|
The
Supreme Court recently ruled in a split decision on
displaying the Ten Commandments - allowing displays
only outside of government buildings.
Question
is, will the faith-based gubernatorial campaign of
Tim "The Choirboy" Kaine be seated at the
church back row, or kneel at the front altar with
the Ten Commandments ruling?
Apparently,
it didn't take long for the Republican Party and its
gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore, to support a
constitutional amendment to protect the display of
the Ten Commandments in the Commonwealth - such as
the Ten Commandments Defense Act sponsored on the
congressional level that returns the right of
display to the States.
Where
does Kaine stand? Because the Ten Commandments are
more than a perception of faith and religious
significance. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the
dissenting opinion, which stated ''The sole function
of the monument on the grounds of Texas' State
Capitol is to display the full text of one version
of the Ten Commandments.'
Justice
Clarence Thomas published a separate court opinion,
writing: ''While the court correctly rejects the
challenge to the Ten Commandments monument on the
Texas Capitol grounds, a more fundamental rethinking
of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence remains in
order.'
The
court voted 5-4 on the two issues - on both inside
and outside displays. Several years ago, The Rockbridge
Advocate questioned candidates: "If a judge
in Virginia installed a rock engraved with the Ten
Commandments in a courthouse lobby, what would you
say as an elected official?"
With
that said, the Blue Dog attends an evangelical
United Methodist Church and has been teaching Sunday
school for 10 years. And I firmly believe in the
separation of church and state. I also respect the
religious rights of all in a free society and will
never impose my personal religious beliefs on
others.
However,
I honestly believe Virginia law should reflect our
value system, such as displaying the Ten
Commandments. In fact, I have no problem with
displaying the Ten Commandments inside or outside
any government buildings.
The
Blue Dog questioned our statewide candidates on the
same.
Dem
attorney-general candidate Creigh Deeds said,
"Such displays, as long as they are part of a
larger display that reflects the diversity of our
culture, are appropriate."
His
opponent, Republican Bob McDonnell, disagreed with
the recent Supreme Court ruling by saying, "The
recent Supreme Court rulings allow religious
displays such as the Ten Commandments if the display
has a predominantly secular purpose and has
educational or historical significance.
"I
believe the posting of the Ten Commandments meets
these criteria and therefore would not violate the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution."
Kilgore
said, "The ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court
generally makes it unconstitutional to display the
Ten Commandments in a court. However, under the
ruling, such displays are allowed if it reflects an
historical or educational purpose, and I support
such displays."
Republican
lieutenant-governor candidate Bill Bolling said,
"It would not bother me at all, and as long as
it was a part of a display that portrayed the
historical evolution of our law, I believe it would
still be appropriate under the recent Supreme Court
decision. Without a doubt, the Ten
Commandments provided an early foundation for many
of the laws that we adhere to today."
My
Democratic friend the Valley Yellow Dog wrote,
"Take your rock home or to church where it
belongs. The courthouse is for the administration of
the laws of the state, not the promotion of a
particular religion or religion in general. Folks
who find themselves in the courthouse may be praying
as hard as they can, but that is a private
matter."
Staunton
Republican Del. Chris Saxman said, "The
installation of historical documents is to be
commended. Whether it is a replica of the Ten
Commandments, Magna Carta, the Declaration of
Independence or the U.S. Constitution, I think that
judges should be allowed to have these available for
public view as they are contextually linked to our
legal system."
Matt
Lohr, the Republican nominee in the 26th House
District, said, "Again, the Judeo-Christian
values that are present in the admonitions of the
Ten Commandments are inseparable from our nation's
legal foundations. Judging from the recent
Supreme Court decisions concerning the display of
the Ten Commandments, if the courts require a
historical context for the display of the Ten
Commandments, I would certainly be unopposed to such
a collection.
"It
is inevitable that a great many of the historic
documents which would be displayed would refer to
our Creator. Again, moral tradition is the
foundation of any legal system," Lohr said.
Public
displays of ...
Blue
Dog questioned the candidates whether they oppose or
support the protection of all displays of faith in
the public square of Virginia.
"I
do support the displays of faith in the public
square," said Kilgore.
Kilgore
went on to articulate, "As governor, I will
once again celebrate the Christmas season with a
Virginia tree on the South Portico once the
renovation has been completed as has been the
tradition in Virginia. I also support a
celebration of the season of lights with a menorah
displayed in the Capitol. There is a proper
balance we can take to recognize the many faiths
that make up the fabric of America."
"Displays
of faith should take place at houses of worship or
on private property. Displays of faith in 'the
public square' generate controversy, not
spirituality," said the feisty Yellow Dog.
The
Yellow Dog also said, "The unceasing attempt to
find ways to link a particular faith or faith to
secular governance is reprehensible in the extreme,
and only invites a dangerous commingling of the
civil and the secular."
Bolling
said, "I have no objection to displays of faith
in the public square. In fact, I believe that
such displays are an important part of reminding us
all of the spiritual foundation of our country and
the need to remain committed to the principles of
faith that have helped make this the greatest
country on the face of the Earth."
Saxman
agreed, saying he "support(s) displays of faith
as long as they are done in good taste and are not
offensive to the general public. A manger scene or a
menorah are fine, but a lamb being sacrificed would
be offensive to the general public."
Lohr
said, "I fully support the protection of
displays of faith in the public square of
Virginia."
McDonnell
said, "I support displays of faith in the
public square of Virginia, consistent with the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Deeds
expressed concern for Virginia's growing cultural
and ethic diversity, saying, "I support
displays of faith that are reflective of our diverse
culture."
In
light of the recent high-court split decisions on
Ten Commandments allowing displays on government
property, and not inside courthouses, I asked next,
do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court
ruling?
Kilgore,
said, "I disagree with the recent Supreme Court
ruling that generally prohibits the display of the
Ten Commandments in courthouses."
Saxman
said, "I honestly have not reviewed the
decisions, but they appear to beat odds with one
another."
Lohr
said, "I think that the Ten Commandments should
be allowed to be displayed inside the courthouse. This
has been the case for hundreds of years. The
Ten Commandments are a guide to moral living and are
the foundation to which our government was
founded."
The
Yellow Dog said, "The Supreme Court has tried
to deal intelligently with a difficult issue. It has
neither commingled the religious and the secular nor
has it banished the religious from view. That
said, it has laid the groundwork for endless and
divisive debate.
"And
here let it be said: Those of us who are
passionate about the separation of church and state
as expressed in the establishment clause of the U.S.
Constitution are the true friends of both religion
and civil order," the Yellow Dog said.
Bolling
said, "I disagree with the Supreme Court
decision to the extent that it would limit the
display on the Ten Commandments inside courthouses.
"Fortunately,
the limitation would only appear to apply in part,
and displays that are part of a larger effort to
recognize the role that the Ten Commandments played
in the evolution of our law may still be
permissible," Bolling said.
Deeds
thinks the court took a moderate approach to the
controversial issues.
"The
court adopted an approach that I think is
appropriate," Deeds said.
More
to the point, McDonnell said, "I disagree with
the Supreme Court ruling in the case of McGreary
County v. ACLU of Kentucky for the many reasons
outlined in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia.
"It
appears that the posting of the Ten Commandments has
a predominantly secular purpose, that being their
forming a foundation for the law."
--
July 25, 2005
|
