of SOCAS.
See the architectural details of the U.S. Supreme Court building. There are representations of Moses on the East Pediment and the frieze inside the Courtroom. The courtroom frieze not only shows Moses, but also Mohammed (and Hammurabi, Justinian, John Marshall, and a bunch of others). On the East Pediment Moses is shown along with Confucius (who might be characterized as a “religious” figure) and Solon (a secular Athenian lawmaker). There are also a number of depictions of “Themis” or “Justicia” the pagan Greek and Roman goddesses of justice. (All links but the first one are to PDF files.)
But the representations of Moses are historical allusions to the idea of Law, represented by lawgivers of many cultures, from Hammurabi to Napoleon Bonaparte. The partial text of the Ten Commandments themselves (in Hebrew) is visible at one point–but apparently only of the last six commandments*, and not the first four commanding worship of a specific God in a specific time and manner. The representations of Themis are allegorical illustrations of the idea of Justice.
There are no state-endorsed injunctions to the citizen to worship the God of the Jewish and Christian Bible, nor to worship the Olympian gods of Greece and Rome.
*Incidentally, if there are any Hebrew readers with really sharp eyes, or access to a better picture of the frieze than that, or who are in Washington and willing to take a trip over to the SCOTUS building, I’d love to have it confirmed or refuted that the Hebrew words visible on the tablet are only from the last six commandments. I’d hate to be perpetuating a separationist canard the way so many anti-separationists confidently assert that “the Ten Commandments hang over the heads of the Justices in the Supreme Court” and the like.
The difference is this: the statue of a blind Justice holding scales is a thoroughly secularized symbol. While it does originate from a religious source, that source is 2 millenia removed, and mediated through the Renaissance fascination with all things Classical and the Enlightenment’s elevation of reason. It no longer symbolizes a deity. In the context of modern culture, it symbolizes only an abstract concept.
The statue of Moses holding stone tablets is not secularized to any appreciable degree. Its religious source is alive and well - not merely Judaism, but Christianity as well (and certainly many of the latter do proselytize.) It does symbolize a specific view of religious morality, rather than abstract justice, or even religious morality writ large (i.e., encompassing non-Judeo-Christian religions).
Given this difference, it is perfectly obvious why the two should be treated differently with regards to the seperation of religion and government.
Rationalise this all you want, it is quite clear that the frieze and all of the religious and quasi religious statuary in the Supreme Court building is in clear violation of the separation of church and state and is therefore completely unconstitutional.
If the Supreme Court buildings were designed today, nothing like these decorations would be permitted to adorn the building. Probably something post modern, displaying absolutely no religious influence, would be selected.
Having said that, I am the first to admit that I would be ambivalent about any proposal that would involve the demolition of these decorations. They have a certain antique charm about them that a post modern sculptor would probably have some difficulty in emulating.
In fact, as far as I’m concerned, it is their quaint and antique appearance alone that tips the scales in favor of allowing them to remain in place, even though they are much less than a century old and therefore do not really belong to antiquity.
The ideal solution would be to build a new secular style Supreme Court building somewhere else and sell off the current building to a non-government body to be used for other purposes.
I disagree, specifically because it is a monument to the (slightly mythologized) history of law. Moses is there because he’s a great lawmaker in history. So is Hammurabi, Solon, and Napoleon (secular leaders), and Muhammad and Confucius (non-Christian religious lawgivers). Themis is stripped of Pagan context by millenia of allegorical use, and is merely an abstract of justice itself.
These symbols (unlike the Alabama monument) are not meant to convert, not meant to state that these ethics are the founding and only important ideas in this courtroom. An atheist has little to fear if he passes contradictory icons on his way to testify. He can be relatively certain that his viewpoint will be respected as well. They are simply an artistic ode to Justice and law.
Separation of Church and State does not mean that the state must avoid religious mention the way an operating room must avoid germs. It means the state must not endorse or restrict any religious viewpoint. Alabama’s courthouse built a shrine. The US Supreme court built an artistic retrospective. There’s a difference.
I am not a supporter of Judge Moore or his stunt.
However, if a new Supreme Court building were to be built in today’s political and cultural climate, there is no way that the building would be allowed to have anything remotely resembling the decorations that exist on the current SC building, no matter how artistically retrospective the designers tried to be.
Something bland and post modern would be the themes chosen, and no designer would dare to suggest anything relating to antiquity or anything resembling a religious figure or text.
MEBuckner: There’s a clearer picture of the frieze here (although the content on that site leaves something to be desired). It does indeed show only the last five (six) commandments - the word on the top line is tirtzach (“Thou shalt [not] murder”), and the others follow in order.
OTOH, the depiction on the East Pediment shows him holding both tablets with their full surfaces exposed. I can’t tell from the picture you linked to, or from the one at the above site, whether they’re shown with any inscriptions - in which case they probably do show all Ten Commandments - or are just blank.
Simply displaying an image of Moses, Mohammad, or any other religious leader does nothing to endorse that religion. Would anyone object to having statues of Martin Luther King, a devout member and leader of a proselytizing religion, Christianity, displayed and endorsed by the federal government? I don’t see anyone (though I’m sure there is some) protesting to remove this religion figure from the federal government due to his religion background. The image of a person (or god or whatever) does not have anything to do with promoting that religion. The meaning is derived from the context in which it is placed.
In the case of the US Supreme Court, what they do show are symbolic references to law and justice without regards to religious favoritism.
Well gee, that would depend on what the First Amendment means, wouldn’t it? I don’t suppose you could be bothered to go find out what it means and how it would apply to such a display, could you? In point of fact, the case law interpreting and applying the Establishment Clause do not even come close to establishing that displaying a statue of an ancient Greek deity violates the Constitution.
Under the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, there are two main tests for an Establishment Clause violation. The first test is the so-called Lemon test, named after the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), where it first appeared. Under Lemon, a law or government action touching on religion must pass three inquiries to survive challenge under the Establishment Clause: [list=1][li]The law must have a secular purpose, with no intent to discriminate against or favor religion.[/li][li]The principal or primary effect of the law may neither advance nor inhibit religion.[/li][li]The law must not foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion.[/li][/list=1]Clearly, Chief Justice Moore’s 10 Commandments monument fails every one of those requirements. Moore has repeatedly said that his hunk of granite is there to promote the Christian religion and give it primacy as the alleged basis of our legal system, its effect is certainly to promote religion (as shown by all the fundamentalists who’ve shown up to block its removal), and the entanglement between the Alabanma Supreme Court and Chief Justice Moore’s brand of religion is about as excessive as it can get.
But what about the display of a Greek deity? Considering there are no adherents of the ancient Greek gods in Congress or the Supreme Court, it’s fairly obvious that the secular artistic and symbolic content of such a statue is a far more likely purpose than anything religious. An ancient Greek statue doesn’t advance or inhibit anyone’s religion that I’m aware of, nor does it excessively entangle government and religion. It’s difficult to argue that in the abstract, of course, but I’d have a hard time imagining the facts that would show a Greek statue violated the three-pronged Lemon test.
The other test that the Supreme Court sometimes applies was first advocated by Justice O’Connor in a concurring opinion in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court has occasionally applied it as an alternative to Lemon since then. O’Connor’s test is much simpler, asking only whether the government law or action is an “endorsement” of religion. That is, if the law’s purpose or effect is to endorse religion, it violates the Establishment Clause.
Again, applying the actual law to the cases, we see that Chief Justice Moore’s monument is a palpable endorsement of his brand of religion. Time and time again, he tells anyone who will listen that he put the 10 Commandments there because God’s law is the moral and legal foundation of this country. If that doesn’t endorse Moore’s religion, nothing would.
In contrast, I don’t see any endorsement in a statue of a Greek god. Nothing about it says the statue should be worshipped, or that the Supreme Court is a servant of Athena, or that justice depends on the party’s adherence to the pantheon of Greek gods. Again, I’d love to see that evidence that showed an “endorsement” of such a statue.
So there you have it, the Establishment Clause in a nutshell. May it serve you well, so that you don’t just go making blanket assertions without knowing what the law is.
Addendum: Although I said above that the Lemon test “first appeared” in the 1971 case, I don’t want anyone to be misled by that. In fact, Lemon basically synthesized te Court’s previous case law into the three-part test. Those past cases had already established the basic principles, but they were fairly inconsistent about spelling things out. Lemon clarified the principles, but it didn’t create them.
Minty, don’t forget to include the March v. Chambers decision where the majority opinion didn’t apply either test in finding that a chaplaincy and an invocation before legislative session did not violate the Establishment Clause. Just because I don’t want anybody to think this area of law is too easy.
Ah yes, that’s the old historical-traditional analysis, where religious stuff that’s been in government for a really, really long time is excused from the Establishment Clause. Not applied all that often, but it’s certainly in the mix in proper cases. A Greek statue that’s been in the Supreme Court for the better part of a century would certainly be a candidate for such treatment, unlike Judge Moore’s brand-new and immediately-challenged monument.
Plus the Greek statute is not the only thing there, it’s not a monument to the Greek Religion. But the Ten Commandments monumnt JUST that, for Jews, Christians, maybe Moslems. It’s just for the religion. And we know this from watching the inbred hicks who are going to “chain themselves together” or whatever to prevent its remobal, would they be so passionate over a monument to law? NO, they see it as religious, an attack on their “god.”
I’d say that part of the difference is how society has become more dimwitted and dogmatic than it used to be. In the 19th century, nobody blinked an eye when the state poem of Indiana was adopted, a state poem that includes the verse “A pagan voice within me stirs.” Yes, that was in the alleged days of “when the USA was more Christian”.
As for “Greek god” statues, it really depends on context. If I see a building decorated with statues of Hammurabi (with his tablets), Moses (with his tablets), Justinian, Odin, Minerva, Themis, etc. I’d say that it’s a matter of the theme of “law” across all cultures.
FYI MEBuckner
The ten commandments have only 3 commandments that pertain to God, which was the first 3. The fourth commandment is “Honor thy father and thy mother” which has no real bearing on the matter of law.
Based on the Lemon test, how is the 10 commandment monument in favor of a certain religion? I didnt see anywhere in that sculpture where it says no other religion is as good. They (commandments) are the basis of most of laws (except for the first 4) and if you look at them from a secular point of view as you would any of the other religious scultures and designs, they foster no specific religion, they have no excessive entanglements with religion. There is no rule that dictates that if you follow the 10 commandments you will be part of some religion or that you will be admitted to heaven as a matter of fact.
Are you kidding? “Thou shalt have no other god before me”? Even then, the message doesn’t have to be “Religion X is better than Religion Y” for a law to violate the Establishment Clause. Unless it’s established for a secular purpose, doesn’t have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion, and doesn’t excessively entabgle church and state, the monument fails constitutional scrutiny under Lemon.
FYI X~Slayer(ALE):
Different groups enumerate the Commandments differently. Catholics consider the prohibition against worshipping false gods and the prohibition against graven images to be a single commandment (the first); they count coveting your neighbor’s wife, and coveting anything else of your neighbor’s as two commandments. Jews consider the preface to the commandments–“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt…” to be the first commandment; the prohibitions against worshipping other gods or making graven images together make up the second; coveting either your neighbor’s wife or anything else of your neighbor’s is the tenth. Most Protestant groups (I believe Lutherans number the commandments the same way Catholics do) consider worshipping false gods, and making idols or graven images to be two separate commandments; as with the Jewish enumeration, the prohibitions against coveting wives and coveting anything else are considered a single commandment. One Protestant interpretation of (their) second commandment is that it is a prohibition against worshipping the true God in a false or incorrect manner. Historically, Catholic worship practices have been attacked as “idolatrous” by Protestants on this basis (and sometimes the worship practices of other Protestants as well). (The “Golden Calf” of Exodus 32 is often interpreted as being not an attempt to set up a new god to replace Yahweh, but rather an attempt at making a tangible representation of Yahweh, but it was still condemned as an act of rebellion and idolatry.)
I tend to use the standard Protestant enumeration because, while the Catholic enumeration of course would prevail world-wide, within the U.S. I think the Protestant version is more widely held. In particular, the most vocal supporters of public postings of the Ten Commandments also tend to be evangelical Protestants, who follow that numbering scheme.
The commandments don’t say “worship some God or higher power”, they say worship this particular god as the LORD and one true God–the God of Abraham and Isaac, the God of the Bible. Other religions–and certainly any form of polytheism–are automatically condemned as false. Furthermore, the commandments go on to proclaim one day of the week as the Sabbath day, which is clearly a Judeo-Christian idea not necessarily recognized by other monotheistic religions. (That Jews and Christians disagree among themselves as to just which day is the Sabbath just compounds the problem of using these as a basis for secular law.) Finally, the commandments prohibit taking the name of God in vain. How can that be generalized? We’re talking about the name of God; i.e., a particular God–Jehovah in the traditional Christian mis-transliteration; or YHWH, that is, Yahweh (according to the most likely reconstruction). This isn’t a prohibition against casually mentioned Zeus or Thor or Quetzalcoatl.
As to the notion that the commandments are a valid basis of secular law because some of them are, that’s like saying it would be OK to put up a big sign in the courthouse that said:
[ul]
[li]People who believe in God are fools.[/li][li]Murder is wrong.[/li][li]Floss and brush your teeth regularly.[/li][/ul]
Gosh, murder is certainly illegal; who could object to that? Clearly, that list is the basis of our legal system!