10 Commandments and the Court
 

The Supreme Court is set to decide on the Constitutionality of the Commandments being placed on government property.
Ten Commandments before high court

Personally i'm opposed on the grounds that the Ten Commandments on government property, without the prescense of documents of other religions basically promote a Judeo-Christian view.

First off the Commandments do not form the basis of our govenment, many of the commandments are purely religious in nature, others have no bearing in modern life, and the remaining are found in nearly all cultures.

In addition the Founding Father's were by and Large Deists, Deists view god as nothing more than a universal "clock-maker" a view which is opposed to the Judeo-Christian belief of God. In fact our Government was really Influenced more by Anglo-Saxon law and Hammurabi's code (both of which predate the commandments), rather than the commandments.

I have no problem with the Commandments being part of a cultural display, along with other important religious documents, or being placed on Private property, however the way many want it to be displayed amounts to little more than an endorsement of Judeo-Christian views.

http://www.indiahandicraft.net/explo...tone/as359.jpg

You know, I seriously would LOVE a big fat statue of the Hindu god Ganesha on government property (along with Buddha, Jesus, and the others, of course). I love Ganesha!! He's a sweetie!

Isn't he like, the God of destruction or something??

Oh - very slightly off-topic......

.....I'm here Trep, looking for a way to redeem my arse :P

No, I think he's the god of good fortune and new beginnings. Something like that. But seriously, when was the last time any god made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside just looking at him? That's how I feel with Ganesha.

Well, you could do it by starting a petition to have a big fat statue of Ganesha placed in very close proximity of the Ten Commandments sculpture if that goes through. :D

Aha! I see - pick on me because I'm the starter of pointless threads??

Oh, by the way - you were right - Ganesh is the god of domestic harmony and success :D

Maybe I should have prayed to him when I was living with my girlfriend :)

Has anyone else noticed that almost all the time it's Christians who constantly make a huge stink about their god and the government? When was the last time a big group of Hindus or Buddhists made trouble about their own beliefs on matters like this? Of any other religious groups?

I don't mean to harp on Christians, I was brought up Catholic myself, but c'mon! You'd think they'd have more pressing matters on their hands than this. :shifty:

If anything, I think Hindus and Buddhists (and the others) should go tell these Christians: "STFU already!! You don't see US complaining about wanting a statue of Shiva or Buddha on the front steps of Congress, do you?!!"

Never underestimate the annoyance factor of my fellow Satanists. At least they pay taxes. But then, you did say "almost all the time". And of course "their god and the government" doesn't work for a group of atheists... :shifty: Okay, forget I said anything.

Well, I don't mean to insult any religion (I personally find warlocks sexy :P ), but I'm simply wondering. What exactly are these Christian groups trying to prove by a big 10 Commandments sculpture on government grounds? It's obvious they're being disrespectful towards other religious groups with such a selfish statement of their own beliefs. Who do they expect to pay for this sculpture, the other religious groups who have other things to do? It just sounds rude and selfish.


:crazy:

How totally, incredibly ridiculous is this?? :crazy: :crazy:
Only in America could a folly of this magnitude happen!!

How can placing a religious document outside a building associated with law and order ever be justified?? In a modern democratic state there is no place for religious bigotry :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

Law and religion are two entirely separate themes and should never be linked, otherwise the progression of modern society will be taking a giant leap backwards :D

What? I hope you're having a bit of a laugh by saying something like that. You live in a country with an official religion, where the monarch is the head of both church and state.

:pan: :pan: :pan: :pan: :pan:

Until a few weeks ago your future king was not going to be able to marry his long-time love interest because as king he would be Defender of the Faith and a bad example to people who are supposed to be, uh, faithful.

:confused: :confused:

I think we should have a statue of baby jesus, Mohammad, moses, ganesha, shiva, satan, bob marley, guru gobind singh, and budha all hugging each other.

Edit: Stupid me :shifty: I forgot Tim Scafer.

I really agree with EC on this - what are you talking about? Only in America could there be a public statement of religious superiority? Okay.

Also, I find it a little depressing that this thread is apparently much less interesting than neopolitan ice cream, french fries or wine.
:shifty:

but if they do it....wouldn't we all be...well, on death row? :confused:

US law and the history of US is based on Christianity, including the 10 commandments. Putting it in front of the building is a symbol of history. It's like placing your hand on the bible when taking the oath. I doubt a non-Christian will walk by and see and say "OH NOOOOO! I FEEL ALL OFFENDED INSIDE!!"

I'm not religious at all, but I’ve noticed an unfair assault on Christianity everywhere, esp. around Christmas.

It's a mark of stagnation and stupidity.I would.

Ok....and why would you? Oh yeah, because you've got nothing better to do. :rolleyes:

You're right, maybe I should have paid more attention to you using the word "offended". Rather, I'd feel like the people who are in charge of things have their ideals all wrong.

I believe that the Constitution says there should be a separation of Church and State. These people have every right to make a fuss.

A fit of insomnia has prompted me to wade in on this . . .
Not quite sure where you all are getting these claims about the sources of US law. The bread and butter of American law at the time of the Revolution was a direct transplant of English common law, which was a product of years of evolution. The Anglo-Saxons don't predate the 10 Commandments, and I'm not sure how Hammurabi's code is all that relevant to the US legal system, since we don't have a code-based legal system, unlike many European systems. Of course, many notable historical legal events can be said to have influenced the world's understanding of law--especially things like Hammurabi's code, Moses and the commandments, and particularly in the case of the United States the Magna Charta--which is why all of these things (and more) are commemorated on friezes around the top of the Supreme Court itself. So the Court has a little bit of a problem, if it doesn't want to end up having to hire someone to come and scratch off Moses. :o

In terms of influence on US law, far more important than the ten commandments are things like the Magna Charta, Blackstone (the English legal commentator), Locke, Montesquieu, and the colonial experiences of the individual states. I mean, has anyone read the 10 commandments lately? We don't have any law that says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20: 3)

Sure. That's why nobody's suing at all. Because nobody is bothered.

I think there's been a pretty mighty assault on religion in general in the last couple of years, for a variety of reasons, including fear of extremism. But in my view, blurring the lines between religion and government doesn't help. I think Jefferson was right about this. Keeping religion out of politics is as much for the benefit of religion as it is for politics.

Yep, that was Jefferson's argument. People would get totally screwed in the early days when they had to support an official church and then fork out more money to build their own--this is when they didn't have that much anyway and you were expected to contribute a lot more to a church. Nobody should have to pay for something that's religious in nature.

This seems a little unfair. Other religious groups do complain. The guy who objected to the Pledge of Allegiance last year (because you have to say "one nation, under God") was an atheist. (I'm not saying he's wrong.) There have been Native Americans who have asked for special exemption from drug laws to use peyote in religious rituals (the Supreme Court laughed in their face, nice) and (I believe) Sikhs who wanted to wear turbans in the army (again, bigtime Supreme Court laughter.) Rastafarians in prison who wanted to keep their dreads--ditto. (These last three cases came up under a different clause of the First Amendment than this case, but anyway, it's still religion and government.) The thing is that the larger religious groups (in the US, Christian and in some areas Jewish groups) are big enough to get what they want by voting their policies into effect. And then everyone else has to fight it if they don't like it. So yeah, if that's your point, I agree, without wanting to sound like I'm attacking anyone. :eek:

This is pretty much what they do. I'm not really kidding. Whenever a problem like this comes up, and someone brings a suit about the 10 Commandments somewhere, the government entity in question usually quickly moves to dress up the surrounding area with a bunch of other stuff so it doesn't look like it's "only" a religious symbol. The Supreme Court caused this problem by saying that a religious symbol was okay if it was part of some other secular-ish or interfaith display (because otherwise it was going to have to scratch Moses off the top of its courtroom, for one thing.) So they'll add a stone copy of the Declaration, the Emancipation Proclamation, and someone's dry cleaning bill . . . :rolleyes: Seriously, the law is a big mess and the chickens are coming home to roost. (To mix metaphors.) I'd like to see Ganesha in there, that would be cool. It would make about as much sense as what's currently going on in a lot of places. :crazy:

As an atheist, I am not bothered by the use of the Ten Commandments or other religious statues being used on gov't property. Our gov't was created by Judeo-Christians, and their ethic is a historic fact. I DO draw the line, however, when members of religious groups (priests, nuns, ministers, etc) run for political office. In the 70's this was a huge problem, until a backlash occurred. I do not want any religious leader in a position of authority in a secular area. One cannot follow your constituency's preferences, while following those of the church, any church.

FGM