Begging the biggest question of all
Tom Burka steps in to take on the, frankly, far-too-easy task of finding the ridiculous in Scalia’s ramblings on the Ten Commandments issue. Says the NYT report:
He called the Ten Commandments “a symbol of the fact that government* derives its authority from God,” adding, “That seems to me an appropriate symbol to put on government grounds.”
Beg pardon? “…the fact that…”? What point is there even discussing the validity of an argument if its premises are so flimsy, yet claimed with such apparent lack of equivocation, from an exalted, ex cathedra self-satisfaction? There’s so much that’s wrong with this statement that it’s hard to know where to start – or perhaps hard to know how far back to go. Obviously Scalia doesn’t, and can’t, know any such thing. The matter isn’t even one of authority. It’s a matter of existence. A legal claim of the existence of a god would be laughed out of any honest court, and yet here’s one of the handful of ultimate arbiters of law in the world’s most powerful country wielding it as an unassailable axiom. It’s begging the question, and in this case it’s a whopper. Absent the “fact” which Scalia falsely yet axiomatically claims, his system of inference is essentially a religious rather than a logical or legal one. This is, of course, activism, yet, because the cause is one of reactionary dogma, it passes as conservatism. I’ve been here before.
The issue is indeed one of separation between church and state, but it truly has nothing much to do with whether it’s okay to display some blandly vacuous old religious tenets in public buildings. The issue is whether the process of government can perform that separation; whether it can grow the fuck up, join the rest of us in the twenty-first century, and ditch the mediaeval axiom which builds towers upon sand: that a god – any one, feel free to choose – happens to exist. By all means believe in a god, if it makes you happy, blah blah blah, but as an axiom in any context, and a fortiori in any secular or legal context, it’s at best deeply flawed, at worst lethal. It doesn’t matter what conclusion Scalia might come to, when his system of inference is so totally compromised. He can’t apply separation between church and state in his court duties, because there’s no separation between church and state in his addled mind.
Also from the NYT piece:
Justice Scalia asked whether the marshal’s invocation that begins each Supreme Court session, “God save the United States and this honorable court,” was not also “divisive, because there are people who don’t believe in God.”
I can only growl when the god axiom leads to this. I mean, obviously the answer to Scalia’s question is: YES! But that he considers this to be the relevant question to ask shows that the argument is already in deep trouble. Is it so far from people’s minds to take that final step back beyond the god axiom, and ask something of the form of:
Is it not quite patently silly to invoke god in legal and governmental systems when the evidence for the existence of a god is so vapourous?
Scalia thinks this is about belief. It’s not. It’s about existence.
*Aside: Which government/s? I’m reminded of the Pratchett line about the vicissitudes of fate:
Just because it’s not nice doesn’t mean it’s not miraculous.
Claim divine authority for one government, and you must claim it for all of them: Saddam’s, Hitler’s, Ceausescu’s. Just because it’s not a nice government, doesn’t mean it’s not authorised.
My reasoning is different (you know, Paul, that we have different opinions on spirituality, faith and religion) but I completely agree with you when you say that “Claim divine authority for one government, and you must claim it for all of them: Saddam’s, Hitler’s, Ceausescu’s.”
But then you finish up with, “Just because it’s not a nice government, doesn’t mean it’s not authorised.”
I would instead say that no government exists by divine authority, which is what I think (hope) you mean. But I had to read three or four times to check.
IMO, representative government is a practical solution to the human problem of selfishness and greed – bringing faith of any kind (Christianity or anything else) into the mix has notoriously contributed to its failure. Government responsibility for our behavior ought to be limited to finding that delicate balance of giving us as much freedom as possible while still preventing us from infringing on another’s freedoms, whether she be the homicidal maniac next door (NIMBY!) or the oddball quack half a world away. Our own government is often said to be “of the people, by the people and for the people”, not “derived from God, designed by God and for God’s divine purpose.”
This Mills-esque interpretation is not very well received in the U.S. right now. We seem to have arrived at a point where anyone who professes a religious doctrine of belief is assumed to support the assumption that government’s function is to enforce an accepted set of behaviors on everyone. We argue not over whether a course of action should be legal or illegal, but whether it is moral or not – as if the first is a natural outcome of the second. I am deeply saddened by this development, for reasons of faith (which I’ve considered blogging about on my own) as much as for the very real possibility of having my own rights restricted, now or in the future.
In other words, the moral question is a personal one to be decided between me and my conscience. The legal question is one that ought to be discussed in the context of personal liberties and to which point they can extend without interfering with another’s liberties. I realize there is some crossover here, but they are not completely parallel. “Thou shalt not murder” seems perfectly appropriate to put in the foyer of a public building. “Remember the Sabbath Day by keeping it holy” does not.
Scalia’s questions are an indictment of his ability to render judgements based in law. When the opinion is delivered, I will not be surprised if his rationale (or of other justices) can be equally applied to justify absolute monarchies as well as our own government.
So do the 10 Commandments belong displayed in the proverbial Town Hall? Of course not. Governments are not evangelical institutions, and I detest that this government, claiming to act on my behalf and with my mandate, presumes to promote even the assumption of monotheism.
My message to the SCOTUS is this: If you’re going to profess the existence of God, then do it right. Recognize that faith is a personal decision and that we must each make it at our own time, in our own way by searching out our own answers – the Scripture is as clear about this as it is about the 10 Commandments. Faith can’t be legislated (or adjudicated) and trying to do so robs all of us of our right – and our responsibility – to choose.
[Go ahead, Paul, grit your teeth. I told you my reasoning was different at the beginning.]
Besides all that, I think it’s laughably ironic to have the statement “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath… You shall not bow down and worship them…” hanging on the same building where we are then asked to put our hand over hearts and vow allegiance to a secular institution.
I might have the makings of a Quaker in my heart.
sparkle
sparkle:
Just adding a couple of things, because I don’t disagree with as much as you imagined. 🙂
Right, yes. I was just asking that Scalia follow his claim to its ridiculous conclusion.
I’m not sure if you would include this or not, but I’d add that a necessary (and positive) function of government is to serve as an organising mechanism for society’s needs: public health, public transport, public broadcasting, social welfare, etc. I know, I really wouldn’t make a very good American. 🙂
Taking this argument at face value – though I do know it was just an example – I’d probably have a problem with “Thou shalt not murder” too. It’s not a moral problem, so much as a stylistic and semantic one. The language is clearly biblical, which creates its own problems. But then it’s also reasonable to ask: ‘Who says?’ If the implied speaker is the government, through its legal system, then the language is anomalous, and it only serves to raise a whole load of additional questions, including: ‘What counts as murder?’ Again, if it’s the legal definition, then this encapsulation of it is so vague as to be worthless.
What’s the point?
P.
Paul:
You wrote – “Taking this argument at face value – though I do know it was just an example – I’d probably have a problem with “Thou shalt not murder” too. It’s not a moral problem, so much as a stylistic and semantic one. The language is clearly biblical, which creates its own problems. But then it’s also reasonable to ask: ‘Who says?'”
Point taken on the semantics of language. I wasn’t thinking of it so much as biblical language as traditional language. There are bibles out there that translate it in modern English as “Do not murder” – an injunction that can be equally applied to the citzenry. After all, the commandment is just a simplification; reading further in the Old Testament will provide numerous of examples of exceptions to that hallowed crime. But as you said, making the simple statement brings up all the clarifications and exceptions that follow.
I did intend that I would be less offended by a bronze engraving on the courthouse wall of some fundamental standards of human society than of a religiously-inspired statement of the same standards.
As it happens, I do think that government’s secondary function is to provide the necessary framework for society (can the MTA *please* reprioritize the extension of the Gold line???). I didn’t state it specifically, except for an off-hand remark about the post office, but I do agree.
I think you’d make a better American than you presume – at least, you’d make the kind of American of which I’d like to see more. But then again, as we know, my politics are clearly in the minority.
sparkle
The Fourth Edition of the Skeptics’ Circle
Welcome to the fourth edition of the Skeptics’ Circle — a blog carnival aimed at gathering the best skeptical writing from around the blogosphere into a handy bi-weekly digest. In case you’re just joining us, it’s not too late to catch…