My God, What Have They Wrought?

Now they’ve gone and done it. Just when you thought they’d reached the limit of their hubris, the Supremes have reached beyond their controversial decision of last week which effectively gave governments the chance to maximize their tax revenues without a whole lot of consideration for the inalienable right to pursue one’s happiness by amassing property. Now, they ruled that the Ten Commandments aren't quite appropriate hanging behind the judge’s bench when you go to court. But, they weren’t totally draconian about the issue. They also said that Moses’ somewhat chipped up tablets can be displayed elsewhere on government property. Commandments Yes and No

Is this a good thing or a bad? Or does it make one whit of difference? Did they get this one right or wrong and what impact will it have on our quality of life, the sanctity of marriage, and whether or not Britney will be a good mother? Have we damaged our society forever or is this one other example of outraged rhetoric and excessive ado about nada?

A long time ago, while playing like a fighter pilot in Spain, I ran into a Spanish celebrity. He was the center of Real Madrid soccer team, and I quite literally ran into him. I was returning from a day in the Guadarama Mountains at a squadron party and we were tail-chasing down the two lanes of the back country at a reasonably imprudent speed. I hit the other car left front fender to left front fender. His fender moved back to his front door, which then advanced into his rear door and his rear fender—total left side wipeout. Meanwhile, since we were on a concrete highway overpass, his car shifted right and scraped the entire right side along the abutments. My American iron, suffered a badly damaged front bumper and slight crumpling of the front of the left front fender. He was irate, he was also huge and in remarkable physical condition. I was apologetic. We called the Guardia Civil and when the paper work was done, we eventually went to court.

The court was a Spanish civil court in a small mountain town. The judge was flanked by a clerk/steno on one side and a Catholic priest on the other. Above the judge, prominently displayed were the flag of Spain, the crest of Castile, a picture of King Juan Carlos and a painting of Jesus of the Sacred Heart. Above the whole display was a six foot tall crucifix. Did I expect that religion would have an impact on the decision of the court? Would I get justice in Spain if I announced that I were a Moor (i.e. a Muslim) or a Jew? Neither group did well in Spanish history. Flashes of Torquemada and the Inquisition came to mind. Was an auto-de-fey to be required, either voluntarily or in my last tortured breath in the dungeons? Never fear, my records said I was Catholic (albeit one of the “recovering” version and studiously non-practicing.)

After a few prayers and the equivalent of the Spanish national anthem, the trial commenced and since my insurance company had already repaired the national hero’s car and no one had been injured, there was little more to resolve. I was fined the equivalent of about $40 and justice prevailed.

My point of the anecdote, however, is to emphasize how religious symbology in a civil court can bring into question the objectivity of the proceedings. Sure, we are a predominantly Christian nation even if we don’t act like it in our day-to-day living. And, certainly we must bow to our heritage in remembering the origins of the nation, the faith of the founders, and the judeo-christian basis for much of our law. But, as we increasingly become diversified and even secularized, is it appropriate to link a very distinct interpretation of the law with our judicial process? I’d suggest not.

There are certain basic concepts in the Ten Commandments that are reflected in the law. The business about murdering, stealing and lying are pretty much accepted across the board. But, that business about the Sabbath isn’t universal. Nor is the taking of the Lord’s name and the business about idols. And, coveting isn’t really incorporated into most statutes. Most disrespect of parents is pretty much ignored by the system as well. So, we find that only about half of the ten that we’re so concerned about really play into the scenario.

It seems to this observer, that the Supremes may have established their nuances just about right in this decision. No big plaque in the courtroom, but recognition of the place of morality in the total society is approved in other displays on government property.

I can’t wait for the editorials to sprout and the hyperbole to reign supreme.