Date: Tue Nov 18 21:40:44 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Offended? Me?
At 05:38 PM 11/18/97 0600, you wrote:
“Would a cross, but not a crucifix, change your answer? I didn't know the latter was a symbol of Catholicism, or I'd have just said a cross.”
Please don't be offended, but such things as the crucifix vs. the empty cross is such basic knowledge to me, I find it amusing that you didn't know that.
Not offended. Remember it as a good example of the things you can't assume I know. And I'll bet I'm very typical of the majority of the ordinary population that way.
Yes, I would oppose a law requiring a picture of Jesus or a cross (either type) displayed in the classroom. (Now tell me a case where this is an issue.) ; )
There's no case that I'm aware of, but that was the "loaded" part of the question. I hope to build on it as we walk through the emotions and legalities of religion in government.
BTW, Barton's audio sites a case where a Judge ordered students not to pray, and threatened them if they violated his order. I don't recall the case name; its in the first 15 minutes of the tape, I think. That doesn't seem to fit well with your objection of "government officials Promoting religion."
I thought I was gonna' get off the hook having to listen to the tape. But I'll make a point to now and will get back to you with the case. Damn! It's at the office now (after being at home for weeks, I thought I'd slap it in the dictaphone and listen while I did other things). There's something fishy (hee, hee...) about that "case."
When you run across that one in the tape, make note and check out the case, and see what was at issue (Time permitting, of course). I have participated in enough legal procedures in various capacities (in the military) to know that cases are decided on "stated charges" and finer points of the law. I can accept that. On that basis, I would be more apt to accept the "correctness" of decisions such as Engel v. Vitale, etc. I'm not closed; I just haven't been shown.
Speaking of being shown, is Engel v. Vitale one of the cases you want me to get for you?
O.J. may have been acquitted of murder, not because he didn't do it (assuming for the sake of discussion, he did), but on incorrect call as to the exact nature of the charges, sloppy detective work, etc.)
The OJ case is a hard one to put in the framework of our discussion because the aberration that occurred in the criminal case was the result of jury passion, not judicial interpretation. They wanted to send a message to the L.A.P.D. about not tolerating racism from cops like Mark Furman, and that, IMHO, is the sole reason they acquitted.
The "dodge" was unintentional. Hope I answered above. I just thought you were going into the Alabama state flag and blacks issue, and I was trying to save you having to answer the question.
I'm not sure you "dodged" it either. My reference to dodging may have been that I confused which part I was thinking you were responding to.
Now, if I'd meant the flags and blacks issue, I'd have said the confederate battle flag, because our state flag is not upsetting to blacks, or at least that's never been the issue. There's no issue about a state law mandating the placement of the state and national flag in public places. People have no first amendment right to avoid being in the presence of either flag. (They may have a first amendment right to burn them, but that's another issue entirely under the free speech clause, not establishment clause.) Anyway, I didn't mean you to chase that rabbit.
Like I said earlier, the flag reference (which I almost didn't put in) was to juxtapose and make clear the visual image of the picture of Jesus (the religious icon) next to the quintessential symbols of government, the flag. Now, bear with me. The loaded question I asked you was about your "feelings," no legal mumbo jumbo. You said you would oppose the picture and/or the cross. Now picture this: In Roy Moore's courtroom, you have the Ten Commandments on one side of the bench behind him, and the Great Seal of Alabama on the other. The only other decorations in the courtroom are the Code of Alabama along one wall, and the flags. That's all, nothing else. Expert testimony in the case from religious scholars and leaders, and I think himself Moore acknowledges, that the version of the decalogue he has up there is a Christian version. An icon, a symbol of his particular faith as a Christian.
I may have given away the farm too soon. But I think you're intellectually honest enough to see my point here. And that is: when the government hangs religious icons on the wall, whether it's a picture of Jesus, a cross or the Ten Commandments, it may be endorsing or promoting one brand of religion over another. See the argument?
Originally, Judge Moore's hanging the Ten Commandments didn't bother me, in part because I didn't know there were differences between Jewish and Christian versions or between Christian versions. It also wasn't the original thrust of the ACLU's lawsuit. Prayer was always been the big issue with me. It wasn't until he stated expressly that his reason for hanging it was religious, not secular, that we're a Christian nation, etc., that I said what he was doing was wrong.
As an aside, the courts have held and Judge Price did too, that he didn't have to take the commandments down entirely, just put them in the context of a display that didn't not promote religion. Ask me about this if you need examples. Another important point that the public may not know: the ACLU's briefs are clear that if the commandments were hung in Judge Moore's chambers instead of behind the bench in tandem with the Great Seal, it would have been a very different case, and they'd not have pushed the point. Many people in state government, like my secretary, read the scriptures when they're not otherwise occupied with work. The ACLU and I have no problem with that, or students reading, studying or discussing the Bible when they're not otherwise required to be being attentive in school. It's only when religion is placed in tandem with the trappings of the power of government that the issue arises.
Can you give me a short response on what kind of restrictions (not prejudicial actions by citizens) were placed on them by the government with regard to the exercise or promotion of their religion? Were any in government service and encountered restrictions?
I misspoke up there when I said "and who are the ones trying to change things." Originally, I just meant "making an issue of anything like prayer." Off the top of my head, I'm unaware of Immigrants or any group making any big issue of the things we're talking about.
It does occur to me that a case was decided in 1993 by the U.S. Supreme Court called "Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah" involving the practice of ritual sacrifice of animals by the Santeria religion in Florida, that's fairly on point. I happened to have a copy at home for later reading. The Supreme Court said Hialeah couldn't prevent them from doing their animal sacrifices if the reason prompting the "health codes" was essentially a reaction to the religious expression, instead of a content neutral health regulation involving disposal of animal parts.
I'm not sure I'm answering your question, or that I follow what you're asking. There have been other cases involving specific practices, like Reynolds v. U.S. involving bigamy by Mormons. There have been conscientious objector cases involving the draft. There are tax cases involving churches who engage in political activity. Can you rephrase your question? I'm going all over the board here.
You fished a couple of times, but I didn't bite! ; )
Everything in its own good time. Lawyers are prone to question, question, question. In so doing they frequently direct the way the conversation is going. I was trying to listen, listen, listen, and let you share what you thought was important, and when you thought it was relevant.
P.S. Just to let you know I wasn't the one who originated the term you have admonished me for using, look what I found: Psalm 106:5 "That I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance." This is not meant to pick at a healing sore, but how do Jews (that are sensitive about the term (and I figured they'd be proud to be referred to in this way before you told me better)) deal with this? This is strictly for my learning.
Yeah, I know you didn't invent it. To answer your question, I've been looking for the answer to that one myself, because I don't think it was anything I was specifically taught. Maybe it was, when I was a boy, but I don't remember. I didn't get much good response when I threw it out casually among some Jewish friends recently. So... since you ask... I'll look it up. And look what I found. There's a two volume book called "The Jewish Book of Why" by Alfred J. Kolatch that has an answer to that very question. Here's what it says:
"Why do some Jews believe that the idea of a Chosen People should be discarded?
"In the view of most Jews, the belief in Israel as God's Chosen People has contributed immeasurably to Jewish survival. It has enabled Jews to carry on in times of adversity. Some Jews, however, consider the Chosen People concept an expression of unwarranted pride and self importance, one that ought to be discarded. They argue that we really do not know what the Bible originally meant when it used the term *am segula*, 'Chosen People.'
"Opponents of the Chosen People idea also believe that retaining this concept is detrimental to Jewish interests because it leads to a false sense of superiority that invites contempt from non-Jews and denies the democratic idea of equality for all men, which Judaism espouses.
"Reconstructionists in particular, led by their founder, Professor Mordecai M. Kaplan (1881-1983), have long urged that Jews not continue to regard themselves as the Chosen People because of the ring of arrogance that the concept carries with it. Accordingly, this movement omits from traditional Tora blessing the words 'Who has chosen us above all peoples...' and substitutes "Who has *brought us closer to His service*.' In their view, this modification in the prayer expresses the idea of responsibility rather than superiority.
"Opponents of the Chosen People concept often point out that the idea has not been considered basic to Judaism by all authorities. Moses Maimondides' Thirteen Articles of Faith, for example, does not allude to the chosenness concept. Nevertheless, all Jewish religious denominations other than Reconstructionism continue to subscribe to the traditional view that Jews are the Chosen People."
Now, I don't know where I picked up the view I have, but obviously it coincides with the Reconstructionist view described above. (Don't ask me to explain what reconstructionist are. I'd have to look it up).
As to the Jewish view of why they think they ARE the chosen people, the book says there are actually differing views on what the term means. See, Deut. 7:6. The term *am segula* is found in Exodus 19:5 and Deut. 14:2. In the Talmud, on the other hand, Rabbi Yochanan (1st Cent. B.C.E.) teaches that it's not God who chose Israel, but the other way around. Relying on Deut 33:2 and Habakkuk 3:3 he says that God offered the Tora to every nation, each of whom refused except Israel who accepted. Thus, Israel chose God. There are other interpretations as well of the origin of the term. According to Kolatch, "[r]egardless of which of the above interpretations students of Jewish tradition have accepted over the centuries, few have expressed the opinion that the notion of chosenness implies that Jews are superior people or that special privileges have been conferred upon them. On the contrary, chosenness means that the people of Israel bear special responsibility to lead exemplary lives."
In the minority I may be among my own people, at least according to Kolatch on the subject, I am of the personal view that use of the term invites a false sense of superiority, is dangerous to equality, and invites contempt from non-Jews. People think I have an edge as it is. "Hey, he's a Jew. He's smart, right?" And when people think YOU think you're superior, they're all the more motivated to knock you down. That's where I'm coming from anyway. That's why it makes *me* very uncomfortable.
Take care. Rob
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment