Ten Commandments Display

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Hello

Maybe this sould be a rant but I would like a serious discussion. Please.

If this is an old topic then I am sorry. Just say so and point me in the direction of the thread. But…

Well I was listening to the Sean Hannity show mainly for entertainment value and he began ranting about how the 10 Commandments can legally be displayed on government property. His arguement was very poorly done.

He read someother guys writings about it and basicly the conclution was that in the past people in our government have made references to God and therefore they should have the 10 Commandments displayed. So I guess that also would include slavery because even though it is unConstitutional it was done in the past so that makes it ok. That is what I get from his arguement.

Second he made a reference to the phase “endowed by our Creator.” Ok lets assume that it is a reference to a god. But how does he know it is the Judeo-Christian god of the Commandements? “Creator” what a great word. Also Deist would be fine with this but the Commandments didn’t come from their God. How do we know that the founding fathers views while righting this. Why does America always assume the same god for everything.

He later said that one of the Presidents said that America will need religion to servive. Well look at many Presidential Quotes… do they all make sense and are true. According to this arguement if said so by the President then it must be so. Shit were fucked!!!

Last but not least why do we need the 10 Commandments displayed. Why not put the money somewhere more useful. Anybody who has half a brain will know that there will be a much money spent on the court stuff. Also the making of this thing would cost more than just a pretty penny. Why not invest the money in schools, road, and parks instead of this crap.

My point is that 10 Commandments can not under the Constitution be displayed on government property, and that there is no need for it. What is some dude on his way to court gunna read it and say “Oh so this is where it says that the murder I did was bad. Well better an invisable man saying its wrong that logic and reason.”

Thanks for you time.

EZ$

2

Religious monuments do not belong on tax-payer funded property, period.

Anyone who thinks the first amendment only pertains to the establishment of a state religion should read this post:

I was just watching Hardball and some dumb bitch claimed there is no seperation of church and state. Both Chris Matthews and the other guest then claimed there was, so the dumb bitch said “I’ll give you 1 million dollars if you can find the words seperation of church and state in the constitution”. Of course she said this knowing that the EXACT phrase of “Seperation of Church and State” isn’t in the Constitution but what she obviously doesn’t know is that it is CLEARLY implied.

Anyone who actually READS the first amendment can see that there is a COMPLETE seperation of Church and State.

The first amendment reads…

Amendment I

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.

Notice the FIRST WORDS on this amendment. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That means there shouldn’t be ANY law that respects ANY establishment of religion. Many argue that this only means that there should not be any state religion; unfortunately for them, they are wrong.

If that is what the founding fathers intended then they would have wrote “no law respecting THE establishment of A religion.” It does not say that, however, and thus clearly the word “establishment” is synonomous with the word “institution”. Therefore, the amendment means: “Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion”

That means, not one single law that derives from a religious institution.

Thus the “Ten Commandments” on public property is a no-no…

3

If it were so simple as you think, FthNay, then we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court. Many things that seem straightforward to us have been interpreted very differently by others. The 2nd Amendment is a good example- anyone who’s read the Federalist Papers or the other writings & correspondance of the Founders would find it blatantly obvious that it was intented to protect private ownership of firearms. But politically motivated hoplophobes, ignorant of even 10th grade grammar, constantly miscontrue the intent to cover state militas. Which is absurd- why would the Founders protect the Governments ability to keep guns? :confused:

BTW, I read the 1st to mean that it permits the Govt to make no law pertaining to the establishment of religion. I think it’s pretty clear that it proscribes the creation or endorsment of state religion. There’s nothing there that leads me to feel that religion is banned from public buildings. That strikes me as the opposite of what they intended. Bear in mind that I’m an atheist. But as historical and cultural icons, the 10C are an appropriate display since much of our common law is based on them.

JMOHO, of course.

4

I know. People are entitled to disagree. However, I feel that my explanation makes a lot of sense.

I’ll have to agree with you there. I am a firm believer in the second amendment. The whole purpose of the amendment is to keep the government in check, in my opinion. Without the right to bear arms, the government would be able to get away with murder (not that it hasn’t already).

No offense, but have you read the Federalist Papers in full, and also the many quotes from our founding fathers regarding religion?

I believe that my explanation makes the most sense according to the rest of the evidence.

Much of them? Hmm, I’ll have to disagree…

Thou shalt have no other gods before me–Not a law

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image–Not a law

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain–Not a law

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy–Not a law

Honour thy father and thy mother–Not a law

Thou shalt not kill–Law

Thou shalt not commit adultery–Not a law, techincally

Thou shalt not steal–Law

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour–Not a law, Unless in court.

Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour’s–Not a law

Ok, so the count I have is 2-8 and then 4-6 if you want to get technical. Either way, the majority of the 10 commandment are not law.

5

word games are fun…

god reamins dead…

but that’s the thing… it clearly reads “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

does that mean if private person A goes to the trouble of exersizing his rights on public property, at his, not tax payer expense, someone can make certain that his “free exersize” IS prohibited?

this imaginarily implied “seperation” of church and state cannot exist constitutionally… the first law that is passed that prohibits the free expression of religion is tantamount to being the first law that prohibits free speech… we don’t want to have all free speech curtailed on public property now do we? oh, just silence the right wing wackos and religious fanatics…

-Imp

6

Court houses are tax payer funded property.

If Private person A wants to put an execution device, such as the crucifix on his private property so be it. NO ONE is stopping him from doing so, and that is what the “free exercise clause” pertains to. Private property–not public.

When it comes to public property, that is a whole 'nother ball game.

7

and with eminent domain? what is private property anymore?

but where does it say or can even be implied that the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is exculsively for private property? does that mean there can be no newspapers or pamphlets distributed on public property either?

-Imp

8

I have done a significant amount of reading regarding the united states and have read original works by the creators of the country. It seems that at best many of them were religious skeptics or agnostics. These guys were Enlightenment thinkers.

I’m a huge fan of Voltaire and he had a lot to say about religion. He was the friend of the King of Prussia at the time and the king decided to make all religions legal in his state. The king was an atheist and believed that by making all religions legal you nullified them. If they are all legal then none are important. Voltaire believed that if you outlawed a religion it only became stronger. So, the game was to rob religion of its power. I believe that this is why the US has freedom of religion.

I’m an atheist and when someone sneezes I say, “god bless you,” or when frustrated I might say, “god help me,” or some such thing. I have been in court and swore on the bible that I would tell the truth. The word “god” is used as a strong figure of speak here. So, I believe that the founders of the constitution were using the word “god” in much the same way. It’s a verbal flourish. Also, the word “god” provides a Kantian “as if” power to the document that should not be taken literally. If we pretend that god is backing us we will act as if it were true.

If you read Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson you will find that they are not religious at all. Jefferson even rewrote the bible! I’m pretty sure that he liked the bible for its ethics and not because it was a holy book. I can relate to this as I admire the Talmud for its ethics, but see it as nothing more than that.

Anyway, the US has been fighting a “Taliban” like movement since the 19th century that would like to erase the principles of the Enlightenment that the country was actually founded on. If people forget to study history they will succeed.

9

To me, this question is not cut and dry; it is a matter of drawing a line in the sand, beyond which religion must not pass.

As previously stated, the first amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Ok, clear enough, but what if the commandments are displayed outside a court room as a historical symbol, amidst many other pillars of Western law (e.g. statues of famous political philosophers)? If the commandments are displayed for their historical significance, (and, irrefutably, they have had a great impact on Western law) I do not think congress is making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

However, consider the scenario encountered in the Alabama court room, where the giant display of the Ten Commandments loomed independently over everyone who entered. In this case, the court was clearly establishing its religious preference. The display was provided not for its historical value, but for its ideological principals. If I were an Athiest, Muslim, Hooker, etc on trial in this court room, I would feel uncomfortable and perhaps have reason to believe that I was not receiving equal treatment under the law.

The Supreme Court is going to be faced with a decision everytime a case like this comes up: is the non-secular display displayed primarily for its historical significance? Or, god help us, is it displayed as a symbol of the courts religious preference?

10

Yeah, I’ve read the Federalist cover to cover many times- it sits on the bookshelf 4 feet from my PC. Some of the founders were Christians, some were not. Not every commandment is codified as a law, but you must admit that even the honoring of parents and keeping of the Sabbath are part of the moral culture of our land. And yes, there are still “Blue Laws” in some states barring a business from being open on Sunday, and many have laws against selling booze on Sundays.

I use the other corresponance of the Founders to demonstrate intent, but unfortunately the Supremes don’t seem to care about the context, just the letter of the document.

11

Yea, it was a bad ruling. They definitely made the wrong decision. However this is besides the point. Private property still does exist.

You don’t have the right to put your religious monuments on public property because you don’t exclusively own the property. It is owned by the public. If even one of the tax payers does not want the religious symbol there then it shouldn’t be.

12

The majority of the commandments are not part of the moral culture. About half are, and to me that indicates that our nation was not founded on the 10 commandments.

Yes, but those are state laws and even though they probably derived from religion I doubt they use religion to justify their existence.

Another important point that I forgot to mention is that there is no reference to “God” in the U.S. constitution.

Notice that there was a reference to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence, but the founders made the conscious decision to exclude the reference in the founding document of the nation, the Constitution.

13

one of the tax payers…

excellent…

burn every pro left, marxist, collectivist, socialist, or communist book or writing immediately from every public library and public school… owned by the public…

-Imp

14

Just like we do not go to war if one honest tax-payer disagrees with its cause? Sorry, things do not work this way.

15

Too bad your example is a fallacy. That is a false analogy. There is no “first amendment” when it comes to war. There is one when it comes to religion.

16

Those aren’t religious books… :unamused:

17

:smiley: Hey easy$, Hannity is as insane as Rush. Many make your claim, no religious symbols on state funded institutions, etc., this is the ACLU’s stance. Hum, The Constitution claims “separation of church and state.” The court supports this except when the building or monument is of historic value. Separation, I do not believe, and our Supreme Court probably upholds, outlaws religion on all tax paid institutions, documents, etc, it may just mean no government religion, similar to the Church of England, or Iran’s theocracy. The Constitution also guarantee that the government will not infringe on religion. Hum, think about that one for a minute. Currently, there is debate regarding taking the oath of office or in testimony only with one’s hand on the Bible???

Again, our money has “In God We Trust,” our leaders take an oath of office on the Bible, our pledge has “under God,” public schools allow prayer and religious meetings during lunch, and for the Muslims to be allowed out of class to pray. There is much more. Our courts have not outlawed much of the above. Hence, and I may be wrong, but currently, much religion is allowed to occur in a public, tax-paid institutions.

Smiles,

A Deist

18

Hum, how about most of our laws stem from the Ten Commandments. Remember, I do not adhere to any religious tenets, only secular laws. :smiley:

19

What Ten Commandments are you reading? As I showed earlier, only 2 of the 10 commandments are actually laws. Though, being generous, one could say that 4 of the 10 are laws–technically.

Most of our original laws come from the Enlightenment, not the Bible.

And your point? All those are wrong, and should be struck down. The words “In God We Trust” was added to money during the civil war era, I believe. The pledge did not originally contain the words “Under God”. They were added by Einsenhaur to squash rumors that he was a communist. Public schools are not allowed to endorse prayer. Anyone has the right to pray, but public officals should not be leading prayer services in public schools.

Just because the religious extremists have been getting away with violations of church and state does not mean that they are right.

20

yes they are religious symbols…

-Imp