the 10 commandments

cornnifer

decides2dream wrote:

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.

Well then we simply disagree on the scope of church and state guidelines, and thats o.k. Church and state separation simply means there can be no establishment of a state sponsored religion. The state cannot declare mandatory Christianity. Or declare that, as a non-muslim you will not be afforded equal rights and protection under the law. It means that the state can not deny an atheist the right to vote.
Furthermore, it does not ban the mention of God, or spiritually derived morals from the public square. It does not prohibit me from praying over my meal at a public restaraunt even if it pisses off the people at the table next to me.

decides2dream

cornnifer wrote:

Well then we simply disagree on the scope of church and state guidelines, and thats o.k. Church and state separation simply means there can be no establishment of a state sponsored religion. The state cannot declare mandatory Christianity. Or declare that, as a non-muslim you will not be afforded equal rights and protection under the law. It means that the state can not deny an atheist the right to vote.
Furthermore, it does not ban the mention of God, or spiritually derived morals from the public square. It does not prohibit me from praying over my meal at a public restaraunt even if it pisses off the people at the table next to me.

well that much i understood.

i take no issue with one saying grace over their meal in public...i merely take issue with the fact that some think it's ok and push to have representation of THEIR religious beliefs on display at the courthouse. as i've said, it is exclusionary. our government is to be by and for 'WE the people'...so even if the majority believes in it, we cannot exclude the minority beliefs either...thus...no mention of any gods should be a part.

and not to play devils' advocate..or maybe just a wee bit ...not once did you address my question of what if the 10 commandments of satan were being asked to be displayed, or of wicca, etc.....same basic premise of the 10 commandments, but instead of 'the lord your God' it was satan, or goddess, or vishnu, etc. would you not take issue? please don't tell me i am being unreasonable by posing this question b/c i happen to find it VERY reasonable. for what you just said above, it should be a non-issue and you wouldn't care anymore than the judeo-christian 10 commandments on display?

nick1977

cornnifer wrote:

Well then we simply disagree on the scope of church and state guidelines, and thats o.k. Church and state separation simply means there can be no establishment of a state sponsored religion. The state cannot declare mandatory Christianity. Or declare that, as a non-muslim you will not be afforded equal rights and protection under the law. It means that the state can not deny an atheist the right to vote.
Furthermore, it does not ban the mention of God, or spiritually derived morals from the public square. It does not prohibit me from praying over my meal at a public restaraunt even if it pisses off the people at the table next to me.

You are correct in saying that the Constitution does not ban the mention of God in the public square.....but it does ban the mention of God by the government in the public square. Why? Congress cannot make any respecting the establishment of religion......if government does anything to endorse one religion over another....that is taking steps to "establish" a state religion. That is why teachers cannot lead a classroom in prayer....that is a government agent establishing a religion. That is why children in school can voluntarily pray on their own.....Congress cannont infringe on the right of someone to exercise their religion. A person can get a permit and have a religious revial in the public square....as the public square is the place where citizens can speak freely...but government cannot hold a church rally in the public square nor endorse it.

It is clearly there in the Constitution. There is a BIG difference in government mentioning God and government allowing the mention of God in the public space....the former is prohibited, the later is protected.

When government does ANYTHING to endorse one religion over another, then that is one group of people imposing their views through government on another. That is what the founding fathers wanted to protect against.

decides2dream

nick1977 wrote:

You are correct in saying that the Constitution does not ban the mention of God in the public square.....but it does ban the mention of God by the government in the public square. Why? Congress cannot make any respecting the establishment of religion......if government does anything to endorse one religion over another....that is taking steps to "establish" a state religion. That is why teachers cannot lead a classroom in prayer....that is a government agent establishing a religion. That is why children in school can voluntarily pray on their own.....Congress cannont infringe on the right of someone to exercise their religion. A person can get a permit and have a religious revial in the public square....as the public square is the place where citizens can speak freely...but government cannot hold a church rally in the public square nor endorse it.

It is clearly there in the Constitution. There is a BIG difference in government mentioning God and government allowing the mention of God in the public space....the former is prohibited, the later is protected.

thank you!
it's nice to have a lawyer in the crowd, to point out the exact language for the rest of us. i think that really is *IT* as far as i am concernec, and thus what i have been - trying - to get at. we are ALL free to believe/practice/speak out to our beliefs...but our government should not.

cornnifer

decides2dream wrote:

well that much i understood.

i take no issue with one saying grace over their meal in public...i merely take issue with the fact that some think it's ok and push to have representation of THEIR religious beliefs on display at the courthouse. as i've said, it is exclusionary. our government is to be by and for 'WE the people'...so even if the majority believes in it, we cannot exclude the minority beliefs either...thus...no mention of any gods should be a part.

and not to play devils' advocate..or maybe just a wee bit ...not once did you address my question of what if the 10 commandments of satan were being asked to be displayed, or of wicca, etc.....same basic premise of the 10 commandments, but instead of 'the lord your God' it was satan, or goddess, or vishnu, etc. would you not take issue? please don't tell me i am being unreasonable by posing this question b/c i happen to find it VERY reasonable. for what you just said above, it should be a non-issue and you wouldn't care anymore than the judeo-christian 10 commandments on display?

If we lived in a land where the prdominant faith was satanism, for example, and the "10 commandments" of said faith, contained universally accepted values such as not stealing, not killing, not banging some other guys wife etc. I would have no problem with it. The parts mentioning satan, even if i didn't share that faith, I would take with a grain of salt provided my rights were not being infringed upon. As long as I recieve a fair trial while I'm there at the courthouse, I'd be allright.

nick1977

decides2dream wrote:

thank you!
it's nice to have a lawyer in the crowd, to point out the exact language for the rest of us. i think that really is *IT* as far as i am concernec, and thus what i have been - trying - to get at. we are ALL free to believe/practice/speak out to our beliefs...but our government should not.

haha. This is one area that I've given an extraordianry amount of thought to. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home where my parents wanted God all up in government....prayer in schools, etc. It is a hot topic for me, and one that is one of the most important issues of our day, in my opinion....it scares the hell out of me that we seem to be going down a road where religion is used by politicians to gain votes and justify political action.

Look at the Puritans when they migrated over....they had all these rules and used government to further their religion. Funny that they were persecuted and that is the reason they came over, and then they used government to persecute those who did not agree with them.

decides2dream

cornnifer wrote:

If we lived in a land where the prdominant faith was satanism, for example, and the "10 commandments" of said faith, contained universally accepted values such as not stealing, not killing, not banging some other guys wife etc. I would have no problem with it. The parts mentioning satan, even if i didn't share that faith, I would take with a grain of salt provided my rights were not being infringed upon. As long as I recieve a fair trial while I'm there at the courthouse, I'd be allright.

well then, that's cool. me, i don't like it. i don't think any faith, or mention of any god, has any place in my government...and i feel i have been led to believe that my government is based on this same ideal. thus, i hold it accountable to such an ideal...and i do consider it an intrinsic part of the separation of church and state issue. but thank you for answering. glad you are open-minded and tolerant...however, those who seemingly push the agenda, i highly doubt they would be so open to such, and thus why i fear danger in it.

nick1977 wrote:

haha. This is one area that I've given an extraordianry amount of thought to. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian home where my parents wanted God all up in government....prayer in schools, etc. It is a hot topic for me, and one that is one of the most important issues of our day, in my opinion....it scares the hell out of me that we seem to be going down a road where religion is used by politicians to gain votes and justify political action.

Look at the Puritans when they migrated over....they had all these rules and used government to further their religion. Funny that they were persecuted and that is the reason they came over, and then they used government to persecute those who did not agree with them.

well i grew up in a very religious household myself. this sort of topic was never really discussed much, i think my parents were very much of our beliefs are our beliefs...so not too big a concern, besides, they sent me to private school in any case...got plenty of school prayer.

that said....yes, that really is it for me...it is beyond ironic to me...and how one can espouse ideals of religious freedom, and then push for the language of God in your government is beyond me. enjoy your fgreedoms to worship/believe as you wish, your personal morality...and leave the governmental laws and morality seperate...two different things imo.

cornnifer

nick1977 wrote:

It is clearly there in the Constitution. There is a BIG difference in government mentioning God and government allowing the mention of God in the public space....the former is prohibited, the later is protected.

.

I disagree. The phrase "In God we trust" on our currency, for example does not in anyway show preference to one faith over another, it doesn't attempt to establish a specific faith or even a general one! It in no way says that you need to believe in a specific God, or any God for that matter, in order to recieve the full purchasing power of that dollar. There is clearly no violation.

decides2dream

cornnifer wrote:

I disagree. The phrase "In God we trust" on our currency, for example does not in anyway show preference to one faith over another, it doesn't attempt to establish a specific faith or even a general one! It in no way says that you need to believe in a specific God, or any God for that matter, in order to recieve the full purchasing power of that dollar. There is clearly no violation.

um.......WE 'in God we trust' implies that, as a collective citizenship, that we ALL believe in God. clearly, we all do not. so while it does not necessarily push an agenda...as a national symbol, a represantation of our people, it states a faslehood, and one not all support.

however, for the purpose of this thread, i was only focusing on the display of the 10 commandments, and the idea that atheists could find nothing to disagree with in any of em.

btw - it DOES show preference...b/c MANY a religion is NOT monotheistic..so then, what about those religions that believe is godS? clearly, it IS at the very least, representing only monotheistic faiths, not that it should represent any.

it has nothing to do with the purpose and use of our currency, and EVERYthing to do with representing our people. our currency is a national symbol, a representation of all of us, along with being currency.

onelongsong

9 of the 10 commandments are simple guidelines for a polite society. most laws are based on the 10 commandments. why would you oppose the 10 commandments in the first place? do you feel that it is ok to steal or kill? how are you threatened by simple rules of a polite society?

decides2dream

onelongsong wrote:

9 of the 10 commandments are simple guidelines for a polite society. most laws are based on the 10 commandments. why would you oppose the 10 commandments in the first place? do you feel that it is ok to steal or kill? how are you threatened by simple rules of a polite society?

4 out of 10 specifically refer to god and your relationship with god. that has nothing to do with polite society, and EVERYthing to do with personal, religious beliefs. we have our laws as a country, we do not need the 10 commandments. as many have already stated, many of our laws are already based on the 'common sense' ideas within the 10 commandments...as a country, our laws/constitution/etc are our commandments, we do not then heed too those of a religious nature as well. those are for your own, personally held beliefs. if i was a wiccan, or a hindu, or a muslim, or a buddhist, or an atheist......the 10 commandments would not be representative of my beliefs....and NO one faith's beliefs should be involved in our governemtn. go to your church, your temple, your mosque for that...we have laws to protect your rights of religious freedom.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

9 of the 10 commandments are simple guidelines for a polite society. most laws are based on the 10 commandments. why would you oppose the 10 commandments in the first place? do you feel that it is ok to steal or kill? how are you threatened by simple rules of a polite society?

Oh really? And which nine are those? Let's see ... there's the one about having "no other gods before me." There's no graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy. Those are all specific to people who believe in the god of the bible, and are meaningless to everyone else.

There's also the commandment about honoring your parents, and the one prohibiting adultery, and the one about not coveting your neighbor's things. Those are all nice ideas and it would be great if everyone followed them (well, almost everyone ... some parents don't deserve to be honored), but they certainly shouldn't carry the force of law, and therefore they have no place in a courthouse.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Oh really? And which nine are those? Let's see ... there's the one about having "no other gods before me." There's no graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy. Those are all specific to people who believe in the god of the bible, and are meaningless to everyone else.

There's also the commandment about honoring your parents, and the one prohibiting adultery, and the one about not coveting your neighbor's things. Those are all nice ideas and it would be great if everyone followed them (well, almost everyone ... some parents don't deserve to be honored), but they certainly shouldn't carry the force of law, and therefore they have no place in a courthouse.

i must have learned different commandmnts. those are all lumped together in the first commandment i learned.

deadnote

well i believe in god ,loving god,fearing god,giving my life to god and loving human beings
and in that text i feel okay loving the collection of art but not more than the spirit of the living god which is in all of us

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

i must have learned different commandmnts. those are all lumped together in the first commandment i learned.

Then God spoke all these words: saying: "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; (1) you shall have no other gods before me. (2) 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. 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, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (3) 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. (4) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 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. 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. (5) Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (6) You shall not murder. (7) You shall not commit adultery. (8) You shall not steal. (9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (10) 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.

Exodus 20:1-17

There they are. Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you learned that the first four were really one commandment. That would leave us three short of 10 commandments. Are there three more somewhere that I'm not aware of?

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Oh really? And which nine are those? Let's see ... there's the one about having "no other gods before me." There's no graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy. Those are all specific to people who believe in the god of the bible, and are meaningless to everyone else.

There's also the commandment about honoring your parents, and the one prohibiting adultery, and the one about not coveting your neighbor's things. Those are all nice ideas and it would be great if everyone followed them (well, almost everyone ... some parents don't deserve to be honored), but they certainly shouldn't carry the force of law, and therefore they have no place in a courthouse.

honoring parents; a good rule for a polite society. unless you let your kids run wild and feel it is ok to disrespect you. you are still responsable for their actions until they are 18. look up incoragability (sp) in the law.
adultry; some states still have adultry laws on the books and civil suits are still being won based on adultry.
coveting; now called stalking in many states. another good rule for a polite society.
a court decided that the government cannot make laws based on morality. this made prostitution legal; although a prostitute rarely has the money to push the ruling.

onelongsong

hippiemom wrote:

Then God spoke all these words: saying: "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; (1) you shall have no other gods before me. (2) 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. 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, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (3) 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. (4) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 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. 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. (5) Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (6) You shall not murder. (7) You shall not commit adultery. (8) You shall not steal. (9) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (10) 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.

Exodus 20:1-17

There they are. Now, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that you learned that the first four were really one commandment. That would leave us three short of 10 commandments. Are there three more somewhere that I'm not aware of?

i don't recognise those 10 commandments. some of them; yes. murder; adultry (some states); theft; purgery; are all illegal.

onelongsong

decides2dream wrote:

4 out of 10 specifically refer to god and your relationship with god. that has nothing to do with polite society, and EVERYthing to do with personal, religious beliefs. we have our laws as a country, we do not need the 10 commandments. as many have already stated, many of our laws are already based on the 'common sense' ideas within the 10 commandments...as a country, our laws/constitution/etc are our commandments, we do not then heed too those of a religious nature as well. those are for your own, personally held beliefs. if i was a wiccan, or a hindu, or a muslim, or a buddhist, or an atheist......the 10 commandments would not be representative of my beliefs....and NO one faith's beliefs should be involved in our governemtn. go to your church, your temple, your mosque for that...we have laws to protect your rights of religious freedom.

then don't abide by them. no one is forcing you until it becomes criminal. but don't stop my rights to believe what i choose. religion is social. therefore the right to express religion allows religion outside of the church. many presidents say "God bless america" and not one has been sued. one has the right to proclaim their religion just as you have the right NOT to listen.
think about this: if being an athiest is not a religion; then seperation of church and state doesn't apply. one has the right to practice the religion of choice. if athiesm is not a religion; there is not one written word or law that gives you the right to practice it. we merely tollerate you.

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

honoring parents; a good rule for a polite society. unless you let your kids run wild and feel it is ok to disrespect you. you are still responsable for their actions until they are 18. look up incoragability (sp) in the law.
adultry; some states still have adultry laws on the books and civil suits are still being won based on adultry.
coveting; now called stalking in many states. another good rule for a polite society.
a court decided that the government cannot make laws based on morality. this made prostitution legal; although a prostitute rarely has the money to push the ruling.

Honoring parents: Great as a general rule, but honor and respect must be earned. I'm sure you've met parents who aren't deserving of it, I know I have. So yes, it's a nice guideline for society, but carries no force of law and doesn't belong in a courthouse.

Adultery: There are laws on the books, but they aren't enforced and should be eliminated. Adultery is a private matter between two people. Again, this carries no force of law and doesn't belong in the courts.

Coveting: Stalking is a form of coveting, certainly not the only one, as is made obvious by the text itself ... you just don't hear of people stalking houses or animals. This is a commandment that everyone breaks, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it doesn't belong in our court system.

You initially said that nine of the ten commandments dealt with rules for polite society. Even if I accept that the three above fit that description, and combining them with the commandments against killing, stealing and lying, that still leaves three unaccounted for. What are they?

I might also point out that the commandments condone slavery and are offensive for that reason alone. Even if we didn't have the first amendment, nothing that implies approval of holding human beings in bondage has any business being posted in a government building in a country that claims to promote freedom.

decides2dream

onelongsong wrote:

honoring parents; a good rule for a polite society. unless you let your kids run wild and feel it is ok to disrespect you. you are still responsable for their actions until they are 18. look up incoragability (sp) in the law.
adultry; some states still have adultry laws on the books and civil suits are still being won based on adultry.
coveting; now called stalking in many states. another good rule for a polite society.
a court decided that the government cannot make laws based on morality. this made prostitution legal; although a prostitute rarely has the money to push the ruling.

add killing, and you've got 3 out of 10 that are rules for 'polite society' so just on the laws of averages, not even half are worthy for society as a whole b/c the rest...all religious or personal choice in nature. thus, why bother? we already have established our laws.

btw - don't know where you live, but prostitution is illegal here as far as i know. anyway, i happen to agree with hippiemom that i don't need the law to tell me not to commit adultery, covet my neighbor's goods/spouse, honor my parents...etc. while all worthy, we don't need laws to dictate personal choice.

in regards to the commandments themselves, they are what they are...what i posted, and hippiemom, is direct from the bible...and i also provided you with a link that expounds further, and lists them more clearly in order if you scroll down in the link.

no one disagreed that there are laws based to some degree on SOME of the commandments, b/c they ARE common sense, good ideas...however, all the more reason we don't need to the 10 commandments in our government. we already have LAWS for that. many a law is based on our collectively agreed upon morality. thus why murder is a crime...it is 'wrong' b/c we deem it so.