Split rulings on Ten Commandments displays [Archive]

FriarTuck

Jun 27, 2005, 12:50 PM

being as only two of the 10 commandments have any similarity to our current law, it seems wholly inappropriate even in a historical sense. Perhaps eventually they'll print the commandments inside a contact lens, so zealots can stare at them all day long. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is busy trying to make progress, thanks.

There are a lot of us "zealots" who are unhappy with the abuse of the 10 Commandments as political symbolism. But that doesn't mean it was the court's decision to make, and it doesn't make your suggestion that only two of the 10 commandments "have any similarity to our current law" plausible.

Nonetheless, I'm curious to know which two you think still "have any similarity to our current law" as I would like to know which of these three you have left out: perjury, murder, or theft? And adultery is still a crime in some Western nations and is a court-martiable offense in the US Military.

stridey

Jun 27, 2005, 01:09 PM

At first I read this thread's subject as being about 10 different commandment displays. Ooh, I said, what's a commandment display? Some sort of super LCD? Sounds shiny! :p

mpw

Jun 27, 2005, 01:33 PM

Has the US still got "In God we trust" on their currency notes?

When's the vote to have that removed?

stridey

Jun 27, 2005, 01:38 PM

Has the US still got "In God we trust" on their currency notes?

When's the vote to have that removed?

The theory is that "In God we trust" refers to a sort of general God not specifically associated with Christianity in particular. Yeah... right. The reason the 10 commandments are different is that they reference a specific religion (or pair of religions).

Sun Baked

Jun 27, 2005, 01:39 PM

Has the US still got "In God we trust" on their currency notes?

When's the vote to have that removed?But the building this ruling comes out of most likely has that type of writing/art carved into it all over the place. :p

The ten commandments are all over DC in the form of I, II, III, ... IX, X on the pages of tablets.

jared_kipe

Jun 27, 2005, 01:44 PM

Personally I don't think it should be there, but I heard that they voted for it's removal. Weird.

mpw

Jun 27, 2005, 02:38 PM

The theory is that "In God we trust" refers to a sort of general God not specifically associated with Christianity in particular...

That would be even worse, a society whose government chooses to believe in bits of various religions only as accepted by all so as not to offend anyone. Except of course that offends the logical atheists among us so they pretend they don't and say there's no link between Church and State.

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 27, 2005, 03:15 PM

being as only two of the 10 commandments have any similarity to our current law, it seems wholly inappropriate even in a historical sense. Perhaps eventually they'll print the commandments inside a contact lens, so zealots can stare at them all day long. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is busy trying to make progress, thanks.

I had to go back and actually read the 10 Commandments before I could say anything intelligent, but more than two have found their way into civil law. For the record, I'm going on the laws of my home state, which sadly happens to be Alabama:

Murder: This is a big no-no anywhere.
Theft: A similar but lesser no-no.
False Witness: Another lesser no-no (also known as perjury)
Adultery: Might vary in other states, but in Alabama, adultery is still a crime, even though it's just a misdemeanor.
Sabbath Day: Again, it varies in other states, but in some places here, we have what are known as blue laws. Cullman County, AL is a good example, where on Sundays, businesses and the like must remain closed, with the exceptions of police and fire, hospitals, gas stations, and any other community essentials.

That's five out of ten right there. I could probably make some extended arguments for a couple others, but that would be reaching.

ChrisBrightwell

Jun 27, 2005, 04:50 PM

I personally don't agree since its been like this for years and years and now people seem it should change, but whatsever :rolleyes:
You disagree w/ the higher courts saying, "We know you've been doing this for years w/ no problems ... but you can't do it anymore."?

Blacks are free and women can vote. Do you have problems there, too?

hulugu

Jun 27, 2005, 04:51 PM

...
Murder: This is a big no-no anywhere.
Theft: A similar but lesser no-no.
False Witness: Another lesser no-no (also known as perjury)
Adultery: Might vary in other states, but in Alabama, adultery is still a crime, even though it's just a misdemeanor.
Sabbath Day: Again, it varies in other states, but in some places here, we have what are known as blue laws...

So, that's half of the entire document. The Ten Commandments isn't the only place from which our moral and legal codes stems and thus is about as important as the Code of Hammurabi. The problem is the inherent religious application of the other five commandments—and I would say the Sabbath day is just a secular application of a religious tenet.
Furthermore, the additions of "In God We Trust" as well as the "...under God indivisable.." part of the Plege of Allegiance were both added after the fact. The line "In God We Trust" was added to coinage in 1865 by an act of congress. The Pledge of Allegiance was changed in 1954 by a campaign of the Knights of Columbus.
None of these things were considered to be a part of the republic under the Constitutional Congress and thus I think the original strictures of separation of church and state was meant by our founding fathers.

ChrisBrightwell

Jun 27, 2005, 04:51 PM

The theory is that "In God we trust" refers to a sort of general God not specifically associated with Christianity in particular. Yeah... right.
Your arrogance is astounding.

ChrisBrightwell

Jun 27, 2005, 04:54 PM

The Ten Commandments isn't the only place from which our moral and legal codes stems and thus is about as important as the Code of Hammurabi. FINALLY. Someone said it.

I've been all for a monument portraying these commandments as the historical and philosophical foundation of our current system of laws -- but only if it's displayed alongside the Koran, Hammurabi's Code, and half a dozen other equally significant documents.

stridey

Jun 27, 2005, 04:56 PM

Your arrogance is astounding.

I don't see how it's arrogance. God (with a capital G) specifically denotes the deity of a monotheistic religion, but the theory that defends the use of the word "God" on the US currency is that it denotes an abstract belief in "something." My "yeah.. right" was simply to say that I think that's false. I believe the use of "God" on the bills is in fact an inherently Christian statement.

Your shortsightedness is astounding. Try relaxing a bit. :D

hulugu

Jun 27, 2005, 05:13 PM

FINALLY. Someone said it.

I've been all for a monument portraying these commandments as the historical and philosophical foundation of our current system of laws -- but only if it's displayed alongside the Koran, Hammurabi's Code, and half a dozen other equally significant documents.

Not only those, but the Magna Carta, the writings of Aristole, Plato, Kant, and the formal systems of the Roman Republic. I think the reason everyone likes the Ten Commandments is because it's a simple, easily digestable document. But, what would be more important—in the sense of a Christian document—would be the Sermon on the Mount. And, now we have created a display so massive that it could only be kept in a museum and maybe doesn't fit so well in a state courthouse.

rainman::|:|

Jun 27, 2005, 05:20 PM

okay, i wasn't considering "bearing false witness", because i always thought that was more about lying in general, which itself is not illegal. But we'll go literal and give it to you, that's 3. Adultery laws are unconstitutional, and have not successfully been used for decades-- every time one is invoked, it's tossed out, leaving a handful of southern states proudly waving a dead moral law. And sunday laws are on a city-by-city basis... not even laws, ordinances. There are no laws prohibiting work on Sundays (thankfully, as the world would cease to function), and although there are laws prohibiting certain activities on Sundays (these are mostly being tossed out or unwritten, but some are withstanding challenges), none of these laws mention "keeping the sabbath holy" as a reason-- In fact, none give a motive. Nor does the Bible suggest these methods as ways TO keep the sabbath holy.

So without taking out the two personal-liberty ones that would be there regardless (not killing and stealing are certainly concepts that predate Christianity... So it's difficult to say we got those from the commandments) you've got 3, less than a third of the documents. I agree with the above, that makes it about as relevent as the Code of Hammurabi.

Azadre

Jun 27, 2005, 05:31 PM

I don't see how it's arrogance. God (with a capital G) specifically denotes the deity of a monotheistic religion, but the theory that defends the use of the word "God" on the US currency is that it denotes an abstract belief in "something." My "yeah.. right" was simply to say that I think that's false. I believe the use of "God" on the bills is in fact an inherently Christian statement.

Your shortsightedness is astounding. Try relaxing a bit. :D
God implies the god of the Abrahamic faiths. The term god, however, implies just a general greater being.

hulugu

Jun 27, 2005, 05:34 PM

God implies the god of the Abrahamic faiths. The term god, however, implies just a general greater being.

So you mean, during intercourse if you say oh god, oh god you're not saying oh Yahew, oh Yahweh, but rather oh greater being, oh greater being.

I'll agree with that.

monkeydo_jb

Jun 27, 2005, 05:55 PM

With nothing to believe in, you all must live hollow lives.

Jesus loves you. No matter how you feel about him.

hulugu

Jun 27, 2005, 06:26 PM

With nothing to believe in, you all must live hollow lives.

Jesus loves you. No matter how you feel about him.

Then why did he beat the crap out of me in the 8th grade? I mean Jesus Ramirez was a big dude, and I did throw a rock at his head, but that was a serious thumping.

Seriously, no one ever said they didn't lack belief, simply that it may not belong in a secular enterprise like the US courts. Furthermore, many of our founding fathers were agnostic, their faith was tenuous and yet thoughful. They questioned man's ability to understand god and were suspect of the dogma that surrounds organized religion. Some also believed that the spiritual was sullied by its connection with the profane aspect of a court system and thus the two should be kept apart. Even Jesus was disturbed by the combination of the temple with the money-lenders.
Lots of people manage to have powerful, meaningful spiritual beliefs without a whiff of the Ten Commandments. Like many Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Taoists, Shintoists, etc. It's not the only moral document, even in Christianity.

zimv20

Jun 27, 2005, 07:05 PM

With nothing to believe in, you all must live hollow lives.

so if one doesn't believe in jesus, one necessarily believes in nothing at all?

and what of Nihilists?

IJ Reilly

Jun 27, 2005, 07:16 PM

so if one doesn't believe in jesus, one necessarily believes in nothing at all?

and what of Nihilists?

I lost my faith in nihilism.

IJ Reilly

Jun 27, 2005, 07:18 PM

Lots of people manage to have powerful, meaningful spiritual beliefs without a whiff of the Ten Commandments. Like many Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Taoists, Shintoists, etc. It's not the only moral document, even in Christianity.

Jesus loves them too, just not as much.

hulugu

Jun 27, 2005, 07:35 PM

Jesus loves them too, just not as much.

I see, they're like the red-headed stepchildren, Jesus says he loves them, but secretly he wishes he could return them and get some puppies.

skunk

Jun 27, 2005, 07:47 PM

I don't see how it's arrogance. God (with a capital G) specifically denotes the deity of a monotheistic religion, but the theory that defends the use of the word "God" on the US currency is that it denotes an abstract belief in "something." My "yeah.. right" was simply to say that I think that's false. I believe the use of "God" on the bills is in fact an inherently Christian statement.

Your shortsightedness is astounding.On the contrary, it's you who are short-sighted. The dollar bill has "IN GOD WE TRUST" all in equal-sized capitals. If you're going to base your argument on the typography, you should check it out.

It's a bit of a stretch, but it could be taken to mean no more than "We tend to be optimistic"....

stridey

Jun 27, 2005, 07:51 PM

On the contrary, it's you who are short-sighted. The dollar bill has "IN GOD WE TRUST" all in equal-sized capitals. If you're going to base your argument on the typography, you should check it out.

It's a bit of a stretch, but it could be taken to mean no more than "We tend to be optimistic"....

Ok. Point taken. I should have researched more thoroughly. :D

I still maintain my argument however, that the statement "IN GOD WE TRUST" actually is indicative of the underlying Christian beliefs of the American government, no matter how we claim that there exists a seperation of church and state.

xsedrinam

Jun 27, 2005, 07:56 PM

Okay, that settles it. I'm calling Charlton Heston in here with the originals, so we can get this straight. ::Oh Charlton......!:eek:
X

dejo

Jun 27, 2005, 07:57 PM

I still maintain my argument however, that the statement "IN GOD WE TRUST" actually is indicative of the underlying Christian beliefs of the American government, no matter how we claim that there exists a seperation of church and state.

Yeah, because only Christians believe in a God... ;)

stridey

Jun 27, 2005, 08:00 PM

Yeah, because only Christians believe in a God... ;)

OK, the underlying sectarian beliefs, then.;)

zap2

Jun 27, 2005, 08:00 PM

first off i do belive in God, im christian but disagree with SOME ideas of the chruch. The 10 commandments should be taken off display on goverent land, not all americans are christians, and we split relgion and state. About "in god we trust" thing on money should also be removed becuz not all people belive in one god or any god(s). Thats they why it should be and NOONE can change my mind!

xsedrinam

Jun 27, 2005, 08:03 PM

And remember: If Tablets are outlawed, only outlaws will have Tablets :confused: Hmmm, guess that works better with guns :(
X

zap2

Jun 27, 2005, 08:08 PM

I don't see how it's arrogance. God (with a capital G) specifically denotes the deity of a monotheistic religion
My friend who is hindu , said( i think) that when he write god( refering to one of his gods) he rights God.

On a side note

I had a fight with someone in school over this cuz he would not put "God" for a hindu God, cuz he is a Strong Catholic. I finally got him to type "God" cuz a friend and i told him it was a what the relgion did so he should repsect hinduism.

swindmill

Jun 27, 2005, 08:27 PM

"IN GOD WE TRUST" and ". . . under God . . . " are considered religious acknowledgements under the current case law, rather than endorsement. Such acknowledgements are considered constitutional at this time. I don't agree with that, but it's the distinction being made.

To the original poster: the fact that people/towns have been erecting displays in an unconstitutional manner in the past and that they've gone unchallenged has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the action. If that's your only reasoning, you should rethink it.

The SC house does not have the 10 commandments carved all over the place. They appear in Hebrew text in Moses's hands where he stands along with 14(?) other historical "lawgivers" in a religiously neutral frieze.

Monkeydo jb: I hope you're joking . . .

xsedrinam

Jun 27, 2005, 08:54 PM

swindmill

Jun 27, 2005, 09:08 PM

What about the swearing in process in U.S. jurisprudence?
"Truth, the whole truth...nothing but the truth, so help me_____"?
Presidential swearing in...has the Bible been removed, yet? Does the Inauguration oath to defend....the Constitution of the United States still include and end with "so help me ____"?
X

These are also examples of what the current case law considers 'acknowledgements', although the ones you listed are optional as far as I know.

Sun Baked

Jun 27, 2005, 09:41 PM

The SC house does not have the 10 commandments carved all over the place. They appear in Hebrew text in Moses's hands where he stands along with 14(?) other historical "lawgivers" in a religiously neutral frieze.I guess the notable spots (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/03-04-05.asp) in and on the Supreme Court building are...• A seated Moses is shown holding the two tablets of the law as the central figure of the east pediment on the exterior of the Supreme Court building.

• An image of the two tables of the Ten Commandments is engraved on the frame of the bronze gates separating the courtroom from the aisle.

• A marble frieze in the Chamber itself shows Moses holding a copy of the tablets on which the Ten Commandments are written.

• Two allegorical figures, representing "The Power of Government" and "The Majesty of Government," stand beside a carved flat-faced tablet with two rows of Roman numerals, I-V and VI-X, an obvious rendering of the Ten Commandments.

• Carved into the bottom panel of the oak doors separating the courtroom from the hallway of the Supreme Court building is a rendering of the Ten Commandments.So it's not quite everywhere. ;)

swindmill

Jun 27, 2005, 10:17 PM

Moses appears in two in places in the Supreme Court building. The depiction on the east entrance includes Confucious and Solon as well, as these are three lawgivers from the east. The artist described his intentions as follows:

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment

Moses is also depicted on the South wall as one of 18 lawgivers holding two tablets. On these tablets is a partial rendering of the Commandments in Hebrew text.

Another supposed depiciton of the Ten Commandments appears at the bottom of two doors: (sorry about the size)
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/scdoor.jpg

Additionally, it has been said that the artist of these doors has said that this a depicition of the first 10 amendments to our constitution, although I can't find the actual writing so we'll just say there are 10 roman numerals which may refer to the 10 C's. Note, however, that they are in the bottom circle in the above picture.

So, the short answer is: The 10 commandments don't appear anywhere in the Court House, and certainly not all over it.

Sun Baked

Jun 27, 2005, 10:31 PM

So, the short answer is: The 10 commandments don't appear anywhere in the Court House, and certainly not all over it.The link I gave has 3 decent pics of the ones you were talking about.

But remember I did say that, "The ten commandments are all over DC in the form of I, II, III, ... IX, X on the pages of tablets."

So the homage is all over the place in DC.

mpw

Jun 28, 2005, 12:20 AM

With nothing to believe in, you all must live hollow lives.

Jesus loves you. No matter how you feel about him.

That is of course assuming that Jesus exists and is not merely a fabrication of the founders of Christianity who needed a pin-up to base the religion on to grab the imagination of the uneducated masses and use their faith against them to make their control easy.

Every-time these debates crop up I ask for proof of God/Jesus/an afterlife etc. and not once has it been forthcoming. The standard issue answer seems to be that "I have faith I don't need proof."

solvs

Jun 28, 2005, 12:25 AM

Most people don't realize that In God We Trust was added during the Civil War, just as Under God was added to the pledge during the 50's. Most of the original Founding Fathers were Deists, and made it very clear that they didn't want to mix Church and State. Even going so far as to debate over having a Chaplain in Congress. It's a shame that this is being caused by a backalsh over how far some Christians are going, but perhaps it is a neccessary thing to do for the sake of keeping this from being a theocracy.

Not everyone here is religious, and for the sake of freedom those who are might want to remember that. But those that oppose the zealots may want to remember that not all Christians are that bad. It's the same thing with Muslims. The extremist minority always ruin it for the more silent majority.

blackfox

Jun 28, 2005, 01:45 AM

As much as I love debating whether (or to what degree) we are a Christian Nation, I find myself more interested in what people's opinions of the SCOTUS rulings are...I found the snippet regarding Justice Scalia's dissent to be rather interesting, though perhaps I am the only one...

Am trying to read through the opinions now...

as always, I would hate the point of whether case X was fairly and competently tried as a matter of judicial law lost to what I, or anyone else happens to feel is correct with the issue.

May I pose a redirect?

For the record, BTW, I couldn't care whether there are 10 commandment displays in courthouses, schoolyards or streetcorners, as I am not one who wears his faith on his sleeve, and do not need such external validations. I am not bothered by them by this token either.

I am bothered, however, if they appear (or dissapear) by procedure or action contrary to US law.

hulugu

Jun 28, 2005, 03:28 AM

Every-time these debates crop up I ask for proof of God/Jesus/an afterlife etc. and not once has it been forthcoming. The standard issue answer seems to be that "I have faith I don't need proof."

Everytime someone asks for proof, I always think of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not from its own carrier but from those around it, It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. the practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any language.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anhthing so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh that was easy" says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

swindmill

Jun 28, 2005, 08:29 AM

There is no debate as to whether this a Christian nation, it most definately is not. That is an assertion made by the Christian right that has no support whatsoever as a matter of history.

I have to say the most interesting part of Scalia's dissent was where he made clear that atheists and polytheists should be disregarded when considering Establishment Clause issues; not that it was a surprise, but how arrogant and intolerant! Also, opening the dissent with a reference to September 11, 2001 was just sad and pathetic.

As far as proof of a god goes, you obviously can't disprove a supernatural claim, and short of a personal on-earth appearance, theists won't ever be able to prove that one exists. They will keep reverting back to the claim that everything is too perfect to have evolved by chance, which is an easy thing to say in hindsight, although it has no credibilty. And further, the creator must have been rather perfect in order to create everything, but that is never addressed.

Sun Baked: I provided that picture to show how insignificant the carving was on the door on as a whole. This picture on that website zooms in on the carving. What do you mean by the "place in DC"? I assumed that was the SC, and I was pointing out that the 10 Commandments don't appear there.

stridey

Jun 28, 2005, 09:05 AM

There is no debate as to whether this a Christian nation, it most definately is not. That is an assertion made by the Christian right that has no support whatsoever as a matter of history.

Sorry to bring it right back around immediately after a redirect, but I can't help myself. :D

There in fact is debate as to whether this is a Christian nation, and I have several reasons for believe that it is. All school holidays coincide nicely with Christian holidays. The "American" holiday "X-mas" is startlelingly similar to a Chrisitan holiday of note. Sunday falls on the weekend (true, saturday does as well). Many areas prohibit liqueur sales on Sunday. Many nudie bars are closed (by law) on Sunday. The list continues. I don't believe this is a *religious* Christian nation, but it is most definitely a Christian nation.

Again, sorry, I know this is the topic we're supposed to get *off* of... *sheepish*

atszyman

Jun 28, 2005, 09:09 AM

How many defenders of "under God" and "In God we trust" would be completely comfortable if we lived in a Muslim majority country and "God" were replaced with "Allah" and the Ten Commandments displays were replaced with something symbolic of Mohammed?

I know people will argue that "God" refers to a general supreme being but it already rules out poly-theistic religions, atheism, and other god-less religions. The argument can also be made that for the big 3 monotheistic religions, God, Yahweh, and Allah are all the same being (God of Moses and Abraham) we just disagree on what happened in more recent history.

If that doesn't fly try replacing Muslim/Allah/something symbolic of Mohammed with pagan/the elements/doctrines for balance, in the example. At least fire, earth, wind, and water exist for everyone regardless of their chosen faith.

IJ Reilly

Jun 28, 2005, 11:16 AM

Something important is being overlooked here:

In the Kentucky decision, the Court disallowed this display at least in part because one version of the Ten Commandments (the Protestant version) was ordered up specifically. To five of the justices, this seemed like an intent to endorse one religion over others. Intent is everything in these cases. What the minority in this case wants to preserve isn't the recognition of God in public places, but the ability of government to favor and promote one religion over others. Make no mistake about this: at least three sitting justices on the Supreme Court do not believe that any meaningful Constitutional principle of church-state separation exists.

Sun Baked

Jun 28, 2005, 11:24 AM

Sun Baked: I provided that picture to show how insignificant the carving was on the door on as a whole. This picture on that website zooms in on the carving. What do you mean by the "place in DC"? I assumed that was the SC, and I was pointing out that the 10 Commandments don't appear there.I meant places in DC...

Washington DC.

Edit: Look around you'll find them everywhere in DC, and most likely will be found scattered around court/govt. buildings throughout the US.

BTW, what is in South Carolina?

anonymous161

Jun 28, 2005, 11:56 AM

IN GOD WE TRUST on our currency, sounds to me that the God is money and we worship money, which is fairly accurate.

ChrisBrightwell

Jun 28, 2005, 12:10 PM

IN GOD WE TRUST on our currency, sounds to me that the God is money and we worship money, which is fairly accurate.
Did you even read this thread?

kuyu

Jun 28, 2005, 12:39 PM

The display in the courthouses is a clear violation of the establishment clause. However, the currency does not violate the free exercise or establishment clauses in any way, inasmuch as the word "God" is unspecific in its particular meaning (i.e. it's a subjective use of the term and thus open to interpretation. So it doesn't respect any particular established religion over another)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My question is, how long until someone goes after this???
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We were founded, for better or worse, by men whose morality and sense of human dignity were grounded in a Christian heritage. These men, luckily for us, understood the problems associated with a religious state and therefore abolished any chance of such an America from ever forming. They didn't intend, however, for a predominant religion to be outlawed. But, it's easy to see this as the true motivation for many of the "10 commandment's opposition". (I'm not a Christian, btw)

miloblithe

Jun 28, 2005, 12:49 PM

anonymous161

Jun 28, 2005, 12:58 PM

Doesn't the first amendment prohibit Congress from establishing a religion? So couldn't Massachussets establish Catholicism as its state religion, for example (assuming its constitution has no such provision).

No, the (non)establishment of a religion is explicity stated in the constitution, so that supercedes any state decision on the matter because the state can only govern things that are not expressly stated as belonging to the federal government. Sorry if that doesn't make any sense.

IJ Reilly

Jun 28, 2005, 12:59 PM

Doesn't the first amendment prohibit Congress from establishing a religion? So couldn't Massachussets establish Catholicism as its state religion, for example (assuming its constitution has no such provision).

It's not that simple. That sentence in the Bill of Rights also includes free speech, press and assembly -- which applies to all of government.

IJ Reilly

Jun 28, 2005, 01:02 PM

We were founded, for better or worse, by men whose morality and sense of human dignity were grounded in a Christian heritage. These men, luckily for us, understood the problems associated with a religious state and therefore abolished any chance of such an America from ever forming. They didn't intend, however, for a predominant religion to be outlawed. But, it's easy to see this as the true motivation for many of the "10 commandment's opposition". (I'm not a Christian, btw)

Outlawed? I hardly think so. I mean, the very suggestion is ludicrous.

zimv20

Jun 28, 2005, 01:06 PM

We were founded, for better or worse, by men whose morality and sense of human dignity were grounded in a Christian heritage.
really? why can't i read "Nature's God" to refer to Pan?

xsedrinam

Jun 28, 2005, 02:56 PM

It's not that simple. That sentence in the Bill of Rights also includes free speech, press and assembly -- which applies to all of government.

Yes, it's not that simple. Let's also consider the "no...prohibiting the free exercise" issues as well. Mediocrity will usually always clash with cutting edge (their perceived view of 'extremists') religious belief and its practice. The need to call a nation "Christian" is both naive, simplistic and presumptuous. If the essence of the ideal of "we the people" is allowed to flourish and empower rather than be stiffled and oppressed by bureaucratic bullying, "we the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddahists, et. al. will continue to thrive in that freedom.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1st Am.]

mxpiazza

Jun 28, 2005, 03:04 PM

Yes, it's not that simple. Let's also consider the "no...prohibiting the free exercise" issues as well. Mediocrity will usually always clash with cutting edge (their perceived view of 'extremists') religious belief and its practice. The need to call a nation "Christian" is both naive, simplistic and presumptuous. If the essence of the ideal of "we the people" is allowed to flourish and empower rather than be stiffled and oppressed by bureaucratic bullying, "we the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddahists, et. al. will continue to thrive in that freedom.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [1st Am.]

when the amendment was written, it was so idealistic... as long as we have leaders in the country that have a belief in a higher power, chances are that they won't go out of their way to remove their mention in national documents, etc.

since most people in america do believe in western religion, the mention of "god" is offensive to a limited amount of people, but the principal of the word's inclusion in important national documents, laws, currency, etc. is that it is incorrect, because it establishes that the framers of said documents and citizens of the US all share a common belief in god, which is not the case.

as objective as those who are in decision-making positions in this country *try* to be, the fact of the matter is, that most of them to believe in God, so finding fault in the word's inclusion is not a top priority, and it dosen't look like they will make it one for a very long time.

swindmill

Jun 28, 2005, 06:41 PM

swindmill

Jun 28, 2005, 06:54 PM

Sorry to bring it right back around immediately after a redirect, but I can't help myself. :D

There in fact is debate as to whether this is a Christian nation, and I have several reasons for believe that it is. All school holidays coincide nicely with Christian holidays. The "American" holiday "X-mas" is startlelingly similar to a Chrisitan holiday of note. Sunday falls on the weekend (true, saturday does as well). Many areas prohibit liqueur sales on Sunday. Many nudie bars are closed (by law) on Sunday. The list continues. I don't believe this is a *religious* Christian nation, but it is most definitely a Christian nation.

Again, sorry, I know this is the topic we're supposed to get *off* of... *sheepish*

A few holidays coincide with Christian holy days simply because so many people would be taking the day off anyways. It's not a religious holiday, it's a convenience holiday. Government institutions still cannot refer to good friday, for instance, as a holiday in recognition of good friday, it's referred to officially as a spring holiday. Christmas is not an "American" holiday, it is strictly a Christian holiday. The fact that Sunday falls on the weekend means nothing. The calendar has remained unchanged for thousands of years. The sabbath is really on Saturday; Sunday was a Pagan holy day, before Constantine changed the Christian sabbath to Sunday because he forcefully converted so many pagans to Christianity. Sunday used to be a work day.
The fact that some towns have enacted Blue laws which prohibit the sale of liquor on sundays, does not mean that this nation is a Christian one. The only way that these laws are kept on the books is by asserting that Sunday is a secular day of rest. They are constantly challenged in the courts.

This is not a Christian nation, this is a nation where many Christians live.

Peterkro

Jun 28, 2005, 06:56 PM

IN GOD WE TRUST on our currency, sounds to me that the God is money and we worship money, which is fairly accurate.
I've always thought IN GOD WE TRUST INC would be more appropriate.

swindmill

Jun 28, 2005, 07:00 PM

Doesn't the first amendment prohibit Congress from establishing a religion? So couldn't Massachussets establish Catholicism as its state religion, for example (assuming its constitution has no such provision).

All the amendments are made applicable to the states through the 14th amendment.

We were founded, for better or worse, by men whose morality and sense of human dignity were grounded in a Christian heritage. These men, luckily for us, understood the problems associated with a religious state and therefore abolished any chance of such an America from ever forming. They didn't intend, however, for a predominant religion to be outlawed. But, it's easy to see this as the true motivation for many of the "10 commandment's opposition". (I'm not a Christian, btw)

I'll say it again: Outlawed???

The Founding Fathers were largely diests, not theists much less Christians.

miloblithe

Jun 28, 2005, 07:14 PM

All the amendments are made applicable to the states through the 14th amendment.

Thanks. I didn't realize that. I was pretty sure that the idea of a Catholic Massachussetts was plausible at the beginning, although I assumed that there were reasons why this was probably no longer the case. That #14 contains a lot.

IJ Reilly

Jun 28, 2005, 07:46 PM

The Supreme Court has ruled that government may not favor religion over non-religion. The fact that the KY court house displayed the King James version of the 10 C's really had nothing to do with the decision. It was a small argument made by the ACLU, but not relied on at all.

A "small point" that was identified in the ruling as one of the ways the context and intent of a government's actions could be discovered.

iGary

Jun 28, 2005, 08:17 PM

It is pretty easy to see the Court was wrong in a split ruling.

The prize goes to the first person who can define God as a secular item.

xsedrinam

Jun 29, 2005, 12:45 AM

I've always thought IN GOD WE TRUST INC would be more appropriate.

Best one I've seen is: "In God we trust; all others pay cash." :p
X

zimv20

Jun 29, 2005, 03:28 AM

The prize goes to the first person who can define God as a secular item.
there are certainly secular usages of the term. e.g.
- Bob is a language god.
- the great wall of china is the god of all structures.

takao

Jun 29, 2005, 03:32 AM

there are certainly secular usages of the term. e.g.
- Bob is a language god.
- the great wall of china is the god of all structures.

or my absolute favourite: "Fußballgott" (german: "soccer-god")

xsedrinam

Jun 29, 2005, 03:39 AM

or my absolute favourite: "Fußballgott" (german: "soccer-god")

Or how about MacRumor Demi-God? Now that's scary :eek:
X

kuyu

Jun 30, 2005, 12:07 PM

skunk

Jun 30, 2005, 12:15 PM

Yes, outlawed. However, I meant that in the sense that if some in this fight had their way, religion in public would be outlawed.Who are you referring to?
:confused:

swindmill

Jun 30, 2005, 12:28 PM

Yes, outlawed. However, I meant that in the sense that if some in this fight had their way, religion in public would be outlawed. Again, I'm not in any way a religious person, so please don't attack me. The above is my opinion of a minority of the opposition.

If Christianity were outlawed that would mean it would be illegal to practice Christianity. No one wants that; it would be contrary to what religious freedom is all about. Nor do secularists want religion kept out of the public sphere. Secularists merely want what the Constitution demands: that religion be kept out of the government. Religion is very prevalent in public life and there is nothing wrong with that. A Jehova's Witness is free to come to my door and talk to me about religion, and a Mormon is free to stop me on a public sidewalk and tell me all about Jesus. These are examples of religion in public life, and even the most strict secularist would not have a problem with these things.

IJ Reilly

Jun 30, 2005, 01:21 PM

If Christianity were outlawed that would mean it would be illegal to practice Christianity. No one wants that; it would be contrary to what religious freedom is all about. Nor do secularists want religion kept out of the public sphere. Secularists merely want what the Constitution demands: that religion be kept out of the government. Religion is very prevalent in public life and there is nothing wrong with that. A Jehova's Witness is free to come to my door and talk to me about religion, and a Mormon is free to stop me on a public sidewalk and tell me all about Jesus. These are examples of religion in public life, and even the most strict secularist would not have a problem with these things.

If only because we're have a disagreement on the other thing, I wanted to take the opportunity to say I agree with you completely on this statement. :)