RANT! pick a subject.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by damion18d
Aside from people being afraid of some "great Christian conspiracy to take over America" what negative could come from the example the 10 commandments would set? Is there anything that you can think of that could come negative from people following them?

Just for the sake of argument, I'd say that one "negative" would be that the very first commandment would if really followed require everyone to convert to Christianity...

Even if one interpreted "Thou shalt have no other God before Me" to permit Christians to think of Jehovah and Muslims to think of Allah as "Me", it still kind of leaves the polytheists and the atheists out in the cold.

In fact, the first four Commandments are all rather like that: religiously specific to the Israelite faith. And---do you want to live in a country where all productive activity stops on the Sabbath? Where no "graven images" may be made ( so long art )?

For a longer answer to your question, see:


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c7.htm
Was it Mencken or Bierce who defined Hell as a place where the Ten Commandments had a police force behind them?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Too bad the analysis is incorrect huh?

Only the first 3 are ones regarding God. They grouped it incorrectly. Their Commandements 2 and 3 are actually combined to form Commandment 3. Thus making their #4 the true #3. Their number 10 is in reality split into 9 and 10. 9 being "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. 10 being shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Just thought I would say that.....for the sake of arguement.

[Soldier]

Originally posted by Craig
The main issue is that the first 4 commandments are definately religious and not secular in nature and they are "laws" establishing a set religious doctrine. (That was their purpose, to codify the Jewish religion.) So, by having governmentally funded entities proclaiming the 10 commandments, there is a tacit "pushing" of the Judeo/Christian religions.

The 10 Commandments are examples of laws, but they are also laws of a culture that had no separation between religion and state. One could pull examples of laws from other religious texts as well, but I don't see anyone making the attempt.

Cheers,
Craig

Granted, the first...however many...are religious in nature. My point is that they usually aren't displayed (including, I believe, in this case) for their religious significance, but rather because they are one of the earliest - and most famous - sets of laws. It doesn't matter so much of what culture. It's like saying we need to pull an ancient artifact from display in the Smithsonian because it was a religious artifact to the cavemen who made it.

And there's still the little thing about the mural in the Supreme Court building...

[Duelist]

My rant is that I cannot think of anything to rant about.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

how about people who think freedom of religion means freedom from religion?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Too bad the analysis is incorrect huh?

Only the first 3 are ones regarding God. They grouped it incorrectly. Their Commandements 2 and 3 are actually combined to form Commandment 3. Thus making their #4 the true #3. Their number 10 is in reality split into 9 and 10. 9 being "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. 10 being shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Well----that opens another can o' worms.

There are several VERSIONS of the Commandments. And I think in fact that the original Decalogue contained more like 20 laws than just 10. But that way lies madness, and way too much bandwidth usage...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Soldier
My point is that they usually aren't displayed (including, I believe, in this case) for their religious significance, but rather because they are one of the earliest - and most famous - sets of laws.

And yet---how many Southern courthouses display copies of Hammurabi's Code?

As to the SCOTUS mural---what do you think would happen if one Justice tried to replace it with a display of Muslim hadiths?

[Craig]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Too bad the analysis is incorrect huh?

Only the first 3 are ones regarding God. They grouped it incorrectly. Their Commandements 2 and 3 are actually combined to form Commandment 3. Thus making their #4 the true #3. Their number 10 is in reality split into 9 and 10. 9 being "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house. 10 being shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.

Just thought I would say that.....for the sake of arguement.

The numbering of the Commandments depend on your religious upbringing. Roman Catholics have it numbered one way and Greek/Eastern Orthodox have numbered it a different way.

I've got the Oxford Bible Commentary and it goes into a detailed analysis of the different numberings as well as commentary on how splitting up the numbers changes some of the basics of the religion. (If I remember correctly one of the biggest impacts is the definition of a graven image, which is why RCs can have statues and the GO/EO keep it to icons.)

Cheers,
Craig

[Craig]

Originally posted by damion18d
Is there anything that you can think of that could come negative from people following [the 10 Commandments]?

Aside from not being able to be a Hindu? (See commandment #1)

[Soldier]

Originally posted by Inquartata
And yet---how many Southern courthouses display copies of Hammurabi's Code?

As to the SCOTUS mural---what do you think would happen if one Justice tried to replace it with a display of Muslim hadiths?

Repeat: "...and most famous..."

How many people are familiar with Hammurabi's code? How many would recognize it? For that matter, what exactly was it? Sure, I know it's a very early set of laws, but were they on parchment, or a log, or what?

The Ten Commandments are a) probably better known than any other set of laws, and b) more recognizable than anything else, as they're on two distinctive, unfortunately tombstone-looking, hunks of stone.

Nobody would put up Hammurabi's Code, or Muslim hadiths, or anything else you can think of, because everybody coming in would say, "Huh?" and immediately ask the security guard what the heck it was. After a very short time of this, the security guard would get so sick of answering questions about it that he'd come in and remove them himself in the middle of the night. That or start shooting people on the spot.

[Soldier]

Originally posted by Duelist
My rant is that I cannot think of anything to rant about.

And suddenly you have proven yourself wrong.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Soldier

Nobody would put up Hammurabi's Code, or Muslim hadiths, or anything else you can think of, because everybody coming in would say, "Huh?" and immediately ask the security guard what the heck it was. After a very short time of this, the security guard would get so sick of answering questions about it that he'd come in and remove them himself in the middle of the night. That or start shooting people on the spot.

Ah, yes, the real motive behind so many government acts: the security guard's convenience!

[lfortier]

Have any of you turned the radio on lately? Thanksgiving wont even be here for another week and all that's playing is Christmas music!

[Inquartata]

A perennial complaint. Some of my stupid neighbors already have their Xmas lights and decorations up...

[labouche]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Er....no offense, but---in which state did you pass the bar? From which law school did you graduate? I sort of think the other judges who bade Moore remove the monument are better equipped to make valid pronouncements on what is or is not constitutional than any of us here--why ask us to substitute your judgement for theirs?

The monument was erected in a public building. The judge did not own it. If he had done it on private property you might be correct. But it is certainly no one's constitutional right to go put up religious symbols, or anything else, in public facilities. If you doubt this, go try painting a Mogen David or a cross on the side of a courthouse. ( But be sure to bring bail money if you do. )

First of all one doesn't have to go to law school to know what the constitution means. It is pretty simple. Secondly the exact same thing has happened in other states (texas for one...can't remember the others), and it was ruled not to remove the ten commandments.

Our laws today were founded on the 10 commandments...To remove it from society is to remove the foundation of our country. What happens when a foundation is removed from a building? Besides that, our country was founded on Christianity. I don't care if people don't like it...it's fact. There is freedom in this country to serve whatever god (or no god) you want, but it remains that Christianity IS what this country was founded upon.
-la bouche

[labouche]

Originally posted by Aestro
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.

Now, granted a monument is not a law, but the idea of seperation of church and state has a pretty strong basis in the first line of the first Amendment. Further, it is not unconstitutional to ask that a monument to religious doctrine be removed from a governmental facility. It is in no way preventing Moore from worshipping. I can tell you that all hell would break loose if a giant statue of Shiva were ever placed outside a US courthouse.

Please if you are going to quote the First Amendment, at least know what it means.
When the pilgrims came to America they were coming for religious freedom because in England one was only aloud to attend the Church of England at that time.
To make a law respecting the establishment of religion would happen if our country decided that one could only attend the church of America.....that's all. It doesn't mean anything else!

[labouche]

Originally posted by Craig
Aside from not being able to be a Hindu? (See commandment #1)

Again, this is supposed to be a Christian nation. Hindus are aloud to believe whatever they want but they should look at what this country was founded upon, before they start trying to remove the basis for all of our laws from court rooms.
-la bouche

[MyraTrue]

oh, I'm adding to it all. Again.

My rant? I'm in with Zelda...

I mean, come on, you fence the BEST TOURNAMENT you have ever fenced, you even come in third. You lay strip and clean floors, tote food and sign people in, fence your arse off, clean up floors, and then... come down so sick you cant get out of bed for 5 bloody days!

I mean, dignity! My chances at fencing lessons are rapidly diminishing, and I get sick RIGHT when I was going have a few lessons for fun in sabre. well, doesn't THAT suck. Instead, I'm coughing up a lung and passing out in the doctors office. "Ma'am, are you ok?"

And I hate people who think there's a right and wrong opinion to everything. The people that don't let you have a different one from them. Of that are so hellbent that they've got the only answer, they ruin everything for everyone. No, its not directed at anyone in particular... I mean, pick your fights, but pick the ones that matter. To you, to others, but matters beyond the next 2 minutes!

And I don't like people who don't like you just because you won a bout against them. The ones that look at you like you must have cheated, or as if you started to crow and prance as soon as the bout was done.

But I love a good fencer, a good sportsman, and a good friend. And I will always hold a place in my heart for people who take the time, when they don't really have it, or a reason to take it, to help you, or someone else who needs it.

thus ends my disjointed rant...

[Aestro]

Originally posted by labouche
Please if you are going to quote the First Amendment, at least know what it means.
When the pilgrims came to America they were coming for religious freedom because in England one was only aloud to attend the Church of England at that time.
To make a law respecting the establishment of religion would happen if our country decided that one could only attend the church of America.....that's all. It doesn't mean anything else!

and yet here you are touting about the US being a Christian nation...

I'm well aware of what the Constitution means. It was written by Deists, not Christians. The Pilgrims founded the colonies, but were still under England at the time. The nation - United States of America - was founded some 200 years later.

This is not SUPPOSED to be an anything nation, aside from being free to practice whichever religion they so choose. Just because there are a lot of Christians does not mean that the government should cater to them and Christian artifacts in government facilities. Killing someone does not give you a sentence based upon "thou shalt not kill", but it DOES give you a sentence based upon first degree manslaughter. Just because some of the principles are present in the bible does not mean that the 10 commandments are the only reason for some of our laws to exist.

Many of the ideas in the 10 commandments are also present in other religions. Further, not all of the 10 commandments are present in our laws, so it would seem rather illogical to assume our laws are based upon the 10 commandments, because otherwise why are all 10 not enforced?

[arcon]

Thanks Myratrue, your rant was so good that I dont have to do one now. Just reading it was a relief. I do feel better now.

Also, thanks for the break from the religious disscussion that i feel should NOW have its own thread.


arcon