Placing the Ten Commandments on court houses

[rdp78]

Well, I've heard several stories where people want to put the Ten Commandments in court houses and other government buildings. Of course, there are people who don't want the Ten Commandments becuase its from the Bible and might offend people who aren't Christian/Jewish. Anyway I'm not sure if it's a great idea then again majority of the people know and study the Bible so it might not offend everyone. Then again these building are paid by the tax payers and I'm sure there are some who may be offended by it becuase of it's orgins. Again this is sort of like one religion taking over the government and making sure everyone follows it. Also The Ten Commandments are few thousands years old and aren't quite to par for today's living but then again murder, stealing and falsely accusing someone are against the law.

[Rapscallion]

I've got no real problem with a set of instructions along the lines of "Don't steal, lie" etc. The problem is that to put every one of the ten on there is that several of them are religious in nature - saying that there should be no god other than the one claimed to have written them, no graven images etc.

By adding lines such as those to this, you'd effectively have a situation where a state organisation is legitimising a religious one, where there should be complete separation.

Sure, the modern legalities evolved from there, but there's no way I would want every last detail up there. Putting laws on the side of a court house - or even in the lobby - is fine, but where would you find the room to put them all? "Thou shalt not drive over the speed limit." Doesn't quite have the grandeur, but it's a law.

Nope - I can't see this as anything other than members of a relgious institution trying to gain credence for their religion through a state organisation. If they got something saying "This is the only god you shall have" in a court house, there would be the implication that the state sponsors this.

Rapscallion

[rahmota]

I gotta agree with raps on this one. The christian 10 commandments while one of the basis of the modern legal code, along with the greek and roman legal system, are basically a set of religious moral codes.

Under the constitution of the united states there shall be no oficially recognized and endorsed state religion. By posting one religions moral codes and no others that effectively nullifies that whole no endoring thing.

What could be done is either display them all, from the code of hammurabi to the rules of the jedi, as well as the christian 10 commandments which would be fair and equal and not endorsing one above another. Unfortunately there are those who would see that as demeaning to the 10 commandments.

Alternatively display none of them. No acknowledgement that they exist officially. And then what happens is you get people who do not understand the threat having a state religion brings and get bent that the government isnt protecting their religion.

Personally any religion that needs the government to protect it doesnt deserve to exist in the first place.

[AFPheonix]

Besides the fact that the Christian religion is massive, at least in this country. It needs no protection or promotion here.

If we want to put up anything on courthouse walls, I'd imagine there's probably a blurb out there somewhere by someone famous about personal, civic, and social responsibilities, that would encompass everything the 10 Commandments are trying to convey.

[rahmota]

Well you listen to some of the christian fundies it sure sounds like christianity is about to be destroyed and all the christians thrown back to the lions or something equally nasty. Especially everytime there is something abuot the 10 commandments being removed from somewhere. remember the judge down in arkansas who had to be removed from the bench by a federal order because he kept interfering in the removal of the rock that had them like some huge monument in the rotunda of the courthouse.

And yeah in the history of humanity there are so many secular quotes you could choose from about the rule of law, respect for others and anythign else you could want to say.

[AFPheonix]

Of course preachers claim that Christianity is under attack. How else would they get their congregations fired up to do anything? Give someone a reason to fight or make them think they're backed into a corner, and yeah, they'll do something about it.

[rahmota]

True that. but what makes me laugh is that these fools dont realize that by making false claims of being under attack and then attacking and opressing people like they want to do, all they are doing is making people mad at them and then getting people ready to attack them. So a self fulfilling prophesy.

Personally there should be a law made that says all laws have to pass a religious test. if it is based on or supports or otherwise enforces or encodes or in anyway shape and form has no secular reason then it shall be an illegal law. That would be a wonderful law to have. Only secular based laws.

And before you say anythign about murder, rape and etc... being religious and nonsecular BS! Murder, rape theft etc...are secular crimes as well as religious crimes. What I am talking about is the crap like enforcing people's moral choices. ie public breastfeeding (which is starting to be legal although there are still those backwards people who dont like it) , homosexual marriage (which is regarded like wanting to publicly club kittens), language in movies and music, and other such world changing extremely unimportant,hot button issues.

I wish the Fundies who waste so much energy complaining about false attacks and other BS would actually start using that energy for more worthwhile issues, Like the unfair distribution of wealth, health and opportunities for education. Pollution and the destrucion and waste of resources. Other thigns that are actually important for the future of humnity not who is doing whom behind closed doors.

Sorry i am being so blunt tonight but I am grumpy.

basically the fundies are the onesstrring the pot up and blowing the issues out of proportion so they can control and dominate people. Same BS as always.

[protege]

True that. but what makes me laugh is that these fools dont realize that by making false claims of being under attack and then attacking and opressing people like they want to do, all they are doing is making people mad at them and then getting people ready to attack them. So a self fulfilling prophesy.

It's not just fundies who do this--the Klan and various other hate groups use these tactics too. That is, they *want* people to attack them. Not only does it *justify* their beliefs, but they can then also sue the attackers.

For example, there was a Klan "rally" here some years back. These assholes simply stood on the courthouse steps spewing their hatred, with the *intent* of retaliation. From what I read in the papers, they were trying to anger the few black protestors by claiming that they were all violent thugs. If the black people *did* attack, the Klan assholes would then say something like "well, we were right" and might even get a few new assholes into their group :rolleyes:

[rahmota]

Yes true. I was responding to AFP's mentioning of preachers.

It is true that too many groups try to place themselves in as victimized a position as they purposely can so that they can get sympathy or legalized revenge or defensively attack the others who "attacked" them first.

[Will-Mun]

No. Period. The ten commandments should be on NO courthouse in the united states. It is a religious moral code, and therefor should be nowhere near my court house.

And the argument that the ten commandments are the basis for the American law structure is one of the, well, stupidest arguments I've heard. Lets knock that down using the commandments themselves!

First Commandment:
I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Follow this LAW lately? This goes against one of the core bases of the American Constitution, freedom to worship ANY god before any other.

Third Commandment:
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
This one goes against THE core basis of American law, the right to say WHAT you want, WHEN you want.

Fourth Commandment:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Whens the last time you worked on a Sunday? Whoops, goin to jail!

Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
It is illegal to be jealous.


The American law system is based off of civil rights. Protecting people from harm from others, keeping people equal, and basically the right to do anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

[Boozy]

Whens the last time you worked on a Sunday? Whoops, goin to jail!

What would they do if we all became fundamentalist Christians and refused to work Sundays?

Republicans NEED us to work Sundays. Gotta keep the economy going, keep their stock prices up.

Don't worry about their immortal souls, though. They spend their Sundays by the pool.

[AFPheonix]

....with their secretaries.




Or perhaps a male prostitute.

[protege]

Republicans NEED us to work Sundays. Gotta keep the economy going, keep their stock prices up.

I don't know about that...

My great-grandparents were very religious. However, they worked most Sundays. As farmers, they didn't have much of a choice. Nearly every day was worked sunup to sundown. Most of that time was during the Depression, and whatever they needed to eat or otherwise survive came from the farm.

[Boozy]

My great-grandparents were very religious. However, they worked most Sundays. As farmers, they didn't have much of a choice. Nearly every day was worked sunup to sundown. Most of that time was during the Depression, and whatever they needed to eat or otherwise survive came from the farm.

I come from a family of farmers who were (historically)
a) very religious
b) very conservative
c) not rich

and...

d) worked Sundays, because that's what farmers do.

So I know what you're saying...I was just making fun of the Republican agenda (get not-rich people to vote for a party that benefits only the rich by using Christian issues as a platform).

[protege]

Hehe I know...just giving you a hard time. Actually, I think it's the Democrats that want us to work on Sundays. How else can we afford the taxes :p BTW, not all of us who are Republicans support their agenda.

But, the government for the rich can't be soely blamed on the Republicans. There's plenty of blame for both parties. Originally, it was supposed to be of, by, and for the people. However, once those idiots started making laws, it was only a matter of time before the system started serving their own interests...instead of ours.

Anyone who lives in Pennsylvania knows what I mean--no matter who we get in office, nothing ever seems to change. People bitch and moan about how our taxes keep going up, yet some of the bastards responsible for those taxes (and pay raises) yet seem to have no problem voting those bastards another term!

However, some change did occur in my county...when voters tired of the commissioners and all the cronyism. We went to home rule, and threw the bastards out :p

[Boozy]

But, the government for the rich can't be soely blamed on the Republicans. There's plenty of blame for both parties. Originally, it was supposed to be of, by, and for the people. However, once those idiots started making laws, it was only a matter of time before the system started serving their own interests...instead of ours.

You're absolutely right - the system itself corrupts Republicans and Democrats alike. Its time for campaign finance reform and closer attention to pork barrel spending.

But I guess that's a topic for another thread...

[BlaqueKatt]

I gotta agree with raps on this one. The christian 10 commandments while one of the basis of the modern legal code, along with the greek and roman legal system

um Hammurabi would like a word with you

[Seshat]

I've done enough looking at religious laws to recognise something: Many religious laws, if not most, are rules for the originating culture to survive in their originating circumstance.

For instance, taking Leviticus (desert people, nomadic for a time):

Most sacrifices must be of male animals (there are some which can be for either gender): male animals are the most likely to be superfluous in a herd. Females can be milked and are needed for breeding.

The list of animals which can and can't be eaten in chapter 11 is interesting: if you think about it from the point of view of a nomadic desert culture, the inedible list has parasites common with humans (pigs) or spoils rapidly (shellfish) or commonly carry diseases which can spread to humans (rodentia, some insects).

Rats and rodents which carry plague fleas are deemed unclean, and anything their dead body falls on is unclean for several hours. So is food tainted with water from a pot their bodies fell on; though a spring which has been touched by an unclean rodent isn't. Seed to be sown is safe, but seed soaking to be eaten isn't. Sounds like food hygeine rules!

The section on skin diseases looks a lot like 'take an injury or boil to a doctor, who can check it for this list of illnesses'.

The section on mildew looks like 'is it a dangerous spreading mildew or one which can be washed off?'

The section about butchering animals for eating looks like food hygeine, under the supervision of a priest. So does this phrase, in chapter 19, about fellowship offerings: 'the meat must be eaten on the day the animal is killed or on the next day. Any meat left on the third day must be burned'.

Most of the rules about sex look like attempts to prevent incest and the resultant inbreeding, or attempts to reduce the spread of venereal diseases.

Charity: 'when you harvest your fields, do not cut the corn on the edges of the field and do not go back to cut the ears of corn that were left. Do not go through your vineyard to gather the grapes that were missed or to pick the grapes that have fallen; leave them for poor people and foreigners.'


. . . eh, I could go on, but I think I've said enough. I can do the same sort of thing for the rule books of most other religions. Lots and lots of religious rules - not all, by any means - look like a survival guide for the originating environment.

Because of that, I have no objection to basing a secular rule set on a religious rule set. Just peel out the survival guide stuff that's still relevant, and the 'getting on with people' stuff that's relevant (no stealing, no murder, be excellent to each other), and leave the rest.

[BookstoreEscapee]

Consider this simple truth:

How many of the Ten Commandments are actually illegal in this country?

Two.

Murder and theft.

(Three if you count adultury, which may still be on the books in some areas, but when was the last time someone was thrown in jail for that?)

Personally, I like George Carlin's version (http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html)of the Ten Commandments, boiled down to two.


I also can't stand when people make the argument that a person can't be "moral" if they don't believe in God and the Bible. I'm sorry, I don't need to believe in those things to be a good person, and plenty of people who profess belief are far from moral and good. (Which is not to say that I do or do not believe in God...I would best be described as agnostic.)

[Seshat]

Personally, I like George Carlin's version (http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html)of the Ten Commandments, boiled down to two.


He needs a semicolon, the first of his two commandments is ambiguous. Place a semicolon after the word 'honest', or split that sentence into two, and you erase the ambiguity. Actually, splitting the sentence improves the clarity.

[AFPheonix]

um Hammurabi would like a word with you

He mentions Hammurabi a sentence or two down. Worry not Hammurabi, you are not forgotten!

He needs a semicolon, the first of his two commandments is ambiguous. Place a semicolon after the word 'honest', or split that sentence into two, and you erase the ambiguity. Actually, splitting the sentence improves the clarity.

Somebody did a transcript of a standup routine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU

[BookstoreEscapee]

He needs a semicolon, the first of his two commandments is ambiguous. Place a semicolon after the word 'honest', or split that sentence into two, and you erase the ambiguity. Actually, splitting the sentence improves the clarity.

Well, considering that it's George Carlin, that may well have been his intention. I actually have that bit on my iPod; he says it as if it does not contain any punctuation.

So should you be honest to the provider of thy nookie, and faithful to the provider of thy nookie

or

should you be honest, and be faithful to the provider of thy nookie...

??

Does it have something to do with moral relativism? :D

[Seshat]

Okay. I didn't realise it was a transcript - nor that the particular comedian liked to play with ambiguities.

But yes, Bookstore Escapee, those were my interpretations.

[DexX]

Bill and Ted gave us the only commandment that matters:

Be excellent to one another!

[BookstoreEscapee]

Thanks Phoenix...now I'm gonna be here all night watching George Carlin on YouTube...I think I might need some more on my iPod. :D

[AFPheonix]

Oh I know. Between him and Whitest Kids U Know I've been spending a lot of time on YouTube lately :p

[PepperElf]

what's interesting is i remember one story where people complained about something similar, though i believe it was a statue on the lawn.

the courthouse addressed the issue in a very unusual manner. instead of removing the statue, as requested by the protestors... they sectioned off the land containing the statue and sold it - and the transaction was legal.

The small area of land was no longer public property, it was owned by a citizen. And the new owner said, "it's my personal property, I can have a statue on it if I want."

So, in effect they found a way to keep the statue up without breaking the law.


the protestors were not amused
and if i remember correctly they still wanted the statue removed, despite the fact that it was now a private citizen's property

[Sylvia727]

I'd argue that too. Selling out a doughnut hole from the middle of the property, just large enough to hold the offensive statue? That's such a blatant exploitation of technicalities that I'm surprised it held up in court. The visual effect remains the same, that the public property was endorsing the statue. Which is what they were doing, and which is wrong.

[PepperElf]

well the land in question wasn't a spot in the center if I'm not mistaken, but along the edge of the property.

still... if the protestors got their way and forced the statue to come down anyway, it would set up a rather ugly precedence for determining what private citizens put on their own land. most people think of privately owned land as being land with a house on it, etc, not directly in public view... but there's no law that says land owned by citizens *has* to be in that form...

perhaps it's just to me but... it just seemed more like the protestors just didn't like seeing a religious statue they disagreed with and wanted it destroyed... and that the "religious statue on public land" was just the tool (or excuse) they wielded to try to get their way.

personally if it'd be me.. i'd think i'd have been more like, "Grrr... I don't like it but... hey you found a clever loophole, OK." but to continue the fight anyway, to me says... their battle wasn't about the separation of church and state, but a personal battle (and perhaps hatred) about the statue itself.

[protege]

still... if the protestors got their way and forced the statue to come down anyway, it would set up a rather ugly precedence for determining what private citizens put on their own land. most people think of privately owned land as being land with a house on it, etc, not directly in public view... but there's no law that says land owned by citizens *has* to be in that form...

It's already happened. Not far from me, someone had posted a huge sign along a highway. Something along the lines of "Jesus Saves." Keep in mind that the sign was roughly 50 feet from the highway, and was on someone's private land. Yet, some idiot got upset, and pressured the township to force the landowner to remove the sign. What bugs me about that, is that there's a *church* not too far away, which is much closer to the highway...yet they were allowed to keep their sign. What the hell?