Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Ten Commandments; Is it against the Consitution?
Topic Started: Aug 27 2003, 08:29 PM (580 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
The point about the "uninformed" is your opinion.

There is a whole lot more to the "separation of church and state" viewpoint than just a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Many of our founding fathers have made statements supporting this position, not just Thomas Jefferson. There are many good websites out there that detail these. They're easy to find with Google. :)

Quote:
 
The meaning and intent of, ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' in the 1st Amendment is not debatable.


With all due respect, only the uninformed would make this statement. :P There are valid, debatable points on both sides of the issue.

Quote:
 
As for why the monument should be there... for the same reason the Ten Commandments are depicted on the U.S. Supreme Court building and the court opens its sessions with an invocation... because they are the backbone of our laws.


What, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill? These are part of numerous other moral creeds too. What makes you so sure specifically the Ten Commandments had anything to do with our laws? I don't recall anyone ever getting arrested for taking the name of the Lord in vain or for not keeping the Sabbath day holy... :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
The founding fathers wrote extensively about religion and the new nation. Just because the actual Ten Commandments are not the defacto law today (but, as recently as 1925, you could be arrested in Missouri for taking the Lord's name in vain), but they were the BASIS of it. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Why do you have a problem with the monument being in the rotunda of that Alabama courthouse? Seriously and honestly, not that kneejerk comment about church and state. Does it offend you? Do you feel threatened by it?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
It is not hard to fathom the possibility that the 10 Commandments were the basis of our laws, but it is equally easy to fathom the possibility that countless other moral creeds were the basis too. This is after all a melting pot and always has been. You've said nothing to convince me that it was in fact the 10 Commandments that was used as the basis.

What's wrong with the monument on the courthouse property, you ask? First, quite simply there is nothing right with it. It doesn't belong there. That being the case, if people win the argument that there is a right to leave it there, then it opens the possibility of people arguing the right to put any number of objects there that don't belong there. The courthouse is not a circus and should be taken very seriously.

Second, whose 10 Commandments are they? Catholic? Protestant? Jewish? Do you know that all three of these have different versions? Even if you are right that they were used as the basis of our laws, which version was used? Is that the same version that was on the courthouse property?

Third, the 10 Commandments will be meaningless as a moral guideline to many people who have different religious backgrounds. The courthouse should be respected. This just gives people of other backgrounds an excuse to laugh at or detest it. The alternative, to erect one monument for each faith, would be ridiculous. It's not an alternative. :huh:

Fourth, like it or not, I do believe the separation of church and state is quite relevant here. :) But I gave three other reasons since you don't accept that one.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Quote:
 
It is not hard to fathom the possibility that the 10 Commandments were the basis of our laws, but it is equally easy to fathom the possibility that countless other moral creeds were the basis too.


So you agree that the Ten Commandments are at least one of the basis for our laws....

Quote:
 
You've said nothing to convince me that it was in fact the 10 Commandments that was used as the basis. 


:huh: Well, something was the basis - if you are saying that the Ten Commandments had nothing to do with it, what WAS the basis for our laws?

Quote:
 
Second, whose 10 Commandments are they?  Catholic?  Protestant? Jewish?  Do you know that all three of these have different versions?  Even if you are right that they were used as the basis of our laws, which version was used?  Is that the same version that was on the courthouse property? 


:huh: :huh: :huh:

Three (or more???) different versions? WHAT are the different versions?

Yes, I am asking for examples.

If you going to say that they are different versions because one says "Thou Shall Not Steal" in King James "speak" and another says "Thou Shall Not Steal" in Good News Bible "speak", then I don't think your arguement holds up.

Quote:
 
Fourth, like it or not, I do believe the separation of church and state is quite relevant here.


Yes, the issue of separation of church and state IS quite relavant here. Unfortunately it is being misapplied - no one is being forced to become Christian or Jewish by the presence of the monument in the courthouse. Therefore, there is no STATE religion being forced on people - which is what our Forefathers were attmepting to avoid.

People ask "what if they wanted to put something from Buddhism and the ASSUME that people would object. Has anyone ever ATTEMPTED to make the case for ADDING something to one of these displays? I have never heard of it. Instead they attempt to take away from one religion's views while ASSUMING bigotry not yet in evidence. That, in and of itself, is also a form of bigotry.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Lilac
Member Avatar
Painting the board red
ImpulseEngine
Aug 29 2003, 10:17 PM
Second, whose 10 Commandments are they? Catholic? Protestant? Jewish?

Catholic, of course. Do you know how much of a fuss they'd kick up if you used any other version? A BIG fuss - as in torture, as in pain, as in repeat showings of The Faculty!

Well... maybe I jest a little. I love my Catholic peers really, but they do have very loud mouths sometimes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
bonja
Commodore
Wichita
Aug 30 2003, 06:07 AM




:huh:  :huh:  :huh:

Three (or more???) different versions?  WHAT are the different versions? 

Yes, I am asking for examples.

If you going to say that they are different versions because one says "Thou Shall Not Steal" in King James "speak" and another says "Thou Shall Not Steal" in Good News Bible "speak", then I don't think your arguement holds up.


Quote:
 
Fourth, like it or not, I do believe the separation of church and state is quite relevant here.


Yes, the issue of separation of church and state IS quite relavant here. Unfortunately it is being misapplied - no one is being forced to become Christian or Jewish by the presence of the monument in the courthouse. Therefore, there is no STATE religion being forced on people - which is what our Forefathers were attmepting to avoid.

People ask "what if they wanted to put something from Buddhism and the ASSUME that people would object. Has anyone ever ATTEMPTED to make the case for ADDING something to one of these displays? I have never heard of it. Instead they attempt to take away from one religion's views while ASSUMING bigotry not yet in evidence. That, in and of itself, is also a form of bigotry.


Catholics and Protestants do order their Commandments differently. I haven't been very religious in a log time but I found this list fairly easily. http://www.falwell.com/press%20statements/...s/prstencom.htm

This article from CNN.com shows Moores bias toward one specific religion. If I were a worshipper of a non-Christian deity I would not be comfortable if I was in his courtroom. http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Thank you, Bonja.

Not being Catholic, I had never seen their list.

However, although I was raised in the Lutheran Church (Protestant), I don't recall that listed version exactly as written either. I still wonder, with so many different denominations, that there could be ONE Protestant list.

Nonetheless, I still don't see the arguement's merit. What difference does it make to its effect on the law whether the wording is "Thou shalt not kill" or "You shall not kill". The "not killing" part is clear in both versions.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
bonja
Commodore
The wording isn't the point. If you notice Catholics have two different covets and they lump graven images into the first Commandment. The main arguement is that the Commandments order the worship of a specific god. Government should not be in the business of religious instruction.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
I don't disagree that government should not be in the business of religous instruction. My only comment was don't refuse a lesson on Christianity and then FORCE children to sit through lessons on Buddism, Islam, Wiccanism, etc. in the name of "diversity". They are religions or they are not. You protect one - then protect them all. You deny one - then you deny them all.

Wording isn't the issue unless you are making wording the issue for denying that the Ten Commandments have had some effect on the developement of laws in the Western world.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Quote:
 
It is not hard to fathom the possibility that the 10 Commandments were the basis of our laws, but it is equally easy to fathom the possibility that countless other moral creeds were the basis too. This is after all a melting pot and always has been.


In point of fact Impulse, even though some suspect that Benjamin Franklin was influenced by certain northeastern Native American concepts, in all probability there were not "countless" other creeds as influences. The Founding Fathers were essentially stalwart Christians whose sole purpose in not establishing an offcial religion for the new nation was more a matter of political expedience. The 13 colonies had a number of different versions of Christianity predominating in one or another of those colonies. If they selected Anglican or Lutheran you might irritate those states where Baptists were number one or where Methodists or Catholics dominated. The Founders would all likely have agreed that the new nation was to be a Christian one. The way the have worded things (the first amendment has already been quoted a couple of times) has allowed for a broad interpretation of their intentions. It was not until the mid-19th century when European Jews began to migrate to the US in larger numbers that the freedom to exercise one's religion began to be seen as something beyond Christianity.

Would Washington and Adams and Jefferson all be shocked by how their little experiment in democracy turned out? Sure they would. Many of them would likely say: "That's not what we meant!" However, what they meant and how it has been interpreted to mean are two different things.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
bonja
Commodore
I think were pretty much in agreement then. However, if we go back to the monument itself, carved into it and I'm working off memory is the sentence "These are the laws of God and man." and the god being referred to is the Judeo-Christian god.

If it part of a multicultural display along with texts from other belief systems there wouldn't be the appearance of state favoritism to a specific religion.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
It is not hard to fathom the possibility that the 10 Commandments were the basis of our laws, but it is equally easy to fathom the possibility that countless other moral creeds were the basis too.


So you agree that the Ten Commandments are at least one of the basis for our laws....

No I don't agree. :huh: How did you arrive at that conclusion from what I said? If it wasn't clear, I'm saying that the 10 Commandments is only one out of many possible moral creeds that could have formed the foundation of our laws. Who's can say which one it actually was?
Quote:
 
Well, something was the basis - if you are saying that the Ten Commandments had nothing to do with it, what WAS the basis for our laws?

That's exactly my question. If it's not clear, we certainly can't just ASSUME it was the Ten Commandments. I would like more facts. (Sorry, I don't have them to give you.)
Quote:
 
Three (or more???) different versions?  WHAT are the different versions? 

Here's a link. Please forgive the website, I don't normally go there. It was the quickest thing I could find for you from a Google search. Scroll down a little on the webpage to see the three lists of the Ten Commandments.
Ten Commandments Versions

To your last point about the separation of church and state, I'm glad you agree it's relevant - admiralbill was trying to tell me it doesn't even exist. I disagree that it's being misapplied. The thrust of you point is that there is no state religion being force on people and that this is what our founding fathers were against. Again, that's an interpretation. I need not only supporting evidence of it's accuracy, but also evidence that this was ALL that they intended.

Also, you like everyone else here who has opposed me on this, have yet to tell me why the Ten Commandments belongs on the judicial building property... :rolleyes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Impulse, the best suggestion I could give to keep the Ten Commandments located where they were would be for it to be opened up to the possibility of constructing similar displays from other faiths (i.e. the eight fold path of Buddhism).

Unfortunately, I suspect that there would be those who would not approve of the placement of anything that represents the seeming endorsement of any faith whatsoever. The idea being that some would see any such monuments as implying that the state somehow accepts the existence of a deity.

Personally, I think the best solution would be to go the opposite direction than has been taken and consider allowing other such monuments to be constructed. Though size and placement consideration might have to be taken into account.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Swidden
Aug 30 2003, 03:35 PM
Quote:
 
It is not hard to fathom the possibility that the 10 Commandments were the basis of our laws, but it is equally easy to fathom the possibility that countless other moral creeds were the basis too. This is after all a melting pot and always has been.


In point of fact Impulse, even though some suspect that Benjamin Franklin was influenced by certain northeastern Native American concepts, in all probability there were not "countless" other creeds as influences. The Founding Fathers were essentially stalwart Christians whose sole purpose in not establishing an offcial religion for the new nation was more a matter of political expedience. The 13 colonies had a number of different versions of Christianity predominating in one or another of those colonies. If they selected Anglican or Lutheran you might irritate those states where Baptists were number one or where Methodists or Catholics dominated. The Founders would all likely have agreed that the new nation was to be a Christian one. The way the have worded things (the first amendment has already been quoted a couple of times) has allowed for a broad interpretation of their intentions. It was not until the mid-19th century when European Jews began to migrate to the US in larger numbers that the freedom to exercise one's religion began to be seen as something beyond Christianity.

Would Washington and Adams and Jefferson all be shocked by how their little experiment in democracy turned out? Sure they would. Many of them would likely say: "That's not what we meant!" However, what they meant and how it has been interpreted to mean are two different things.

Sorry Swidden, but this sounds like a whole lot of speculation to me. The main argument I have heard in this thread so far to support the right of the monument to be there is that the Ten Commandments was used as a basis of our laws. So potentially this could make or break the issue. That being the case I need evidence that the Ten Commandments actually was used before I'm going to buy it.

I'm guessing that the truth is, no one really knows. There is an assumption that it was used because of Commandments that match our laws like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". However, these moral principals are not just specific to the Ten Commandments. It would be a rare moral code that does not have the same principals. So the match is not itself evidence. I need more evidence that we know they used the Ten Commandments as a basis, not statements including phrases like "probably" or "most likely".

Quote:
 
However, what they meant and how it has been interpreted to mean are two different things.

Correct. And do we truly know what they meant?

I think in some respects, it doesn't even necessarily matter what they had in mind. We all need to take a look at the situation ourselves and decide what we want to do. Whatever they had in mind may no longer make sense in our changed world. I don't have the numbers, but I'd bet money that today, more people in this country believe in a separation of church and state 100% across the board than those who don't.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Swidden
Aug 30 2003, 11:51 PM
Impulse, the best suggestion I could give to keep the Ten Commandments located where they were would be for it to be opened up to the possibility of constructing similar displays from other faiths (i.e. the eight fold path of Buddhism).

Unfortunately, I suspect that there would be those who would not approve of the placement of anything that represents the seeming endorsement of any faith whatsoever. The idea being that some would see any such monuments as implying that the state somehow accepts the existence of a deity.

Personally, I think the best solution would be to go the opposite direction than has been taken and consider allowing other such monuments to be constructed. Though size and placement consideration might have to be taken into account.

No.... :o
That is exactly what I don't want to do. If we open that can of worms, you could potentially have dozen monuments on the court grounds and it would look like a circus. What is the point of having any of them? Why does it or they belong there?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus