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

[ginshun]

Since it is in the news, I thought I would get some other peoples opinions on it.

Personally, I am not a Christian, and I am not going to display them in my house or anything, but they don't offend me either. I think that if you are walking through a courthouse, and you are offended just by seeing a monument with them on then you really need to get a life.

So, I guess my opinion is to just leave them there and not even bother with the whole thing, but I am not going to shed a tear if they are taken out either.

What I do think, is that the whole case is a waste of time, and the Supreme Court really should have something better to worry about.

But that is just one mans opinion, what do you guys think?

 

[Flatlander]

I think you should provide a reference to the story, if you want to talk about it. It's just good form.

 

[ginshun]

Its been all over the news, but here is a link to a story from Reuters on Yahoo! News.

Supreme Court Considers Ten Commandments Displays

 

[Ray]

If Hammurabi's code can be displayed as an example of early law then the 10 commandments can, too.

Three are currently enforced in some form in the US: murder, stealing and bearing false witness. Three, though not enshrined in current code, are pretty good ideas: Honor Mom & Dad, adultery and coveting.

Does it constitute establishment of a state religion to display them? Probably not. Should it be a big divisive issue? No.

 

[Deuce]

I really don't think this is a big deal. I suppose it's easy for me to say that being a christian and all, but I'd feel the same if there were other religious beliefs posted in public. Sure, the ten commandments have a christian origin, but in this case it's being displayed as a symbol of law. Leave it up, take it down, or add a disclaimer, it really makes no difference to me.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Ironically, the ten commandments have a Jewish background, not a Christian one, but I don't hear the Jews making much of an issue one way or the other.

As a Christian, I don't care. "State sanctioning" of my beliefs doesn't interest me.. Not that I think it's bad or good, it's just kinda 'so what?' I wouldn't care if they put up verses from the Koran or whatever. I think it's more motivated by a desire to feel justified or included in the group or whatever. I don't find much in the bible that says I should worry too much about what any government thinks about Christianity or that my position with God is contigent on what other people think so...I don't worry abuot it one way or the other.

 

[Rich Parsons]

This will surprise people but here is my opinion on this:

I think that the Ten Commandments and other historical documents of cultures trying to formalize law should be written or allowed in goverenmental buildings, as historical references.

You cannot move forward until you really understand where you ahve been and what ground has already been covered.

 

[Flatlander]

Rich, I totally agree with that.:asian:

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'll be interested to read opinions the day after some radical fundamentalist Islamic group sneaks into a Federal courthouse in the middle of the night, leaves a ten-ton rock with, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET," behind, then uses the resulting furor to push their fundamentalist candidates for public office, then gives repeated press conferences in which they accuse everybody else of being America-hating godless monsters.

These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.

 

[Flatlander]

If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.

I see this point, however, don't you see it as overkill to comprehensively disallow anything that even remotely smells of extremism? It seems to me to be a bit over the top. Why not focus on the specific instances wherein people's civil liberties are being infringed upon?

There is, of course, a motivating force to all things. Attacking all things that are remotely related to a cause, as opposed to the circumstances where people are actually being treated unfairly is immoderate, in my opinion.

 

[Ray]

"THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET"...

These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.

I disagree that claims of "history" are [is?] a fig leaf (or are fig "leaves"?). A big rock with the inscription "There is no God but Allah..." does not contribute to anyone's historical knowledge. Now, something from Koranic legislation or sharia (sp?) might be appropriate. And if it is important to leave out the religious parts of the 10 commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" etc but to show the historical nature of the commandments, then I suppose that could be done.

Is there an appropriate venue for a display of historical legal development? Is it in the courthouse? Certainly the display behind the supreme court has a depiction of the 10 commandments in some fashion.

Does a display of historical legal development, in its appropriate venue, exclude everything religious? Why would it? Excluding everything religious would also preclude the historical lessons in school showing Geo Washington praying with his troops and being a religious man of high moral fiber---those things shouldn't be excluded from lessons on the Father of Our Country anymore than the beliefs of Gandhi when learning of him. The depth and breadth of it should be appropriate to the audience.

The day that this kind of action brings about a restriction for me or my children to pray in school or in public (or to be forced to pray in school or in public) is the day when the we've gone too far. Whether one must walk past the 10 commandments as they're going to see the judge is a non-issue.

 

[ginshun]

I'll be interested to read opinions the day after some radical fundamentalist Islamic group sneaks into a Federal courthouse in the middle of the night, leaves a ten-ton rock with, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET," behind, then uses the resulting furor to push their fundamentalist candidates for public office, then gives repeated press conferences in which they accuse everybody else of being America-hating godless monsters.

These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.

You honestly think that the situation you described parallels the current state of America?

I knew we thought about things differently, but if that is really the way you see things, then I think now I just pity you.

 

[Tgace]

Since most western law is blatantly based in religious morals. There obviously is historical value to the root of western law. I wouldnt expect the 10 commandments to be posted in an Islamic courthouse, because their historical root is obviously different. We still place our hands on bibles when taking the oath in this country.....

 

[Rich Parsons]

I'll be interested to read opinions the day after some radical fundamentalist Islamic group sneaks into a Federal courthouse in the middle of the night, leaves a ten-ton rock with, "THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET," behind, then uses the resulting furor to push their fundamentalist candidates for public office, then gives repeated press conferences in which they accuse everybody else of being America-hating godless monsters.

These claims about, "history," are, as everybody knows, simply a fig leaf. If fundamentalist Protestants simply were doing that, there'd be no problemo with hardly anybody. Regrettably, that isn't even close to what's going on.

rmcrobertson,

But I see nothing wrong with the Tenants of Islam and the laws there of as an example historical law to help stabalize the culture and population.

To put it in a place as a sign of worship, or make those pay homage too it, I disagree with this as well I would the Bible or Ten Commandments being in the same place.

Just my thoughts.

 

[ginshun]

We still place our hands on bibles when taking the oath in this country.....

I never even thought of that. Do they still / actually do that in court for the witnesses? As in place your hand on the Bible and swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

That seems like a much more blatent endorsment of Christianity than walking past a plaque or statue.

Do you have to do it to testify in court? What if you are not Christian? I don't know if I would be comfortable doing that, seeing as how I don't even believe what is written in it.

 

[Tgace]

Depends on the courthouse...some just have you raise your right hand...some still have "So help you God" as part of the oath...some dont.

 

[FearlessFreep]

and in the end, if the person saying it doesn't mean it, does it mean anything?

How many people take that oath and then lie?

It's not a statement of faith, it's just a common way of trying to get other people to believe you are going to tell the truth.

Ironically, if you don't believe in the bible your hand is on or the 'God' you are swearing to, it really lets you of the hook from even attempting to honor ut

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Pity away; personally, I'll be sticking with the humanist and Enlightenment traditions and ways of knowing upon which our Constitution rests.

2. For the umpteenth time: nobody in their right mind is arguing that anybody's rights to believe, or to pray, should be taken or limited in any fashion whatsoever. We're simply going with the Constitution as interpreted by some very conservative people opver the last two hundred plus years: the power of the goevernment, and the money of the taxpayers, should not be used to push fundamentalist Protestantism.

3. You folks would do well to read up on the guys you're supporting, and the issues they repeatedly cite. The judge in Alabama, Roy what's-'is-name, is NOT, repeat NOT, merely posting the Ten Commandments and letting that be enough. Oh my goodness, no. He and a group of followers--fundamentalists all--have been demanding that their views and their views only be put into courthouses for quite some time; they snuck in with a ten-ton rock with the Commandments attached; they're running the guy for office. What's more, he and his supporters are citing PRECISELY the State's Rights doctrines that have been used, again and again and again, to block Federal laws about minor things like voting rights for a century and a half.

4. The notion that citing the essence of Islam contributes nothing to the historical understanding of Western law, or to the understanding of this country's history, is absurd. Moreover, my point was that--despite the repeatedly-cited smokescreen--this has nothing to do with, "religion," in general. (Unless of course you think that the words, "religion," and, "Protestantism," are synonyms.) It has to do with the State's sponsorship of a particular religion.

The oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday--which, despite the frequent lying and distortion by right-wingers, is a quite conservative Court--specifically addressed the issue of the difference between a ceremonial remark such as, "God bless this honorable Court," and the systematic, explicit sponsorship of a particular sect.

Listen up, guys: what you are supporting is not religion, or even Christianity in general. What you are flogging is the narrow, extremely-conservative Christian fundamentalism pushed by guys like Jay Sekula, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell ("9/11 is God's punishment for homosexuals and the ACLU..."), Bob Jones and the rest of these clowns.

These are the guys who are pushing this, together with an occasion somewhat wacky atheist or two. The fundamentalists are well-financed, they are insistent, they have pretty much the same set of beliefs as the guys currently running Iran or the Taliban, and they have been extremely explicit about their plans and their strategies. It isn't "Christians," it ain't Catholics, it ain't Buddhists and Muslims, and it damn sure ain't Jews. It ain't even Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist his whole life, or Cornell West, deacon of his church for decades. You're arguing for right-wing Christian fundamentalism.

So if you're on their side, it's certainly your prerogative as an American citizen--a prerogative, I might add, fought for by the very humanists and Enlightenment people who you fantasize are your enemy. So support Robertson, Falwell ("9/11 is God's just punishment for the ACLU"), and the likes of Ollie North (arms for hostages/death squads for Christianity Ollie) as much as you like.

Just be honest about what you're arguing for.

 

[Tgace]

All it really means is that if you are caught in a lie, the court can drop a perjury charge on you.

 

[Tgace]

Funny how if "one" doesn't agree 100% with "ones" point of view than "one" is automatically supporting some extreme right wing agenda.

I guess if "one" doesn't support religious content in public buildings 100% than "one" must be an extreme left wing liberal hippy....