the 10 commandments

decides2dream

yet another thread inspired by a post on another thread here.

cornnifer wrote:

...This is why I don't understand the whole "ten commandments in the courtroom controversy". I can't really see the staunchest of atheists disagreeing with any one of the ten. They're common sense. I believe very strongly in God, but you don't really have to to know that killing and stealing, for example, are wrong.

i've never read them exactly as this - i always had the school children's version i guess, but you get the idea. does anyone truly question why someone who is non-religious may take issue with some of these commandments? why one would NOT want them on display in a place of government, etc. even amongst religions...not all are monotheistic, so those who believe in more than one god might take issue with a lot. sure, lots of great/common sense ideas in here...but also a LOT of mention of GOD...which is kinda the whole point, no? thus why...seperation of church and state to me, ALWAYS seems the way to go.


thoughts?
for/against their display in governmental offices, courts, etc.....reasons?


The following is the text of the commonly accepted (by Christian and Jewish authorities) commandments as found in the book of Exodus 20:1-17, New Revised Standard Version of the Christian Bible. Because Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic traditions divide the commandments in different fashions, they are presented below without itemization.

Then God spoke all these words: saying: (2)"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage:
”I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) For six days you shall labour and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (17) You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.


taken from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
scroll down in the link for a more simplified, numbered form.

jeffbr

decides2dream wrote:

thoughts?
for/against their display in governmental offices, courts, etc.....reasons?

I don't care either way. Seeing them posted doesn't make we want to run out and become religious. But I don't want their display to be an endorsement of the 10 commandments.

The quote that prompted the start of this thread was a bit naive. Couldn't see any that an athiest would disagree with? Common sense? Here are the commandments I find presumptuous:

1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10

The first four have to do with worshiping a particular god, so I can't see how that is even remotely "common sense". Number 7 is something done by 2 consenting adults. I may think it is wrong, but I don't think it should be against the law. And maybe I'm not looking at the 10th correctly, but I don't have a problem with people coveting or desiring something if it motivates them.

So 4 of them seem like "common sense" to me. The other 60% is noise.

decides2dream

well to the faithful, i would think all 10 have deep/great meaning.....however, that was kinda my whole point: the first 4 directly linked to God, one god, and thus has no place in government. my fear with such being displayed in governmental buildings is...where will it end? if you give an inch, then a yard will be taken next. bottomline, we are supposed to live in a country with seperation of church and state. i agree that EVERYone has the right to believe/practive/speak out on any/all of their beliefs...i just also fully believe that such rhetoric has no place in our government, think it's a damn fine idea that both are kept apart...that our government should represent us ALL...thus the beliefs of one religion, or even a few, should not be involved. i just don't want any one religion or set of beliefs 'endorsed'...except for the LAWS that are collectively agreed upon. to me, that is our belief system as a country.

even flow?

How many "idols" do they want us to worship in the sporting and entertainment world, better yet name actual shows after what the force dosen't want you to do.

Shopping on Sundays?????? Better yet having the liquor and beer stores open.


What was that buzz word after the war started? Which is killing people as we all type.....................Oh yeah, lies!


Kind of makes you wonder when the "nut jobs" who take religion a little too far are the ones going to the promised land and we are just going to be free to do what we want, when we want and then take it all back on our dying breath and give jesus a big hug as we waltz on through the pearly gates.

cornnifer

Well, gee willakers. Since I have apparently ben used as inspiration for a whole thread, *humbled* and since I'be been quoted in the initial post (actually partially quoted and taken out of context), I suppose I should throw in my .02. Fact of the matter is, its a stupid freaking issue. The same way the far right spend way to much time spouting off about stupid shit like gay marriage and abortion when there are matters of FAR greater significance and concern, The far left, folks like michael moore and the ACLU, spend waaaay to much time bitching about "in God we trust" on money and ten commandment displays in courthouses. There is far more important stuff to get your panties in a twist about. If these things really disturb you soooo much, I suggest googling "a life" and seeing what kind of returns you get.

nick1977

I don't have a strong opinion on this one....other than the fact that the Supreme Court building wall would have to be sandblasted to remove the Ten Comandments from the Court wall.

I am a strong beleiver in separation of church and state. I believe religion has no place in government affairs. Teachers should not lead prayer in school. However, there is nothing wrong with pulling some philosophies from religion that promotes good living and the principals of which are widely accepted......the ten comandments would largely fall into this...except the first five or so deal with God. The last half I have no problem with in government, but the first few don't belong in political affairs.

Perhaps we should all compromise and just use the last 5 and call the "The Five Principals."

decides2dream

cornnifer wrote:

Well, gee willakers. Since I have apparently ben used as inspiration for a whole thread, *humbled* and since I'be been quoted in the initial post (actually partially quoted and taken out of context), I suppose I should throw in my .02. Fact of the matter is, its a stupid freaking issue. The same way the far right spend way to much time spouting off about stupid shit like gay marriage and abortion when there are matters of FAR greater significance and concern, The far left, folks like michael moore and the ACLU, spend waaaay to much time bitching about "in God we trust" on money and ten commandment displays in courthouses. There is far more important stuff to get your panties in a twist about. If these things really disturb you soooo much, I suggest googling "a life" and seeing what kind of returns you get.

well gee willakers, i was leaving out the impertinent info...but here it ALL is if you think it makes a difference:

messymarv wrote:

Well here in lies the real problem almost all codes of ethics and behaviour come from religon. Our forefathers were all religious. Not to kill, steal etc.. come from not going against the higher being they believed in. So if someone refuses to believe in a God whose moral code was basis of our laws then they should be free to kill, steal, etc.. cause those are codes of religious belief and there is not suspose to be religon in government, right. So that argument means everyone on death row is indeed innocent cause the law is based on belief of our forefathers God. So remove religon from government you'd have to excuse all violations of the ten copmandments Murder, theft, etc..

cornnifer wrote:

Well, see, here I have to be fair. As most people here know, I am a person of faith so can appreciate your rhethoric, but, it is, in fact wrong to imply that those without faith would condone killing or be completely without moral code. This is why I don't understand the whole "ten commandments in the courtroom controversy". I can't really see the staunchest of atheists disagreeing with any one of the ten. They're common sense. I believe very strongly in God, but you don't really have to to know that killing and stealing, for example, are wrong.

i DID actually address this in the other thread...but it simply inspired me to read the 10 commandments again. so i appreciate that. also made me look at your statement and think...how could atheists NOT take issue with the it? nonetheless...however 'dumb' you may view it...might possibly be b/c you believe/support such. while i agree it is not an 'important' issue in the scheme of things...it is important, imho, that a government represent ALL it's citizens. so then, i am glad that thus far the 10 commandments have been banned from governmental buildings, as well they should be. they can/should be left to places of worship, private institutions.

and you can say all you will that i 'need a life'..but that doesn't address the issue. if perhaps the 10 commandments were completely againbst your beliefs, i don't thinmk you'd dismiss it as not a 'big deal'...that your government is not representing you. you called abook 'unreasonable' for bringing up 'in satan we trust'...it's not truly unreasonable, it is merely a comparison. so then, if there were such a 10 commandments for satanists, you'd take no issue with their display in governmental buildings, a place of representation of all our countries citizenship?


anyway, your comment merely struck a chord with me, thus inspired me...it was not meant to insult. but honestly, i cannot see how you cannot see why it's wrong to mix religion with government. of course, your right to disagree.

btw - i am not so 'disturbed'...it's merely a discussion.

tybird

The Ten Commandments debate that started here in Alabama was intially a one-man campaign to force the government to acknowledge the God worshipped by Christians. I am so glad that one-man just got his ass kicked in the Republican primary for governor.

decides2dream

nick1977 wrote:

I am a strong beleiver in separation of church and state. I believe religion has no place in government affairs. Teachers should not lead prayer in school. However, there is nothing wrong with pulling some philosophies from religion that promotes good living and the principals of which are widely accepted......the ten comandments would largely fall into this...except the first five or so deal with God. The last half I have no problem with in government, but the first few don't belong in political affairs.

Perhaps we should all compromise and just use the last 5 and call the "The Five Principals."

well said.
or perhaps, why bother referencing them at all? we have laws and such to represent our morals/ideals as a country. and as some have pointed out...many of them are already based/inspired in part by such commandments, so seems redundant to have to even bother with such. that really is it for me...keep government and religion seperate, as is the ideals this country was founded on.

nick1977

decides2dream wrote:

well said.
or perhaps, why bother referencing them at all? we have laws and such to represent our morals/ideals as a country. and as some have pointed out...many of them are already based/inspired in part by such commandments, so seems redundant to have to even bother with such. that rerally is it for me...keep government and religion seperate, as is the ideals this country was founded on.

Oh I agree.

I understand the prayer in school issue and why people get worked up so much. Although, where I live, you everyone wants prayer in schools.....that is until I mention the possibility of a Mormon, Muslim, or Wicaan being a teacher and wanting to lead a prayer in school.....then they all back off and say "well that is different." I say, so one religion should be able to lead a prayer in the classroom, but not another? No one can come up with a good answer except, "Well, that won't happen." Oh well, I make my point.

I do think the right uses the Ten Commandments to fire up their base though.....it is a way to "get God back into government." It is a small step, but a step in the diretion the religious right want to take this country. It really, really scares me how people want God and Government to mix. They are playing with dynamite there and someone will get hurt if people can use God to justify political actions.

Our system should protect all religions and give us all the way to worship the way we believe...after all, religion is one of the most personal, intimate issues in a person's life.

decides2dream

nick1977 wrote:

Oh I agree.

I understand the prayer in school issue and why people get worked up so much. Although, where I live, you everyone wants prayer in schools.....that is until I mention the possibility of a Mormon, Muslim, or Wicaan being a teacher and wanting to lead a prayer in school.....then they all back off and say "well that is different." I say, so one religion should be able to lead a prayer in the classroom, but not another? No one can come up with a good answer except, "Well, that won't happen." Oh well, I make my point.

I do think the right uses the Ten Commandments to fire up their base though.....it is a way to "get God back into government." It is a small step, but a step in the diretion the religious right want to take this country. It really, really scares me how people want God and Government to mix. They are playing with dynamite there and someone will get hurt if people can use God to justify political actions.

Our system should protect all religions and give us all the way to worship the way we believe...after all, religion is one of the most personal, intimate issues in a person's life.

exactly...that's why it is 'important'...give an inch, they'll take a yard.
of course, as per usual, you stated such far more eloquently than i ever could. thank you.

know1

I maintain that posting the 10 Commandments in a public building does NOT violate the Constitution.

cornnifer

know1 wrote:

I maintain that posting the 10 Commandments in a public building does NOT violate the Constitution.

or separation of church and state.

keeponrockin

nick1977 wrote:

Oh I agree.

I understand the prayer in school issue and why people get worked up so much. Although, where I live, you everyone wants prayer in schools.....that is until I mention the possibility of a Mormon, Muslim, or Wicaan being a teacher and wanting to lead a prayer in school.....then they all back off and say "well that is different." I say, so one religion should be able to lead a prayer in the classroom, but not another? No one can come up with a good answer except, "Well, that won't happen." Oh well, I make my point.

I do think the right uses the Ten Commandments to fire up their base though.....it is a way to "get God back into government." It is a small step, but a step in the diretion the religious right want to take this country. It really, really scares me how people want God and Government to mix. They are playing with dynamite there and someone will get hurt if people can use God to justify political actions.

Our system should protect all religions and give us all the way to worship the way we believe...after all, religion is one of the most personal, intimate issues in a person's life.

Could not agree more.

cornnifer

decides2dream wrote:

well gee willakers, i was leaving out the impertinent info...but here it ALL is if you think it makes a difference:




i DID actually address this in the other thread...but it simply inspired me to read the 10 commandments again. so i appreciate that. also made me look at your statement and think...how could atheists NOT take issue with the it? nonetheless...however 'dumb' you may view it...might possibly be b/c you believe/support such. while i agree it is not an 'important' issue in the scheme of things...it is important, imho, that a government represent ALL it's citizens. so then, i am glad that thus far the 10 commandments have been banned from governmental buildings, as well they should be. they can/should be left to places of worship, private institutions.

and you can say all you will that i 'need a life'..but that doesn't address the issue. if perhaps the 10 commandments were completely againbst your beliefs, i don't thinmk you'd dismiss it as not a 'big deal'...that your government is not representing you. you called abook 'unreasonable' for bringing up 'in satan we trust'...it's not truly unreasonable, it is merely a comparison. so then, if there were such a 10 commandments for satanists, you'd take no issue with their display in governmental buildings, a place of representation of all our countries citizenship?


anyway, your comment merely struck a chord with me, thus inspired me...it was not meant to insult. but honestly, i cannot see how you cannot see why it's wrong to mix religion with government. of course, your right to disagree.

btw - i am not so 'disturbed'...it's merely a discussion.

O.k. You obviously know nothing about me so are relying on your stereotypes to make assumptions. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of separation of church and state. None at all. It just so happens that I understand what separation of church and state means. "in God we trust" on currency, and commandment displays in courthouses simply do not violate said concept. They in no way attempt to establish a state sponsored religion. They don't even attempt to force a general faith, or render an atheist unrepresented by government. Look, quite honestly I don't care that the commandments are not displayed in courthouses, and if "God" was no longer printed on my money, I wouldn't give a shit. I don't really have any to begin with (alot of hardworking people don't, and I have a much bigger problem with that).

know1

cornnifer wrote:

or separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state is a myth. Read the constitution and show me where it says the church must be separate from the state.

RainDog

know1 wrote:

Separation of church and state is a myth. Read the constitution and show me where it says the church must be separate from the state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Granted, it's the legalese version of "seperation of church and state," but there it is. I suppose there's no "law" in displaying the ten commandments - but it definately shows religious favortism among our law making bodies. No where in our country where laws are decided upon and enforced should the words "thou shalt have no other god before me" ever appear.

And as for the "commandments" being listed on the walls of the supreme court - they're not really. The numbers I through X are represented in stone tablet form, but those could be refering to the Bill of Rights.

nick1977

The term separation of chruch and state was originally coined by Jefferson in a letter. It has become the phrase to use when referring to the Constitutional provision that states Congress shall make now law respecting an establishment of religion.

Down through the years, the Supreme Court has had to define exactely what that means (as all courts must do when interpreting any law). In searching for the meaning, some courts have looked at letters and essays written by the founding fathers while drafing the Constitution. As the court has interpreted the provision, the phrase "separtion of church and state" became a shorthand way of saying what the Constitution was protecting. What was it protecting? It protects citizens from government establishing a religion or interfering in a person's private worship.

Can a display of the 10 commandments be seen as an endorsement of religion by the government? It does depend on the context. A nativity scene does on government property does not endorse a religion if symbols of other religions are also displayed (a menorah, for example). However, if there is only a nativity scene, and no other religious symbols are permitted, that is a government endorsement of a religion, and unconstitutional.

This is a very, very, very complicated issue. For example, what if the 10 commandments were displayed next to universally accepted principals from other religions? That would probably be ok. However, a display on public property of the 10 commandments as a way to say our nation is a Christian nation is completely inappropriate and unconstitutional because it would be seen as an endorsement of Christainity over another religion.

The bottom line is that government should not do anything or display anything in a way that a neutral observer could see as an endorsement of one religion by the government. Is a generic reference to god an endorsement of one religion? Probably not.....but a reference to Jesus or Budah or the Dalli Lama is. Just like, in most contexts, the display of a religious text by the government would be seen as an endorsement of a particular religion.

Taking it a step further, is the Ten Commandments religiously neutral or religion specific? No doubt that it came from Moses and is contained in the Torrah and Chrsitian Bible. Is that itself enough to make it an endorsement of a religion if displayed on government property? If there was a sign hung on government property that said "Love your neighbor as yourself," is the fact that they were spoken by Jesus enough for it to be seen as an endorsement of his teachings? I doubt it, but you see my point. The 10 commandments contains references to God.....a fact that cannot be ignored. A neutral observer would likely see this as an endorsement of religion since is references a specific God (the Jewish God or Christian God). A neutral observer would be unlikely to see "love your neighbor" as endorsing a specific religion because although spoken by Jesus, contains no reference to God.

decides2dream

cornnifer wrote:

O.k. You obviously know nothing about me so are relying on your stereotypes to make assumptions. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of separation of church and state. None at all. It just so happens that I understand what separation of church and state means. "in God we trust" on currency, and commandment displays in courthouses simply do not violate said concept. They in no way attempt to establish a state sponsored religion. They don't even attempt to force a general faith, or render an atheist unrepresented by government. Look, quite honestly I don't care that the commandments are not displayed in courthouses, and if "God" was no longer printed on my money, I wouldn't give a shit. I don't really have any to begin with (alot of hardworking people don't, and I have a much bigger problem with that).

actually no. i know nothing of you, wasn't using stereotypes at all..i was merely focusing on the language of this post:

cornnifer wrote:

Well, gee willakers. Since I have apparently ben used as inspiration for a whole thread, *humbled* and since I'be been quoted in the initial post (actually partially quoted and taken out of context), I suppose I should throw in my .02. Fact of the matter is, its a stupid freaking issue.

kinda hints to 'dumb' imo...but you're right i should've just simply reused the word 'stupid'.

cornnifer wrote:

The same way the far right spend way to much time spouting off about stupid shit like gay marriage and abortion when there are matters of FAR greater significance and concern, The far left, folks like michael moore and the ACLU, spend waaaay to much time bitching about "in God we trust" on money and ten commandment displays in courthouses. There is far more important stuff to get your panties in a twist about. If these things really disturb you soooo much, I suggest googling "a life" and seeing what kind of returns you get.

agasin, just addressing your post earlier, nothing more.


either way i still DISagree with it, b/c while not promoting any one religion per se...it is promoting GOD....and i simply believe, government should have no hand in such. my 'panties aren't in a twist'...i am merely discussing this issue, i happen to find it rather relevant for many of the reasons i, and others have listed. if you do not, that's fair. so yes, i DO believe this is an issue of seperation of church and state...b/c any language containing GOD, to me, at least hints at religion...thus has no place in my government.

THAT is all my main issue on the topic...and i am not saying you specifically, but i do believe many who believe this is a 'non-issue'...would certainly change their minds if instead of God, it was worded goddess, or satan, etc. it's easy for one to think something is unimportant when they actually agree with it...that is all.

cornnifer

decides2dream wrote:

actually no. i know nothing of you, wasn't using stereotypes at all..i was merely focusing on the language of this post:




kinda hints to 'dumb' imo...but you're right i should've just simply reused the word 'stupid'.



agasin, just addressing your post earlier, nothing more.


either way i still DISagree with it, b/c while not promoting any one religion per se...it is promoting GOD....and i simply believe, government should have no hand in such. my 'panties aren't in a twist'...i am merely discussing this issue, i happen to find it rather relevant for many of the reasons i, and others have listed. if you do not, that's fair. so yes, i DO believe this is an issue of seperation of church and state...b/c any language containing GOD, to me, at least hints at religion...thus has no place in my government.

THAT is all my main issue on the topic...and i am not saying you specifically, but i do believe many who believe this is a 'non-issue'...would certainly change their minds if instead of God, it was worded goddess, or satan, etc. it's easy for one to think something is unimportant when they actually agree with it...that is all.

I think we have a slight misunderstanding here. wasn't referring to you specifically. I wasn't calling YOU stupid or suggesting YOU "need a life". Face it there are those who do get their undies in a bunch over this insignificant issue. I am referring to those people. Those who actually raise lawsuits over the pledge of allegiance, nativity scenes at Christmastime, or, yes, commandment displays in courthouses. Groups like the ACLU who can't seem to find better things to involve themselves in. C'mon its a joke. You know it as well as i do.

And one more time, this is not, truly, a violation of church and state guidelines, no matter how much you want it to be ar how loosely you interpret it.

decides2dream

cornnifer wrote:

I think we have a slight misunderstanding here. wasn't referring to you specifically. I wasn't calling YOU stupid or suggesting YOU "need a life". Face it there are those who do get their undies in a bunch over this insignificant issue. I am referring to those people. Those who actually raise lawsuits over the pledge of allegiance, nativity scenes at Christmastime, or, yes, commandment displays in courthouses. Groups like the ACLU who can't seem to find better things to involve themselves in. C'mon its a joke. You know it as well as i do.

And one more time, this is not, truly, a violation of church and state guidelines, no matter how much you want it to be ar how loosely you interpret it.

while i don't think it is 'the' most important issue, i do happen to agree it's a slippery slope...so i am glad there are those out there who do believe it is a serious enough topic to garner attention.

so far, you have given me nothing to agree with that claim. i think nick did a fairly good job of stating how 'on the line' it is as an issue. that i can agree with, and yes, it's a line i am not comfortable with. if it was so clearly NOT an issue of the sepration of church and state, there'd be no discussion...it is in that 'grey' area...and no matter how you may justify it, anything that contains the word 'God' imho, should not be in government, and definitely is at the very least 'on the line' of the whole issue. God or gods, goddesses, allah, the creator, satan, etc....has no place in government...to me, that is the whole purpose of this very seperation.


btw - i wasn't taking your words personally...but sure, i actually do believe it's a worthy topic, so yea....you can count me amongst those who 'need to get a life' in that sense. no, i am not actively fighting for/against it...but you betcha if their were votes to be made, petitions to be signed, you know where mine would go. also too, as someone who was brought up in a very strict/observant roman catholic home, i consider myself agnostic...on the fence...but i cannot fully seperate myself from my upbringing, take no personal offense to the 10 commandments...and yet i STILL fully believe they have no business being displayed/used/whatever in government.