Ten Commandments Back In Alabama Judicial Building

[wonderfly]

*sniff* Can't we all just get along?

 

[Delthayre]

I'm trying to find an answer, you've already decided what it is

Answer 1: Why not?

I'm asking for a rationale, that scarcely constitutes one.

Answer 2: Why should they be?

You didn't answer the question.

BONUS QUESTION: Since when was this the original question?

I never said it was the original question, I said it was the fundamental one. Whether or not there should be religion in the machinery of government is the principal issue of dispute here. Unless I was having a different conversation with me being an idiot.

*sniff* Can't we all just get along?

If I could get some answers I could work with, perhaps we could figure that out.

 

[EinBebop]

Why should the government have acknowledgements of religion? (i.e. "In God we trust." "...one nation under God." Ten Commandments etc.)

Because they are the foundation on which our government is built, even if some of the principles contained therein are not wildly popular today.

And are those ever the cause for contention?

Only if Congress passes a law establishing religion.

 

[EinBebop]

Where did he say that he does?

Ack. Misread it. I kill that post.

 

[EinBebop]

Take our President who wants to make it unconstitutional for Homosexual marriage. Any since the law is as I am an American my protector, than I have the right to complain when my goverment and the law shows itself to favor a belief that I do not hold.

Yes, you have the right not only to complain, but to vote for someone that holds the same beliefs as you. And a great number of Americans voted for George Bush because we don't believe in homosexual marriage. This doesn't violate church and state on any level, unless you want to say that everyone who is against homosexual marriage is a Christian.

That got me thinking... what are the origins of marriage? Given the primal views of 'love' that are being argued in other threads, it's not unreasonable to think that marriage has its origins in established religion. If so, would the same people who argue that Christmas be abolished as a federal holiday demand that the state stop recognizing the institution of marriage, as well?

I'd actually be in favor of that. Give it solely to religion. Let the atheists do what they will.

Sorry for getting off-topic, just thinking outloud.

 

[Delthayre]

Shadowy daggers in the day

I think it's best I withdraw from this thread and frankly I'm not entirely sure what to think, not to mention my irresponsible muddying of the waters with related but ultimately tangential issues.

I accept that the Ten Commandments can be justifiably displayed as an important marker of western law, but I think the other documents and historical antecedents have to be given equal weight to make said display suitably representative.

The commandments themselves do not seem so unique and revolutionary as to deserve such broad credit for being the heart of our laws. The ideas of not murdering, stealing, or adultery and perhaps that against bearing false witness (which I think are all pretty good ideas, although they aren't comprehensive enough to be the heart of my moral code) are hardly revolutionary and such prohibitions are very common among the societies of history. The other, more religiously exact commandments have relatively little effect on law. And there's the ambiguity over which Ten Commandments are the ones that had a stone in the foundation of western law, there are a few different sets being paraded around (it depends upon whom you ask).


So yes, as part of a display accommodating all of the important progenitors of western law, I think they have a fair place.

The rest (In God We Trust etc.) are another whole sticky pain of an issue which should probably be left at rest because let's be frank, in our lifetime they aren't going to change or even be effectively challenged.

And please don't misjudge my motives in any of this. I ultimately have no interest in being right. I believe, as Karl Popper did, that there is nothing much to be gained from being right, because only in disproving one’s thesis do you learn something. I'm just testing my inclinations and I'll admit I've found a few false, although I will stand by some points should I ever be allowed and caused to rightly make them. For all my ill pretenses and idiocies, I'm at least not foolish enough to think I've got a lot right or that throwing my lot in with anyone will give me the truth.

While it has nothing to do with anything, I've been meaning to mention this for a fairly long time: EinBebop, for the lonest time I somehow thought you were a woman.

Oh, and sorry for all the nonsense.

 

[Eddie G.]

Yes, you have the right not only to complain, but to vote for someone that holds the same beliefs as you. And a great number of Americans voted for George Bush because we don't believe in homosexual marriage. This doesn't violate church and state on any level, unless you want to say that everyone who is against homosexual marriage is a Christian.

The problem is that homosexuality is only wrong in the context of Religion. No one is actually harmed by a man and man having sex, nor is anyone harmed by gay men being married. The men or women can consent to the act without any bodily harm being brought about themselves or anyone else.

This brings us back to what most modern U.S. laws come from, the right to life liberty and property. Homosexuality and gay marriages do nothing to take this right from anyone. Any Ein with all do respect don't put words in my mouth.

As for terms like "In God We Trust" and "Under God"

The goverment actually dropped the term in early 20th century but was dropped, and only added again when a small religous right forced the U.S. to add it back on. "Under God" was added to the pledge sheerly for the purpsoses of being against Communism. Not only that keep in mind not one early American law or the Constitution has the word god in it. Ben Franklyn was turned down when he wanted prayer in the begining of Continental Congress, and when someone to add a line in the constitution to aknowledge the existance of God it was also turned down.

 

[EinBebop]

Any Ein with all do respect don't put words in my mouth.

So let's review: I said that laws limiting homosexuality are only a religious issue if you are trying to imply that everyone on my side of the issue is Christian. You still asserted that it's only wrong in terms of religion, but that I shouldn't put words in your mouth, while completely avoiding the "words I tried to put in". Although I suppose I shouldn't have limited it to Christianity.

The problem is that homosexuality is only wrong in the context of Religion. No one is actually harmed by a man and man having sex, nor is anyone harmed by gay men being married.

That argument is negated by the fact that there are non-religious people who are against homosexuality.

Some believe that homosexuality will lead to a decline in society, thus hurting themselves and their loved ones. Others believe that homosexuals are hurting themselves, and, like suicide and drugs, should not be allowed or at the very least not be encouraged. And, let's just say it, some people are simply offended. But like during the civil rights movement, the bigots have their vote like anyone else.

This brings us back to what most modern U.S. laws come from, the right to life liberty and property.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Those are among the inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator, right?

 

[Arkangel]

If the Ten Commandments are the "foundation" of American law, why does the Constititution-- the true foundation of American law-- grant citizens the explicit right to violate almost all of the Commandments?

Under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I-- and any other citizen-- have the RIGHT to worship any and all gods that I please and put them all ahead of Yahweh. I can make graven idols day and night and worship them. I can curse god until my tongue falls out. I am free to dishonor the Sabbath as much as I want to. I am under no obligation to honor my parents or anyone else. I am free to covet anything I want. I am free to lie as much as I want (except in a court of law, or if I am defaming someone). I'm even free to commit adultery.

All of these rights are in the Constitution and they all violate the supposed "foundation" of Judeo-Xtian beliefs.

 

[Eddie G.]

This doesn't violate church and state on any level, unless you want to say that everyone who is against homosexual marriage is a Christian.

Here is where I felt you were putting words in my mouth. Just so you know I do enjoy this conversaion, I like arguing with you since you really are a very intelligent human being and bring up such good points. So just so you know I really am not taking this personal and have only respect to you because of this forum. Religous belief may not have been the best words to use, although statistically when it comes to oposition for homosexuality. But I know Christians are not the only ones against homsexuality, as a matter of a fact I have defended the Church on this issue since I actually know Preists who are tolerant and accepting of homosexuality.

Anyway I'll conceed that the 10 comandments did have some affect on Western Law, and that the religous beliefs of our founders did have affect on this nation. I still stand by it being inapropriate for any belief of the existance or non-existance of god, as it has been enforced since the early days of this nations if not limited at first that this is the way our goverment should be.

And with that said I throw my towel into the ring.

 

[EinBebop]

Ben Franklyn was turned down when he wanted prayer in the begining of Continental Congress...

I did a little research on this, and wanted to clarify lest someone think you meant that prayer was not allowed in the Continental Congress... there were objections to prayer because of the diversity of theological opinions. "I am no bigot," said Samuel Adams. "I can hear a prayer from a man of piety and virtue, who, at the same time, is a friend to his country." Someone was named, put to the vote, and the third day of Congress, the first prayer was given.

If the Ten Commandments are the "foundation" of American law, why does the Constititution-- the true foundation of American law-- grant citizens the explicit right to violate almost all of the Commandments?

Since you focused in on the right to worship different gods, I'll address that issue. At one point, NINE of the the states actually had state-established religions. Though they were eventually done away with voluntarily, the federal government had no intention of stepping on the state's toes. Hence the reason that the first amendment specifically says that CONGRESS will not interfere.

"...In matters of religion, I have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.'" - Thomas Jefferson, his second inaugural address.

 

[EinBebop]

So just so you know I really am not taking this personal and have only respect to you because of this forum. ...

Likewise.

And with that said I throw my towel into the ring.

It's been fun.

 

[randomguy]

I am so not getting involved in this one.

 

[Arkangel]

Since you focused in on the right to worship different gods, I'll address that issue. At one point, NINE of the the states actually had state-established religions. Though they were eventually done away with voluntarily, the federal government had no intention of stepping on the state's toes. Hence the reason that the first amendment specifically says that CONGRESS will not interfere.

"...In matters of religion, I have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.'" - Thomas Jefferson, his second inaugural address.

You didn't answer the question.

If the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law, then why does the most important American legal document give me the explicit right to violate almost all of the Commandments?

 

[EinBebop]

You didn't answer the question.

If the Ten Commandments are the foundation of American law, then why does the most important American legal document give me the explicit right to violate almost all of the Commandments?

For starters, it's a bad question. "The explicit right to violate"? Overstating our case a little, aren't we? Just because the Constitution doesn't explicity state anything about murder doesn't mean it's giving me an explicit right.

But I think I see where you're trying to take this, and so I'll save you the trouble: No, not a single one of the Commandments is explicitly stated in the Constitution, not even the one about murder. And even at the state and local levels, do you really want to regulate coveting? The only group I know that wants to regulate thought is the ACLU.

So how can the Ten Commandments be a part of our foundation if not one Commandments is in the Constitution? Because, back in the day, laws were measured against the law of God, of which the Ten Commandments are considered the cornerstone. Theology was a common course of study for those wanting to enter law school. If a law was found to contradict the Bible, it would be removed.

A lot of debate used to go into "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law". Ha, the courts don't even consider that latter anymore, and have mastered twisting the former to their agendas. But if one really wanted to understand "the spirit of the law", they would have to start with the Bible. No, the "explicit right to violate" the Ten Commandments came later.

 

[Arkangel]

For starters, it's a bad question. "The explicit right to violate"? Overstating our case a little, aren't we? Just because the Constitution doesn't explicity state anything about murder doesn't mean it's giving me an explicit right.

But I think I see where you're trying to take this, and so I'll save you the trouble: No, not a single one of the Commandments is explicitly stated in the Constitution, not even the one about murder. And even at the state and local levels, do you really want to regulate coveting? The only group I know that wants to regulate thought is the ACLU.

So how can the Ten Commandments be a part of our foundation if not one Commandments is in the Constitution? Because, back in the day, laws were measured against the law of God, of which the Ten Commandments are considered the cornerstone. Theology was a common course of study for those wanting to enter law school. If a law was found to contradict the Bible, it would be removed.

A lot of debate used to go into "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law". Ha, the courts don't even consider that latter anymore, and have mastered twisting the former to their agendas. But if one really wanted to understand "the spirit of the law", they would have to start with the Bible. No, the "explicit right to violate" the Ten Commandments came later.

Of course I don't want to encode the Ten Commandments into law. I reject them outright as I am free to do. However, the fact that none of the precepts given in the Ten Commandments are encoded anywhere in the founding documents of this country quickly dashes the notion that it is the foundation of our law. I can find much more material that actually served as the basis of our law in English common law and Enlightenment philosophy. But nobody is agitating to put up a statue of Montesquieu in an Alabama courthouse.

 

[EinBebop]

I can find much more material that actually served as the basis of our law in English common law and Enlightenment philosophy. But nobody is agitating to put up a statue of Montesquieu in an Alabama courthouse.

Yes, of course, English common law. England, where there was no separation of church and state when these laws were being set into place.