03/08/2005: "Reply to Richard Cohen : Justice Scalia misguided?"
Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote this article (reg. required) 
. Here is the e-mail I sent to him at cohenr@washpost.com:
I appreciated your candor in your column about Scalia and the Ten Commandments. I'd like to challenge a few of your assertions:
1. While I think it is reasonable to say that it is not a "fact" that government derives it's power from God (I'd call it a Truth), I think you've mis-represented our Founding Fathers and the writers of the Declaration of Independence. Let's look at the whole sentence you quoted a fragment of (as well as the preceeding one):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
I find it nearly appauling that you started your quote mid-sentence as to avoid the critical reference. "That to secure these rights..." is a pretty important lead in, don't you think? I think so. I think it is particularly important considering that these rights are "endowed by their Creator". So if I were to re-write those sentances of the Declaration of Independence in modern language they would look something like this:
We have rights that come from God. These rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Governments are created to protect these rights. Governments get their power from the people they govern. Whenever the government no longer protects these God given rights, the people have a right to change or replace the government so as to ensure their God given rights are protected.
I'd say that's a reasonable modernization, wouldn't you? Notice that one's rights come from God. Notice that the power (not authority or right) that comes from the people is for the purpose of securing the rights that come from God. You quoted a fragment of a sentence that's purpose was to transition from the invocation to the enforcement of our God given rights. To argue that the fragment is a Godless statement is absurd and as such I think you severely misrepresented the writes of the Declaration of Independence.
2. I believe you've created a false dicotomy by asking how Scalia would feel if the 10 Commandments were replaced by another creed. What you're asking is not whether Scalia is tolerant of other religions, but whether he'd submit to another religion. I think you'd find most religious people, including Scalia, are very comfortable with multiple religious symbols being in the "public square" as long as their religion isn't excluded. Your question should be, "How would Scalia feel if a representation of another religion was placed along side the Ten Commandments on the wall behind the judge?" That would be a fair question. Your question is an unfair one because it doesn't allow for both religious passion and religious tolerance. Which brings me to point #3...
3. In response to your concluding paragraph, the biggest fallacy being suggested today by those who promote "rigorous secularism" is that religious zeal is incompatible with religious tolerance. As a zealous Catholic, one who is proud of my religious heritage and strongly desires to see more come to know the Truth (not "fact") that is the Catholic faith, I can tell you that religious tolerance is very important to me.
One of the things that almost all religions teach, even those that do not derive from the Jewish heritage, is the inherent value of ALL people. That value requires that we have a respect/love for all people, even those who do not share our views, even our religious views. While it is undeniable that many horrific things have been done in the "name" of religion, the actual teachings of those same religions would in fact condemn those horrific actions. In reality, those tragedies of our history are not failures of religion, but failures of men who turn their back on their religion. The worst thing that could happen in the world is for those who perpretrate crimes against humanity to have no religion to turn their back on. It is far easier for one to dehumanize a person when they have no religious obligation to value the humanity of that person.
So I would suggest the just the opposite of those who promote "rigorous secularism": not only is religious zeal compatible with religious tolerance, it is principly responsible for it.
Thank you taking the time to read my comments and I welcome any reply.
Ken Crawford
Online reader from California
