Should the 10 commandments be allowed in gov't buildings?

[Loki]

Let's look at how the text is being used:

1. Is it there as an endorsement of Judeo/Christian values above all others?

Yes, there is.

2. Is it there as a representation of one of the foundations for law/values that this country was built on?

The Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians. Ask Kane for the difference.

3. Is it a representation of the local communities values and moral structure?

That's not relevant. Government buildings' appearance is dictated by state/federal law, not community. It's simply not practical.

People have to be willing to see the text as simply a moral code and NOT just a religious text. I have found 'wisdom' in Buddhist/Muslim/Native American (Iroquois/Hodenoshownee) values (as did Ben Franklin)/Christian/Animistic....you name it. There is a core of human decency and values that any of these specific codes can be lumped under.

Could be a good idea to see a religious text as a moral code, but when God's in it, that's a problem for people who either disbelieve or see God as immoral.

We are a NATION OF DIVERSITY, fine. Why do we waste so much time complaining about the differences instead of focusing on finding common ground?

Muslim moral structure shares a common heritage with Judeo/Christian values. Some of the Native American beliefs/tales were inspired by Christian contact. Jews were inspired by Greek mythos, ......

First and foremost we are all citizens of the same country. Divisiveness clogs and bogs down an already intentionally slow governmental system.....If government is going to bicker over something while I am paying for the man hours let's devote more time to resolving medicaid/medicare and Social Security instead of arguing over a rock with words that, taken as wisdom and not Religion, people would generally agree make a pretty good message.

The question still has to be resolved. Do you just leave it at default and allow the commandments? Petty and time-consuming or not, these issues have to be answered. And allowing a religious text (even if it's a "moral code", though I beg to differ) can make way for more religious appearances in government business.

~ Loki

 

[loki09789]

1. Yes, there is.


2.The Founding Fathers were deists, not Christians. Ask Kane for the difference.


3.That's not relevant. Government buildings' appearance is dictated by state/federal law, not community. It's simply not practical.


4.Could be a good idea to see a religious text as a moral code, but when God's in it, that's a problem for people who either disbelieve or see God as immoral.


5.The question still has to be resolved. Do you just leave it at default and allow the commandments? Petty and time-consuming or not, these issues have to be answered. And allowing a religious text (even if it's a "moral code", though I beg to differ) can make way for more religious appearances in government business.

~ Loki

1. Really, prove it. Show me where the government is using this to promote/endorse Christianity over all.
2. Don't need to. I know Jefferson was definitely. I have seen his version of the bible....interesting. Some may have been, not all for sure IMO.

3. The 'appearance' is not 'dictated' by state and federal law. If a town court has a plaque with the 10 Com. on it and the community has no objections, it stands. If a Village assembly wants to observe prayer at the beginning of a meeting (with a rotating host of local religious representatives as I have seen done in some cases), then it is fine. The power of local authority over local issues. If it was 'dictated' then this would be very cut and dry.

4. So they personally can choose not to accept those points. I have heard people stop during the pledge at the mention of 'Under God' because of personal reasons but still participate with the rest....that's fine with me.

5. It does have to be resolved, and it will, but isn't there also a 'pettiness presedence' when a Judge allows things like this to clog his schedule and cases that actually affect human lives in immediate/more urgent ways get delayed because of things like this?

 

[Loki]

1. Really, prove it. Show me where the government is using this to promote/endorse Christianity over all.

I heard of at least one judge who put up the commandments in his court. I'll look for the exact case. This is an an endorsement of Christian/Jewish morals above others.

3. The 'appearance' is not 'dictated' by state and federal law. If a town court has a plaque with the 10 Com. on it and the community has no objections, it stands. If a Village assembly wants to observe prayer at the beginning of a meeting (with a rotating host of local religious representatives as I have seen done in some cases), then it is fine. The power of local authority over local issues. If it was 'dictated' then this would be very cut and dry.

Appearance meaning not the exact specs. for a building, but what things aren't allowed. I don't think a picture containing nudity would be allowed in any courtroom, because it offends certain groups. Same goes with the commanments. It's a matter of policy. You never know who'll be tried/testify.

4. So they personally can choose not to accept those points. I have heard people stop during the pledge at the mention of 'Under God' because of personal reasons but still participate with the rest....that's fine with me.

We can also take racist quotes and put them over a courtroom and say whoever doesn't identify with them doesn't have to accept them. It's an extreme example, but some people see the commandments as wrong as racism and in a country with a church-state seperation, that has to be respected.

5. It does have to be resolved, and it will, but isn't there also a 'pettiness presedence' when a Judge allows things like this to clog his schedule and cases that actually affect human lives in immediate/more urgent ways get delayed because of things like this?

If he does, then you're right, he shouldn't. But it shouldn't be disregarded either.

~ Loki

 

[Tgace]

Besides the source, what content of the commandments could be found "offensive"?

 

[michaeledward]

Besides the source, what content of the commandments could be found "offensive"?

"I am the Lord your God, and you shall have no other gods before me"

What if that is not my god?

 

[Tgace]

Thats a point. Yeah..that and "Keep holy the lords day" I guess. However I personally wouldnt be offended if some non-Christian display were put up either (as long as it was relavent), but I guess some people would.

Im not adamantly "for" the Commandments being installed as some conspicuous display in Gvt. buildings, I just find it odd how easily people can become "offended" over the whole thing. The Alabama (was that the place?) case was obviously a political statement and I dont think it should have been allowed to stay just based on the intent. I do disagree with "purging" displays, traditional decorations, etc. that have been around for "ages" in some municipalities because a minority of people have an issue.

 

[CanuckMA]

Fine points. 1) the Hebrew doesn't call them commandene=ments but 'utterances'
2) there are so many different English translations out there, if you really want to display them, do it in the original Hebrew. See how well THAT goes with the religious right. :supcool:

 

[cashwo]

My 2 cents:

I work in a state building and I think it's fine if someone has it hanging in their cube but to make a public display in a common area I think is wrong. In the main area where I work someone has made a big display with a 3 foot tall angel and a bible laying open. I don't think that that is right at all.

 

[Ray]

I work in a state building and I think it's fine if someone has it hanging in their cube but to make a public display in a common area I think is wrong....

I think you may have made the most fair and reasonable post so far.

 

[MisterMike]

A public display of the 10 Commandments is not an establishment of religion.

Amendment I

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.

Since there is no law made, or religion established by this act, I see no problem with it.

 

[BaiKaiGuy]

My 2 cents:

I work in a state building and I think it's fine if someone has it hanging in their cube but to make a public display in a common area I think is wrong. In the main area where I work someone has made a big display with a 3 foot tall angel and a bible laying open. I don't think that that is right at all.

Agreed. I work for my county goverment, and I certainly don't care what people put up in their own cubies or offices. But...

Tgace][/b]
Besides the source, what content of the commandments could be found "offensive"?

As pointed out, the part about "I am the Lord your God" is pretty religious.

My problem isn't so much the display of the Commandments, it's how they are displayed. If they are part of a freize like the one at the United States Supreme Court, recognizing one aspect of law, that's one thing. When it's a giant monument in the middle of the courthouse standing alone? I take issue with that. Especially if you have a rabid judge who wished to pop his religious beliefs on my clients...

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Here is a refreshingly well thought out compromise to the whole issue by Noah Feldman, printed in the New York Times on July 3.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/03/magazine/03CHURCH.html?

The article is sympathetic to Evangelicals (believe it or not) as well as secularists.

If the Supremes take this stance, the whole issue might be put at rest.


Subscription might be necessary for access...but its free.




Regards,



Steve

 

[DngrRuss]

Ok, I'm a noob to this site, but I have just read this entire thread (among several others) and it is time for me to jump in with both feet.

First- I will not beat around the bush regarding my political and sprirtual beliefs. I am a left-leaning independant. I think Republicans are basically good people, but thier leadership are greedy, Draconian overlords who have figured out that if they keep the far right nutcases appeased and in the press, they can run amok freely within the government and do what they want to the environment, the middle class, and the world at large while filling thier pockets. I think Democrats are basically good people, but thier leadership are a bunch of spineless cry-babies who when their anger gets riled-up, go into meetings to make sure that they don't offend anyone and keep everyone smiling and happy instead of kicking *** and taking names and leaving right-wing smoldering bodies in thier wake as they should.

This country was founded on the ideal that the individual is paramount, and that the state cannot override the individual with regard to his/her rights. When the religous/fundamentalist Christian right makes statements like, "this is a Christian nation", they have not really read thier history nor the Constitution. I especially love when they espouse the ideals and morality of the Founding Fathers, a group of white businessmen (mostly Deist, not Christian)that essentially did not want to pay taxes to a foreign power and figured that they could make more money and gain more power by pulling away from England, creating the "great experiment" that is the US.

If we accept that the individual right are paramount, than it is logical that the 10 Commandments should not be presented in a public display paid for by the state. Not everyone is a Christian and saying that it is "harmless" or "historical" is disingenuous. Perhaps we, the staunch suporters of the seperation-of-church-and-state, wouldn't be so voracious in our opposition to this display if the far right propaganda were not so voracious in thier agenda to convert us all.

In my studio, if one or two kids are not behaving properly and the others either fall into step with them, or do nothing about it, all of them do push-ups. Some have said that this is not fair since they were not guilty of the transgression; but I tell them that either ignoring or being apathetic about the problem does not make it go away, it makes it worse. It is a problem that can grow and grow until it is out of control.

When some on this thread have stated that it "doesn't matter" or they "don't care", it tells me that they will just fall in step with whatever comes down to them until it is perhaps too late. Then they will not have the ability or the right (since rights are not born, they are granted by the body politic) to do anything about it.

Long winded- but my stance is NO to any state sponsored or sanctioned religous icons or ideology. And all the propaganda and rhetoric the right can put out to defend their position does not change that.

I was sorry to see that Robert's account was closed. I will pose the same questin that he did in a previous post that noone on the defense of the fundamentalist view answered: Why do you have to have these icons like the 10 Commandements posted supported by the state? Your churches already have the tremendous gift of tax free status, why do you have to infringe on my right to be free from you and your beliefs?

 

[Kane]

To the coward who gave me a negative rep. for my post, what did I say wrong in the post that made you think I am anti-atheist? I bet you are anti-God for assuming I am one. Perhaps you should go back in read my post carefully.

----------------------------------

Anways, IMO, I personally don't care what religious text you put up in the courts. Whether it be the 10 comandments, quote from the Bhagavad Gita, quote from Buddhist religious books, whatever it is. There is no harm in having any religious document up. It can be a decoration, a desired behavior, or whatever but to say that it is a "violation of church and state" defied logic. Does it make the government more religious? Will it make them judge things based more on religion than on fact? I do not think so, nor do I think it will do anything.

Were are founding father Christian? No, they were freethinkers to a more bigger level as some of the so called freethinkers of today. Would are founding fathers be upset to see the 10 Commandments in courtrooms? No, persoanlly I don't think they would give a rat's behind what decoration they have in the court room. Would our founding fathers be pissed if our government used religion to judge things? Yes they would. Would our founding father think that a 10 Commandments decoration would be the cause of it? No they would not.

 

[MisterMike]

I was sorry to see that Robert's account was closed.

So was I.

I will pose the same questin that he did in a previous post that noone on the defense of the fundamentalist view answered: Why do you have to have these icons like the 10 Commandements posted supported by the state?

Perhaps there are no fundamentalists on the board. But I doubt however fundamentalism has anything to do with why the monuments are there in the first place. It is my understanding that many of these were donated, or have existed for as many as 40 or 50 years. Why all the hubbub now? Weren't many of our laws based on these simple tenets anyways?

Your churches already have the tremendous gift of tax free status, why do you have to infringe on my right to be free from you and your beliefs?

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other here, but have you ever entered a courthouse with a 10 Commandments monument? As I read this I began to have flashbacks of Dr. Who. It almost sounds that if you did see one, that as you walked past it, it began to glow fire red, trapping you into a trance as it subliminally injected your brain with fundamentalist Christian thought.

To me, people who follow the "logic" of removing the Ten Commandment monuments are also for removing "In God We Trust" from all currency, "In the year of our Lord" in COUNTLESS historical documents, etc.

I do not hear complaints about those, so the logic must be flawed somewhere. Perhaps it is only what they see in front of them (even though many have not ever seen the monuments in person) but isn't this shallow. If the goal is to truely remove all reference of God or the Lord from the government, I think the task will be overwhleming. Sounds like the logic is, "What you cant see wont hurt you."

I can understand the dilema. Liberal thought is a million shades of gray. You can do this but you can't do that. This is OK, but this isn't. All because of how this makes them feel versus that. God on money is OK. God in the courthouse is not.

I also have the same dilema. My point weas not addressed either.

Amendment I

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.


Since there is no law made, or religion established by this act, I see no problem with it.

If the "liberals" are using the First Ammendment as their ammunition, show me how the displays have violated it.

 

[michaeledward]

...
To me, people who follow the "logic" of removing the Ten Commandment monuments are also for removing "In God We Trust" from all currency, "In the year of our Lord" in COUNTLESS historical documents, etc.

I do not hear complaints about those, so the logic must be flawed somewhere. Perhaps it is only what they see in front of them (even though many have not ever seen the monuments in person) but isn't this shallow. If the goal is to truely remove all reference of God or the Lord from the government, I think the task will be overwhleming. Sounds like the logic is, "What you cant see wont hurt you."

I can understand the dilema. Liberal thought is a million shades of gray. You can do this but you can't do that. This is OK, but this isn't. All because of how this makes them feel versus that. God on money is OK. God in the courthouse is not.

I also have the same dilema. My point weas not addressed either.

If the "liberals" are using the First Ammendment as their ammunition, show me how the displays have violated it.

I am all in favor of removing "In God We Trust" from the nation's currency. And, while I think it would be difficult to remove the "In the year of Our Lord ..." from historical documents, I think that would be a good thing too.

"Liberal thought is a million shades of gray"

I think all thought is a million shades of gray. Describing anything without subtlety and nuance is a silly position. There are very few absolutes in a society of small group animals. So, please don't start going all Sith on us.

To your question, and your point.

The Father God of Christianity, the God of Islam, and the God of Israel are all exactly the same God. Yet each faith has a different name for this God. These three faiths are said to be the Abrahamic religions.

So, what if the courthouse you enter, has inscribed on a granite block .... "la illaha illa Allah" .... would, then you be decrying liberal shades of gray?

Seems to me, that 'God' is just fine on money and in courthouses and governement policy, as long as we are talking about 'My' God. But, if you think that Jesus was a wise and patient man, and not the Divine; if the story that he was crucified and resurrected for mans' salvation seems just a little bit nutty, well then, that is a different 'it doesn't matter' all together.

As for the calendar, take your pick ...
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar.html

 

[MisterMike]

That's somewhat all fine and dandy. People may very well be offended by it, but it falls under free speech in the end.

To your point, if this country was founded by Islamists and we replaced everything with Allah, I probably wouldn't be offended as I would most likely have been brought up under Islam.

Point is we can't rewrite our history or forget our heritage, much to the dismay of public schools and Boston Universities. So until someone can find some lawful reason why they should be removed, I say that they stay.

If 51% of the country turns Buddhist and more Buddhists occupy judicial positions, I suppose we mght start seeing Buddha over the coutroom doors. For some reason that I can't explain, I doubt there would be such outcry being it is non-Christian. Just a gut feeling though. There are currently more offensive things I can find already, like "Obedience to the law is freedom." - Gardner, MA.

 

[michaeledward]

You speak of 'our heritage' as if it is for some reason beyond review and reconsideration. The country was founded by Europeans. Because of that, there is a natural European influence. As 'our heritage' is from Europe, are you suggesting that we look to that continent for our civil policies? You know, like Universal Health Care?

I don't think that is what you are suggesting. The fact that the Roman Army conquered most of Europe, thus, and through the Emperor Constantine, do we have such phrases as 'In the year of Our Lord', or, if I recall correctly, 'Anno Dominea' (A.D.) should not mean that we can not review any aspect of our society.

As the current trends seem to show, in another couple of decades, most of the citizens of the United States are probably going to be Catholic Hispanics. I wonder if the Evangelical Christians are aware of, and perhaps, terrified of that fact.

Regardless ... when the 'State' says something, it is not an action of 'Free Speech', it is an embodiement of policy. Surely, you have heard of the 'Bully Pulpit'. What can that phrase possibly mean? Could it be that when 'The State', as voiced through the elected officials, carries more weight in its language than the 'Free Tibet' bumper sticker on the back of the VW Golf?

If I am a citizen of the United States, raised in Theravada Buddhism (such things do happen, especially in places on the west coast), were there is no such entity as "The Lord Your God" ... (as in "I am ...., you shall have no other before me"), why should I be brought before a court, as indictee, witness, or juror, that in any way states policies based on Abraham's God?

So much for the 'Melting Pot', Eh?

 

[AikidoCal]

Disclaimer: I haven't read the entire 7 page thread, I simply don't have that much time to do so. Of what I read I got the gist I think, well I am it pretty much is a uncomplicated division between two camps. The complication is with those in power who have decided what to do. If I am redundant I appologize.
1. Kill everyone involved...start over (kidding).

1. the 10 commandments are a symbol of a morality and ethics in my mind which are not new and universal. I don't really see them as anything more then social laws or rules, and less of being a religious doctrine that brain washes anyone to send money to some church, or fooling people into thinking there is some old man up there that controls everything.

Take for a moment, what if Bernard Shaw wrote don't murder/kill. Or stick to your own wife, stop wanting the other guy's wife. Don't steal, etc. it is pretty universal stuff that can seen as just getting a bunch of unrulely people to along, curbing unwanted chaos, long enough to get people organized.
IMO.

The 10 Commandments are implying to a group of people to stop partying and listen to what God has to say. It was for the Jews (slaves or lower class) who rebelled aganist the majority and part of that was a single more powerful God then the gods of the majority. The 10 commandments was targeted to and for the Jewish people at that time that went with Moses who lead them out of Egypt into a unforgiving dessert/wilderness/gone camping. I doubt Moses was thinking the 10 commandments was for everyone in the world and the future. He had his hands full as it was.


Sure Moses said, God spoke to him. If he said it was his ideas they really would have ignored him, or never followed him in the first place-they probably would have stoned him in some fashion otherwise. As we know, there is no greater authority then to say it came from God. Look at what Wacko Jacko said in terms of God being on his side inorder to restore his cred. We all know how powerful it is when someone says without earmarks of being a psychotic, God told me, this is from God. God did it for me. Culturally in relation to the bible, look who we are at war with and what they do in the name of God. They haven't changed for thousands of years. They needed God in the first place. Ever wonder why God showed up there first in that part of town first? With that in context the Bible makes sense.

Today, by choice or chance are living with many Christian things, this was due to those who came to the is country from England at first and later to make a buck, and keep their rich teenagers male off-spring out of their hair, the framers of this country, and others. You would think we would just not care if the 10 commandments where in a court house since we don't pay attention or fuss over the fact that "In God We Trust" is on our money amoung other Christian things.

2. The 10 commandments and Christianity where accepted by many if not all the framers of this country and because of their Freemason beliefs set up our Government with God in mind. "In God We Trust" that is on our money. Like I just said. Or the fact the framers included things like freedom of religion separate Church ( Church of England) and State. Their reasons for saying such things don't apply today. Never the less, Christianity is the mortar of the foundations of our government. Like it or not. The problem is someone hasn't figured a way to make a tourist buck off of it.

3. Government needs true morality and ethics. Something should be in the halls of courts and offices that reminds them of morals and ethics. A powerful message. Government has become a big business. People use to say it was big brother and it was telling us what to do and spying us. Well we are way past Orwell. But we don't keep that going. We are more like in the throws of our government becoming an L.L.P., inc. where the oxymoron of business ethics are put in fine print. Where the "bottom line" is "policy." Something the framers ( businessmen some where) didn't intend government to be, I am sure. In this day and age China is wanting to get mineral rights by buying a large American ( we think is American who knows now a days ) oil company. They get that the get better weapons and hence stronger military. Why in the first place are they allowed to do it? It goes back to policies our government made for the interest not for the people, or by the people, but for corporations, by corporations. Corporations who have no loyalty or interest to their nation.

4. Turn the 10 commandments into art. How, by just saying it is a work of art in the court house.

Real morals and ethics are an endangered species. Orwell missed the boat, he thought government was big brother. He didn't realize Big Brother was coporations who whould take over and control government. Or should I say corpoment; for profit, of profit, by profit, to insure those CEOs have the wealth and power of kings. We should be more concerned with the separation of corporations and state. And a law against corporations selling religion.

 

[Marginal]

Is "Eh. It's just hegemony." Really that compelling an argument?