The Ten Commandments: an authoritative thread

Colonel said:
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.

The Koran thing doesn't fly. How about if you wanted to put engravings of Pagan gods everywhere? Oh wait, that's already been done and no one cares. Plus, our laws are not Jewish laws and are not based on the Ten Commandments. There should be no fear here. Our system of laws is, down to where all men are created equal with a right to life (commandment 6) and property (commandment 8). The display is not to promote religion (if it was we'd have a better one involving the new Testament), it's a symbol of the rule of law. If we derived our system from Aesop's Fables then I would think it was appropriate to display them anywhere in a governement building. Would you? (Actually that's a bad example, as Aesop's Fables would be a nice addition in court rooms, especially if you were on jury duty during a boring trial.)
 
Stile said:
The Koran thing doesn't fly.

What does that mean, its alright to have Christian scripture everywhere but o no the book the terrorist quote is bad. I dont even know where to begin with this.

Plus, our laws are not Jewish laws and are not based on the Ten Commandments. There should be no fear here. Our system of laws is, down to where all men are created equal with a right to life (commandment 6) and property (commandment 8). The display is not to promote religion (if it was we'd have a better one involving the new Testament), it's a symbol of the rule of law. If we derived our system from Aesop's Fables then I would think it was appropriate to display them anywhere in a governement building. Would you? (Actually that's a bad example, as Aesop's Fables would be a nice addition in court rooms, especially if you were on jury duty during a boring trial.)

I dont care how much you believe it is isnt reilgous symbolizism, it is. The ten commandments are the basis of reilgous law, both Christian and Hebrew. Putting the ten commandments in court rooms is just going to inflame the millions of Muslim Americans not to mention the Athesits. Honesty we have already had a guy sue the government for makeing his kid say under god in the pledge think what kind of sh** storm this will bring with it.
 
Enough. The Ten Commandments, yes are a form of code. But they are so general that they can be applicable to anything. If it wasn't for the religious connotation, it would be fine to post it anywhere.

See, they banned the posting of the Ten to avoid pissing people off, but as a result they have pissed many more people off with their inane actions.
 
I agree somewhat with the SCOTUS decisions a while back... The Ten Commandments, as a symbol of The Rule of Law (along with Magna Carta, Hammurabi Codex, etc), in some kind of context that includes other symbols of The Rule of Law (as you state) should probably be acceptable... but in other contexts, where the symbolism is not merely historical but ostentatiously religious, symbolizing not The Rule of Law by Man, but The Rule of Law by God, I (as an agnostic) would feel extremely uncomfortable being adjudicated in such a courthouse... as I would quickly wonder, where are my judge's priorities? Will he/she follow the laws of man, which I dutifully agree to conform to as a citizen of this country, or shall he/she follows the laws of Judeo-Christiandom, whose dogma I do not completely subscribe to as I'm not a follower or a believer of their faiths? Context would be the issue, and I think, if given a choice, our society should lean to the side of separation of church & state, instead of the side of Judeo-Christian tenets.

I don't (really!) understand the big deal about this whole thing. I want to live in a nation where I can practice (or not) any religion I please without being "coerced and influenced" by governmental religious sponsorships. I want to be able to walk into a courthouse and have my case heard without having to walk past The Word of Yahweh. Non-Christians in this country are bombarded with pressues, social and institutional, which favor Christianity. Since Christians have been the leading institutional religion in the civilized world since the Fall of Rome, I don't understand the recent, polarizing surge in feelings of persecution that have appeared everywhere I look on TV. Modern right-wing thought seems to have embraced the idea that, if I don't get my way and get my Ten Commandment statue in the Courthouse, then I'm being persecuted and attacked for being a Christian... I just don't understand why people have to offend/intimidate all non-Christians in this country simply for pride... why can't people celebrate their faiths in their personal life without pushing it onto others?

No offense, Stile... I greatly respect your question, and have enjoyed answering it. :cool:
 
luiz said:
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.
Yay, someone agrees with me on this issue. ;)
Colonel said:
You think the following statement would stop this thread but it wont so here it is.
You would think a person who'd bother to post that might bother reading it!

You see, it says that the government shouldn't establish, through law, religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Now how does a monument of the 10 Commandments do either of those? First of all, a monument is not a law, but even if you think that's just being pedantic (and I wouldn't blame you), it's not establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. The latter is extremely obvious and I doubt you disagree with me there; the former I imagine you disagree with and so I'll ellaborate.

We can't ignore the context that ammendment was written in. In the eighteenth century, all sorts of "establishments of religion and prohibitions of the free exercise thereof" in Europe were fresh on the founding fathers' minds. Am I talking about all sorts of oppressive monuments? No, I'm talking about the state making it mandatory to follow a certain religion, or making it illegal to follow a certain one. That's what the Constitution tries to prevent.

I can understand that a public monument to the 10 Commandments might make one worry that the government is influenced by Judeo-Christianity, but that's not an unjust thing, at least not according to the Constitution, nor in my personal opinion. Why shouldn't officials and judges be allowed to have religion on their minds when they do their jobs? Although it reeks of being nothing more than a clever slogan, keep in mind, "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." (I attribute that to Sharpe, of all people ;), although he might have gotten it from somewhere else himself.) There's no reason leglislators, executives, and judges shouldn't be allowed to be influenced by religion. If you disagree, how could you possibly be okay with them being influenced by the ethical and political philosophies of Immanuel Kant, Machiavelli, Sartre, or whoever else? Indeed, why can they be allowed to be influenced by anything nonfactual? (And please don't argue that they should just stick with facts---making and interpreting law with just facts is utterly impossible.) Why single out religion? (I'll admit that in the case of courthouses and their judges, whose job is merely to interpret law, not create it, there's the danger of the religious judges just entirely creating their own law based on the 10 Commandments or whatever else, but religion can be used in influencing personal interpretations just as well. If a judge takes things too far, there are ways to stop that. And besides, that dilemma still leaves legislative buildings fair game for religious monuments.)

Oh, and Stile raises an excellent point. Maybe it's a cheap shot, but it's still clever. Why are statues of Roman and Greek gods on public property A-OK?

Okay, time to go to bed now. ;)
 
WillJ said:
You see, it says that the government shouldn't establish, through law, religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

I think the Establishment Clause has been interpreted as also prohibiting the preference of one religion over another, not necessarily only through lawful establishment of a national religion, but also by "excessive entanglement" of government and religion and the appearance of preference. I would say that the Ten Commandments in the lobby of my courthouse would definitely make me think my government is preferring Christianity.

WillJ said:
Why shouldn't officials and judges be allowed to have religion on their minds when they do their jobs?

Absolutely, to prohibit them from having religion on their minds would be to unconstitutionally restrict the free exercise of religion of the officials. Somewhere the line has to be drawn between "I can freely exercise my religion by making moral decisions based on my faith" and "I can freely exercise my religion by erecting a statue of Moses in my Courthouse and then refusing a Federal court order to take it down." Isn't it okay to draw a line somewhere between the two? Must secularism be completely castrated?

WillJ said:
Why are statues of Roman and Greek gods on public property A-OK?

You're right. Greco-Roman monuments should be treated the same as Christian ones, if we're to be fair.
 
The Ten Commandments are worse than irrelevant.

I'm still stumped as to how they have anything to do with U.S. law. They are not the ancestor of any modern law system in the first world. Rather, the Roman code of law (slightly influenced by CHRISTIANITY in its latter development maybe, but surely not the OLD Testament) is the ancestor to almost all European law systems. For Americans, our law stems from the "common law" developed in England, which has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments either.

The claim that the Ten Commandments are the "foundation of all our freedoms" is grade-A horse manure.

Seriously, if you look at them, which commandments are relevant?

1. Endorsement of monotheism.
2. Forbids graven images of God. Boy are we following that one well. Only the Muslims are sticking to this, folks.
3. Taking the name of the Lord in vain. Again, great track record.
4. The Sabbath is holy. Not followed at all.
5. Honor & obey your father and mother. Great advice, not a law.
6 - 9. Don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't steal, don't lie.
10. Don't covet your neighbor's possessions.

Commandments 1-5 have nothing to do with a secular society.

Commandments 6-10 are so fricking obvious that to claim that the Ten Commandments are the sole source of these, or even a "barely relevant source," assumes that before Moses came down from the mountain all humanity was living in barbarism. In fact (embarrassingly for Moses!) a nearly identical set of laws were encoded in Egypt as part of THEIR religious creed, including Commandments 5-9, as part of a ritual formula a dead person must recite upon finding himself before the afterlife's judges. It's all in their equivalent of the Testaments, the Book of the Dead.

The second Ten Commandments, written by Moses after the first set broke, are even LESS relevant to any civilized society, if such a thing is possible. See Exodus 34 (for those of ye who know thy Bibles). Possibly proving that the old con man & his followers were incapable of learning anything useful, even from the ancient Egyptians.

The Supreme Court Justices should understand this background fully. In the frieze which decorates their building Moses is one of EIGHTEEN lawgivers including such infidels as Mohammed and Confucius, and such Catholic devils as Napoleon, St. Louis and Charlemagne. Heck, there's even an Orthodox saint, the Emperor Justinian.

If you want to call anyone on that frieze the "ancestor of modern law" I would have to credit the Romans and Greeks pictured there. In other words: Lycurgus, Solon, Drace, Octavian, and Justinian. Notice that there are five of them?

SOLON in particular is important. He was put in charge of writing the Athenian constitution after a period of unrest... sound familiar? He pardoned debt, freed the Athenian equivalent of serfs, replaced birth with wealth as a criterion for office-holding, instituted progressive taxation, made military service compulsory even for the rich, and created a new court of appeal for the lower classes. As far as I know, Solon's Constitution was the first to give a democratic assembly power in Athens. Oh, and he also invented trial by jury. In other words, he is pretty damn important. Far, far more important than Moses, in fact.

In a Supreme irony (pun intended), Solon also wrote a list of ten "commandments," in the form of advice on ethics. Diogenes Laertius wrote them down in his capsule-biography of Solon:

I. Trust good character more than promises.
II. Do not speak falsely.
III. Do good things.
IV. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.
V. Learn to obey before you command.
VI. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.
VII. Make reason your supreme commander.
VIII. Do not associate with people who do bad things.
IX. Respect the gods.
X. Have regard for your parents.

Notice how qualified Solon's advice is, compared to the commandments of Moses. Solon doesn't say you must obey your parents, but he DOES say that you must "have regard" for them - treat them respect, make them a player in your decisions, and do not wilfully spite or harm them. Solon does not insult us by listing all the obviously bad things we must not do, but reminds us with commandment 7 that we should always trust our reasoning ability to see us through. He urges us to indulge in all deeds we think are good - something Moses does not do. Solon tells us we must know our place in society - "learn to obey before you command" - but also emphasizes in five commandments (1, 2, 4, 6, 8) that character and honesty must be the basis for evaluating other people. Again, Moses is silent on this issue.

The Commandments of Moses are insulting, patronizing, simplistic and sometimes even barbaric. All of the Commandments of Solon apply to a modern, secular society.

Just to wrap this up fast, I also want to follow up with some facts on those other four Greeks and Romans on the Supreme Court walls - Lycurgus, Drace, Octavian, and Justinian.

LYCURGUS of Sparta started their tradition of "spartan," ascetic militarism. But he also was one of the first Greeks to devise a system of government divided against itself - in this case, splitting power between a king, a senate, and a series of governors.

DRACE or DRACO, one of Greece's harshest lawgivers, is another word-root historical figure (draconian). His solution to bankruptcy was slavery. Draco's laws were so bad that the desperate people of Athens got a poet by the name of Solon to revise them. But he was the first Athenian to actually write down and codify legal traditions.

OCTAVIAN succeeded his uncle Julius as Caesar of Rome and ruled so well that his title, Augustus, became the permanent title of following emperors. For years after his death, what we know as the Pax Romana was actually called the Pax Augusta. He also got a month named after him, just like his uncle. Octavian is almost as important to the Supreme Court's functioning as Solon - he instituted the principle of "precedent," allowing justices to draw upon previous rulings. Giving prior interpretation of the law a legal status allows us to reference a "spirit of the law" as well as the letter of it.

JUSTINIAN, emperor of Byzantine Rome, had so many accomplishments that he was made an Orthodox saint. And while we're on word roots, where do you think "justice" comes from? Under Justinian's guidance, his advisers literally compiled, edited, and rewrote all of Roman law to date, shaping it into a coherent whole. The statutes of Justinian (Codex Justinianus) are the precedent for all European law that followed. In the compilation process, Justinian also gave the words and opinions of legal scholars official weight, thus modernizing the code and reforming some of the provisions that stemmed from less civilized times. Justinian's Code is the first Roman law to make mistreatment of a slave a crime; it also abolished class as a legal distinction and as a criterion for officeholding.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Compared to the accomplishments of these 5 fellows, what did Moses contribute to our legal tradition? Nothing. He was one of at least a half-dozen ancient kings, priests and philosophers to formulate a set of written laws. And his wasn't even in the top five.

I haven't even talked about what the other 12 lawgivers did, and there are some great names up there - Napoleon (for his Code Napoleon), John Marshall (for judicial review), Hugo Grotius (founder of international law, originator of "just war" concept) and many many others. Frankly, Moses is irrelevant.
 
I'm a Christian, but I don't think they should be in there, necessarily. It shows religious favoritism by the government. On the other hand, people who go out of their way to get them removed is worse to me because there's a lot more important things happening to spend time fixing.
 
wilbill said:
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.

True, but that has been interpretted differently throughout time. At one point is was considered to be only Congress, then was expanded to the Federal Gov't, then was expanded to State governments. It won't necessarily always be so that federal restrictions will apply to the States, unless it clearly states that States don't have the right.

Enough. The Ten Commandments, yes are a form of code. But they are so general that they can be applicable to anything. If it wasn't for the religious connotation, it would be fine to post it anywhere.

Bolding is mine. I disagree. Two of them are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_commandments said:
Do not be envious of your neighbor's house. Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, or anything else that is your neighbor's."

I have a serious problem with these being in a government court house as part of a stand alone document. It is not the government's business what I am envious of. (And it is outdated, for one slavery is immoral and unjust in and of itself, though I know it isn't written like that anymore, it usually stops with wife.)
 
I haven't really read this thread, nor do I understand the nuances of the US constitution, but to me, it seems silly to put the ten commandments in a courtroom, because it's just a free advertisement for Christianity. I wouldn't want "I'm lovin' it", "Just do it" or "Always Coca-cola" in their any more than "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife". I'll covet whoever I want, thank you very much!
 
As an athiest, i beleive that the ten commandments were not from god, but from whoever wrtoe that opart of the bible, and his idea of what the rules should be.
And yes, i agree with most of the commandments, and living your life by these commandments will probbaly do you good.
But church and the law should be seperate. No-one seems to think the way islam and law in those countires is fair and free, because law should have nothing to do with religion in this age.
Its not that offensive to athiests, i can put up with it, but other religions would find it offensive since the presence of christian things in a courtroom sugests that the law favours christians and what they belive in.
 
I was brought up with the values of the Ten Commandments, via the Catholic faith. I now discount it all and think it not only irrelevant but also unnecessary to living a 'good life'. The idea of the Ten Commandments is now very patronising to me and I am sure that it is to many others out there. These are pretty basic principles which many can come to understand themselves, whether from a religious upbringing or a secular one.

They are irrelevant because:

a) We've got all they say in law already (except for fearing God and worshiping false idols) so why do we need these socially charged, Christian specific rules in our law courts?

b) Western societies are far too diverse to label our law courts with a Christian label. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Athiests, Agnostics and so on simply find no substance or meaning in the 10 Commandments. They've got their own rules and it's achievement enough to bring all these disparate groups under a secular law, why add another cook to the kitchen?

c) As we have seen, the Vatican has shown very little understanding of significant current global issues. For instance, its stance on contraception is clearly ridiculous given the huge amounts of childern born in to poverty, famine and civil war. Religion is not proving to be a good captain of this new ship.

Probably many more reasons but it seems like folks are onto it.
 
luiz said:
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.

Perhaps the scope of things to worry about is different in the first world. We have much more visceral issues to deal with.

Indeed, we have crosses everywhere. While I would not engage a secular crusade to remove them, they do bother me.

For example, I was invited to the opening of the Federal Special Courtrooms here in Ilhéus. The President of the First Federal Tribunal made a speech, where he praised the former president - the man that made the opening possible - saying that his "christian ethics made him the ideal man for the job". He also saluted all military and state authorities, and the Bishop of Ilhéus' Cathedral.

Now, I am an atheist, so the fact that my ethics - which aren't christian - being suggested as "not ideal" is reason enough to consider the speech uncalled for; but what really bothered me is this: the other lawyer that works with me is a Kardecist, master-and-chief of a local cult - and higher authority for them in the region. Now, shouldn't he be praised as a religious authority just as much as the Bishop? Fewer people attend to his sermons, but technically he is in equal standing to him regarding ascendancy in the religious body of his own church.

I wonder what would happen if the teachings and symbols of his own church were to replace the ten commandments and the crosses in the local courtrooms. I doubt it would be pretty.

I have issues with inequality, and everything that either creates or symbolizes inequality annoys me. This is just the case of the commandments - or crosses - being displayed in highlilighted places in public areas.

I guess I have to become a judge myself so i can remove it from at least my courtroom...

Regards :).
 
WillJ said:
Oh, and Stile raises an excellent point. Maybe it's a cheap shot, but it's still clever. Why are statues of Roman and Greek gods on public property A-OK?

Mallady said:
You're right. Greco-Roman monuments should be treated the same as Christian ones, if we're to be fair.

Perhaps, but only if one is trying to be picky. The Greco-Roman Gods are no longer revered as "real" deities. While of religious inspiration, such monuments are regarded only as an exquisit form of art, not evoking the encompassing grasp of a particular believe in the given nation.

That said, while such situation does provide an excelent reason to except these, if the price to pay were to keep also them outside of the courtrooms, in order to silence the technically correct but extremely short-sighted argument that "they are also religious symbols" - than I think it would be a worth one.

Regards :).
 
Great post Mr Moderator!!! :D

This is the point I was making about a lack of representation in the whole idea of the Ten Commandments taking a significant standing. Your example is the perfect one. There are too many non-Christians of equal, and often, of greater merit than their Christian counterparts. To assume a Christian identity and emphasis for legal proceedings in this day and age excludes talent and, like you say, implies inequality. Keep it for quiet murmurings with God and not for measuring the judiciary.

Further, I would say that the claim that the Ten Commandments, being handed down from God is problematic on two fronts:

a) This supposed God given right, or direct connection with God, has been easily assumed by self-interested parties, to found dynasties, incite racial violence and so many other unsavoury actions. Clearly this claim to being 'exempt from the fallacies of man' is a misconception.

b) I question the notion that a God who speaks for everyone gave these laws to us and not a man. Plenty of people have had 'divine inspiration' in their times. Some a little more divine and persuasive than others'. Personally I see Moses having a political motivation to seek/receive such inspiration and I place no more importance on it than the 'inspirations' of other great prophets around the world.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
The Ten Commandments are worse than irrelevant.
I haven't even talked about what the other 12 lawgivers did, and there are some great names up there - Napoleon (for his Code Napoleon), John Marshall (for judicial review), Hugo Grotius (founder of international law, originator of "just war" concept) and many many others. Frankly, Moses is irrelevant.

Great, great post :goodjob:

Now if only everybody knew that, then I wouldn't worry too much about having the 10C in courtrooms. The thing is, people are still pretty much convinced that the US has something to do with it...
 
I was about to say something, then I read the post of Ponthius Pilate, and I can avoid to repeat what he said himself ^^

But to sum up, the Ten Commandments are much more patronizing religious orders than a set of laws, and their inspiration power is dim at best.
 
Top Bottom