The Ten Commandments: an authoritative thread

First, some links:

A recent thread: US Supreme Court rules the display of the Commandments unconstitutional in courtrooms

From the Bible: Exodus 20

Latest News Bit: Barrow Removes Ten Commandments Display

I have created this thread as it seems the majority of opinion in this forum and in the populace as a whole does not give the Ten Commandments it's proper place in history. Now I am a church going man myself, but I am critical of those who would use the placement of the Ten Commandments as a religious slap in the face to those who do not believe. The presence of the Ten Commandments should be a comfort to everyone who enters a courtroom they adorn, as I will explain. I am confounded as to why the ACLU has started this tug of war on the Ten Commandments; they are on the wrong side of civil liberties on this one.

First, I present a little background. When the Ten Commandments were originally given by God, it was unique in many ways. In confirming a relationship with His people that began when they trusted in Him during the exodus, God gave his laws to man. This is how God intended men to live. But most important was that God gave his laws and everyone was subject to them. Even if you do not believe in God, you should notice in the story that Moses did not create the laws, rather they were given to him and he too was subject to them. This was very new.

Now this fledgling Jewish nation did not live up to the ideal. They were petrified of God and wanted a King to rule over them, just as all other nations had. God didn't want this, but relented. The problem with this governance should be evident from any one with the slightest knowledge of Chronicles. Take for example the greatest Jewish king, David, who is described as a man after God's heart. He was guilty of both adultery and murder (David and Bathsheba). There should be no King, only the rule of law.

Now, fastforward 3000 years. First only with the United States was this principle applied and perhaps only more recently lived up to. The principle that all men are equal under the rule of law. The law is created and applied by a system with checks and balances, so to maintain law that is fair and applied evenly without malice. It is brilliant form of government inspired by the events so long ago at Mt Sinai.

Why has the Ten Commandments become so offensive to some? Surely Christians did not originally place the Ten in courtrooms to try and convert the denizens of said rooms, because in such a case there are myriad better symbols or statements. Even today, they are only placed in reaction to secular pressure to remove them for religious reasons. They are a powerful symbol of an ideal aspired to by this and many nations. How ironic that to live under the rule of law we must now discard the original symbol of the rule of law.

Inspiration for my post: My Church Sermon Audio (yeah, I borrowed a bit)

Sure, America could use more religion. But the first one that pesters me into to trying to convert to worship Jesus, son of mary, will get a stern warning. If they continue, I will give them a black eye. And remember, would you want to spend tax payer dollars or have lobbyists funding religious imagery? I would not.

@Stile: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Perhaps it's offensive because you're putting a symbol of one religion above all others? I know Americans try their hardest not to notice, but not all of us are Christians.

North King said:

Perhaps it's offensive because you're putting a symbol of one religion above all others? I know Americans try their hardest not to notice, but not all of us are Christians.

Click to expand...

Exactly, with the huge amount of cultural and religous in America, a uniform standard cannot be placed on those who are not subject to those laws.

Also, I hope that by saying nations should be ruled by God's law, you're not going down the same path as current day "Imahs" in radical Islamic nations and the Catholic Church during Medeval times. If there's anything we've learned, it's that its better to be ruled by earthly men than earthly men who claim to know the ways of God.

punkbass2000 said:

@Stile: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Click to expand...

My point is the Ten Commandments originally was not placed in courtrooms to show we are a Christian nation, not to demonstrate that our laws are based on God's laws (they're not in particular), and not to snub our noses at criminals or condemn non-Christians. I contend the Ten Commandments are not really that big of a Christian symbol. I intended to show if one looks at the effects of the Ten Commandments on our society from even a purely secular point of view, that person would see that no other idea had more impact on the freedom we now possess regardless as to whether you credit the idea to God, or some group of fiction authors.

I don't see why one would need to use the Ten Commandments in order to illicit such a response.

Sorry, but I seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, et al were influenced by the Ten Commandments in their thoughts that rulers should be subject to the law like everyone else.

That said, I don't really see a problem with the 10 Commandments in courtrooms.

ligertiger said:

Exactly, with the huge amount of cultural and religous in America, a uniform standard cannot be placed on those who are not subject to those laws.

Also, I hope that by saying nations should be ruled by God's law, you're not going down the same path as current day "Imahs" in radical Islamic nations and the Catholic Church during Medeval times. If there's anything we've learned, it's that its better to be ruled by earthly men than earthly men who claim to know the ways of God.

Click to expand...

I acknowledge that our law is not God's law. Our law, as I stated, is created and applied by a system with checks and balances in place of God. You're wrong about that last bit. There's no difference in being ruled by earthly men, inspired by God or not, and for every example you give I could grab plenty counters. Rule by man is just plain bad. Rule by law is better.

but y not put the religous laws of any other religon in the court room?? thats my simple question...

lets not put any one religon above any other.. we are not puting down crhistanity. we are simply saying its a personal matter. and thus shold not be shown around on goverment property, since goverment property is socitys property.

What you propose will not establish a faith-based government; it will establish a Machiavellian autocracy that uses faith as an end to stay in power and do as it pleases. Leaders from Henry IV of France to George W. Bush know the power that religion can play in politics, and they use it to gain and maintain power as well as to mask their real intentions. After all, "Paris is worth a mass."

I think my position would be that the Ten Commandments were Laws Written in Stone (much like the Code of Hammurabi, only 1700 years later), but that the laws were born from the Judeo-Christian God. It was this God who created the rules by which man lived, this God who created the Law.

I think I would follow the secular belief that we are (and should be) ruled by the laws that 'earthly men' have created, through long centuries of deliberation, testing, debate, correspondence, trial, and legislation... These laws that govern us have, essentially, come from us. It supports the foundation of the Enlightenment, that humanity has the ability (and, therefore, the duty) to discover the world through science (instead of follow Vatican dogma), rule itself through democracy and representation (instead of follow a deified King), and adjudicate itself (instead of follow tablets inscribed by God).

I greatly respect the Ten Commandments, but don't think they belong in a Federal Courtroom or other Federal Institution. (I would fight against an object that decried "These Laws Have Been Created by Man Because There is No God" with the same fervor). Separation of Church & State. Not Support of Church by State, or Condemnation of Church by State. Separation.

well im not very religious and i dont care for the ones like "there is only one god, he is so hansom ect" i think most of them are good and no harm in living by them

Stile said:

My point is the Ten Commandments originally was not placed in courtrooms to show we are a Christian nation, not to demonstrate that our laws are based on God's laws (they're not in particular), and not to snub our noses at criminals or condemn non-Christians. I contend the Ten Commandments are not really that big of a Christian symbol. I intended to show if one looks at the effects of the Ten Commandments on our society from even a purely secular point of view, that person would see that no other idea had more impact on the freedom we now possess regardless as to whether you credit the idea to God, or some group of fiction authors.

Click to expand...

We are not (or were not) ever a Christian nation. We are (or were) a secular nation, meaning that the religion is separated from the state. The state does not (or did not) set any religion above any other, and we do not (or did not) try to convince people to convert. Such is one of the great beauties of the original American democracy, that tolerance may flourish (or did flourish), that no matter how large the majority, they can never force their views over the minority (or could never).

I, for one, would definately not feel comforted by the sight of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, for I am not a Christian, and seeing a nation dominated by the religion is altogether unsettling. What am I being judged by, morality, or religion? Will I start having to follow the dietary laws of Leviticus? Could people then force their children into slavery, as is allowed in the Bible? Would we hunt witches through the streets?

We are not a nation goverend by, or even heavily influenced by, Christian law, and, pardon the ironic sarcasm, thank god for that.

Furthermore, the 10 Commandments are examples of faith-based law, whereas the court system is an example of fact-based law. The two are entirely different concepts based on entirely different ways of thinking and therefore should not be mixed, especially under the guise of preserving history when actually the goal is to blur the line between religion and state.

Most brazilian courtrooms have a cross, and so does the Senate and the House of Representatives, and yet it's hard to argue that the brazilian state is any less secular because of that.
People in Europe and the US make a very big deal about such things, which are IMHO completely irrelevant.

Stile said:

My point is the Ten Commandments originally was not placed in courtrooms to show we are a Christian nation..

Click to expand...

That is true, they are still up in the Supreme Court as they are tactfully displayed as a greater set of 'historical laws of man'. However, some places tried to make them prominent and not part of a larger display. Now the Supreme Courts latest ruling tend to look willy-nilly to me, but there is a way to display the Ten Commandments and a way not to. Just wish they would make a good ruling that could be easily interpretted.

You think the following statement would stop this thread but it wont so here it is.

The Constution said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Click to expand...

It does not matter what the reasoning behind placeing the ten commandments in Government building. The simple fact of the matter is that it is showing that we have Judeo-Christian values and that this is the state reilgon. If I were to say I wanted to put quotes from the Qua'ran on\near the front entrance of the Capital building I would get laughed out of the room as I should be. You start puting the ten commandments everywhere and you get the World's only super power becoming a hypocritial state.

Now with that said if you could find an object with quotes from every holy book, or something representing every single reilgon on the planet then it could be placed anywhere, Government building or otherwise.

Colonel said:

You think the following statement would stop this thread but it wont so here it is.

Originally Posted by The Constution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That talks about Congress. It does not say States cannot have an official religion. Stopping them is nothing more than the Federal Gov't taking away the rights of the States. So no, it in no way stops the discussion.

A'AbarachAmadan said:

That talks about Congress. It does not say States cannot have an official religion. Stopping them is nothing more than the Federal Gov't taking away the rights of the States. So no, it in no way stops the discussion.

Click to expand...

States can't make laws, or amendments to their constitutions that violate the US Constitution. When the US Constitution says "congress can" or "congress shall not" it absolutely covers state legislatures.