To the editor: In arguing for displaying the Ten Commandments in public colleges, contributing author Josh Hammer, like most radical conservatives, would take the nation again to its antebellum days earlier than the Civil Conflict Amendments to the Structure had been ratified (“The first Modification was by no means meant to separate church and state,” Jan. 23). He gives an outdated argument: that the first Modification’s clause prohibiting Congress from establishing faith is simply a proscription in opposition to the federal authorities, leaving state governments free to do no matter they need relating to faith.
The Civil Conflict Amendments completely modified the connection of the federal authorities to the states. Over time, the U.S. Supreme Court docket dominated that just about the entire of the Invoice of Rights should be obeyed by every state. Thus, states can not set up faith, which incorporates not choosing and selecting which non secular doctrines, together with the Ten Commandments, to advertise in colleges.
Hammer asserts that the commandments had been launched by Judaism and unfold worldwide by Christianity, however he ignores the truth that there are totally different variations of the commandments, relying on the faith or non secular sect. Some later Christian variations have modified the unique Jewish model, for instance, omitting the prohibition in opposition to graven photos. Some Christian sects place the commandments in a unique order. Whose model would he need colleges to show of their lecture rooms?
As for his declare that it’s hypocritical for the U.S. Supreme Court docket to have a frieze above its entrance that incorporates a statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments tablets whereas not permitting an identical show in colleges, he evidently has not seemed on the statue with eyes open. The tablets are clean.
Robert J. Switzer, West Hollywood
..
To the editor: I usually agree with Hammer’s observations, however not this time. His conclusion that faith ought to have a significant place in public colleges is specious at finest.
He cites no proof that the founders supposed the first Modification to bind the nationwide authorities so as to free the states to determine a state-supported faith.
James Madison opposed non secular institutions at each degree. The first Modification’s federal-only language displays political and constitutional limits, not Madison’s choice. No documented proof exists that he supposed to protect state institution energy; the paperwork we do have present the alternative.
Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance (1785) that established church buildings corrupt each church and state. There isn’t a letter, argument for laws, committee or conference doc wherein Madison says the first Modification was crafted to permit state institutions.
Gary Hartzell, Manhattan Seashore
..
To the editor: Hammer denies that the first Modification to the Structure institutes a separation of church and state. He fails to make good on this declare.
He’s flawed on each counts contained right here: “The USA was based on ecumenical biblical rules, and the Ten Commandments — the wellspring of a lot of Western morality.” It’s false that the U.S. was based on ecumenical biblical rules and the Ten Commandments. It’s false that the Ten Commandments are the supply of Western morality.
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Structure of america present a founding in biblical rules, no matter these might be. Do “biblical rules” promote democracy and freedom from tyranny of a monarch? Do they promote a republican type of authorities, separation of powers and human rights discovered within the Amendments to the Structure? Any pupil of faith, historical past and authorities would say “no.”
The declare of the Ten Commandments because the “wellspring” of Western morality is equally groundless. Absolutely Western “morality” consists of the rights of all individuals, an eventual forbiddance of slavery and recognition of the rights of ladies, obtained after an extended wrestle. It additionally consists of the trouble to restrict warfare and the definition of what could be known as a “simply warfare.” None of this follows from any interpretation of the Ten Commandments. Hammer is unquestionably delusional on these factors.
Juan Bernal, Santa Ana
