The Ten Commandments: an authoritative thread

[IglooDame]

Well, what's wrong with it then?

It is a violation of the Ten Commandments, of course. Besides, aren't lust and envy two of the seven deadly sins or something?

 

[nonconformist]

It is a violation of the Ten Commandments, of course. Besides, aren't lust and envy two of the seven deadly sins or something?

Maybe. I can still covet a lager CPU though.

 

[WillJ]

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.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. Really, the only thing that I can think of that the prohibition of "excessive entanglement" would (justly) involve is the government funding a religion* or otherwise aiding its cause. That's not technically establishing a state religion, but it might as well be. The 10 Commandments in the lobby of a courthouse is not going too far because in no way does it aid the cause of Judaism or Christianity. All it does is show that the members of the court personally have some sort of respect for Judeo-Christianity (maybe not even that).

*And that brings up the interesting issue of whether or not tax breaks on religious institutions is acceptable. I suppose the proper defense of that would be that the government isn't giving them money, it's just taking less money from them than everyone else.

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?

Upon reflection I've decided that a line does need to be drawn somewhere, but somewhere beyond erecting a statue of Moses in your courhouse.

When legislators decide to make it illegal to work on Sunday, that's not acceptable---although not because it might have a religious motive, but just because it's an unacceptable infringement on our liberties.

IX. Respect the gods.

----

All of the Commandments of Solon apply to a modern, secular society.

Whatever you say! (I should probably point out that I largely agree with your post.)

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 .

My personal thoughts are quite the same, but wouldn't you say public figures have the right to do this, even if it's not in great taste?

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 .

For one thing, you obviously haven't met Xen.

More seriously, would you say that, then, the way that the Supreme Court of the U.S. displays the 10 Commandments (alongside other important pieces of legal history, in a scholarly context) is acceptable?

 

[WillJ]

Oh, and:

III. Do good things.

Well, gee, I wonder why he even bothered writing any other commandments.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Whatever you say! (I should probably point out that I largely agree with your post.)

Doesn't say WORSHIP the gods, it says respect them! A big part of learning to become secular is learning to respect the gods of other people, the ones you don't believe in. In Solon's time, with Athens beginning to be the cosmopolitan capital of that part of the world, the New York of the Mediterranean, that may have been a problem and you could argue that was what he was talking about. Or not


Well, gee, I wonder why he even bothered writing any other commandments.


Moses doesn't even say you should do good things! As long as you refrain from screwing your neighbor's wife, you're fine with Jehova! Isn't that a bit of a low bar?

The other commandments are mostly there to guide you in doing the right thing - trust people of proven character, trust your reasoning abilities, trust those who tell painful truths.

 

[gunkulator]

Moses doesn't even say you should do good things! As long as you refrain from screwing your neighbor's wife, you're fine with Jehova! Isn't that a bit of a low bar?

Actually, ol' JHWH set the bar pretty high. As any good Jew knows, there's no such thing as "The 10 Commandments." There are, IIRC, 613 of them covering all sorts of things from not eating shellfish to forbidding cross dressing.

 

[Mallady]

Really, the only thing that I can think of that the prohibition of "excessive entanglement" would (justly) involve is the government funding a religion* or otherwise aiding its cause. That's not technically establishing a state religion, but it might as well be. The 10 Commandments in the lobby of a courthouse is not going too far because in no way does it aid the cause of Judaism or Christianity. All it does is show that the members of the court personally have some sort of respect for Judeo-Christianity (maybe not even that).

As a non-Christian, I would view a monument to the Ten Commandments in the courtroom in the same light that I would view a judge who sits at the bench attired in a chasuble and mitre. Even if there is no overt influence on the adjudication, the feeling and appearance is one of preference of Christianity. Certainly a judge dressed in clerical clothing would be over the line, because it's the glorification of Judeo-Christian symbolism in a secular institution. From my view, both would be excessive entanglement.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I agree with the majority of people on this thread. The Ten Commandments are more of guidelines than a form of administrative code, let alone a form of theocratic constitution.

 

[FredLC]

My personal thoughts are quite the same, but wouldn't you say public figures have the right to do this, even if it's not in great taste?

Not really, no.

In their personal lifes, they can advocate jihads and the cooking of the babies of infidels, for all I care. But, when they act invested by the public power - such as when making opening speech to judicial houses - they should abstain from such remarks.

For one thing, you obviously haven't met Xen.

Oh, I do know our politheist friend. Didn't know that his many Gods were necessarily the Greco-Roman ones, though.

Anyway, as it is with most behaviours, intention goes a long way. It's a lot harder to suggest that a Greek sculpture of Athena is placed in a courthouse by neo-pagans with the purpose of worship, than reaching the conclusion that a plain copy of the 10 commandments, or of a simplistic wooden cross, aren't there for such purpoise.

More seriously, would you say that, then, the way that the Supreme Court of the U.S. displays the 10 Commandments (alongside other important pieces of legal history, in a scholarly context) is acceptable?

In a clear historical-artistic purpose, I would not be bothered at all. I would have no problem with a courtroom that has several copy of many of the most famous codes of law - including ten commandments - displayed with the same reverence (and if that is the case in the US supreme court, I think a plea to remove the ten commandments only is uncalled for); I also would not mind a courtroom with Michelangelo's "Birth of Adam" side by side with a reproduction of the Discobolos.

Than again, that is hardly the context, right?

Regards .

 

[WillJ]

Not really, no.

In their personal lifes, they can advocate jihads and the cooking of the babies of infidels, for all I care. But, when they act invested by the public power - such as when making opening speech to judicial houses - they should abstain from such remarks.

Why is that, really? 10 million (just a random number) Americans can feel free to each advocate as private individuals the cooking of the babies of infidels, but they can't organize to form a leader who says the same thing?

(Actually, I think that's a bad example, as I do have a problem with both of those---you shouldn't be allowed to directly encourage crimes.)

Oh, I do know our politheist friend. Didn't know that his many Gods were necessarily the Greco-Roman ones, though.

I'm pretty sure they are, actually. Not that the Xen thing really matters.

Than again, that is hardly the context, right?

If it's not, they're pretty good actors!

But keep in mind a ("the," I think) major controversy was over whether or not the 10 Commandments should be removed from the Alabamian Supreme Court, which was by itself, and thus it could be more easily argued that it was there for religious purposes. So you can rest assured that our discussion hasn't been pointless.

 

[FredLC]

Why is that, really? 10 million (just a random number) Americans can feel free to each advocate as private individuals the cooking of the babies of infidels, but they can't organize to form a leader who says the same thing?

The problem here is quite technical. Both Brazil and the US – to exemplify with our nations – are constitutionally set as secular. So, it’s not really the nastiness of the act of baby cooking per se that is impeditive (though this in particular would actually be so due to criminal reasons). The impeditive factor lies in its directly-derived religious source.

See, even in secular nations, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the existence and influence of religion. What is wrong is to directly set public policies from religious commands, instead of simply receiving the religious influence as one social factor, in pair with many others, to orient in the law-making and goal-seeking of the offices.

Hence, the problem with such interesting new leadership would be that he would be demolishing the wall of breach that is a fundamental aspect of the nation’s foundation. Not, however, if the nation truly, really, actually believes that baby-cooking of religious inspiration is a desirable and necessary step to take, all they need to do is elect a new original constitutional assembly* and enact a new constitution that does not elect secularism as a fundamental value.

*(In terms of constitutional law, the national congress is the organ that has the power to enact or lift constitutions; ordinary congress houses are denominated derived constitutional assemblies, and have the power to legislate within the boundaries of the current constitution; Now, an original constitutional assembly is a congress that is set with the purpose of creating a new constitution, a goal that must set prior to the elections so that the people who vote is aware of the depth of the power been conceded to these politicians. As they are to lay out the new base norm of a nation – the constitution – they are bound by nothing except the fundamental norm, there is, the political will and the sentiment of such nation’s citizens.)

(Actually, I think that's a bad example, as I do have a problem with both of those---you shouldn't be allowed to directly encourage crimes.)

Of course my example was a bit extreme, as I regarded it only from the perspective of forbidding a speech due to it’s violation of secularism. I have disregarded impediments of other sorts – such as criminal misbehavior, that however would apply in a real-life analisys.

I'm pretty sure they are, actually. Not that the Xen thing really matters.

If it's not, they're pretty good actors!

But keep in mind a ("the," I think) major controversy was over whether or not the 10 Commandments should be removed from the Alabamian Supreme Court, which was by itself, and thus it could be more easily argued that it was there for religious purposes. So you can rest assured that our discussion hasn't been pointless.

Are you sure? After all, it’s not like this discussion will really change anything.

Regards .

 

[Stapel]

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 am stunned!
You seriously think the ten commandments stimulated Freedom????

I am one that reads the Bible from a pure secular point of view. I think it is quite obvious no gods had any influence on the authors.
But yes, of course the impact of the Bible and especially the ten commandments is present in our free, western society today.

But if it did one thing, it is keeping Freedom away from us, rather than stimulating it!

The first 4 are authoritan cruelties, going directly against Freedom. Especially the one that tells me not to work on a certain day.
I consider them immoral.

There are three universal laws, which are much older than any Biblical script and which can be found in any culture:
-Don't Steal
-Don't Murder (or kill)
-Don't leave your spouse and kids alone
These three are simply logical. They indeed have a positive effect. They are simpy a necassity for a free society.

And there are three philosophical commandments, good for hours of discussion:
-Don't be jealous
-Don't lie
-Honour your folks.
They don't really bring freedom, do they?


The whole idea of having them in a court room is simply immoral, wrong, false and also.... plain stupid.

 

[Stile]

Sure, I think they stimulated freedom. The middle three laws may seem universal to you, but philosophers like Locke, who influenced Thomas Jefferson, based their 'all men are created equal with a right to life, property, and happiness' on them among other things, IMO.

Who doesn't need a day off?

(I won't be around to respond for a week.)

 

[nonconformist]

One thing I never got is this:
The commandments are empirative, i.e you have to follow them.
One of them is to honour your parents.
What if your parents are nasty, child beating abusers?

 

[Stapel]

Sure, I think they stimulated freedom. The middle three laws may seem universal to you, but philosophers like Locke, who influenced Thomas Jefferson, based their 'all men are created equal with a right to life, property, and happiness' on them among other things, IMO.

Any thinking person knows Christianity, including the ten commandments, has been used to oppress people throughout history.
Claiming it brought Freedom is probably the biggest nonsense I've ever seen on this forum.

Think again before you refer to slave-owner Thomas Jefferson and his influence from a bible-influenced Locke, and stuff on all men are equal.......
What a load of crap!

Who doesn't need a day off?

I dislike the idea of being forced to pick that day by a 3000 year old document.....
That's not Freedom.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The middle three laws may seem universal to you, but philosophers like Locke, who influenced Thomas Jefferson, based their 'all men are created equal with a right to life, property, and happiness' on them among other things, IMO.

Unadulterated bullcrap.

Jefferson and Madison, the two great architects of the Constitution, read GREEK AND ROMAN histories, including the works of Cato and Pliny, to prepare for the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson was so enamored with GREEK architecture that he introduced the Neoclassical style of architecture to the Americas with Monticello and the University of Virginia, both later copied by a certain White House. Madison never received a religious education. Reading the New Testament was, in fact, part of his collegiate education in the GREEK language. Jefferson was a deist, a religion originated by the GREEK philosopher Heraclitus, which meant he was far from a religious fanatic like the Puritans and revivalists he associated with. The Constitutional concept of separation of powers is drawn from the philosophies of the French philosopher Montesquieu, who abstracted it from Aristotle the GREEK.

As for the Declaration of Independence, its roots are clearly ENGLISH. It takes the form of a petition, a strikingly ENGLISH concept, and its preamble echoes the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, both of which themselves have roots in the growing tradition of ENGLISH common law. Which, if you want to get right down to it, comes from the PAGAN traditions of those infidels, the Celts and Danes. Not to mention the distinctly UnChristian law of the Normans.

Ah yes, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, documents whose importance in our national history has been spurned so that fundies can weary us with talk of that con man Moses? :roll:

Moreover, your accusation that Jefferson's ideas came from Locke is a common misconception. Jefferson disagreed strongly with Locke, as strongly as he did with his fellow pessimistic monarchist Alexander Hamilton. Locke wrote that human rights "flowed from" a Divine Creator; Jefferson in the Declaration writes explicitly that they are "inherent, intrinsic... and inalienable."

This makes a LOT of sense in the context of a rebellion against a King who also happened to be the official head of the State Church. Jefferson was NO friend of established religion.

Textual research on the Declaration shows that some of its phrasing comes from the work of founding father THOMAS PAINE, who was so much of a modern secularist that his contemporaries accused him of being a heretic.

The founders were not religous fanatics. In public, they talked the talk. But when they were locked in that hall for a week to write the Constitution, their ideas came straight from the GREEK AND ROMAN sources all their colleges had focused on. Back then, Classics Was King.

There are, IIRC, 613 of them (Jewish commandments) covering all sorts of things from not eating shellfish to forbidding cross dressing.

And almost all of them are outdated, barbaric tripe. According to Leviticus, you can't be a "priest of the Lord" if you need to wear glasses. You ARE still allowed to sell your daughter into slavery.

The Ten Commandments are sort of the distilled, sanitized wisdom of my ancient ancestors. And how crappy are they? Half of them are possibly plagiarized, whereas the rest have become more and more irrelevant with age. Hence my disdain for the Chassidim who still believe they must cut their beards square just because Levit. says so, and that everything in the Torah should be submitted to a literal interpretation.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Think again before you refer to slave-owner Thomas Jefferson

All the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Jefferson was the only one to free his, as far as I know.

Jefferson was probably the most modern of the Founding Fathers, alongside Franklin and Paine (who never gets any publicity).

On the other hand our Ten-Commandments fan probably idolizes Hamilton, who definitely deserves scorn, and John Adams, who is borderline.

 

[WillJ]

Both Brazil and the US – to exemplify with our nations – are constitutionally set as secular.

I disagree with this, and since the rest of your post is logically dependent on it, I'll just ignore the rest for now.

I don't know about Brazil, but how is the US constitutionally set as secular? And even if it is, why should it be, beyond the form of secularism required by the First Ammendment?

Are you sure? After all, it’s not like this discussion will really change anything.

True, but I'd still say it's somehow a bit less pointless than, say, a discussion about which Star Wars character is the coolest.

 

[gunkulator]

All the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Jefferson was the only one to free his, as far as I know.

Jefferson was probably the most modern of the Founding Fathers, alongside Franklin and Paine (who never gets any publicity).

On the other hand our Ten-Commandments fan probably idolizes Hamilton, who definitely deserves scorn, and John Adams, who is borderline.

John Adams did not own slaves. He believed slavery to be immoral and fought hard to outlaw the practice in the Consitution. His son went on to become the lawyer for the Amistad slaves. Jefferson did not free his slaves except for the Hemings family and Adams was openly critical of his abusing his position with Sally Hemings.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Fair enough; I was thinking of Adams's behavior regarding the Convention* & the new Constitution. I know almost nothing of his presidency or private life.

* yes I know he did not attend.