I read about Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum case a couple of weeks ago in World magazine and heard about it again on NPR the other day. I think cases like this are interesting because it brings out underlying presuppositions that aren't usually talked (or even thought) about. The shallowness of American theology rears it's ugly head here. We pretend that we think all religions are created equal, and that anyone who thinks one religion is superior to another is both arrogant and ignorant (i.e. ignorant of the "fact" that it's impossible to know anything about God). Then something like the “Seven Aphorisms of Summum” shows up and wants to join the party.
If the city says that the 10 C's monument reflects the views of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, the Summum folks can say that their group should be able to have their monument put up. If they say that the 10 C's monument (after donation) reflects the city governments views, then there's (supposedly) a violation of church and state. I'm sure the arguments are going to get more nuanced than this, but it may end up coming down to something like: "the 10 C's, unlike the Seven Aphorisms, are interwoven in the foundation of Western Civilization" or "The Fraternal Order of Eagles has longstanding ties to the community" (which I think was the original argument).
The problem is, even though this case is going to the highest court of the land to be scrutinized by our finest legal minds and ought to bring about deep, probing insights into religious epistemology, what we're probably going to get is legal technicalities which obscure the real issue: Cities should be able to reject monuments like the Seven Aphorisms of Summum because they are heretical, hurtful, and false.
It's either an illusion of neutrality that's going to ultimately end up hurting us as our public religious sphere gets more and more absurd, or a glorious hypocrisy which allows us to have a civil, productive society despite fundamental religious diversity.
I'm sure Nate and Andy will tell me that I'm just an ignorant layperson.
decent analysis, you ignorant layperson.
ReplyDeleteOh Jay, don't you know that only the professional legal class can handle disputes like these? Tut, tut, tut. We're lawyers. We'll handle this... ;-)
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, I don't know much about this case other than I heard the opening to that NPR story. But I'm not sure I want the Supreme Court making theological distinctions. In fact, I'm sure I don't want those yahoos doing it.
The disestablishment of the Church in the U.S. was not a bad thing. While the late 20th century culture warriors have framed the debate as "cutting God out of our" schools, laws, etc., it's really about cutting government out of our churches.
I prefer a secular government to one that wades into religious disputes. Religion should enjoy an influential spot in the public square through the convictions of its adherents, but the minute nine guys (or eight guys and one gal) with big shot legal credentials start analyzing theology, we're in for a wild ride.
And for examples of what happens when religion gets conflated with political power, see Cromwell's England, Calvin's Geneva, and frankly, Pat Robertson's la-la land.
But they ARE wading into theology. They can't avoid it.
ReplyDeleteTrue dat. That's why I don't want any of this stuff meddled with by courts/legislators. I'd rather have no 10 commandments monoliths, no Eightfold Pathways, no seven sons of Sceva tablets or whatever, nothing, than have a bunch of legal eagles try to pretend they can decide an essentially religious question based on secular law.
ReplyDelete