Placing the Ten Commandments on court houses

[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 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 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?

[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.

[AFPheonix]

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

[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?