Inappropriate Content: Kakistocracy©

A friend of mine has a book called Exceptions to the Ten Commandments. Every page is blank, except for the first one, where my friend has scribbled in the local poison control number and directions to his girlfriend's dorm room.

I mention this merely to bring up the Ten Commandments; the US Supreme Court today heard arguments on displays of the commandments in Kentucky and Texas. CNN reports (not that I'm suggesting anyone get their news from a 24-hour news channel, but CNN is the only news site I can read on my cell phone):

In the Kentucky case, two county executives separately posted copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses. They were displayed among 11 frames of privately donated historical documents and symbols that helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence. All but the Ten Commandments were secular in nature...

In Texas, Thomas Van Orden, a self-described "religious pluralist," filed suit against the placement, with private funds, of a 6-foot-tall monument on the grounds of Austin's Capitol Building in 1961. It bears the words "Ten Commandments," a star of David, a symbol representing Christ and the words "I am the Lord thy God."

Now most democrats naturally have a little bit of Onomatophobia—fear of hearing certain words—when it comes to the words “ten” and “commandments.” (In fact, House parliamentarians change $10 million appropriations to $11 million appropriations on all legislation.) After all, this is one of those issues that provokes an immediate, emotional response in people.

Take me, for example. When I read the reporting above, I think to myself, ‘Okay, Kentucky had the commandments with other documents, in an exhibit, presumably with some informational material and clearly in an educational setting. I may not agree with their premise that the commandments “helped form the basis of American law”—if you actually read the founders' writings, especially the Federalist Papers, you'll see how much most of the founders would have disagreed—but anything is better than Disney's Pocahontas, so good for them.

‘On the other hand, that Texas thing is a big monument right between the capitol and the judicial buildings with “a symbol representing Christ and the words ‘I am the Lord thy God.’ Maybe you have to be there to get the context, but something tells me that if you put up a statue of Gordon B. Hinckley with the words “Prophet, Seer & Revelator” in the same place, it might be a smidge less popular.’

Much as I'd love to see the High Court adopt “could you put a statue of President Hinckley there?” as a standard in commandment cases (or even better, the L. Ron Hubbard litmus test) the point is that my thoughts on this case are very emotional and gut-level—and I'm being far more moderate than most people!

Apparently some of the Justices have the same reaction. CNN's newer story informs us that Justice Souter believes “everybody knows what's going on” when the commandments are displayed. Scalia believes “what the Ten Commandments stands for is the human affairs of God.” And Ruth Bader Ginsburg informs us “these are not simple messages, like “In God We Trust’ [on U.S. currency]. The Ten Commandments are a powerful statement of the covenant God made with his people.”

Which makes these cases very much the judicial system's equivalent of the Michael Jackson trial (the actual Michael Jackson trial being, at best, only tangentially connected with the judicial system). These cases get a rise out of people, make us feel angry for one reason or another, yet they don't really affect us all that much. As personally offensive as I find the Texas display, I can always, as Justice Kennedy observed, simply look away. It does not violate my civil rights in a way that a constitutional amendment that prevents me from marrying whom ever I please does. It's not even as bad an infringement on my rights as the dress code I had at Bryant Junior High School.

No matter how the court rules on the commandments, it's not going to affect me much. All it will do is prompt a whole lot of lawmakers to do photo ops with, issue press releases about, and pass non-binding resolutions in support of, the commandments—in short, a whole lot of members of congress will be distracted from their jobs and fail to get much legislating done. For that, at least, we can be thankful; after all, a book about the bad things that happen when congressmen don't legislate would be a lot like a book on exceptions to the ten commandments: blank.