"Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion..."

[alaine]

Alabama Judge Roy Moore has until Wed. 8/20 to get his 10 commandments taken down, the supreme court has ruled. The fundies are peeved and attempting to rewrite the constitution by way of a new bill they are calling the "Citizens' Rights Act":

http://www.afa.net/petitions/citizensrights.html

"The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and inferior courts of the United States shall not extend to any case or controversy in law or equity concerning the pledge of allegiance, the national motto, or the display of the ten commandments in or upon government owned property."

"This is not a constitutional amendment but a CONGRESSIONAL act requiring only a simple majority from both houses and a signature of the President to become law." (emphasis mine)

1st amendment who?

[trotsky]

1. Even the felonious five...

...wouldn't allow a "law" like that to stand, no matter how much they might support it. Well, OK, Thomas and Scalia would. But on principle the rest would have to overturn it - just for the fact that Congress is attempting to bypass the Constitution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Moore or less

The judge should ignore the ruling and simply also post the Code of Hamurabi. That would make it obvious that both are historical documents relating to the legal system.

[alaine]

3. LOL.

Plus he'll have to put up some stuff from the Koran, and the Talmud, and maybe the Wiccan rede...

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. No

All he has to do is show that his display is not religion specific. Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from it.

[alaine]

5. He won't do that

because in his case it IS religion specific.

Unless he sees your post that is. But I doubt that he spends much time here.

[donco6]

64. Exactly.

He has no interest in the heathen Hammurabi. Besides, everyone knows that only the 10 Commandments handed to Moses are the "real" deal.

This is an establishment of religion, plain and simple.

[bearfartinthewoods]

90. which religion?

if it's specific to one religion, which religion.

[sangha]

6. Huh?

"All he has to do" is show that the 10 Commandments is not "religion specific"?

Try reading the Constitution. It says "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion", not "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of *A* religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. A religion

If the display is clearly historical and includes other HISTORICAL documents like the Code of Hamurabi, then it isn't the establishment of A religion. Freedom of, not from religion, is designed to keep morons from forcing one particular religion down our throat like the Church of England. It is not designed to ignore the fact that religion plays an important part in our lives.

[sangha]

9. So you retreat to a fantasy?

If the display is clearly historical and includes other HISTORICAL documents like the Code of Hamurabi,

Guess what? The display is *NOT* "clearly historical" and does *NOT* include other HISTORICAL documents.

And adding the Code of Hamurabi won't transform a religious display into a historical one. Historiography requires more than that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Not a fantasy

By making this a 10 Commandment display, he has allowed it to be an issue of religion. If he had instead made it a display of a couple key documents that have led us to the current legal world we now, sometimes, enjoy, it would have been different.

[sangha]

22. Breaking News!!

Judge Moore didn't do that because he didn't want a historical display!!

Talk about clueless! Basically, your saying the judges actions wouldn't be about religion if he had acted in a way that made clear it wasn't about religion. This is true, but it misses the point:

The judge's acts were motivated by religion

If he had instead made it a display of a couple key documents that have led us to the current legal world we now, sometimes, enjoy, it would have been different.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. And I am saying

He is being stupid. By posting only ONE document, he is preventing that document from staying up. By posting more than one, he has a defensible case.

[sangha]

34. You are being less than intelligent

It doesn't take much cognitive efforts to realize WHY the judge did not include more documents. I bet everyone in this thread --with you being the only possible exception-- knows why the judge displayed the 10 Commandments, and nothing else.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. I am not defending him

But this issue is bigger than that jerk. See below for more commentary.

[sangha]

37. You are distracting attention from his crime

which is just as effective as defending him

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. Crime?

I wouldn't call it that. I'd say if he doesn't do what the courts order, he is in violation of a court order and can be jailed. But I wouldn't call him a criminal.

[sangha]

41. Yes, crime

Of course you wouldn't call it as a crime. Your effort to distract is meant to prevent others from coming to that conclusion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Not distracting

If you find me distracting, feel free to move along.

I find the concept that some people oppose ANY mention of religion in a public context to be wrongheaded.

Oddly, you and I agree that the judge here is wrong, in the current context. But if he changes that context, I don't see a flaw in the concept that allows the 10 Commandments to be posted in a public building.

[sangha]

47. Yes, distracting - Read the 1st post

It's about a proposed piece of legislation that does not address your distraction issue in any way. Your attempt to "hijack" the thread in order to distract attention from the Religious Right's Criminal Crusade will not work.

[TLM]

105. Are the religious so insecure that they have to hard sell

their religious views though things like state sponsored idolatry?

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Idolatry

Boy, I hardly ever hear that one except when people are posting anti-Catholic diatribes.

[sangha]

121. No

but the Xtian Right is

[PurityOfEssence]

99. You are shockingly incorrect

Sangha is absolutely right on this one, both in letter and spirit of the law.

I've heard your argument before, and it's a good example of why no compromise should have ever been allowed to religion to "play nice". By allowing a prayer in Supreme Court sessions, it's taken as a precedent for other things that shouldn't be allowed. Two wrongs don't make a right, they make a right wing.

It is "religion" that congress isn't supposted to be regarding; it has nothing to do with whose religion or what religion, it's the very concept itself. The issue of cosmological order it not to be addressed. The concept of god is to be given no purchase whatsoever in anything pertaining to congressional activities or its laws. Mentioning it, alluding to it, and certainly the offhanded reference to it as if it's some sort of agreed upon "given" is precisely what should not be done.

The founding fathers couldn't figure out that women and people without property should be able to vote. They couldn't even figure out that slavery was absolutely wrong, but they knew enough to send religion packing.

Repeated fallacies have to be rooted out and eradicated.

It's like the second amendment; people say that the "well regulated militia" is a built-in safeguard to save people from a tyrannical government. That's rubbish too; most governments aren't going to create themselves with handy mechanisms to destroy themselves. The well-regulated militia was to keep the settlers on the frontier safe from natives, Spaniards, British and other threats. It was written at a time when Florida was Spain and Alabama didn't exist.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. Not exactly

Well, not at all actually.

In fact, your comment reminds me why religious people NEED to keep their guards up because of the all or nothing attitude some people have. What's funny is the "slippery slope" argument is used all the time on the 2nd Amendment and always criticized there, but somehow it finds purchase elsewhere and there it is OK.

I disagree about your right wing comment. Most of America is religious. Our government should not reflect religion, but it should not avoid it either. Religion is a part of who and what we are.

Specificaly, you are I are arguing about, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's NO law, good or bad. That doesn't forbid mentioning God. It doesn't forbid saying a prayer. It does forbid mandating saying a Catholic or Jewish prayer.

We agree that the founding fathers were imperfect. Most knew that slavery was wrong, but survival trumped that choice.

As for the 2nd Amendment, don't you think having guns is a check against unrestrained government abuse? I sure as hell do. I wish more African-Americans felt the same. As a longtime oppressed people, I'd feel a lot better if we had firepower...just in case.

BTW, I love your login name.

[PurityOfEssence]

111. Nice response, BUT...the Commandments are aggressive

The founding fathers had serious first-hand experience with religious extremists, and that's much of why they were so damned enlightened on the subject. People who hold themselves to a superceding set of laws are a danger to a community of "others".

Yes, it's the very mentioning of, alluding to or casual references about that are so damning. The idea of modern religious persecution in our society is ridiculous, except for certain smaller fringy sects. Go to a ballgame, go to a church, go to a public street corner: there's plenty of god to go around. Do you have to win everything? Do I have to retreat to my private home to escape it?

When you tacitly accept the existence of something unproven, you automatically discriminate against all who don't believe it. I don't want my kids to constantly have to face this in public schools or their odd forays into governmental settings.

The opposite of "love of religion" is "hatred of religion" not "non-existence of religion". None of this about taking the Commandments from governmental settings is "anti religion": for it to be anti-religion, we'd have to have a big cross on the wall with a red circle around it and a slash through it. How'd ya like that? That IS the equivalent of what I experience when I see "In God We Trust" on a governmental wall. Please answer how you'd feel. This is about taking it out of the discussion. Things in politics need to stand the test of reality. Once there's a specialness of having the "correct" worldview, the rest of us are inferiors. Religion in government--even the so-called "ceremonial deism"--is devoutly ANTI-DEMOCRATIC in its very nature. It is against equality. It is aganist the concept of equality of ideas. This is unavoidable, and this is why the founding fathers sent it packing.

My taxes should not pay for your guesses to be ingraved on the walls of our institutions where they'll confuse my small children and the children of others. Religion always slops into politics; once a "correct" view is alluded to, then those outside of it are sick, subversive curs who hate our sweet beautiful world.

Enough of all that; IT'S THE LAW.

I appreciate the gentleness of your tone, by the way.

Let's take it further. If you never see any allusion to god in any governmental institution, is that offensive to you? How about some nice historical quotes, aren't they sufficient for a feeling of well-being? If you don't see any god there, that shouldn't even enter your head, right? How about if you see a big picture of L. Ron Hubbard? How about if you see a pentagram? What's the matter with a blank wall? Do you WANT me to be depressed and reminded that my country--the country of my ancestors since the 1630s, that I know of--hates me and wants my children to know that we're inferiors? I don't want to take your dreams away from you, why do you want to screw up mine? Isn't it enough that you vastly outnumber us? Do you have to take our money and use it to rub our noses in our inferiority? I wonder if we even really stack up to 3/5ths of a man in the worldview of a Falwell? You get that reference, right? As a member of an ethnic group you should abhor such a thought.

The Ten Commandments are not just a bunch of sweet laws. It starts off with the "I have the answer, anyone who disagrees with me is filth, and you must obey me before any other human agreements of coexistence". THAT IS UGLY. IT'S ALSO A PROBLEM: is shows its believers that their private "guess" and affiliation is much more important than any paltry civil laws that the rest of us peons may have agreed upon. The Ten Commandments are a sanctimonious placing of oneself above other people, and is thus elitist, repressive and rapacious.

Why do you not understand this? Probably because your experiences with religion are good. I don't want to put words in your mouth, though, I want you to respond to this.

And truly, I greatly appreciate your tone in response to me. I presume you know the origin of the moniker, right?

[alaine]

103. Bravo!!

This thread has generated some awesome responses on both sides of an issue that I didn't even forsee being debated.

But I'm more worried about the content of this petition, of taking away federal jurisdiction regarding separation of religion and government and giving it to the states.

I mean, that could be a disaster when you think what could happen, if some states are Baptist, and some Jewish, and some Islamic, and then the western part of the state might be free will baptist, and the northern part might be fundamentalist, and then the central part might be maranatha, and then there might be a faction of pentacostals up in the hills, why it might be like...Iraq, or Afghanistan or Rwanda, or something.

[Blue_Chill]

108. I disagree (big surprise eh?)

The founding fathers couldn't figure out that women and people without property should be able to vote. They couldn't even figure out that slavery was absolutely wrong, but they knew enough to send religion packing.

No. They wanted to avoid a state which forced a faith on everyone. they most certainly didn't intend "to send religion packing".

Repeated fallacies have to be rooted out and eradicated.

It would help if you stopped posting them.

[PurityOfEssence]

120. Oh, piffle

If you've read my posts, they're always laden with the given that people should be able to worship as they please. When I say "send religion packing", I mean out of government. This, they clearly intended.

You are not a "put-upon minority" because I want to keep you from jamming religion into government. You have every freedom to get a bull horn and go down to the nearest big intersection and go at it. You can knock on peoples' doors and sell your worldview. You can wear it on a shirt, put it on a bumpersticker or whatever.

When religion is endorsed by government, it is a defecation upon democracy. Democracy is based upon implied "equality" under the law; endorsement of religion, whether it's a particular one or just the vague concept, creates an elite and a class of inferiors.

The Constitution guarantees religious freedom. Why is that not enough?

Having those things on the walls or our money is OFFENSIVE TO ME AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS. Is it offensive for you to have nothing or something secular there? If so then you're tyrannical. How would you like it if someone put up a big bas-relief of a crucifix with a red circle around it and a slash through it? THAT is the equivalent to having scripture on the wall. I don't advocate that, I'd prefer a nice Daniel Webster quote, or a mural of the signing of the Constitution of perhaps a nice mottled chartreuse with little dabs of forest green.

Why do you have the right to cram your religion into the government of us all, and if we object, we're the oppressors? That's simply incorrect.

The Bill of Rights is very clear in it's sweeping pronouncement. None. Nowhere. Nohow. There's no mention of a supreme being in the entire Constitution. The allusion to its existence as a casual "well, of course there's..." is wrong. It's also offensive. Do it in public on your free time, but not with the peoples' money.

How can this possibly be unclear?

[Zero Gravitas]

13. Freedom From Religion

You can not have true freedom of religion if you do not have freedom from the majority religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Freedom of

Doesn't mean expuning references to religion or God.

[Zero Gravitas]

15. But it does mean

that you can't have things like the 10 Commandments in a court house. The Government cannot endorse telling people to worship the Judeo-Christian god.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. Of course you can

Having the 10 Commandments as part of a display that shows some of the great documents that contributed to our legal system is perfectly OK. You can't expunge thousands of years of history because they are inconvenient to your world view.

What I oppose, and the Constitution prohibits, is a display for ONE religion. We could, in theory, have excerpts from some of the writings of the great teachers in a school as well -- Christ, Mohammad, Confucius, etc.

[Zero Gravitas]

21. I'm sorry

but not worshipping graven images or not worshipping other gods than the Judeo-Christian one(s) is not a fundamental part of our legal system no matter how much the fundies and the Repiglicans wan't to make it so.

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. However

Following a written code of laws IS part of our history. That written code, broken down, includes murder, theft, misrepresentation/lying and those are the basis for a strong legal system.

[NormanConquest]

24. Ironically, Moore's bizzare 10 Commandments fetishism

is just the type of iconic idolatry the commandments explicitly forbade. It's just another way for the fundies to try to hoist a crucifix in a public place.

[sangha]

25. WPE, you are being used. Don't fall for it

muddle wants to argue the irrelevant issue of whether or not it is OK to display religious documents as part of a historical display in order to distract attention from the unconstitutional acts of this religous kook in a robe.

Keep the focus on the boob.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Not irrelevant

Next time, this WILL be the issue. This judge is a dolt. But many posters on these threads have said that there is NEVER a time to allow the 10 Commandments posted in the courthouse. So this is relevant.

[sangha]

32. You don't fool me

and I won't be distracted by your straw men

[Zero Gravitas]

30. You're right

in any case ProffGAC has effectively refuted the "Historical Document" argument in post #19 below.

[PurityOfEssence]

100. I believe we can do some legal coveting, too

Not to mention adultery and some dishonoring of your parents, should they be dolts.

There should be no tolerance of intolerance, and that's what the Ten Commandments represent in a governmental setting.

Besides, it's illegal.

If it means that construction equipment has to be brought in and wailing believers have to be restrained and moved, regardless of the publicity it should be done and not shied away from. National Guardspeople who refuse to be a part of it should be court martialed. People who obstruct should be arrested. News conferences should be held, and those removing these icons should hold their heads up high and remind everyone of the law.

[Blue_Chill]

113. Look at you getting all Stalin on us

amazing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Wow

And people say I overreact sometimes. You've been reading European history circa 1930s.

[Blue_Chill]

112. Whats your point?

Congress had nothing to do with it, no law was passed regarding it, and no one is forcing you to believe in it. You are just pissy because you don't want it there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Jefferson disagrees

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--

Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom , 1779, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson , edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545

[NormanConquest]

55. Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, Article 11:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Government yes, laws no

Treaties -- Kyoto for instance -- are often marketing documents and written to appease and entice, not illuminate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

77. His disagreement

Predates the Constitution and is therefore irrelevant.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. OK, try a "postdated" one

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."-

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Samuel Miller, 1808

-or-

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt in 1813, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Memorial Edition , edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 14:21

[donco6]

67. Who determines which ones are "great" teachers?

Makes all the difference in the world. By choosing some and not choosing others, you are giving governmental credence to a certain train of thought - e.g., there IS an afterlife as opposed to those traditions that don't believe in afterlife. Still amounts to establishment of religion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Government

Makes THOSE choices all the time. We already have an education department that is involved in such things. In fact, we have tons of parts of government that do that. We build monuments to some people and not others. Why is that?

[donco6]

80. Name a few monuments to religious leaders . . .

built with government dollars.

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. My avatar

They just made note of his famous I have a dream speech on the Lincoln Memorial. How's that for starters?

[donco6]

124. I would argue that his recognition is not for his

religious background but his civil rights background, i.e., he would have been give an statue (and rightly so) even if he'd been just "Mr. Martin Luther King."

[helleborient]

93. Mary Dyer, Quaker

Is on the grounds of the Massachusetts State House - not sure if it was built with government funds, but it not only is a religious figure, that is the only identification.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. Don' forget the memorable sayings of

Saint Ralph: "Ye of little faith who believeth not in the Chicago Cubs chances for the world series, shalt not eat Bratwurst and imbibe of Pabst Blue Ribbon."

or

Mother Loretta: "Forget not blessed Saturdays, for that is the day of clearance sales."

[TLM]

106. It does mean preventing the religious from using the state

to push their comandments on people.


You want a monument to the 10 comandments, build that crap on church land, and pay for it with chruch funds.

The consitution grants me freedom FROM having anybody's religious views pushed on me by the state.


And I still do not understand why religious folks feel they need to hard sell god like some used car.

[wryter2000]

18. Freedom of religion

I'm sorry, but freedom of religion extends to non-believers. This and the war are the two reasons I'll never vote for Lieberman.

[Klapaucius]

40. strongly disagree there...

It does include freedom from... If it does not include freedom from, then you are just as guilty of forcing your religion on people who have no interest in it, as Judge Moore is of forcing his religion on others.

What I find interesting is the majority of people are christian, but they claim the persecuted minority position. I've seen it more than I care to, as they claim special rights for themselves, while denying others basic rights.

If you think you're persecuted, may I suggest reading this:

http://www.infidels.org/misc/humor/lioaca.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. No need

I don't feel persecuted, I just don't see anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it says anything about freedom from.

[Klapaucius]

59. well.......

I was not saying you, specifically, but I am saying that it is far more common than you might think.

I try not to paint with too broad of a brush. However saying that freedom of doesn't include freedom from, denies a significant ( and growing) segment of the population of their rights to be free of the majority religion.

Christianity, since it is the majority religion here in the US, gets far more leeway than any of the rest of us. I am not free to state my opinion on religion, for fear that some twit may decide that he needs to beat the crap out of me, because I don't believe in his deity. And that is in one of the most laid back states in the Union, Oregon. Hmmmmm, does that sound like what's going on in a particular geographical area? Like the Middle East?

I have to agree with Carlin on this one... that whole thing in the Middle East is about whose god has the larger genitalia. It's a pointless and stupid thing to hate your fellow man because he doesn't believe the same thing that you do. I can accept your beliefs, I may not agree with them, but that belief should be personal. It should *never* be a part of the political structure. Given the Middle East countries, do you think that theocracy has worked out very well? If religion is forced into government, we will end up with a theocratic state which will be as bad or worse than the theocracies in the middle east.

In addition to the many things which * has done, in general, which has tanked the economy, this is a man who believes in the rapture and armageddon, and has his finger on the big red button. This man says that god speaks to him. Who's to say that god won't tell him to launch? What is his fascination with nuclear arms and tac-nukes? If it's not obvious to anyone else, it is obvious to me that he is letting his beliefs determine his course of action, rather than good sound reasoning. Maybe he wants to bring the biblical armageddon about early? What about the christians who don't believe in the armageddon stuff? Do you think that they'll appreciate him acting on his beliefs and making a hell on earth?

I was terribly disappointed with the last presidential election when ones beliefs were a major issue. I hope that it's not the case this time, but either way, it's going to be ABB for me this next election.

[helleborient]

95. But....

Why not attack the behavior and not the belief????

You said you can not state your opinion on religion because of fear of retribution....

Your solution is to outlaw the belief structure - Christianity.

So...when homosexuals fear identifying themselves in public, do we get rid of heterosexuality?


Or...instead...do we identify the abuses and try to deal with that??

[helleborient]

94. Also...

Some white people claim persecution when they fight against Affirmative Action.

Some straight people claim persecution when they fight gay marriage.

Some European-descent people claim persecution when they fight immigration.

The point of this is what??

[Bandit]

56. I would tend to disagree

Freedom of religion is and can be freedom from religion also. Why should anyone be allowed to shove religion down my throat? I don't go to your church so I don't have to listen to what is preached there, but I do participate in government and do not wish for government to participate in religion. I want to be Free from religion and supposedly in America I have that right. Do you think I should not have the right to be free from religion?

[maha]

Can't be done

The Ten Commandments is (are?) religion-specific. There's no way to get around that.

[Avatar13]

116. This is why I love Justice John Paul Stevens

"Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from it."

Bzzt. Wrong.

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time, it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects -- or even intolerance among "religions" -- to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain.
-- John Paul Stevens, Wallace v Jaffree, 1985

[bowens43]

8. The 'judge' should go to jail.

for contempt of court. He made it quite clear that he wasn't using the 10 commandments as an historical document. He was trying to impose his religious beliefs on the public. If he doesn't obey the court order he should stay in jail until he does.

[Tripper11]

11. I wonder if there is a "liberal" judge out there.....

that could put up some Wiccan, or other "religious" type sayings completely opposite of the 10 Commandments.
Watch as the fundies heads grow red with anger and explode!

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. As long

As you find something that contributed as strongly to our legal system as the 10 Commandments, it would be OK.

[BigMcLargehuge]

17. Puh-leese

which version the old testament version or the Jesus summation from the new testament where he condenses the whole 10 down to 2?

To suggest that the ten commandments, specifically 6,7,8,9, and 10 provide the foundation of our legal system is a gross oversimplification of both the commandments themselves and our legal system.

Don't murder
Don't screw over your significant other
Don't steal
Don't perjur
Don't covet (though I am not sure how this applies... we covet EVERYTHING, it's what drives our consumtion crazed economy unless I'm misreading the use of covet... not wholly impossible)

Every even remotely civilized society adheres to these simple, and I stress SIMPLE, rules to keep that civilization from descending into immediate anarchy. To me the 10 commandments are a simplified extract of the Code of Hammurabi, but meant to establish the monotheistic worldview as opposed to create a civil society. Why else would the first five be about blind acceptance of the monotheistic voice?

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. I wish

Every society stuck to this code. They do not. As evidenced by the many ills in all societies. Murder, rape, theft, lying, hatred, greed, etc.

I frankly don't care which version, from which Bible, etc. However, the 10 Commandments are a written code about how to live. They had a great impact on Western Civilization and Western thought. If they are a simplified version of the Code of Hamurabi, perhaps they simply had better marketing. However, better marketing is often what makes a successful product.

[BigMcLargehuge]

27. well...

Considering China was an advanced soceity some 5000 years ago with large population centers they too practiced some version of these basic tennets otherwise their society would have collapsed.

I think these rules are required to keep a society together. However, as with any large group of people gathered in one geographic location, there will always be some percentage that ignored/flaunts those rules.

The Mesapotamian empire ceased to exist as a sole power, in some estimation, hundreds of years before the old testament was written. But their legacy is still felt in several places in the bible. The story of Utnapishtim as told in the oldest recorded western story, Gilgamesh, precedes Noah's flood by several hundred years, but contains the same central events. The reasons for the flood though illustrate the different take the Mesapotamians had on their pantheon of Gods. In this tale Humans are a pain in the ass and therefore must we exterminated.

As for Hammurabi... The Mesapotamian empire was overtaken by the Egyptians, then the Greeks, then the Romans, then the Byzantines, then the Muslims, and since the laws were so detailed (like for example, the number of bags of grain one had to pay if you accidentally killed a neighbors waterbuffalo, or the ability to bring an arbiter to speak for you in front of an adjudicator, character witnesses, and costs in detail) they inevitably were simplified as these laws moved from early "urban" societies into the nomadic groups outside the established cities. Add hundred of years of conquest, societal mixing, and the end product is, what I think of as, gross oversimplification.

Again though, this only applies to the civil related portions of the commandments. The religion aspect, no god before me, no craven idols, sabbath hooey has no relation to civilization, but to establishing/maintaining a belief system.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. No relation?

Sabbath hooey? You might not like it, but I grew up with blue laws. Hell, some are still in effect. (Try buying a car in Maryland on a Sunday and get back to me.) Again, there is that pesky reality that the commandments had an impact on our legal system.

I won't dispute much of what you say about history. But China's history has little to do with the U.S. As do many of those other nations. The 10 Commandments directly impacted Western Civilization and, as such, the United States.

[BigMcLargehuge]

36. I do remember the blue laws, now that you mention them

I retract my hooey statement. In MA where I grew up they were struck down as being... wait for it.... unconstitutional. Still, they were there for years and years and years so I won't argue that the sabbath as written in the 10 commandments wasn't used as justification for those laws.

The point I was making with China is simply to illustrate that those societies, although not influential to the west (though I quite a bit of their culture came back via the silk road and into the middle east, and thus into western civ, but it was certainly adopted by the indigenous peoples.... But I'm getting off subject.

As for the establishment of law I think looking to the Romans will find a much more detailed and influential set of rules and regulations that were adopted post empire in the 10 and 11th centuries and absolutely flourished during the renaissance where most "modern" civil law draws its best defined roots. Roman law had no basis in Christianity, but it did have a few toes in the feet of Mesapotamia via their aquisition of the former Greek empire, Egyptian empire, and Persia.

If Roy Moore wants to put a five ton stone monolith of Roman civil law in his courtroom lobby, then by all means I can't argue. But by suggesting that the ten commandments are the foundation of our (western) legal system is misleading at best, and grossly oversimplifying the origins at worst.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. The foundation

No the commandments are not THE foundation. But part of the foundation, yes. Hence my comments about including other documents. For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church was the controling force in Europe and the commandments an essential piece of church law. We just can't ignore it or prevent it from being posted IF it is not done alone.

[BigMcLargehuge]

45. Church law is drawn specifically from Roman law

Don't forget it was Diocletian who established the original "Church" and he did so by adapting roman law to fit with the State religion, at that time Christianity.

I think you have the horse before the cart.

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. So how do you explain

Some of the goodies in my 10 Commandment post at the bottom of this thread? Where do the blue laws come from for instance?

[sangha]

48. How do you explain

having so many posts in this thread even though ALL OF YOUR POSTS are irrelevant to the legislation described in the 1st post.

You're not trying to "hijack" the thread, are you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Well excuuuuuuuuse me

Sorry, but I see this as related. Considering how many other people have responded to my posts, they must also.

If you don't wish a public discussion of topics, perhaps a discussion board isn't best for you.

[BigMcLargehuge]

51. You're hijacking the thread Sangha...

Muddle and I are having a pleasant discussion that related directly to the original post. I, for one, am having a great time discussing this in a civilized manner.

If you don't like it, then read a different thread in the post.

[sangha]

57. Nope, not directly related to the original post

The original post is about proposed legislation, and is not about prohibiting/permitting the display of any religious document on govt property.

I will continue to point that out in this thread and if you don't like it, you can start another thread

[sangha]

58. See post #54

by the poster who started this thread

[alaine]

65. Thanks Sangha, I got distracted by a South-bashing

thread. Yeah, to display or not to display is not the point, it's unbelievable how sneaky the religious right can be, I mean, why don't they just call for a repeal of the first amendment.

The thought I had when I saw this spam this a.m. was that joke "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you." Call me paranoid, but I can see something like this getting sponsorship and making it to debate on the floor because the intent is so obfuscated and if the wording of the petition is any indication then there is obviously alot of ignorance out there with regards to the constitution.

With regards to the abduction of this thread for other purposes, it's okay, cause at least it kept it at the top and I got to read the stuff by BigMclargeHuge, whose name I always thought had a sexual reference but I guess it refers instead to historcal knowledge.

[BigMcLargehuge]

68. Sheesh... it's not other purposes

The heart of the matter is whether Moore's claim that the 10 commandments have merit based on their historical significance. Without that question there would be no monument, no petition, and no thread....

Don't you agree? We didn't hijack the thread.... Our debate is applicable.

Jeez... everyone is so touchy in GD.

As for my name, it's taken from an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and yes, I do hold a degree in European history and I am happy to put that to use now and then.

[sangha]

70. You are confused

The issue you claim this is about (ie "the 10 commandments have merit based on their historical significance") has already been decided by the courts. They ordered Moore to remove the statue.

[BigMcLargehuge]

71. I know that already

but it doesn't invalidate the conversation. Moore has defied the courts and left the statue there.

Maybe you're just happier with angry one sentence responses...

Here:

1. Christians are evil bastards.
2. Athiests are evil bastards.

Take your pick.
Happy now?

[sangha]

72. But you ignore it.

it doesn't invalidate the conversation

"Invalidate"??? WTF???

It makes your "discussion" of this irrelevant to the problem described by the original post.

And I thank you for your concerns about my happiness. However, I am not in need of any assistance from you right now. If that should change, I'll be sure to contact you.

[BigMcLargehuge]

75. Oh, of course? (slaps head with palm of hand)

by discussing the origin of LAW, in a thread about the application of LAW with regard to the display of a Christian symbol, the flaunting of that LAW by a judge, who just happens to be a fundamentalist nut, who's stirred up a petion-creating bunch of other fundamentalist nuts, who would like the change LAW by congressinal act in defiance of a judgement by the State Supreme Court, isn't applicable?

And this in a thread that ends with the words "1st ammendment who?"

I love open discussion don't you? (oh wait, that isn't applicable... silly me)

[sangha]

78. Yep, "of course"

If you had read the original post, you'd see it has nothing to do with the "origin of LAW"

And DU is still a place of open discussion. If you don't believe me, start a thread about your little obsession, and see how it doesn't get locked.

Open discussion implies a certain level of give and take. You've taken the thread from it's original intent and given back nothing of relevance.

[BigMcLargehuge]

82. Okay you win

Get bent

[sangha]

84. Too late

I'm already bent

[alaine]

92. I wasn't being touchy, I was impressed with your

historical knowledge. I honestly thought it was muddle's claim, not Moore's. I hate that you took my post that way, it was not intended to be angry or sarcastic at all. (Believe me, you will know when I'm grouchy, I'm pretty direct.)

[BigMcLargehuge]

104. just mailed you

I had a network blackout that took an hour or so of my life or I'd have responded earlier.

Thanks for the kind words. The touchy comment was more rhetorical than direct. Perhaps an illustration of my frustration with the state of GD lately. Who knows.

Anyway,

thanks and check your mail.

[BigMcLargehuge]

61. I'm sorry... are you a MOD?

And what goddamn business is it of yours what muddle and I discuss in this thread?

The theme of our discussion is the origin of law, which is the justification that Roy "Crazy as a shithouse rat" Moore uses as justification for sticking a monolith in the courthouse lobby.

Do me a favor, go bother someone else.

[sangha]

62. Are you a MOD?

What goddamn business is it of YOURS what I post in this thread?

Do me a favor, go bother someone else.

Don't hold your breath

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. Thanks

I thought so as well.

Civil discussion is always a good way of hashing out major issues.

[BigMcLargehuge]

91. No problem

I sent you a "thanks" mail :)

[BigMcLargehuge]

49. Roman Law

Like I said the Church (which at the time was Rome as a society) adopted Roman civil law and fused it with the traditions and rules specific to the old testament. So, keep the sabbath holy, mean no work on Sunday or Saturday... I don't know what variation of the week calendar they used. That was carried along through history into modern western juris prudence. It stuck around because, at its core, it was a good policy i.e. everybody gets a day off. The same with don't murder, don't steal... they stuck around because they are good policies not because the vast majority of Romans or French or Irish or Danes or even Americans believe God as defined by the Christian tradition is going to send them to hell if they break those laws. If this was the case we would need no jails, we'd simply let that God handle it when the perpetrator died.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Sorry. Don't Agree At All

There at least half of the commandments that have contributed not one whit to the legal system.

There are no laws enforcing "Honor Thine Mother and Father."

Based upon our Constitution, three of the commandments cannot have laws enforcing them. They are SPECIFIC to religious worship.

There are NO laws based upon "coveting" anything. Geez, our whole economic system is based upon that. (Apologies to George Carlin, but his routine didn't preceed my thoughts on this matter.)

The murdering and stealing things are not sourced from the Ten Commandments. Prohibitions protecting life and property predate the Commandments by centuries.

So, our jurisprudence is not even loosely based upon these commandments but on prior art or ignored some of them completely.

I think you are grossly overstating their importance as historical documents of legal import.
The Professor

[sangha]

28. Don't be distractef Professor

muddle would like us to stop talking about how the religious right, and nuts like this judge, are trying to pervert our system of justice. To that end, muddle raises the irrelevant issue of whether it's OK to display religious documents as part of a historical display, an issue which has NOTHING to do with the illegal behavior of this judge.

[alaine]

54. Not only that, but it missed the point completely, which

was the ridiculous nature of a petition asking congress to make a law which would render null and void a supreme court ruling on governmental endorsement of specific religion, when congress is forbidden by the constitution from making any laws of the sort. I have to admit I was surprised by the ignorance of this petition, although in hindsight I can't imagine why.

Why people are arguing about the location of historical documents when there are already places for them (museums and libraries) is beyond me. As for the 10 commandments, I bet we could learn alot more from the Canaanites, whom the hebirus slaughtered because they believed their deity had given them rights to "the promised land" (Canaan). They were apparently a fairly peaceful and civilized people. What a pity. And all we have to show for it are these lousy commandments, which are kind of nullified when one considers the following:

Joshua 11:12 "Then he attacked and destroyed all the other cities of those kings. All the people were slaughtered, just as MOSES had commanded long before". (Thou shalt not kill indeed.)

Also Joshua 10: 28-40 "So Joshua massacred the population of the whole region...and all their kings. He left no survivor, destroying EVERYTHING THAT DREW BREATH, as the Lord the God of Israel had commanded."

[ProfessorGAC]

69. You Are, Of Course, Correct

I was attempting merely to obviate the argument that the commandments actually have any historical relevence to our system of jurisprudence.

I still feel that i'm correct, and if so, means no amount of means the display of the commandments is not justifiable by any rationalizations Muddle attempts to employ.
The Professor

[sangha]

73. Yes, you are correct, professor

I'm just tired of watching the right-wing distract us when we have a criminal in our sights by raising irrelevant, yet interesting, controversies. (See Bush*'s upcoming attempts to convince Americans that Saddam had a WMD *PROGRAM* - muddle will say "You see, there was a program!!")

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. So Sangha

Are you saying I am part of the right wing for alleging daring to distract you?

[sangha]

85. How would I know

I just know the effects of behaviors like yours.

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Behaviors?

You mean like daring to have a thorough debate on a topic?

Heavens to Betsy! (My grandma loved that phrase.)

[sangha]

97. Yep, behaviors

and "thorough" doesn't mean "irrelevant"

Note: My grandma preferred "Oy vey"

[Muddleoftheroad]

98. Oy

I usually just shorten it. Well, since no one else other than you sees this as irrelevant, I think we'll continue to discuss it.

[sangha]

101. Be honest

since no one else other than you sees this as irrelevant

You must be ignoring the several other posters who agree with me, one of whom is the poster who started this thread.

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. And you must

Be ignoring the others. If you counted the number of posts, the majority would consider this an important topic.

[demdave]

43. Completely opposite of the 10 Commandments?

Wiccan has sayings that include "thou shalt kill"? REALLY. I never knew that. Could you show me where you found that? Do they also believe in stealing and lying?

[maha]

63. Lying is OK

If you do it for Jesus. ;-)

[Blue_Chill]

123. That would be a republican

at least that what it sounds like. Steal lie cheat yup a republican.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. 10 Commandments

OK, here they are. I will note which ones impacted the legal system. (Yes, there are many versions, this is one of them.)

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' -- Not currently, but has in the past when other religious worship wasn't allowed.

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' -- I would say no.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' -- This has been a law in the past.

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' -- Yes, blue laws still exist.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.' -- Not so much a law, but part of the doctrine of family law is based on this.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.' -- Duh.

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.' -- Still a law in many states.

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.' -- Duh yet again.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.' -- Yes, more laws based on this. It's not illegal to lie, but to bear false witness is illegal in many cases.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.' -- Yeah, if this was illegal, we'd all be locked up.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

52. DEPOLITICIZE RELIGION

If we don't depoliticize religion, we're going to be stuck in the same stagnant place we are now. Everyone fighting amongst each other, arguing over whose god has the bigger dick. While the Ten commandments mean well, I'm sure that in 2003, several of those don't have a place in our society. Don't commit adultery? Whatever...according to your sacred bible, having sex is a sin unless you're trying to procreate. If you're going to create something that feels so fucking good, please don't expect us to only do it when we're trying to procreate. And also, with all the open marriages these days, don't bitch when we're fucking everyone of the opposite, or same sex even though we're married or they're married. IT FEELS GOOD. Christians think that too much of a good thing is wrong too, and look how they still have extra marital affairs and engage in premarital sex. This in my opinion is very important. I'm not going to marry someone with out taking him for a spin first. I don't want to be stuck with someone who is bad in bed.
Also, think about this: Most of those laws on the books about adultery, family based laws about honoring your mother and father either aren't or really can't be enforced. I thought those adultery laws had been found unconstitutional?
Personally, I want freedom from your religion because I don't believe in this God and Christ that you people have made mockeries of. I don't want to go to the heaven of a god who speaks to a president and tells him to invade a country and kill thousands of people. I don't want to be in the heaven of a god who instructs his followers to pray for the supreme court justices to get sick and die or retire because you don't like their opinions of what the constitution says.
Don't tell me what to believe in, what being moral means, or what is pure or not. This is all a matter of personal interpretation. When you believe in a religion that was created to CONTROL THE MASSES and to KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACES so you won't have to give them anything or have them compete for the wealth of a nation, don't get pissed off when people CALL YOUR BLUFF!! Also, the meek shall inherit the earth is biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. The meek get nothing because they have everything taken away from them because they don't know how to fight for anything. God, if you'd use your common sense for about five minutes and question what it is everyone has been telling you your entire life, you'd go, "OH MY GOD...THIS IS SUCH BULLSHIT!!" and then you'll understand that everything in this country is full of shit and that we need to get rid of this administration before it blows up the earth because God wanted Bush to prove He has a bigger dick than Muhammed.
Duckie

[alaine]

60. Amen.

But I am going to follow this petition and I think that people need to follow their reps and senators reactions to it, it's not advocating posting any religious documents or anything that direct, it is asking conress to violate the first amendment of the constitution, and asking for removal from federal jurisdiction issues such as this, as to whether religious documents will be posted or not on government property, in essence leaving the decisions up to the states.

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. One thing we can agree on

I am against making ANY amendment subject to state rule. The Constitution is a national document. That applies to freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment just as it applies to Dean's ill-conceived plan to let states decide on the 2nd Amendment.

[alaine]

96. YaY!!!!

That was the whole point. I'm glad you kept this kicked though, I posted it here for only one reason, and that was to make people aware of this underhanded threat to the constitution. I know there have been a lot of religion threads lately, and I have not participated, and I'm kind of mystified that this thread has inpired so much debate. To me, when I read the petition I was struck by the wording and what a gross and obvious violation of the first amendment it is, and all the other stuff that you guys have been debating about is just past tense to me because of the supreme court ruling. I agree with McLarge's characterization of Moore, "right-wing wingnut something or other". I missed out on a lot of the fun because I'm on dial-up and someone here had to use the phone. But I do think that in my first response to you I covered Moore's argument because fundamentalism (which is my religion of origin) pervades worshipping false Gods, so it would be against Moore's religion to post a pagan law code, like you suggested. It's understandable how one could argue this from an intellectual perspective, but people of deep religious faith would see that as an abomination, of putting other Gods before God. Moore is not coming at this from an intellectual angle, if he was, he could have just tacked up something like you suggested, but his faith, and nothing else, won't allow him to do that.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. How

How do we depoliticize religion? Religion is a belief system which impacts every aspect of life for those who believe. How do we extract that from our overall beliefs?

Is my concern for the poor personal or is it part of my religious beliefs? Is my attempt to do good works personal or is it religious? How about my belief that lying is wrong?

As for some of the other comments, America has been around over 200 years. That's a lot of legal history. Many laws have changed in that time. All that have been on the books -- good and bad -- are part of what got us here. Laws that legalized slavery are as much a part of our history as those that ended it. Laws that kept women from voting as much a part of who we are as the those that finally ended that practice.

You are entitled to be free of religion, but not free from it in our society. If I light a Christmas tree in my yard and you have to look at it, is that intruding into your space? No. If my congressman goes to church on Sunday or is a deacon or even a minister, that is his or her choice.

As for morality, our society, every society, legislates morality. It is what is socially acceptable. That's part of the reason drugs, prostitution and kiddie porn are all illegal.

Ultimately, one thing I wildly disagree on is your statement that, "everything in this country is full of shit." Glass empty, meet glass half full.

[ProfessorGAC]

74. You Were Talking About OUR Justice System

Then, you hedge on several of them, or reference how "other cultures" based law on this. And, mentioning, as in 3, 4, and 6, that it's "still a law. . ." is meaningless. Since some areas of this culture have rejected laws based upon this, it rejects the notion that these are the true basis of the law.

More likely, the most effective laws are those based upon the shear wisdom of respecting others and their property. You, in your little polemic here, have rejected 4 of them as legal foundations, and rationalized 3 more! That means even you don't believe that 7 of these are obvious foundations of OUR system of jurisprudence.

Your argument is so weak as to need no further discussion. To do so would be repetitive and boring.
The Professor

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Just held an election and we have a new God.

Me. The vote was an overwhelming 1-0.

Only one commandment is necessary:

Commandment No. 1

"Thou shalt not stuff 47 tennis balls down thy toilet."

Violaters will be prosecuted.

(With thanks to Alan Sherman for the inspiration).

[Blue_Chill]

109. That law is laughable

The law itself is unconstitutional and thus could never be enforced. I would like to add however that I see this administration constantly trying to limit the judicial branches powers. Odd.

[alaine]

115. Good point.

I didn't laugh at this but I did kind of brush off the announcement that Ashcroft is reviewing the sentencing habits of federal judges, and then lo and behold I turned on C-span the very next day and they had a panel on it, and were talking about black-balling judges, etc. Odd, indeed, thanks for making the connection.

[TahitiNut]

118. Actually, it COULD be enforced ...

... on everyone up until someone had the wherewithal to challenge it all the way to a court which would declare it unconstituional ... and Judge Moore, for example, would probably not do so.

This is just one wrinkle of tyrrany of the "haves" against the "have nots" -- since those least empowered are also not typically able to 'speak' loudly enough to even attract the ACLU. "Law enforcement" is, every day in many ways, able to pressure the least advantaged in ways they never could with the wealthy.

[Blue_Chill]

122. You act as if the law would send police to your home

and force you to pray. It simply stops courts from touching certain things for the time it takes for courts to strike it down.

no biggie.