Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[Jorge Gorgeous 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.

We (the Jews) actually have a ton more commands. Theres the big ten, and then another... I think 603, 613 in total I believe. I could be off by a couple, I havn't been to temple in a while.

[Jingus 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.

There are plenty of people who get angry about this sort of thing. They're the Usual Suspects when it comes to anything to do with bashing Christianity: atheists and pagans. (And a few Muslims who take "there is only one god, and his name is Allah" a little too seriously.)

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

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!"

 

I thought that one was about the pledge, not about the currency.

[Guest MikeSC]

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.

Because no money goes to any religion.

 

Are you permitted to not go to church? Then you're not obligated to practice a religion.

 

You cannot have a state-sponsored religion if the state "sponsors" (and that is a stretch and a half to make that claim) dozens of them.

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?

Seeing as how the Christians themselves break them down into many groups --- yup, they are not a monolithic entity. Southern Baptists and regular Baptists don't have a great deal in common.

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?

Yup. You're only punching more holes in your argument.

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.

And the gov't is interfering in what way?

 

"In God We Trust" FORCES you to become a Christian how?

 

I find rap music to be loathesome and without any redeeming quality. I'm not going to claim that it is forcing the thug lifestyle onto me.

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.

And you're aware that you'd be hard-pressed to find similar stories today, right?

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).

If you went with what they set up --- you'd have a far more religious society than you have right now.

 

Just to let you know.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Mike how can you continue to miss the entire point.

 

He is saying he doesn't think the government should have anything to do with anything sponsering ANY religion. Certainly not in a way as clear as having the ten commandments on the front of the courthouse.

 

You obviously believe that the statue of the commandments supports a religion, in fact, you continue to support that in infact supports MANY religions. RJ's point is that the government shouldn't not support ANY religions. Not many, not a few, not one. NONE. ZERO. No religion, nothing religious, nada.

 

And there are reasons this makes sense.

 

I just want to clarify so that you can try and concede a point. He's NOT making your point for you when he says the govt doesn't just support ONE branch of one religion. When he says, for instance, that the government supports seventy six religions (a random number) then that is seventy six religions too many.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike how can you continue to miss the entire point.

 

He is saying he doesn't think the government should have anything to do with anything sponsering ANY religion. Certainly not in a way as clear as having the ten commandments on the front of the courthouse.

 

You obviously believe that the statue of the commandments supports a religion, in fact, you continue to support that in infact supports MANY religions. RJ's point is that the government shouldn't not support ANY religions. Not many, not a few, not one. NONE. ZERO. No religion, nothing religious, nada.

 

And there are reasons this makes sense.

 

I just want to clarify so that you can try and concede a point. He's NOT making your point for you when he says the govt doesn't just support ONE branch of one religion. When he says, for instance, that the government supports seventy six religions (a random number) then that is seventy six religions too many.

And you have yet to demonstrate the gov't "supporting" a religion.

 

Acknowledging that religion EXISTS doesn't mean one "supports" it.

 

You know how many atheists I know who say "God damn" when things go wrong? More than a few, suffice to say.

 

Does it mean they believe in God?

-=Mike

[Jorge Gorgeous 0]

And you have yet to demonstrate the gov't "supporting" a religion.

"...one nation UNDER GOD"

"In GOD we trust"

"GOD DAMMIT, Jenna, would you please stop showing your bush on the internet?"

 

 

Maybe that last one doesn't quite fit the bill.

Anyway, those don't exactly sound like a simple recognition. Nobody really cares about this stuff, so you don't hear about it - its like farting in a paper mill. Making a monument to a religious document on public land would also be a supportive gesture. I don't really understand how you can't recognize this. Either you're trading logic for loyalty or you're dumb.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people. How is that any better?

Mike, the problem I see with this argument is that it assumes religion as a starting point for what should be a basis of secular, non-denominational law.

 

Mentioning the word "God" is not the same thing as endorsing a religion.

 

I can mention the name "Hitler". It does not mean I'm endorsing Nazism as a sound political ideology.

We pledge allegiance,

to the flag,

of the United States of America,

and to the republic,

for which it stands,

one nation,

under Hitler

 

 

 

And for the dollar bills:

In Hitler we trust

Excellent post.

[Guest MikeSC]

And you have yet to demonstrate the gov't "supporting" a religion.

"...one nation UNDER GOD"

"In GOD we trust"

"GOD DAMMIT, Jenna, would you please stop showing your bush on the internet?"

 

 

Maybe that last one doesn't quite fit the bill.

Anyway, those don't exactly sound like a simple recognition. Nobody really cares about this stuff, so you don't hear about it - its like farting in a paper mill. Making a monument to a religious document on public land would also be a supportive gesture. I don't really understand how you can't recognize this. Either you're trading logic for loyalty or you're dumb.

Or maybe you can explain how you are free to worship --- or not worship --- whichever deity you choose when the state "sponsors" a religion and all...

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

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!"

 

I thought that one was about the pledge, not about the currency.

You are correct sir. The one on the pledge was thrown out because she wasn't technically his kid. The "In God We Trust" one was simply thrown out, I believe (It's certainly not related to custody since it doesn't concern just children).

 

Anyways, Special K has made my point. There is no endorsement in "In God we Trust". The suggestion of the possibility of a higher power (Hence, in God we Trust) doesn't actively or even passively benefit anyone. It the establishment of any sort of religion (Thanks for posting it so much, RJ, maybe actually reading would be a good course of action now). It's vague enough and lacks the meaning to be any sort of offense to the 1st Amendment.

 

Oh, RJ, it's nice to ignore my argument to say "

 

Again, for those of you out there who are against it:

 

1) Show us the active benefit it gives to (a) religion(s).

2) Show us the passive benefit it gives (a) religion(s).

3) Show us how it establishes an enforced religion upon the citizenry.

 

Otherwise you lack an argument. Time and time again, this is what is required for making a case for a 1st Amendment Violation.

 

Just to repeat: I'm not in favor of putting up a monument to the 10 Commandments up in a courtroom. A little, innocuous plaque? You can argue it, maybe. But not an actual monument. I only find this bitching about petty things like "In God We Trust" is exactly the stupid shit that so many people like to bring up and concentrate on when they don't realize how fucking unbalancing it is and how against the spirit of the Constitution it is. The 1st Amendment is there not to abolish any place where belief and politics might clash. It's there to prevent anyone having a religion forced upon someone else. Perhaps you want to banish the Chaplain from Congress because it has a possible religious connotation?

[SuperJerk 0]

Your arguments are irrelevant.

 

In my view, the government doesn't have to force people in order to be violating the First Amendment.

 

It does seem like theist go out of their way to use the government to make themselves look more acceptable. Is that forcing religion? Depends on whether or not you consider social stigma enforced.

 

Like I said, the government SHOULD BE silent on all religious matters, and SHOULD NOT be telling people what to believe. Just because them telling people this isn't reenforced with a potential punishment doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

 

In order to be fair, some of you need to try and look at this from an outsider's perspective. Take Brian's suggestion and replace the word "God" with the name of any other deity and see if you still think its okay for the government to use these words and phrases in its ceremonies and documents.

 

Go ahead. I dare you.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

[Special K 0]

You'd need something equivalent. I wouldn't give a shit if they put in

God(s) we trust.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

How about uncapitalizing God?

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

In order to be fair, some of you need to try and look at this from an outsider's perspective. Take Brian's suggestion and replace the word "God" with the name of any other deity and see if you still think its okay for the government to use these words and phrases in its ceremonies and documents.

 

But 'God' isn't a name, its a generic title. So it could be referring to the Christian God, Allah, Shiva or whatever. If you start using a specific name it is in reference to a certain religion.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It's still endorsing religion with that logic.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

What's wrong with E Pluribus Unum, by the way? Just use that instead. Everyone likes E Pluribus Unum.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Personally I think in all these things (Pledge, money, etc.), "God" should be replaced by "the President".

[Slickster 0]

Mike, by saying "God" (singular form) in "In God We Trust" it is favoring monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions and atheism.

 

To make it simpler, let's pretend that every religion in the world is monotheistic, with the creator-god being a different gender for different religions. If the US money said "In Him We Trust," this would be indicate a lack of support to many religions who have a female creator-god (and to those who believe in no god at all).

[Guest MikeSC]

What's wrong with E Pluribus Unum, by the way? Just use that instead. Everyone likes E Pluribus Unum.

Phuck that dead language bullcrap. You'll use a living language and like it, whipper snapper.

Mike, by saying "God" (singular form) in "In God We Trust" it is favoring monotheistic religions over polytheistic religions and atheism.

 

To make it simpler, let's pretend that every religion in the world is monotheistic, with the creator-god being a different gender for different religions. If the US money said "In Him We Trust," this would be indicate a lack of support to many religions who have a female creator-god (and to those who believe in no god at all).

It is a stretch to define "monotheism" as a religion. It's a bit too broad.

 

And if you really want to restrict religion, I could make a case that we should ban environmentalism from public discourse.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Shut the fuck up Mike, I'm sick of your religion environmentalism bullshit.

 

Not only do you refuse to acknowledge monotheism, with the suffix THEISM as in the belief in god as a religion, or a religious stance, but you attempt to troll into convincing people that a science is a religion on par with Christianity.

 

Hey, there are people trying to get evolution thrown out of schools even in today's Post, because it's what they want to believe. I'm totally sure you're the same way about environmentalism. But you need to shut up about that which you are grossly uninformed and stop POLLUTING these halfway decent threads with your incessant (as in neverending) arguments based on nothing.

[Guest MikeSC]

Shut the fuck up Mike, I'm sick of your religion environmentalism bullshit.

I'm sure SpiderPoet was sick of people dumping on Christianity, if it makes you feel any better.

Not only do you refuse to acknowledge monotheism, with the suffix THEISM as in the belief in god as a religion, or a religious stance, but you attempt to troll into convincing people that a science is a religion on par with Christianity.

Environmentalism is as serious a science as phrenology. It is little more than a cult, filled with weak-minded lemmings who enjoy mistaking faith for science.

Hey, there are people trying to get evolution thrown out of schools even in today's Post, because it's what they want to believe.

And?

 

I'm supposed to suddenly take environmentalism seriously in spite of its utter incomprehensibility and inconsistent logic because some people don't like evolution?

 

Isn't it sad that to defend your faith, you have to compare it to faith and a hostility to science?

 

It should tell you something.

I'm totally sure you're the same way about environmentalism.  But you need to shut up about that which you are grossly uninformed and stop POLLUTING these halfway decent threads with your incessant (as in neverending) arguments based on nothing.

Oh, did I blaspheme your God?

 

Are you and your fellow soft-headed environmentalists going to declare a jihad against me now?

 

Environmentalists are as bad as Jerry Falwell's crowd.

 

Cry me a river.

 

Isn't it sad that Spider could more calmly and definitively defend Christianity than you can defend environmentalism? Makes you question what is and what is not a simple article of faith.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Apples and oranges. Shall I pull up figures of people from polluted areas having higher health risks? Religion doesn't rely on empirical evidence. CFCs and Jesus are different animals, Mike.

[Guest MikeSC]

Apples and oranges. Shall I pull up figures of people from polluted areas having higher health risks? Religion doesn't rely on empirical evidence. CFCs and Jesus are different animals, Mike.

Shall I bring up the catastrophes that were supposed to have happened due to overpopulation or wasting of resources?

 

How about the lack of landfill space we were supposed to have at this point?

 

How about the switch from an impending ice age to global warming with no explanation given for the total switch in concerns?

 

Why so little attention paid to volcanic activity spewing more pollution in one eruption than humanity has spewed in its entire existence combined --- yet it's humanity that will ruin the world?

 

How about the lack of actual evidence of global warming?

 

How about attributing EVERY weather phenomenon, whether it be abnormally warm or cold streaks, to global warming?

 

How about the claim that recycling helps things when, in reality, its benefits are borderline neglible?

 

How about the claim that Kyoto was done for any reason BESIDES simply attacking America?

 

Does environmentalism have some kernel of truth? Yup. So does religion.

 

Doesn't make it anything less than an article of faith and precious little more.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Does environmentalism have some kernel of truth? Yup. So does religion.

 

You're still ignoring fact for truth. The environmental prophets of doom back in the last decade (that I saw) that were all projecting catastrophic population bombs were basing those numbers on the current rates at the time, extrapolated over several years. Ditto landfill space. Also, as a nation we HAVE become more environmentally conscious than we were even say, fifty years ago. Clearly for the better, I'd say.

 

Toxins in rivers, soil, and air can be measured. Same with ozone depletion. Cost effectiveness of recycling can be measured (I'll agree, with some materials it IS negligible).

 

Faith can't be measured like that, and faith isn't a matter of legality either, whereas pouring poison in rivers we have to drink out of is. Using the argument we've got set up here, I'd say EPA regulations have more of a place on a court room wall than the ten commandments do.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Why so little attention paid to volcanic activity spewing more pollution in one eruption than humanity has spewed in its entire existence combined --- yet it's humanity that will ruin the world?

 

 

How about attributing EVERY weather phenomenon, whether it be abnormally warm or cold streaks, to global warming?

The hell are people supposed to do about a VOLCANO? That's not even a pertinent point to try to make. We can take shorter showers, not soak crops in toxic shit, and waste less gas. No one's going to stick a giant cork in Hawaii because it's a pollutant.

 

When I see the weather, I never see anyone even talk about global warming, either.

[Guest MikeSC]

Does environmentalism have some kernel of truth? Yup. So does religion.

You're still ignoring fact for truth. The environmental prophets of doom back in the last decade (that I saw) that were all projecting catastrophic population bombs were basing those numbers on the current rates at the time, extrapolated over several years. Ditto landfill space. Also, as a nation we HAVE become more environmentally conscious than we were even say, fifty years ago. Clearly for the better, I'd say.

And I can say that their forecasts have not only been mildly incorrect. They have been obscenely incorrect to a level few real scientific disciplines have ever hoped to match.

 

I can think of no other field of science that has been nearly as spectacularly incorrect.

 

And the landfill space thing was an outright lie written by one moronic bureaucrat. It never had even the tiniest semblance of reality.

Toxins in rivers, soil, and air can be measured. Same with ozone depletion. Cost effectiveness of recycling can be measured (I'll agree, with some materials it IS negligible).

Actually, our knowledge of the ozone layer is negligible. We don't know the first thing about it. The "hole" of the 1980's was largely a myth with no lasting impact on humanity. It was simply a way for a non-science to flex some legitimacy muscle without actually making acase.

 

And the cost effectiveness of recycling for such things as paper is not a good one for environmentalism. It costs more, financially and in terms of resources, to recycle paper than to simply plant new trees, cut them down, and then replant them.

Faith can't be measured like that, and faith isn't a matter of legality either, whereas pouring poison in rivers we have to drink out of is.

The Salem witch trials were perfectly legal at the time. Doesn't make them good or correct things.

Using the argument we've got set up here, I'd say EPA regulations have more of a place on a court room wall than the ten commandments do.

And I'd say they have as much place being taught in school as creationism. They have as much scientific basis to them.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Why so little attention paid to volcanic activity spewing more pollution in one eruption than humanity has spewed in its entire existence combined --- yet it's humanity that will ruin the world?

 

 

How about attributing EVERY weather phenomenon, whether it be abnormally warm or cold streaks, to global warming?

The hell are people supposed to do about a VOLCANO? That's not even a pertinent point to try to make. We can take shorter showers, not soak crops in toxic shit, and waste less gas. No one's going to stick a giant cork in Hawaii because it's a pollutant.

 

When I see the weather, I never see anyone even talk about global warming, either.

Then you've intentionally missed it. We have a mild winter --- the environmentalists claim it's due to global warming. We have an abnormally cold winter --- the environmentalists claim it's due to global warming.

 

And if the earth can shake off a volcano erupting, then --- as I have said previously --- it takes some pretty damned impressive ego on the part of man to assume we can do squat to the planet to impact anything.

 

Environmentalists need to have a belief that man can cause unbelievable harm to the environment, when our impact is comparable to a single pebble falling down in the middle of the Himalayas.

-=Mike

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

And the cost effectiveness of recycling for such things as paper is not a good one for environmentalism. It costs more, financially and in terms of resources, to recycle paper than to simply plant new trees, cut them down, and then replant them.

Serious question: how long does it take for paper to go from used->recycled->"new" paper compared to how long it take to plant a tree & then harvest it for paper (and whatever else)? I'd imagine it'd take at least 20 years (that's a guess on my part, could be more/less [i'd bet on more]) for a tree to grow to the point that it's be suitable to be harvested. In that time, how much recycled paper could be generated (and regenerated)?

 

And how much does the recycling process cost, compared to: buying trees, planting them, cutting them down, transporting them, and then processing them into paper (among other things)?

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Personally I think in all these things (Pledge, money, etc.), "God" should be replaced by "the President".

In the President we trust...?