Commandments foundation of U.S. law?

The case in Alabama has many on the news saying something like... "but the 10 commandments ARE the foundation of U.S. law". It's been a while since I was in bible study (raised with Protestant Sunday school and weekly bible study in college in the 70's) so I wasn't quite sure I could recite the 10 commandments correctly. So I looked for a site on the internet (of course) for a quick look up of the commandments.

The first thing I found was a site that shows three different groupings of the basic text from Exodus showing that Protestants, Catholics and Jews have a different idea of what the 10 commandments are.

Which Ten Commandments?

I hadn't realized this was even an issue (neither did my wife even though she was raised Catholic) so I found that pretty interesting.

So...I tried to find an actual picture of the Alabama monument in question. I couldn't find a clear, straight on shot that I could actually read but I did find this picture and site that lists *A* version of the ten commandments.

Commandments' Day Of Reckoning? (CBSNews)

Here's my brief paraphrasing of the commandments listed there:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (do NO work)
5. Honor thy father and thy mother
6. Thou shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (married person's sex not with spouse)
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife, etc.

BTW...the actual words from Exodus 20 are worth reading if you are interested in this. The CBS site is shortened. I read mine in the King James version.

I gotta say, after refreshing my memory of the commandments, the idea that our country's laws are based on them somehow seems just REALLY inaccurate to me. We don't have laws on graven images, honoring our parents, coveting our neighbor's wife, etc. If fact, the only ones it seems like we do have laws on are not (6) killing, (7) stealing and (9) bearing false witness. 3 out of 10?

our entire country was founded on these principles.
just because some of the commandments aren't u.s. laws doesn't mean anything.

heck, even if somone isn't a christian, the 10 commandments are still great guidlines to abide by to ensure greater quality in everyones lives.

Ikendu... first, sit down. Are you sitting? Good. I agree with you. I'll give you a sec to get up off the floor now... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that also. But then when I listen to Sean Hannity explain it, it makes sense. Unfortunately, I can't even begin to explain it the way he does.

The basic thing though is that so much of what our country was built on and of what is still 'til this day said and done, is based on God. The Supreme Court starts each session with a "blessing". Congress starts each session with a prayer. Those are the only two things I can remember right this minute.

My take on this is that this monument in question was one of several such monuments. Each represented something that contributed to our current laws. Isn't there also some Greek statue in that hall also?

Anyway... this is not over. This whole thing is going to set a precedence that I'm not so sure we all want... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

Kel, let not your heart be troubled, by such things /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

This is a principle issue. The final outcome will have far reaching implications as Sasha alluded to. It's not about the 10 commandments. It's about a minority movement in the country trying to take God out any public place other than a Church while using the guise of "Separation of Church and State". I believe the application of separation has been wildly distorted over the past several years. The Supreme Court will end up weighing in on the subject even though they don't want to touch it. The ultimate ruling will probably effect our money, the Pledge of Allegiance. Prayer in public, the use of the term "In God we trust", Chaplins in the Government and military, and any other number of other issues. God has been part a part of our government from the start and remember it says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. The poll numbers are far and away with Judge Moore but I'm not sure that's enough.

Almost all the commandments are embodied in the Golden Rule. If you honestly endeavor to live by that rule, which I think is the most perfect statement of human interrelationship ever uttered, you will be living a life worthy of respect and self-respect regardless of your religious affiliations or non affiliations.

Brightnorm

we knew it was coming...and it's going to get a heck of a lot worse /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

The Supreme Court doesn't want to touch a directly constitutional issue like freedom of religion but they'll take imaginary ones like privacy and sodomy.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

The original of Number 6 was Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder (not Kill).

Note the precise wording of Number 1: it does NOT say there are NO other gods, nor that they are false!!!!!!!!

This whole Flap is based on Separation of Church and State, NOT freedom of Religion!!!

Religious Fundamentalists do NOT accept Separation of Church and State, as they believe that The Church (only theirs) IS The State. They also believe that Freedom of Religion is to Be able to shove their Religion down everyones' throats and exterminate all other Religions and Spiritual Systems.

I am a Melchizedek and a very happy Pagan.

charles, anything can be a god if you worship it. some people "worship" money, some people "worship" sex. that is their god.
what about the golden cow when moses went to get the commandments? they were worshiping a false idol.

I have to wonder if all those protestors would be outside the Alabama courthouse screaming and chanting and waving signs if it was a monument of the Koran that was being removed. Or perhaps a statue of Vishnu? How about a Buddah? Would any of those be OK in a public courthouse? If not, then the 10 commandments don't belong there either.

[ QUOTE ]
Quickbeam said:
........Or perhaps a statue of Vishnu? How about a Buddah? Would any of those be OK in a public courthouse? If not, then the 10 commandments don't belong there either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

The Alabama Courthose is an intereting problem.
If you erect such a monument in a park, people don't have to go the park. I.E. they CAN avoid it if they wish.

If you don't want to be in the Supreme Court when a session opens, unless you are judge, you don't have to be there.

The same can also be said of a Library, and to a lesser extent a school, you can always go to a private school, or another school. Those are far less troubling.

When you put it inside a building, that people MUST go to, for example to make a court appearance, it becomes far more problematic, since we are now forcing a religious statement upon people who have no choice in being there. You can make prayers as voluntary as you want, but as long you require people to be present for the'voluntary' prayer, it isn't voluntary, and that's the long and the short of the problem.

The court requires to swear on a Bible, but if you object to the bible, you can decline to swear on a bible. Forcing people to swear on a religious article is a clear violation of the separation powers.

Let me point out that in the last century, A Rothchild, who was repeatedly elected to Parliment in the UK was not seated because he refused to be sworn in using a copy of the New Testament. It took more than a decade for Pariliment to decide that the will of the voters outweighed the religious issues.

This is extracted from a thread on another board (a board primarily of folks like me, in wheelchairs, and based on that). This is to let you know why there is mention of 'handicapped' further along ... and so you won't get 'excited' about how we talk about some subjects amongst ourselves.)

This is not intended to start or continue an arguement, only to present a viewpoint. All viewpoints (and religions) should be heard. If they cannot, there is something wrong ...

------------------------
Posted by Tomas (Member # 1065) on 08-27-2003, 09:15 PM:

Putting the '10 commandment monument' in the middle of a government building (of any sort) is using that public property in a way that emphasizes one single religion. Not only is that property being used to glorify a particular religion, but by having it in that public building it will be maintained, etc., with public funds.

I have a very good friend who happens to be Buddhist. If she were to sneak a gold "Smiling Buddha" into a public building (a meaningful symbol of her strongly held beliefs), do you think it would be there long?

Neither do I.

Since that and the important religious symbols of many other religions would not be tolerated by 'goober' and his pals in their public buildings, the symbol of the Christian religion should not be either.

Why is this?

Simply by giving preference to one religious symbol over the many others, the government would be saying, in effect, "This is the official and approved religion in this land, all others are bullshit." This is not what the framers of this country intended as detailed not only in their individual writings of the time, but in the Federalist Papers and those documents that eventually became what this country is based on.

The government must endeavor to treat all religions and religious practices equally. To show a preference of one over another is to create a state (approved) religion, and to deny such approval to all others.

Move that pile of rocks to private property and maintain it with private funds. That is the proper resolution to the problem created by ex-judge Moore sneaking his "Christian Idol" into the building in the middle of the night.

Yes, I am a Christian, and no, I don't want the government sticking their nose into my beliefs. I don't want a "State Religion" and I equally don't want a "Religious State," a theocracy, as my home.



This is not posted to begin or continue an argument. It is simply my opinion. Yours may differ, and I don't intend to debate which of our opinions is better or blessed by the hand of Jefferson, Moore, or God. My understanding of the beginnings of this country was that many of the original folks were escaping just this sort of state-sponsored religions where they came from, and did not wish to see it take root here.

-33-
------------------------
Posted by paulwa (Member # 2034) on 08-28-2003, 12:22 AM:

There is only one true God and it does no harm to recognize Him in our public buildings. If another religion wishes to display their items as well, so be it. But majority should at least rule this country. Majority will out anyway in the end.
Paul
------------------------
Posted by Tomas (Member # 1065) on 08-28-2003, 03:04 AM:

No, the founders of this country set things up to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority" that they recognized and wrote about. They purposely put in roadblocks to help prevent that.

(If the majority said, for example, "Screw you and all your handicapped buddies. You cost us money to take care of and are always demanding things that the majority doesn't need, like curb cuts and accessible restrooms. Euthanasia is much cheaper, and in the long run doesn't change the outcome, just reduces how much annoyance we put up with from you."

Would that be right?

Should the majority be allowed to do that just because they are the majority?

What KEEPS them from doing it?)

Thank goodness we aren't strictly majority rule.


------------------------
Posted by paulwa (Member # 2034) on 08-28-2003, 03:42 AM:

Tomas you make a valid point. Good thing I'm not a politician I guess. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Paul
------------------------

Tomas said: ...founders of this country set things up to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority"

Quite right. One of the pillars of the stability and success of our government and way of life (dare I say "the American way"?) is the protection of minority rights.

Why haven't we had terrorism in the U.S. all this time previously? In other countries, some minority faction or another resorts to such means because their rights are not protected. Protection of minority rights is QUITE important and I hope the majority of our citizens never lose sight of that. It is one of those freedoms that our fore-fathers fought to preserve.

BTW...even though "protection of minority rights" is not one of the ten commandments, I believe that it IS part of the foundation of our laws (IMHO).

Charles Bradshaw said: ...original of Number 6 was Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder (not Kill).

Hmmm. You mean the King James version might contain flaws and it would be wrong to take everything in it literally?

Sorry /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I couldn't resist. After years in bible study, this "literal interpretation" issue still tickles me. BTW...I'm not hoping to take this thread off in that direction.

brightnorm said: ...Golden Rule...live by that...a life worthy of respect

Yes. There is also something I've heard described as the "Platinum rule". Treat others as they wish to be treated.

This rule is more difficult because it isn't always easy to KNOW how someone wants to be treated. Treating others like I would want to be treated will go a long way toward creating a respectful society, learning how the people you interact with want to be treated and doing it...will take you even further.

In my worklife, I like to keep things light and I kid around alot. So...I like it when others around me "take it light" as well. One of the ladies I work with gets very confused by kidding around and has asked me not to do it so much. Honestly, it is hard for me to do so. This "kidding around" is so much a part of me it is hard not to do it. But I do try in her presence. That is the platinum rule.

mattheww50 said: You can make prayers as voluntary as you want, but as long you require people to be present for the'voluntary' prayer, it isn't voluntary, and that's the long and the short of the problem.

I'm always interested by the school prayer issue. IMHO, if you have a moment of silence to start each day (public place or not), each person can use that time for their own expression of religious (or not religious) prayer privately within themselves... no conflict with "Congress shall establish no religion". It is when the prayer is spoken aloud that you have now forced people to be part of a religious observance that they may find offensive. It all depends who it is that drew up that verbal prayer (a Buddist, a Muslim, a Pentacostal, etc.). I don't think that Christians would like it if the school principal was a Buddhist and forced all of their children in the public school thru a Buddhist prayer each morning.

Even Christ advised people to pray privately without a lot of show.

[ QUOTE ]
Quickbeam said:
I have to wonder if all those protestors would be outside the Alabama courthouse screaming and chanting and waving signs if it was a monument of the Koran that was being removed. Or perhaps a statue of Vishnu? How about a Buddah? Would any of those be OK in a public courthouse? If not, then the 10 commandments don't belong there either.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said:
....Putting the '10 commandment monument' in the middle of a government building (of any sort) is using that public property in a way that emphasizes one single religion. Not only is that property being used to glorify a particular religion, but by having it in that public building it will be maintained, etc., with public funds.

I have a very good friend who happens to be Buddhist. If she were to sneak a gold "Smiling Buddha" into a public building (a meaningful symbol of her strongly held beliefs), do you think it would be there long?

Neither do I.
Since that and the important religious symbols of many other religions would not be tolerated by 'goober' and his pals in their public buildings, the symbol of the Christian religion should not be either....

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both of your theories however they are not currently in practice.
In CA public schools the children are being taught from the Koran and "practice" praying on prayer rugs.
But this isn't religion.... oh no.... it's diversity.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Tomas said: ...founders of this country set things up to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority"

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the tyranny of the ACLU? How about the tyranny of a Supreme Court judge? What law has been violated? To state that Justice Moore violated a law, one must state which law was violated. And the seperation of church and state is not it so don't give me that one. No law is violated by that monument being where it was. BTW... last I heard, this case still hadn't even been heard yet. It hadn't even been determined if it was going to be heard or not. The order to have the monument removed was given by a Supreme Court Justice without any basis or foundation. How's that for tyranny?

In addition... this monument has been in place for over two years and no one said anything. Until the ACLU came along. Tyranny? Those people are more dangerous to our nation than the KKK.