Jump to content

Ten Commandments


 Share

Recommended Posts

Ordos, Ordos, Ordos. Come on man...

First off, a government building is not a place for a symbol of their beliefs. They can do it in the privacy of their homes, and churches. I'm not going to even consider preventing them from doing that. But it is a government building, and when there is a religious document placed in it, it implies that the government promotes those religious views. And don't forget, he also starts court sessions with prayers. This coming from a man who, as a federal judge, is a representative of the government. All of this is to promote his religious views, forbidden by his position. Consider, also, the position of the monument. It is kept alone, admittedly by Moore himself, from all other religious displays, and is hardly personal. Rather, it is a political act. Here's an excerpt from a website:

The placement of monuments in the rotunda has become a legal battleground in other ways as well. Shortly after the installation of the Ten Commandments display, Alabama State Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) raised the possibility that the rotunda might look better if there were also a monument to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This a reasonable request if the rotunda is being used to honor important facets of American history and law.

Roy Moore rejected this proposal, but Holmes pressed forward, and for the 38th anniversary of King

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking nothing, but Darwinian beliefs are so flaunted as fact instead of being "The Theory of Evolution". As for the late Doctor King, he was also the late Reverend King, so that would've been a religious battle eventually. The atom, some nutcase fringe group would've made into a battle also, saying it promoted something or another. And notice I never said the Ten Commandments should have been placed there.

In my freshmen journalism class, we students had a saying, "You can relate anything back to either sex or religion".

(Nice using of a site I posted. Thanks for taking the time to read it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoking nothing, but Darwinian beliefs are so flaunted as fact instead of being "The Theory of Evolution".
Do you know the meaning of 'theory' in science? It's hardly the same meaning in society as it is used as a made up idea, mostly on the fly.
As for the late Doctor King, he was also the late Reverend King, so that would've been a religious battle eventually.
Dr. King or Reverend King, it no matter as his speech would have been related directly to civil rights and the movement, and how it affected the United States law. The legislative significance is too great. Read Moore's reason why he denied it.
The atom, some nutcase fringe group would've made into a battle also, saying it promoted something or another.
I don't know why they wanted a 7-foot-tall atom in there, I guess it was another example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know the meaning of 'theory' in science? It's hardly the same meaning in society as it is used as a made up idea, mostly on the fly.

Well if I remember my Chemistry, Biology, and Anatomy classes correctly, in science a theory means you're giving an "educated guess". Which means you think you saw proof, but you can't prove it.

Dr. King or Reverend King, it no matter as his speech would have been related directly to civil rights and the movement, and how it affected the United States law. The legislative significance is too great. Read Moore's reason why he denied it.

I agree, I was just saying someone would start a religious debate on it. I think Doctor King deserves a memorial in D.C. (where almost all the major memorials are) personally, or even in a courthouse. And Justice...former Justice Moore needs to remember King was a man of God aka a Minister. Moore should have been investigated for allowing his beliefs to intercede on his decisions about government property at the moment he said what he did for denying that memorial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a speech by James Madison concerning Church state separation. It was made against legislature and revolutionary figure Patrick Henry of Virginia concerning a law which would oblige citizens to pay a 3-pence tax which would go towards "Teachers of the Christian Religion."

It should be noted Madison himself is a Christian/Deist, but believes it is not the states place to in any way endorse religion or tell people what to believe. The Bill was never passed mainly because of Madison's speech here. So without further ado, here is Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

To the Honorable the General Assembly

of the Commonwealth of Virginia

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.

10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95464,00.html

The Ten Commandments, alongside Muhammed and Confuscius appear in the Supreme Court building, how is this different?

The depiction of Moses and the Commandments are part of a larger illustration of important parts of legal history. Confucius is also depicted, as is Solon, Hammurabi, Napoleon, Grotius, Mohammed (egad!), Augustus Caesar, and others deemed important to the development of laws. I believe the figures appear chronologically from left to right. Obviously the intent of the mural is not to endorse all or any of the philosophies of the people and things in the depiction, but to convey the evolution of Law into what it is in the supreme court, showing many important steps.

Do you actually think that the one depiction of Moses with the commandments is an endorsement of Christianity/Judaism? If Moore wanted to have a replica of the illustrations in the supreme court on the walls of the Alabama equivalent, that would not be a problem. A congomerate mural of more than a dozen legal and religous phenomenon is not comparable to a sole statue of a Bible sitting near the entrance of a judicial building. Moore's statue is nothing more than an advertisement of his own beliefs at the expense of the people of Alabama. I am glad for the people of Alabama that his cruscade has been halted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here I go again

the first paragraph is right out of the bill of rights.

And all this monument is, is a freedom of speech and press

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.

And this next story is about the motto on our money that we all hold so dear..

now if this can be on our money why not the ten Commandments in our courts?

And just a note that our congress oked this on our money.

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:

I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that with the Washington obverse the motto should begin with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.

and just remember all, that this country was build by Christians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And all this monument is, is a freedom of speech and press

Wrong. It would be on private property, such as a church or his home. But this is a government public building, the words government and public make all the difference.

now if this can be on our money why not the ten Commandments in our courts?

And just a note that our congress oked this on our money.

The comment "In God We Trust" on the money is also unconstitutional (although some could argue that it is a long tradition, but it's only from the 50s and was meant for religious and political reasons, against the communist "atheists"). When the founding fathers were thinking of a national motto, Ben Franklin was pushing for one with God in it, but the majority voted for 'E. Pluribus Unum'. A secular motto, which was what the majority of our founding fathers wanted. There was nothing wrong with it, but the Courts decided to go ahead and make it 'In God We Trust' - not realizing the unconstitutionality of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you still have to take the, "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god," in the states? That always struck me as odd seeing how people who weren't religious wouldn't care.

Yes, I was in court the other day and they do still require you to swear in front of God and the Court with your hand on the bible. On another note I also had to place my hand on a Bible and swear when I waived my rights to a court appointed attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Thomas Paine helped build this country and he was very critical of Christianity. Benjamin Franklin was also a Deist.

You need to recognize that while this nation was mostly Christian, among the founding fathers deism was popular and freedom of conscience was strong.

Even those who were Christian believed it was up to reason, not government, to decide whether or not one should accept the Gospel.

Mr. Puzler the coin act when it was established was obviously unconstitutional, and given that it has no weight in regards to law or our history. Notice it was in 1863, long after the Founding Father's had died.

Jim Crow was passed too, but did it's mere passing make it constitutional? The answer to that should be obvious.

Also Thomas Jefferson:

I contemplate with soveriegn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

I believe that covers Jefferson and Madison then, both writers of the Bill of Rights and the first amendment.

In any event why do you fear Freedom of Conscience?

Can your religion not stand on its own merits Mr. Puzler? Why do you need coercion and violence to make Christianity succeed then? Why does God need to ask the government for help?

In any regards it is obvious Freedom of Conscience is of great value, and if the government is allowed to just promote religion whenver it wants to, let alone a specific religion, there really is no Freedom of Conscience.

To me the Fundamentalist's hostility towards Freedom of Conscience betrays a great insecurity on their part, a lack of faith if you will. If they were confident they would try and convince people with words to adopt their religion freely on the basis of what ,merit it has. They would not be trying to shove their religion down everyone's throat using the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not meant for historical significance, Scytale. Also, in a government building, the monument being alone and where everyone can see it when walking in implies to a reasonable observer that the government endorses/promotes this religion. It's called the endorsement test.

Another thing to mention, is that there are many different version of the Ten Commandments, so which one is it? There is no standard version of the Ten Commandments, there are the Jewish commandments, Catholic commandments, and even Protestant commandments.

According to Frank Kirkpatrick, a professor of religion at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut "There is no standard version and I don't see how you could arrive at one. If you try, will people be offended? Sure they will."

Don't forget that the Old Testament mentions both lists of commandments, the first which Moses smashed, and the second. If you take a look at the second version, supposedly the exact same commandments, you come across these:

Exod. 34:10-11 He said: I hereby make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform marvels, such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the LORD; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Exod. 34:12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you.

Exod. 34:13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles (for you shall worship no other god, because the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

Exod. 34:15-16 You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.

Exod. 34:17 You shall not make cast idols.

Exod. 34:18 You shall keep the festival of unleavened bread. Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.

Exod. 34:19 All that first opens the womb is mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep.

Exod. 34:20 The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. No one shall appear before me empty-handed.

Exod. 34:21 Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in plowing time and in harvest time you shall rest.

Exod. 34:22 You shall observe the festival of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the festival of ingathering at the turn of the year.

Exod. 34:23-24 Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the LORD God, the God of Israel. For I will cast out nations before you, and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD your God three times in the year.

Exod. 34:25 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning.

Exod. 34:26 The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

  Exod. 34:27 The LORD said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.

Interesting, eh? Look at what the last continue continues as:

The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (Exod. 34:27-28)

These are the Ten Commandments, as said by the two verses above. Why are they not brought up by Moore or anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scytale nobody is arguing against the display of rules like "don't kill, don't steal, etc."

But the first commandment opens up with "Though shall have no other God besides me." and " Though shalt make no graven images". In fact the first five commandments are merely religious, that is where we do have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK my apologies to the issue of the founding fathers I did notice that the constitution ,and the bill of rights that there is no place for religion .

But still this is JUST a matter of the 1st amendment right ( of free speech and press)

yes this judge has put the ten commandments in place.

And as an argument to this if I had made tablets out of wood and painted the ten commandments on them and went to the court house, stood there on the main steps in front of the doors for ALL to see nothing could be done.

Take that away and what’s next, what I type online??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is of the 1st amendment, but not of free speech and press, rather of the Establishment clause, which is the first one listed.

There is quite a difference between holding a wooden tablet on the steps, and putting a 5,300lb monument in the building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i really wish someone would explain to me why atheists and the immoral spend so much time and energy fighting against such petty things

it's a piece of rock. no one can actually see the 10 commandments just by looking at the rock from afar. you would have to consciously make the effort to walk behind the rock, get very close to it (for which there would be no reason to do whatsoever unless you were interested in reading what was on it) and willingly look to the top of it, where the 10 commandments are written. it is not like anyone is being forced to look at the actual words of the 10 commandments

yet for some hilarious reasons, atheists and the immoral in society, as in this thread, start throwing a hissy fit for no good reason

i am really curious: why are atheists and the immoral so ***OBSESSED* with God and the religious, hmmm...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten Commandements are the first law, which is based on higher principle. Ancient eras were specifical by law systems based on leaders. Law was the word of king, the deity. But Commandements, that was first, which was over any human, something, what is needed to accept without arguing about it. On this system is based law system of not only USA, but also whole western civilisation. It is irrelevant, what they contain, their historical value is too great to be just banished as "something reactionally religious". It's like banishing use of fire, because someone does not believe in Pyros...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK my apologies to the issue of the founding fathers I did notice that the constitution ,and the bill of rights that there is no place for religion .

But still this is JUST a matter of the 1st amendment right ( of free speech and press)

yes this judge has put the ten commandments in place.

And as an argument to this if I had made tablets out of wood and painted the ten commandments on them and went to the court house, stood there on the main steps in front of the doors for ALL to see nothing could be done.

Take that away and what’s next, what I type online??

Well the judge is perfectly free to practice and promote his religion when not acting like a judge. He can have the ten commandments in his home, at his church, on any private property. He can go door to door preaching and doing just about anything he wants when acting off duty. While on duty however he is a representative of the state and enjoys many privelegdes given to him by the state and as such he may not abuse those priveledges to advocate any religious belief. This is because at this point his audience is not there completely voluntarily but are what one calls a "captive audience."

Nobody is violating the Judge's free speech rights, the judge can pray in the back of the court if he wants, or even speak about his religion all day when not acting as a judge. When acting as a judge its different though for reasons I have mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i really wish someone would explain to me why atheists and the immoral spend so much time and energy fighting against such petty things

it's a piece of rock. no one can actually see the 10 commandments just by looking at the rock from afar. you would have to consciously make the effort to walk behind the rock, get very close to it (for which there would be no reason to do whatsoever unless you were interested in reading what was on it) and willingly look to the top of it, where the 10 commandments are written. it is not like anyone is being forced to look at the actual words of the 10 commandments

yet for some hilarious reasons, atheists and the immoral in society, as in this thread, start throwing a hissy fit for no good reason

i am really curious: why are atheists and the immoral so ***OBSESSED* with God and the religious, hmmm...?

This is ridiculous; atheists and "the immoral"? Are you serious Navaros?

The point is there is a judge trying to promote religion and that is forbidden under the constitution. I don't see what is so hard to understand about that. In this respect I would say it's the Judge who is acting immoral both in disobeying the law, setting a bad example, and in violating Freedom of Conscience by trying to use state power in order to establish his religion.

The monument is not some side thing in the corner, it is a large 5 thousand pound monster in the middle of a court room. You can hardly miss it.

Also Navaors look at how your argument has two sides to it. If its no big deal, why continue violating the constitution to keep it around. Why not just get rid of it? Getting rid of it shouldn't be that big a deal, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten Commandements are the first law, which is based on higher principle. Ancient eras were specifical by law systems based on leaders. Law was the word of king, the deity. But Commandements, that was first, which was over any human, something, what is needed to accept without arguing about it. On this system is based law system of not only USA, but also whole western civilisation. It is irrelevant, what they contain, their historical value is too great to be just banished as "something reactionally religious". It's like banishing use of fire, because someone does not believe in Pyros...

Western civilization is based on a number of precursors to our modern law, even that of Egyptians, Bablyonians and Greeks.

However I do admit the Ten C's played an influential role in the development of our laws. This however does not negate the fact that our nation has Freedom of Conscience as one of its primary values, and Freedom of Conscience forbids the government from endorsing any religious viewpoint.

Now if one wants to display the Ten C's, merely for sake of historical presentation that's fine. The Supreme Court does that in fact, showing moses holding the ten commandments standing alongside other leading legal figures in history to demonstrate the evolution of law.

Moore is not doing that though, Moore is by his own admittance displaying the monument for purely religious purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow its a piece of rock with some words on it. Why don't they move it to another location that is not government (but public?).

If people want to see the Ten commandments, then read the bible or go to church. If you need to see it in every building then you have a problem with your faith that requires you to view them that often.(not that you can not remember them in your head or write them down on a piece of paper).

::)

Or why don't they just leave it where it is, and put up a sign that says "beware of ten comandments" for those that do not want to see them.

I think the religions are behind all this so they can advertise their religion and get more people to join. (just joking :P)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...