Why the Ten Commandments?

The argument made by the Alabama judge who wants the Ten Commandments displayed in his courthouse, is that the Alabama constitution states that law is governed by the word of God (Christian God, of course).

But why then, the Ten Commandments? Why not post these ten statutes from the Bible?

"When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him. The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself."

"You must not wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric."

"When a woman produces offspring and bears a male child, she will be unclean seven days, as she is unclean during the days of her menstruation. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin must be circumcised."

"When a man has a seminal emission, he must bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until evening."

"If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death."

"If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

"You must not lend him money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit."

"If a man inflicts an injury on his fellow citizen, just as he has done it must be done to him - fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth - just as he inflicts an injury on a person that same injury must be inflicted on him."

"You must not hold back the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning."

Or this one, which I'm sure the Alabamians would have a real hard time with:

"No man is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations with her."

the interest thing sounds like the koran.

old testement; Leviticus.

read the Koran?

"You must not lend him money at interest and you must not sell him food for profit."

Hey, some of us don't have sex with blood relatives! We have livestock, too!

I'm sure there are more than a few who really do wish the society could be made to conform to every literal admonishment and law of the Old Testament!

That's like saying "Why the Constitution? Why not the COBRA laws?"

they are all intended to be obeyed. Cobra is just as valid as the Constitution, though I think it would be more appropriate to have said why not the 20th amendment.

It seems different with the bible. Some of these things we are supposed to adhere to and claim our judicial system is based upon and others we just choose to ignore, depending on which sect we belong to.

And I would fight for them to be put on a monument somewhere, but I'm too busy gathering up the foreskins of the enemies of the father of the woman I want to marry in order to properly ask him for her hand in marriage. (1 Samuel 18)

How will he know that they are really the foreskins of his enemies and not just some of your cooperative buddies'?

I understand if Jews want to use it as a literal moral code, or as specific WORDS OF GOD, but why do Christians hold on to it after the Sermon on the Mount? Isn't THAT where Jesus laid down his version of the GOD'S WORD for modern man? Why aren't words about the poor, the meek, humble, etc. followed and defended as much as OT stuff?

I don't care about this either way (other than as a separation of church and state issue), and I don't much care what anyone believes on a personal level. But... this one has always confused me. If there is a simple answer, I welcome it from either Jews or Christians.

most right wing nut jobs don't agree with Jesus. They prefer the more violent and allowing tone of the old testament.

DO they agree with? Why do they (or anyone) call themselves Christians if their beliefs center on the 10 C's rather than the Beatitudes?

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven"

"Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted"

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness. for they shall be filled"

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy"

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God"

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you"

(It is to be noted that this Sermon on the Mount is recorded only in Matthew’s Gospel. The differences between it and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6 are pronounced and numerous. While it is true that Matthew is by far the most Jewish of the four Gospels, yet we believe it is a serious mistake to limit its application to godly Jews, either of the past or the future. The opening verse of the Gospel, where Christ is presented in a twofold way, should warn us against such a restriction. There He is presented as Son of David and as Son of Abraham, "the father of all them that believe" (Rom. 4:11). Therefore, we are fully assured that this sermon enunciates spiritual principles that obtain in every age, and on this basis we shall proceed.)

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Beatitudes/beatitudes.htm

then it would seem to me that they don't agree with damn near anything he said. Which is why I've been repeating myself on these boards that THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS!

Earth Firsters MOST CERTAINLY ARE PAGANS!

Osama bin Laden MOST CERTAINLY IS MUSLIM!

You must accept the good with the bad, Blue_Chill. These people are Christians no matter how much you want to deny it.

are my favorite part of the Bible. That is where I find the most meaning.

> I understand if Jews want to use it as a literal moral code, or as
> specific WORDS OF GOD, but why do Christians hold on to it after
> the Sermon on the Mount? Isn't THAT where Jesus laid down his
> version of the GOD'S WORD for modern man? Why aren't words about
> the poor, the meek, humble, etc. followed and defended as much
> as OT stuff?

Jesus was a liberal, not unlike most of us. Fundies don't much like
that soft, liberal "blessed are the peacemakers, get along with
everyone, you're ALL welcome in my father's house" horseshit.

They prefer the OT God, who was full of rathful fury, always smiting
their enemies and stuff. (Not unlike, say Tom Delay.) None of this
"New Covenant" stuff for them; they want a God who'll do their
bidding, smiting-wise!

It's funny how little many of the supposed-Christians quote Christ.
I think maybe they'd rather be Jewish Pharasees.

Atlant

Your comment on the Pharisees is addressed here too:

It needs to be borne in mind that this sermon was Christ’s first utterance to the general public, who had been reared in a defective Judaism. It was possibly His first discourse to the disciples, too. His design was not only to teach Christian ethics but to expose the errors of Pharisaism and to awaken the consciences of His legalistic hearers. In Matthew 5:20 He said, "Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven." Then, to the end of the chapter, He expounded the spirituality of the Law so as to arouse His hearers to see their need of His own perfect righteousness. It was their ignorance of the spirituality of the Law that was the real source of Pharisaism, for its leaders claimed to fulfill the Law in the outward letter. It was therefore our Lord’s good purpose to awaken their consciences by enforcing the Law’s true inner import and requirement.
Link added on edit:http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Beatitudes/bea_intro.htm

(From that passage, the Fundies seem to BE the Pharisees, distorting the "Law" whether OT ot NT. Or the Pharisees sound much like Bushco..)

And now, I can even correctly-spell "Pharisees"
(which I obviously couldn't before.) :-)

Next, I'll work on "wrathful".

Typing and spelling will be my downfall!

Atlant

Let's say that again. It's about authoritarianism! Never underestimate the authoritarian addictions of hateful, fearful, ignorant people. What we're witnessing is very much akin to the anti-"free will" movement. Let's remember that the bitterest pill many of these religionists have yet to swallow is that man has (God-given) "free will" (aka "choice"!) and that there can be no such thing as virtue where such behavior is coerced.

This isn't about "saving souls"; it's about imposing one's will upon others -- out of sociological paranoia. When one is psychologically insecure in one's own choices the mere demonstration that others make differing choices raises the spectre that, horror of horrors, theirs may not be (morally absolute, of course) "good choices"! Why does anyone think the word "security" resonates so deeply with these same people? Why is compliant and uniform behavior so obsessively required? If you want to see people who "hate us for our freedoms," look no further than the coercive, repressive, anti-choice religionists who, with either bible or handgun WILL impose behavioral controls on others.

How dare you not sycophantically recite a pledge of allegiance in public? How dare you not join in public prayer? How dare you behave differently? How dare you have a different skin color? How dare you listen to different music? How dare you read different books? How dare you malign the annointed pResident? After all, if WE have to comply then YOU must comply, too -- otherwise, our cowardice might be made obvious and we know the emperor's clothes are pretty. :eyes:

But then again, you always enhance the level of discourse here.

I know there have been psychological studies done and the very traits that make these people fundamentalists are the same ones that make them such compliant rightwingers. It's obvious their propaganda machine knows exactly how to exploit these traits and values as well.

... is a plague. We must always remember that 'authoritarian' means 'follower' -- people in search of a 'leader' (autocrat) or "Fuhrer" to relieve them of the burden of troublesome decisions and choices: chances to be "wrong". It is this very plague which led to the ascendancy of Fascism in Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Cuba, and Argentina. It's absolutely no accident that each of these national cultures had been long-habituated to dogma and repressive conformity in their prevalent institutions. It is also no accident that we're seeing it gain ascendancy in the USA at the same time we imprison our own people at greater rates than any other country in the world.

the commandments should be in your heart not on the wall.

The New Testament is too full of that Jesus fella--a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, if there ever was one!

Not only do you have the dispute between the various sects (Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish) but there is also the dispute between the 2 versions found in the bible. Exodus 34 tells the tale of god calling Moses and asking what happend to the original commandments. He then sets about making a new copy supposedly the same as the first but oddly different.

With all these choices who gets to determine which set of commandments represent god's word?

> Exodus 34 tells the tale of god calling Moses and asking what
> happend to the original commandments.

It's simple: that first set are the ones that Charlton Heston
threw at Edward G. Robinson's golden calf. :-) Then he had to
trudge all the way back up Mount Hollywood to get another set
from the prop guy.

http://www.imdb.com/Title?0049833

---

(Thinking about what the Metatron said in Dogma.)

http://www.imdb.com/Title?0120655

Metatron: You tell someone you're a Metatron, they stare at you
blankly. You mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and
suddenly everyone is a theology scholar! You people! If it hasn't
been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing about, is that it?

(closing back to my original so-called point: )

I think I'll go get a Moobyburger now.

Atlant

Ok, correct me if I am wrong, but, there is only THREE of the "10 Commandments" that are actually represented in American laws: Murder (that's kind of a no-brainer really), stealing (again, no brainer), and lying (as far as I know, only under oath or contract, etc.), so, WHY IS IT THAT THEY RIGHTWING INSISTS ON CALLING THIS A "CHRISTIAN NATION"???
Do they forget this nation was founded, for the most part, by people who were DEISTS? Who worshiped MORE than ONE GOD???? Thomas Jefferson's quotes about the Bible and Christianity ALONE should be enough to ensure that he will "burn in the lake of fire" right?

Lu Cifer

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven"....that may not be the exact wording, but it's close.

The 10 commandments have been adopted by most christian denominations as God's de-facto statement about morality and law. The framers, being mostly christian, I presume, held THESE "laws" above all other admonitions in the Bible as the synopsis of God's will for man's behavior- the Idiot's Guide, if you will.

These, in fact, have served as the basis of much of our basic law. Since the Declaration of Independence asserts that our rights come not from other men, but from God, the word of God or God's law and OUR law must be inextricably tied.

That said, my libertarian leaning ideals compel me to believe that if we are to allow the 10 Commandments to be displayed in a public area, we should also allow imagery or reference to Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam in public areas. I have no direct problem with the 10 Commandments being displayed as I do believe they are a piece of our history and heritage- they are in fact part of how we got where we are today.

That the very first ammendment. The very first thing they wanted to make sure was clear was that the government could not in any way establish a religion as dominant or favored. This is not like the 10th ammendment or even the 5th. Its not even the 2nd ammendment. Its the first ammendment. And even though there are 3 rights protected in the first ammendment they single out religion as the first to be mentioned.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sounds like even though they were from a religious background they saw the necessity of keeping church and state disentangled.

Peace is too complicated.

The arrow makers fear peace.

To Fool is to Rule

Locally, the Park District was raising funds for a public park restoration. They were offering inscribed bricks for a path, and most people wanted innocuous things (like their names) on them so no problem. But one family wanted their names and "In Jesus love" or something like that. The Park District said NO, no religious messages. Big stink, PD eventually relented and decided to include religious references of all types.
Also like a "no creche" rule at Xmas. Why not include menorahs (sp) too and be done with it?
Anyway, I couldn't agree with your "inclusionary" concept more...

Gibbson's recent run in with the Jewish antidefimation league will show you this. Remeber each religion claims to have the truth. Recent postmodern pressures have forced some to try to claim that each religion is merely claiming some aspect of the truth. But when it boils right down to it religions have gone to war over the claims of absolutism and are currently embroiled in many fights over the same to this day. Do you really believe that Christians of any stripe will allow a Satanist to place their religious symbols along side their Crucifixes? There are too many religions to attempt to support them all. It is too complex. The only viable option is to allow the Government to stick to governing and allow the churchs to do the religion thing.

Yeah, the religions aren't always compatible, but I've seen mennorahs next to creches next to Xmas trees and Santa Claus. To agree with you would be to proscribe activities or displays because of what MIGHT happen because an intolerant few.
I fully agree with the Constitution and separation of church and state. I bristle at 'in god we trust' on our money with the best of them. However, inclusion just MIGHT be worth trying. Maybe even the Fundies would get the point if there were a Koran or Torah next to the 10 C's in their courthouse.

But in the end they disagree. As soon as the impetus for the alliance passes they will set about disagreeing with each other. This is simply their nature. Try as you might you cannot reconcile the fact that they differ. The doctrines are set against each other and you cannot change the doctrines without dismantling the sect.

I am reminded of the Minister that was defrocked after 9/11 because he joined in a nondemonational service. Because his particular sect did not allow prayer with other sects he was kicked out and defrocked. You will find alliances all over the place because reigion is currently having trouble maintaining members and they have to pool together to fight their common enemy. But when they are in their individual churches they are not reading from the texts of the other denominations. They are building support for their own take on the world. This is the very nature of religion.

Allow me to enlighten you, then, from the following link http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.html


Is America a Christian Nation?

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?"

<snip>

What about the Declaration of Independence?

We are not governed by the Declaration. Its purpose was to "dissolve the political bands," not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based on the idea that "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority. It deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, and so on, never discussing religion at all.

The references to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence" in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Thomas Jefferson, its author, was a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural.

"Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative."

Also at this site, a syllabus of his comparing various religions and philosophers:
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/

I am also very aware of his thoughts on separation of church and state as well as codified religions. Thank you for suggesting the thread. Unfortunately, I find biblical texts and comparisons thereof exceedingly boring. Studying the life of Thomas Jefferson is a hobby for me, not an addiction so I think I'll pass.

but don't share it entirely. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law establishing one religion over another. That's fine. It essentially establishes the freedom OF religion, but it does not specifially assert a freedom FROM religion. Nowhere in the document does it state that religious imagery must be kept away from public view.

Also, it seems improbable that the framers would have considered displays of religious imagery as unconstitutional. From what I know about them, they felt by-and-large, guided by a divine principal. To say that government derives it's power from the people is entirely accurate, but you must remember, that to the framers, the rights of the people were derived from the HIGHEST authority- and that was, of course, God.

That said, I am really moderate on this issue. As a non-believer, I don't care about the religious aspects of this arguement- I am merely here to state my point of view on the legal matter.

Support of any religion over another gives creadance to that religion. This is where the necessity of freedom from religion derives from. Without freedom from freedom of is meaningless.

It was from their history and experience with dueling religions that they saw the sense of keeping the church and state seperate. It was the fact that they were soaked in dueling religions that they knew that legislation from the pulpit was untenable. It was knowing that what they set out on was an uncertain experiment to be tested by the people and now a pronouncement from a throne.

The very nature of our nation is that we do not know what is best and instead strive together to cobble together a system that works for everyone. It is doubt and uncertainty that create elections. If we knew who was supposed to lead an election would not be necissary. If we knew what laws should govern the land then legislatures would not be necissary. We have to struggle to determine our path. Together. As one people. This demands that all have an equal voice. Be they Christian or atheist. Muslim or Satanist. Jew or Scientologist. We are all Americans and we all deserve the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

would support the nation they created, including the rulings of its fine judicial system. I doubt many of them would disagree with the repeated findings of our judicial system that placing a decalog, a statue of jesus, or any other christian relic on public property, not in historical context with other legal, secular and religious documents or relics constitutes a an establisment of christianity and can be interpreted as nothing else.

edited for clarity

unfortunately we can't ask them that question. But we CAN in fact look at the Constitution, and while Az's concept of a religion-free public environment as a movement toward neutrality is commendable- this concept is NOT actually supported by the Constitution.

If it was, I'd be silent and complacent on this issue- as I said before- I've got no dog in this race. My only interest is in the law.

Perhaps it's time for a Constitutional amendment here to settle the issue once and for all.

Agreed?

edited for clarity

The judicial system has already decided over and over again that the constitution asks for neutrality. Any constitutional amendment which stated otherwise would be found unconstitutional.

To say that it's "constitutional" because 9 guys in robes said so is an unfortunate capitulation- it's reality, don't get me wrong- but it's a capitulation, none the less.

How many here believe that the verdict in Bush vs. Gore was "constitutional?" Or that the overturning of a California law by the SCOTUS that allowed medical marijuana was "constitutional," when there isn't even a single reference to marijuana or any other drug in the Consitution?

How many laws can both you and I point to and say- "this is clearly unconstitutional?" Dozens, to be sure. This is because people are not perfect. We stray from the rules and principals, largely out of a belief that we are doing what's right. But remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

No, my friend, I really do sympathize with the fear and mistrust of religion that some people feel- but I personally fear and mistrust our legislators and judges interpreting too broadly the powers found in the Constitution far, far more.

This I find a far greater danger than whether an atheist might be made slightly uncomfortable by having to walk past a stone monument to the 10 commandments when entering an Alabama court house. Or for that matter, a christian seeing a statue of Quetzacoatl in a public park in East L.A. Or of a statue of Poseiden in front of a maritime museum. Or a Buddha in front of a public building in Little Tokyo.

That said, I am comfortable that my views here have been adequately expressed and will trouble you no further with them. And thanks for expressing yours to me- I am a better person for having heard them.

Similar decisions have been made in many of the state supreme courts and circuit courts across this country and upheld by appeals courts.

The system works. It just takes time. That's why we are just now seeing some success against all the red-scare, McCarthyite separation violations which took place in the 40's and 50's. Judge Moore's decalog is one of the few exceptions and was placed only a few years ago because he didn't like rulings to the contrary and has tried to make his courthouse the final test for right-wing, uber-conservative ideology.

The fact is that there are several thousands of judges, lawyers and politicians who believe in a broad interpretation of the Constitution. That's okay. And you're one of these people who believe in broad interpretation as well.

If the label of "broad interpretor" is offensive to you, I am sorry, but I can easily prove it: Show me exactly where the Constitution forbids the display of a religious image on public property. Point to the line. But, of course, there is no such line, so we'll save the trouble of conducting this silly excersize. The best that can be found in this matter that supports your belief in a "relgion-free" public environment is the "congress shall make no law" endorsing one religion over another part in the first amendment.

To you, this is a very clear statement upholding your belief. But, you must acknowledge that you are "interpreting" it to mean that. And judges, being human beings and having the same inclinations as you and others, are just as liable to make the same interpretation. Fine.

I hate to be a hard-ass here, but now I must say it. Once you've allowed willful interpretation to work on your behalf, you must be willing to allow further interpretation to occur that you do not agree with- and then you have NO RIGHT to call that interpretation unconstitutional.

You have abdicated your belief in the Constitution as a binding and absolute document.

I support the finding of men and women in robes holding high office in this country who have heard these cases, reviewed the law, reviewed precident, heard the arguements, heard the amici briefs and still ruled that the presence of a purely religious item on public property violates the establishment clause.

I am not so arrogant as to presume to know the law. AND I am fully willing to allow further interpretation to occur in the courts. Whether or not I agree with it matters not and I would not call such a decision, based soundly on interpretations of the above circumstances unconstitutional. You, on the other hand seem to be saying the very same thing you are accusing me of.

I don't know how you can in one breath claim that the constitution is flexible and allows different interpretations and in another claim I have abandoned any belief in the Constitution as a binding and absolute document when that isn't a belief I held in the first place.

When you assume, you make and ASS out of U and ME. Who here is whining about decisions made by our judicial system? Personally, I'm thrilled.

I don't believe that at all. I believe it has been flexed greatly- that is obvious. If I gave that impression somewhere, I apologize for being unclear.

I celebrate your thrill that this time, in this case, some of the courts are ruling in your favor and it's looking like it'll be a win. I mean that honestly and without sarcasm.

And I actually didn't assume that you held the same strict interpretation of the Constitution as I do, what I meant was simply this: when you accept broad interpretation on this issue, one that you agree with, it's all well and good, but be prepared to be very disappointed in the future when the courts again excersize that broad interpretation muscle and rule in a way that you find wrong. And if you raise the cry of "unconstitutional!" (not saying you will, but IF) this cry will be a hypocritical one. Again, I am not saying you personally are a hypocrite, but a lot of people do exactly what I just said, both on the left and the right.

I don't have the same trust in those folks occupying the high offices that you apparently do. I put my trust in the People. Even ones that I disagree with! And for the most part, those judges are not elected and often operate without fear of sanction or reprimand from the people.

Okay- so this was a "bonus round" since I said I was signing off. I really do have to get to work now. I appreciate the conversation!

I don't actually endorse propping up christianity at all, nor do I believe that the US is a "christian nation," or that we should endorse any one particular religion. My belief is simply that religious imagery in public places is not banned by the constitution. Establishing one religion over all the others or giving sanctions or benefits to one over the others is completely and clearly banned. But allowing imagery is not banned- AS LONG as it is understood that any and all other relgious imagery that the people have a desire for is equally permitted.

you said: These, in fact, have served as the basis of much of our basic law. Since the Declaration of Independence asserts that our rights come not from other men, but from God, the word of God or God's law and OUR law must be inextricably tied.

I pointed out that the Declaration of Independence is not what this country's government was based upon. It was merely a statement of independence.

The constitution, for which our judicial system was based, contains no mention of god and expressly prohibits entangling itself in its citizens' religions.

Whether or not you believe it to be the case, your post suggested that the founding fathers did not create a secular country. I was answering that suggestion. Perhaps I misunderstood.

In addition, to address this post, I believe that there are several rulings in favor of posting of decalogs in government and other publicly owned institutions provided it is displayed in the context of a historical document which I fully support. Judge Moore's decalog stands alone and, as has been ruled, stands only as a representation of christianity. Judge Moore has said so himself which you can confirm in this LBN thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=76282

Our forefarthers realized that matters of religion and matters of state should be two separate things. One has only to look at Muslim countries, where religion is the state, to see the problems it causes. All religious things are fine. Just not in places of state, which are there to represent all people of all religions and even those without religion.

As does Leviticus, Deuteronomy, the Code of Hammurabi, etc. If they had no modern religious significance whatsoever they would still be regarded as significant in the history of law. Fortunately Judge Moore isn't making this argument, heh heh heh.

would be the Magna Carta. Ideal however would be our Bill of Rights and the Constitution which are in fact the law of our land.