Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[SuperJerk 0]

Brian and Edwin MacPhisto are knocking the rest of you guys out.

 

 

I honestly can't beleive that the rest of you people are so stupid you can't understand that removing government references to God is not an endorsement of atheism.

 

I'll state it AGAIN.

 

I'm saying there are THREE ways a government could act.

1) It could be pro-religious and insist everyone beleive in God.

2) It could be anti-religious and insist that no one beleive in God.

3) It could be non-religious and not tell people anything about God.

The first two are wrong, and the third one is right.

You idiots keep insisting that the 2nd and 3rd are identical, which THEY ARE NOT.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

3 or 4 out of 10 depending on your interpretation of adultery statutes, and the ones that don't qualify rarely even inform American legal policy.

 

Hey he's batting between .300 and .400. In baseball, he'd be a hall of famer.

[Guest MikeSC]

Brian and Edwin MacPhisto are knocking the rest of you guys out.

 

 

I honestly can't beleive that the rest of you people are so stupid you can't understand that removing government references to God is not an endorsement of atheism.

 

I'll state it AGAIN.

 

I'm saying there are THREE ways a government could act.

1) It could be pro-religious and insist everyone beleive in God.

2) It could be anti-religious and insist that no one beleive in God.

3) It could be non-religious and not tell people anything about God.

The first two are wrong, and the third one is right.

You idiots keep insisting that the 2nd and 3rd are identical, which THEY ARE NOT.

And I can't believe you're too dumb to realize that mentioning the word is God is not the gov't "respecting an establishment of religion", but that the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

-=Mike

[The Czech Republic 0]

The Ten Commandments are a fine monument to the history of law-making. I'm just not offended.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

When it comes to the 10 commandments, there's various ways to number and translate the commandments.

 

The Catholic/Orthadox numbering is this (I think.. I got it from Wikipedia)

 

1. "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them"

2. "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

3. "Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy"

4. "Honor your father and your mother"

5. "You shall not kill."

6. "Neither shall you commit adultery."

7. "Neither shall you steal."

8. "Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor."

9. "Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife"

10. "and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.'

 

And the Jewish numbering/wording

 

1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

3. "You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."

4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy"

5. "Honor your father and your mother..."

6. "You shall not murder"

7. "You shall not commit adultery"

8. "You shall not steal"

9. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

10. "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."

 

The religious part of the first amendment was meant more to prevent the establishment of a state religion (of any Christian sect), avoiding what had happened in pretty much every other European country.

 

We'd have to see how the commandments are numbered and maybe how they're worded to see if there's anything objectionable or a possible bias towards a religion or a sect or whatever.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And I can't believe you're too dumb to realize that mentioning the word is God is not the gov't "respecting an establishment of religion", but that the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

        -=Mike

Well, if Congress decided to have a debate about God, I wouldn't mind, as long as they didn't decide to legislate over it.

 

I don't understand how saying that the nation is "under" (as in, secondary to) a higher power isn't a sign of respecting the establishment of that higher power. That's not only offensive to someone who doesn't believe in higher powers, it's offensive to those who hold their country first in their hearts and minds.

 

That's why some of the outspoken Christians on this board (I'd name a name, but he hasn't posted lately and I don't want to start a war) who say they hold their loyalty to their religious deity higher than their loyalty to this country sicken me. That thinking has been responsible for more than enough bloodshed on the other side of the globe.

[Guest MikeSC]

And I can't believe you're too dumb to realize that mentioning the word is God is not the gov't "respecting an establishment of religion", but that the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

        -=Mike

Well, if Congress decided to have a debate about God, I wouldn't mind, as long as they didn't decide to legislate over it.

 

I don't understand how saying that the nation is "under" (as in, secondary to) a higher power isn't a sign of respecting the establishment of that higher power. That's not only offensive to someone who doesn't believe in higher powers, it's offensive to those who hold their country first in their hearts and minds.

Then that person has crossed the line from legitimate criticism to simple bitching and moaning.

That's why some of the outspoken Christians on this board (I'd name a name, but he hasn't posted lately and I don't want to start a war) who say they hold their loyalty to their religious deity higher than their loyalty to this country sicken me. That thinking has been responsible for more than enough bloodshed on the other side of the globe.

And I'd rather know a person who when told to do something evil by his/her gov't would have a higher loyalty that would allow him/her to say no.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That's why some of the outspoken Christians on this board (I'd name a name, but he hasn't posted lately and I don't want to start a war) who say they hold their loyalty to their religious deity higher than their loyalty to this country sicken me. That thinking has been responsible for more than enough bloodshed on the other side of the globe.

And I'd rather know a person who when told to do something evil by his/her gov't would have a higher loyalty that would allow him/her to say no.

-=Mike

Wow, where did you pull that out of?

 

I'm not saying to put complete faith and trust in what your government tells you. If that was the case, I'd be sitting here saying that of course we should have gone into Iraq and we should invest our Social Security money in stocks, too. I'm saying the ideals of this country are more important to me than superstitious tales about beings in the sky who watch you all the time and determine the fate of your immaterial soul.

[SuperJerk 0]

Just How Many Commandments Are There Anyway?

In an admittedly unscientific survey, our columnist could not find anyone able to name all 10 of the Ten Commandments. And that’s the problem with the arguments about displaying them in public

 

March 8 - Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't kill. Don't sleep with your neighbor's spouse. Love your parents.

 

As basic rules to live by, you can't do much better than that. And that's probably why polls show that the vast majority of Americans favor public displays of the Ten Commandments. It's also why the Supreme Court practically tore a trapezius last week trying to figure out how to bend the First Amendment so that the Commandments can legally be displayed in government buildings.

 

The issue in a nutshell: The state of Texas has a statue of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the capitol building, similar to thousands of Ten Commandment plaques hanging all over the country. An Austin lawyer challenged the Texas display as a violation of the First Amendment's rejection of government sponsorship of religion (he's already a lawyer, so clearly didn't mind being more unpopular with his challenge). Last week, the Supreme Court finally heard the case, along with a suit against two Kentucky counties that have been displaying the Commandments. During the oral arguments, the Bush administration and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott argued that the Ten Commandments is such a fundamental part of our national culture and heritage that they are, effectively, non-religious.

 

Even Justice Antonin Scalia, who openly expressed his support for public displays of the Commandments, mocked Abbott's argument. "If you don't believe that it sends a religious message, you're kidding yourself," he said. (The Supreme Court's decision in the cases is pending).

 

But Abbott isn't the only one playing a joke on himself. Out of respect for the High Court, I climbed out of my ivory tower and did some good old fashioned reporting. I needed to know whether most Americans see the Commandments as essential to our national culture or a clear statement of religious ideology (or just a cheesy movie that depicts the absurdity of the Red Sea parting in two). To do so, I stopped random people in Times Square (which was a lot more interesting when it resembled Sodom rather than Disneyland) and found that pretty much everyone thinks the Ten Commandments are a non-religious series of commonsense rules that should be posted everywhere.

 

I also found that nobody knows all 10 of the Ten Commandments. "Honor your parents, don't covet your neighbor's wife, don't lie, don't kill, don't steal, um, um, how many is that" said Kristen, a woman from Brooklyn.

 

"Don't steal, don't bear false witness, don't kill, don't commit adultery, and honor your parents," said Olga, who was smoking a cigarette outside her office.

 

"Don't kill, don't commit adultery, don't covet thy neighbor's stuff, don't steal, and honor your parents," said Dan, who rents out a six-seat "party bike" in Times Square.

 

No matter whom I interviewed, the same five or six commandments kept coming up. And no matter whom I interviewed, I heard the same thing: "They should be displayed," said Dan. "They're just the basic rules that everyone can agree on."

 

And then I reminded them about the other four or five commandments. One: I am the Lord thy God. Two: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Three: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Four: Keep the Sabbath. And then people started changing their minds.

 

"Oh, yeah, those are the ones I always forget," said John, a friend of Dan, the Party Bike guy. "Yeah, I guess the government probably shouldn't be displaying something that says, 'I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.' What would a Muslim think Or a Buddhist"

 

Forget the Muslims or the Buddhists—at least they believe in deities. What about us atheists! Yes, I understand that it's completely acceptable to dismiss the concerns of us heathen non-believers. But the First Amendment doesn't just protect other religions from government sponsorship of Judeo-Christian monotheism, it's supposed to protect everyone from it—including people who believe in no gods, one God or a Greek-like hierarchy of gods.

 

Besides, there's hardly any unanimity about what the Ten Commandments even are. The Protestant and Jewish decalogue is basically the same, but the Catholic Church got rid of the "make no graven images" commandment (take a guess why), so the Church split the 10th commandment—don't covet your neighbor's wife or stuff—into separate commands.

 

And I hate to be a spoilsport on another score, but there are far more than 10 commandments in the so-called Ten Commandments. Not to quote a God in which I don't believe, but in Exodus, chapter 20, I count at least 19 demands that come directly from God: I am God; have no other gods; make no graven images; don't bow down to them (because, He says, "I am a jealous God"); show mercy to the people who believe in me; don't take my name in vain; remember the Sabbath and keep it holy; work six days a week (a jealous God and a tough boss); honor mom and dad; don't kill; don't commit adultery; don't steal; don't lie; don't covet your neighbor's stuff; don't make gods of silver or gold; make an altar to me out of earth; sacrifice oxen on it; if you make the altar out of stone, it can't be hewn stone (a jealous God, a tough boss and very picky about his stone); and no matter what kind of altar you build, it can't have steps.

 

In Deuteronomy, chapter 5, these demands get trimmed to 14, as God apparently lost his whole appetite for altars (whether constructed of unhewn stone or dirt). But the essential demands remain: I'm God; don't have others; don't kill; don't steal; don't covet thy neighbor or his wife, etc.

 

Now we're down to just 10. If we could get it down to just the five or six that everyone in Times Square knew, we could let the Supreme Court get on with more important business. But as long as the first two commandments are "I'm God" and "I'm the only God," the only place they should be hanging is in a church, temple, mosque, private home, and, of course, the backseat of every New York City cab.

 

I mean, even we atheists have to pray sometimes.

 

credit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7120284/site/newsweek/

[The Czech Republic 0]

Do Buddhists even get offended by these displays? You'd think they'd be tolerant and accepting of this. I mean it's not like America was built on Buddhism.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, some popular forms of Buddhism are lacking in all the symbolic stuff that Christianity is heavily into, as well as the omnipotent beings of the universe that live beyond our conciousness.

[SuperJerk 0]

And I can't believe you're too dumb to realize that mentioning the word is God is not the gov't "respecting an establishment of religion", but that the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Mike...Mike...Mike...

 

The words "In God We Trust" are no mere mention of the word "God".

Look at the three words around it. There's no question that's an endorsement of religious faith.

 

And removing all four of those words from money isn't going to keep anyone from practicing their religion.

[Guest MikeSC]

And I can't believe you're too dumb to realize that mentioning the word is God is not the gov't "respecting an establishment of religion", but that the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Mike...Mike...Mike...

 

The words "In God We Trust" are no mere mention of the word "God".

Look at the three words around it. There's no question that's an endorsement of religious faith.

 

And removing all four of those words from money isn't going to keep anyone from practicing their religion.

And those words have not forced you to practice religion.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

The words "In God We Trust" are no mere mention of the word "God".

Look at the three words around it.  There's no question that's an endorsement of religious faith.

 

And removing all four of those words from money isn't going to keep anyone from practicing their religion.

And those words have not forced you to practice religion.

This isn't about ME. Those words didn't have to force me to practice religion in order to violate the First Amendment.

 

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

 

Making the official motto "In God We Trust" is government recognition of a religious deity, which is a LAW made by CONGRESS that ESTABLISHES a RELIGION. With that motto, our government made monotheism (in all its forms) the official state religion.

 

(Since the term "God" usually only refers to the religious deity of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition, someone might also argue that the specific use of the word "God" is government endorsement of the Judeo-Chrisitian deity.)

 

By removing it, monotheists will still have every right to recognize their deity, but will only not be able to use official U.S. Government property to do it.

[Guest MikeSC]

The words "In God We Trust" are no mere mention of the word "God".

Look at the three words around it.  There's no question that's an endorsement of religious faith.

 

And removing all four of those words from money isn't going to keep anyone from practicing their religion.

And those words have not forced you to practice religion.

This isn't about ME. Those words didn't have to force me to practice religion in order to violate the First Amendment.

 

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

 

Making the official motto "In God We Trust" is government recognition of a religious deity, which is a LAW made by CONGRESS that ESTABLISHES a RELIGION. With that motto, our government made monotheism (in all its forms) the official state religion.

 

(Since the term "God" usually only refers to the religious deity of Judeo-Chrisitian tradition, someone might also argue that the specific use of the word "God" is government endorsement of the Judeo-Chrisitian deity.)

 

By removing it, monotheists will still have every right to recognize their deity, but will only not be able to use official U.S. Government property to do it.

And those words don't establish a religion.

 

WHICH religion is it "establishing"?

 

Judaism?

 

Catholicism?

 

Protestantism?

 

Scientology?

 

Mormonism?

 

Generic monotheism?

 

Should we at least know WHICH religion it is "establishing" before griping how it is "establishing" a religion?

 

So, it's "establishing" one of a MASSIVE LITANY of possible religions.

 

Seems to be quite legal.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

WHICH religion is it "establishing"?

I've already answered this.

 

With that motto, our government made monotheism (in all its forms) the official state religion.

[Special K 0]

Monotheism in all its forms is a PLURAL and therfore cannot be a SINGULAR religion. It in no way reflects the establishment of a state religion. It has existed in far more conservative times, and no one tried to establish a state religion THEN.

The Ten Commandments in front of a court is wrong, IMO. It establishes the laws of God as being more important than the laws of Man in that court's eyes. That's fine in your personal life, but the courts are established to uphold the laws of Man.

However, "In God We Trust" on fucking currency has never, and will never in any way inhibit anyone's ability to worship how they choose in the Unites States. If our laws ACTUALLY become related to religion, if people's rights are in any way restricted based on their religion, then people can bitch.

[Guest MikeSC]

WHICH religion is it "establishing"?

I've already answered this.

 

With that motto, our government made monotheism (in all its forms) the official state religion.

So, you're upset that the gov't is "endorsing" untold dozens upon dozens of religions?

 

It's hard to have a "state religion" if you are "endorsing" A LOT of them.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

So, you're upset that the gov't is "endorsing" untold dozens upon dozens of religions?

 

It's hard to have a "state religion" if you are "endorsing" A LOT of them.

You guys seem to be saying its wrong for the Constitution to endorse one religion, but okay for it to endorse a group of them.

 

The Constitution never specifies number, does it?

 

No.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, you're upset that the gov't is "endorsing" untold dozens upon dozens of religions?

 

It's hard to have a "state religion" if you are "endorsing" A LOT of them.

You guys seem to be saying its wrong for the Constitution to endorse one religion, but okay for it to endorse a group of them.

 

The Constitution never specifies number, does it?

 

No.

You can't have a "state-sponsored religion" if the state "endorses" DOZENS UPON DOZENS of them.

 

You are aware that the Amendment was designed specifically with the Church of England in mind, right? Or is the will of the Founding Fathers irrelevant in THIS case, but not in the death penalty case in the other thread?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You can't have a "state-sponsored religion" if the state "endorses" DOZENS UPON DOZENS of them.

Why not? Like I said, the Constitution never specifies number.

 

Besides, how many religions are we really talking about here? Are you counting Christianity once, or are you breaking it down into its many denominations? Technically, aren't Islam, Christianity, and Judism three forms of the same religion, since they all claim to worship the same God? And wouldn't someone who beleives in God, but not in the particular dogma of those 3, be technically following the same God?

 

Good thing the Constitution does not specify number! I'd hate to see a court try to sort out just how many religions a government can endorse. We're better off just not acknowledging any of them, and let people believe what they want without the government interfering. That IS what the First Amendment tells us to do, after all.

 

You are aware that the Amendment was designed specifically with the Church of England in mind, right? Or is the will of the Founding Fathers irrelevant in THIS case, but not in the death penalty case in the other thread?

 

Yes, I am aware of this. I'm also aware of how people in England were persecuted for not beleiving in what the state told them to.

 

What I'm doing is taking a principle put forward by the founding fathers and applying it to its logical conclusion. The founding fathers had a lot of good ideas, but often had trouble seeing their full implications (the whole "all men are created equal" thing comes to mind).

[Special K 0]

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

 

In God we trust in no way establishes a state religion. It in no way prevents people from practicing their freedom of religion. It oppresses no-one.

 

How does the statement 'In God we trust' benefit monotheistic religions, even if you consider them a religion as a whole? How does it prevent anyone from doing anything ever? Will it burn the palms of pantheists who attempt to hold the holy money? I just really don't see how this in any way oppresses anyone anywhere.

[SuperJerk 0]

In God we trust in no way establishes a state religion.

 

Yes, it does.

 

Since it is the official national motto, it tells what the basic principle of the country is. They are saying our basic principle is to trust God, which is a declaration of religious faith. By making a religious statement a basic principle, you are in effect endorsing monotheism (which is the same thing as establishing that monotheism is the official religion of the state).

 

Now, I'm not deluded enough to think that this is on par with the establishment of the Church of England, but it is along the same lines.

 

I fail to see why this is so controversial. As mottos go, its a pretty stupid one. Nothing about this country leads me to beleive that its people or government trust God.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Personally I see most of this stuff as a total non-issue. For instance, if you hadn't told me, I'd have no idea that "In God We Trust" is on currency, because I tend to only read the important stuff on money, namely that number in the corner.

 

The one place where I don't think it belongs is in the pledge, because it's not traditional that it be there, and was only added in the 1950s as a reactionary tactic against the Soviet Union. The Cold War is over, the USA won, return the pledge to its original form.

[Boon 0]

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

 

Making the official motto "In God We Trust" is government recognition of a religious deity, which is a LAW made by CONGRESS that ESTABLISHES a RELIGION. With that motto, our government made monotheism (in all its forms) the official state religion.

Ehhh- I don't really buy that making the motto is making a law. I think strict interpretation of the law would apply if, say, the government said "you have to trust in God." But like Mike said, those words have no real bearing on what religion, if any, you as an individual practice.

 

My problem with your argument is that you're using the part of the Constitution that talks about laws and applying it to a policy that is not enforced by the gov't. I'll give you that it endorses monotheism, but everything else is a stretch.

[Special K 0]

I have never heard a spokesman for a buddhist, or hindu, or taoist group (you know, people who's freedoms could be directly impinged by this) EVER bitch about this piddly little shit.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't think RobotJerk is wasting his time marching down the streets of city hall in the name of removing the words "In God We Trust" from our currency, however for the sake of the conversation, what he is saying is correct, in the matter of putting "In God We Trust" on money or saying it is our motto is definately an endorsement of religion as a whole, not christianity perse, but definately a vague belief in god.

 

It doesn't bother most people that much, thus no one cares and it isn't being argued in congress every day, however for the sake of conversation and constitutional law, RobotJerk is pretty much right on about the motto and what it implies, and why it should not be there.

 

Now as far as the 10 commandments statues, there is no argument you can make to say it should be there in front of a courthouse. If anything there should be a statue of the constitution since that is our law, not the ten commandments.

[NoCalMike 0]

I have never heard a spokesman for a buddhist, or hindu, or taoist group (you know, people who's freedoms could be directly impinged by this) EVER bitch about this piddly little shit.

That's because in general, NOBODY cares. However if you start a conversation about it, and break down the laws of the land, and it turns out that things like "In God We Trust" and the 10 commandments statue should not be placed where they are, don't get all bent out of shape over it.

 

It's no different then underage drinking, on the whole it is allowed by society to a certain extent, and it is kind of accepted as a way of life for college students, but if you actually read the law books technically it is illegal. Yeah I know this analogy was a bit of a stretch, but I am almost off of work and tired.......

[SuperJerk 0]

Like NoCalMike said, no one is actually trying to get it taken off. I'm just saying that in my opinion it should be there. Am I willing to do anything other than have an anonymous discussion with a half dozen strangers to have it removed? No. Were I a Supreme Court justice or a member of Congress and this case came before me, I'd act to have it removed, but in all honesty of course I realize that having it there matters very little

 

My problem with your argument is that you're using the part of the Constitution that talks about laws and applying it to a policy that is not enforced by the gov't.  I'll give you that it endorses monotheism, but everything else is a stretch.

 

Yes, that is a good point...I'll admit. I would think that the same rules of Constitutionality apply to observances made by the Congress as federal laws, but your exception might actually be valid.

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

Well..

 

people certainly dont seem to have a a problem with all the currency in America..

 

"In God we Trust" written right on the front of just about all current US Currency.

 

Actually..just like everything else..theres an online petition:

 

Remove "In God We Trust"

 

And Im waiting for when the people who've been stamping $1 bills with messages over the "In God We Trust" to get fined $500 by the government, which they can by law do.

 

 

I already posted this: it's been tried, the Supreme Court told them to find something better to do with their time.

Actually, the Supreme Court threw it out because they said that the guy suing didn't have standing. They said this because he didn't have legal custody of his daughter, and thus could not sue on her behalf. They didn't say "WE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO!"