Ed Brayton comments on a political maneuver in South Carolina:
In South Carolina, the state legislature recently considered a bill to allow one such display, called the Foundations of American Law and Government, to be displayed in public buildings, including schools. Some legislators who oppose the idea came up with a clever way to weaken the bill: amend it to add the Lord’s Prayer to the display, thus making it much more likely to be overturned in court.
Brilliant! This is political aikido, using politicians’ need to pander shamelessly to the religious right against them. I love it.
Its about time that some people realize that being beholden to the religious right can have disadvantages that can be exploited.
Please share widely!
Adding the Lord’s Prayer to a display that already includes the Ten Commandments might make it more egregious, but I don’t understand why the Lord’s Prayer per se is any more unconstitutional than the Ten Commandments. It seems both Biblical passages are equally religious and thus subject to scrutiny. Is it the thought of some that a Judeo-Christian piece, such as the Ten Commandments is OK, but that a specifically Christian piece, such as the Lord’s Prayer, is not?
… the theory is that adding the prayer will put it over the line for the constitutional test because the in addition to the prayer being overtly religions, it’s a specious contribution to any exhibit of the “Foundations of American Law and Government”. If the intent of adding non-religious items to such a display is to “dilute the religious message enough to get it through the courts”, then theoretically adding to the religions message might have the opposite effect.
that a) the courts will hear the case and b) rule correctly. it pains me greatly to say it, but we all know the courts haven’t always ruled correctly and fairly. cases involving slavery, internment of japanese-american citizens and marriage equality are some great examples of how far afield some court decisions can be.
<
p>that said, i like the idea, in theory at least.
… on recent precedent. No link right now, but I seem to remember discussion on the recent “religious display” cases and the context was the deciding factor. So religious proponents in SC put forth legislation specifically designed around that context. ‘If context is what we need to get the commandments displayed, the so be it. Because, as we all know, the most important thing is that the commandments get displayed. That is how taxpayers want us to spend our time and their money.’ So the opposition effort was to pollute the context in an ‘akido’ way. This recent precedent is the terrain around which everyone is maneuvering.
<
p>Your point is well taken though.
To be fair, they should probably throw in this as well:
<
p>”Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. “
<
p>-Thomas Jefferson