Should the 10 commandments be on public display? Are they the basis of US Law?In my opinion, they aren't.The first 4 commandments violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The last 6 are valid but are rather generic and present throughout many societies.
The 10 Commandments on Public Display
- Thread starter adren@line
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
(adren@line;44360)
Should the 10 commandments be on public display? Are they the basis of US Law?In my opinion, they aren't.The first 4 commandments violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The last 6 are valid but are rather generic and present throughout many societies.
I just got one question. Where in the devil are you coming up with this stuff? That posts is nonsense all there is to it......
Should the 10 commandments be on public display? Are they the basis of US Law?In my opinion, they aren't.The first 4 commandments violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The last 6 are valid but are rather generic and present throughout many societies.
I just got one question. Where in the devil are you coming up with this stuff? That posts is nonsense all there is to it......
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years. Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
(adren@line;46410)
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years. Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
I do not think the 10 Commandments were on the minds of our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution. Anyone can make any idol they want no one will stop them. Is it right?Anyone can worship any G_d they want. Is it right?Observing the Sabbath is border line. Some do some don't...Taking G_ds name in vain well its going to happen I do not care who you are.See thats the beauty of our Constitution and our country you can do any of the above things you want its breaking no Constitutional Law. State Laws may very maybe some states that do not allow such things, such as worshiping with snakes...carries a slap on the wrist in most states. My opinion is if they have that much faith that the snake will not kill them they need to ask those that have died from bites.Witchcraft is still practiced to this day all over the country its not agianst the law...Satanic worshippers may ocassionally commit crimes but even their rituals are breaking no laws per say....though they do push the envelope.I see your point but its Biblical Law that does not apply to Constitutional Law...
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years. Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
I do not think the 10 Commandments were on the minds of our forefathers when they wrote the Constitution. Anyone can make any idol they want no one will stop them. Is it right?Anyone can worship any G_d they want. Is it right?Observing the Sabbath is border line. Some do some don't...Taking G_ds name in vain well its going to happen I do not care who you are.See thats the beauty of our Constitution and our country you can do any of the above things you want its breaking no Constitutional Law. State Laws may very maybe some states that do not allow such things, such as worshiping with snakes...carries a slap on the wrist in most states. My opinion is if they have that much faith that the snake will not kill them they need to ask those that have died from bites.Witchcraft is still practiced to this day all over the country its not agianst the law...Satanic worshippers may ocassionally commit crimes but even their rituals are breaking no laws per say....though they do push the envelope.I see your point but its Biblical Law that does not apply to Constitutional Law...
(adren@line;46410)
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years.No evidence for this statement Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.These laws were given to Adam and Eve, its just not recorded.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
But the last six are. The world at large doesnt accept any moral laws, they just pretend to.
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years.No evidence for this statement Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.These laws were given to Adam and Eve, its just not recorded.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
But the last six are. The world at large doesnt accept any moral laws, they just pretend to.
(adren@line;46410)
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years. Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
He sure is on the Supreme Court building though XD.http://www.moseshand.com/studies/Pediment.htm
The world did not "accept" the 10 commandments.Humanity has existed for 200,000 years. Laws and rules in regards to killing, stealing, adultery, etc have existed in most societies long before the 10 commandments existed.If the first 4 commandments were indeed basis of law, then they would indeed violate our freedoms, for example:"Do not worship other Gods"- Direct violation of freedom of religion. If someone wants to worship someone other than Yaweh, they should be able too, even if they were born Jewish."Dont make any idols"- Again, violates freedom of religion. Hindus and Buddhists use idols. So do Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox."Observe the Sabbath"- Im pretty sure most people dont care about the Sabbath."Dont take Gods name in vein"- Violates freedom of speech.These first 4 commandments are not the basis of any law in the United States.
He sure is on the Supreme Court building though XD.http://www.moseshand.com/studies/Pediment.htm
I disagree, C2C. Like adren@line said, the latter six are things we all accept regardless of the religion, but the first four just cannot be reconciled with freedom of religion.(Called 2 Conquer;47268)
The First Commandment:You shall have no other gods before me. This doesn't violate freedom of Religion because the constitution is man made and man insired where as the Bible is man penned and God inspired. God laid down a law but men decided not to promote a state religion but instead allow for allow religions including Christianity. If Christianity was the only religion allow then it would violate the constitution.
I don't understand what you're saying. The First Commandment is very clearly stating that you shall have no other gods before the Judeo-Christian God. This is impossible to reconcile with freedom of religion, because people of other faiths do have gods before the Judeo-Christian God. To tell them that they can't infringes upon religious freedom in the clearest way possible.(Called 2 Conquer)
The Second Commandment:You shall not make yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.Same point as above. Also you should know the Catholics and eastern- orthodox do not worship those statues. They aren't even called idols but icon. These were people of faith that the church recognized for their acts of faith and made an icon to remind us of what being a Christian is all about.
There are some religious traditions which do pay homage to statues. To tell them that they're not allowed to infringes upon religious freedom and says they're only allowed freedom of religion so long as it's a Christian religion.(Called 2 Conquer)
The Third Commandment:You shall not misuse (blaspheme) the name if the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name.Ok, this could be seen as a violation of free speech, however, if I walked into your home and started cursing up a blue streak it would likely offend you. Worse if I got in your face and made person attacks, verbally, on and at you, you would likely be offended to the point of taking a swing at me. By all this I mean there is freedom of speech and there is manners. God doesn't like His name used as a curse word and I doubt you would either. If you think freedom of speech will protect you however, simply walk up to a police officer and spend 5 minutes cussing him out. I bet you end up in handcuffs. So much for freedom of speech.
It is a violation of free speech, regardless of who it offends. Moreover, a person of different faith, or a person without faith, has every right under the law to take the name of a certain God in vain, especially when he's in the privacy of his own home with no one to offend, but to assert the Ten Commandments as law doesn't even afford him this.At the core of freedom of speech is the fact that your speech is free regardless of whether someone else may not like it. And to tell a Hindu or Buddhist that he needs to respect the name of a Christian god and is somehow violating the law when he says "Jesus Christ!" in surprise is a violation of freedom of religion, as well. Those faiths don't say anything about having any sort of respect for Christ, and while Christianity doesn't approve of that, that is Christianity, not the law.(Called 2 Conquer)
The Forth Commandment:Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord.To argue against this one, in my opinion is pure stupidity. God created the weekend and you want to complain about it? Ok, everyone else gets sunday off but you from now on. Lets see how much you like being forced to give up a day to rest and recouperate. You see God is smarter than you, He knows you need rest or else you will, shorten your life span, develop ulcers, have a shortened temper, be more prone to acts of violence and so on.
People are perfectly capable of working on Sunday and not getting sick. There are people all across the world who work seven days a week. Also, what if their faith says they work on Sunday but take Friday off instead? To say it needs to be Sunday in particular implies reverence for a particular religion that they may not adhere to, and that is not in accordance with the principle of freedom of religion.
The First Commandment:You shall have no other gods before me. This doesn't violate freedom of Religion because the constitution is man made and man insired where as the Bible is man penned and God inspired. God laid down a law but men decided not to promote a state religion but instead allow for allow religions including Christianity. If Christianity was the only religion allow then it would violate the constitution.
I don't understand what you're saying. The First Commandment is very clearly stating that you shall have no other gods before the Judeo-Christian God. This is impossible to reconcile with freedom of religion, because people of other faiths do have gods before the Judeo-Christian God. To tell them that they can't infringes upon religious freedom in the clearest way possible.(Called 2 Conquer)
The Second Commandment:You shall not make yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them.Same point as above. Also you should know the Catholics and eastern- orthodox do not worship those statues. They aren't even called idols but icon. These were people of faith that the church recognized for their acts of faith and made an icon to remind us of what being a Christian is all about.
There are some religious traditions which do pay homage to statues. To tell them that they're not allowed to infringes upon religious freedom and says they're only allowed freedom of religion so long as it's a Christian religion.(Called 2 Conquer)
The Third Commandment:You shall not misuse (blaspheme) the name if the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses His name.Ok, this could be seen as a violation of free speech, however, if I walked into your home and started cursing up a blue streak it would likely offend you. Worse if I got in your face and made person attacks, verbally, on and at you, you would likely be offended to the point of taking a swing at me. By all this I mean there is freedom of speech and there is manners. God doesn't like His name used as a curse word and I doubt you would either. If you think freedom of speech will protect you however, simply walk up to a police officer and spend 5 minutes cussing him out. I bet you end up in handcuffs. So much for freedom of speech.
It is a violation of free speech, regardless of who it offends. Moreover, a person of different faith, or a person without faith, has every right under the law to take the name of a certain God in vain, especially when he's in the privacy of his own home with no one to offend, but to assert the Ten Commandments as law doesn't even afford him this.At the core of freedom of speech is the fact that your speech is free regardless of whether someone else may not like it. And to tell a Hindu or Buddhist that he needs to respect the name of a Christian god and is somehow violating the law when he says "Jesus Christ!" in surprise is a violation of freedom of religion, as well. Those faiths don't say anything about having any sort of respect for Christ, and while Christianity doesn't approve of that, that is Christianity, not the law.(Called 2 Conquer)
The Forth Commandment:Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord.To argue against this one, in my opinion is pure stupidity. God created the weekend and you want to complain about it? Ok, everyone else gets sunday off but you from now on. Lets see how much you like being forced to give up a day to rest and recouperate. You see God is smarter than you, He knows you need rest or else you will, shorten your life span, develop ulcers, have a shortened temper, be more prone to acts of violence and so on.
People are perfectly capable of working on Sunday and not getting sick. There are people all across the world who work seven days a week. Also, what if their faith says they work on Sunday but take Friday off instead? To say it needs to be Sunday in particular implies reverence for a particular religion that they may not adhere to, and that is not in accordance with the principle of freedom of religion.
(Called 2 Conquer;47749)
You still don't get it do you? You cling to to the notion of the US Constitution is right. I love this country but its not the be all and end all. Lets see, for example, the US is a little over 200 years old. God is infinate. The US law was written a little over 200 years ago. God's Law was penned over 3500 years ago. The US law is ever changing. In 3500 years God's law has never changed. The US law can be changed from the bench of a judge with an agenda. God is the Final judge and never has an agenda which changes with an election or political appiontment. God has made His agenda clear and it is that none should perish but that all should repent and be saved. When it comes down to it the US is breaking God's laws not the other way around.
I take it that you don't believe in the separation of church and state, then.I don't think the United States constitution is infallible and I've reiterated that point many times on this board. I do think, however, that separation of church and state is one thing it got right. Christians in the United States can be perfectly good Christians without forcing their beliefs on others through the intermingling of politics and religion.Also, it doesn't take an "activist judge" to bring in separation of church and state in the United States, because it has been part of it since the country began. The "activist" position would be repealing the separation of church and state.
You still don't get it do you? You cling to to the notion of the US Constitution is right. I love this country but its not the be all and end all. Lets see, for example, the US is a little over 200 years old. God is infinate. The US law was written a little over 200 years ago. God's Law was penned over 3500 years ago. The US law is ever changing. In 3500 years God's law has never changed. The US law can be changed from the bench of a judge with an agenda. God is the Final judge and never has an agenda which changes with an election or political appiontment. God has made His agenda clear and it is that none should perish but that all should repent and be saved. When it comes down to it the US is breaking God's laws not the other way around.
I take it that you don't believe in the separation of church and state, then.I don't think the United States constitution is infallible and I've reiterated that point many times on this board. I do think, however, that separation of church and state is one thing it got right. Christians in the United States can be perfectly good Christians without forcing their beliefs on others through the intermingling of politics and religion.Also, it doesn't take an "activist judge" to bring in separation of church and state in the United States, because it has been part of it since the country began. The "activist" position would be repealing the separation of church and state.
(Called 2 Conquer;47757)
The US Judiciary and US Government are all flagerantly violating the the laws set forth by this country by constantly and consistantly attacking Christians and Christian traditions that founded this country.
The founding fathers were deists by and large, not Christians. That is why there is no explicit mention of Christ or the Judeo-Christian God in the constitution. As for the declaration, that does not refer specifically to the Judeo-Christian God; if it had, they would have said so.I'd like to provide you with a quote. It is from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1796 and at which most of the founding fathers were present:
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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
So, no, the United States was not founded on Christian traditions.(Called 2 Conquer)
Lincoln made a point of speaking to our creation not our evolution.
What has evolution got to do with any of this? Darwin's On the Origin of Species had scarcely been published years when Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.(Called 2 Conquer)
More to the point seperation of church and state doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution but is a single phrase within the first amendment that is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
You'll note that this phrase categorically rules out the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, by the way.(Called 2 Conquer)
Speration of church and state is an unlawful weapon used by anti-chirstian organizations for the destruction of the Body of Christ.
Well, that pretty much settles it. If you don't agree with the separation of church and state then there's no point in arguing you; that's clearly where the difference lies. But you shouldn't get the impression that the U.S. was founded on Christian traditions, either.
The US Judiciary and US Government are all flagerantly violating the the laws set forth by this country by constantly and consistantly attacking Christians and Christian traditions that founded this country.
The founding fathers were deists by and large, not Christians. That is why there is no explicit mention of Christ or the Judeo-Christian God in the constitution. As for the declaration, that does not refer specifically to the Judeo-Christian God; if it had, they would have said so.I'd like to provide you with a quote. It is from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified in 1796 and at which most of the founding fathers were present:
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 Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.
So, no, the United States was not founded on Christian traditions.(Called 2 Conquer)
Lincoln made a point of speaking to our creation not our evolution.
What has evolution got to do with any of this? Darwin's On the Origin of Species had scarcely been published years when Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address.(Called 2 Conquer)
More to the point seperation of church and state doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution but is a single phrase within the first amendment that is as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
You'll note that this phrase categorically rules out the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, by the way.(Called 2 Conquer)
Speration of church and state is an unlawful weapon used by anti-chirstian organizations for the destruction of the Body of Christ.
Well, that pretty much settles it. If you don't agree with the separation of church and state then there's no point in arguing you; that's clearly where the difference lies. But you shouldn't get the impression that the U.S. was founded on Christian traditions, either.
There is absolutely no mention of Jesus or Christianity in any of the founding documents.none.So to state that Christianity has some special place in our Government is wrong. It has no place, just as Islam has no place, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.The term "God" and "creator" could mean Allah, Zeuh, Ganesh, Brahma, or an impersonal Deist or philosopher God. It does not exclusively mean Christ.Second, Christians cannot be trusted in running a government as based on Christianity. If we start with Constantine, Christians have a long and irresponsible history of implimenting religious policies and massacring and persecuting non-Christians. The minute we put Christianity into the Government is when the USA will turn into the Christian version of Iran, when idiots like Pat Roberton will suddenly see a rise in power (he himself stated that he would like all non-Christian to be ejected and deported from the USA).The fact is that Christianity has absolutely no place in any government, since history proves that this leads to mass bloodshed and slaughter. As a non-Christian, I do not want to live in a society that is governed by Christian law or based on the Christian doctrine. Nor do I want to live in a society that is governed by Islam.Christians who fight against the separation of church and state want to take this country back to the "good old days" when blacks and coloreds" were enslaved and discriminated against, and conservative Christian values were the norm.If we dont have that, then we have the tyrannical Christian theocracies as seen in European history. The Christians themselves today are largely civilized because of the enlightenment, in which the Christians adopted pagan and non-Christian ideals, mostly from the Greeks. And even with that, there was still slavery, genocide, and mass slaughter. Its only in the last 20 or 30 years that the founding Christian world (Europe and its offshoot America) have elevated themselves to an enlightened society that upholds freedom of religion, press, speech, is environmentally conscious, and does not discriminate and segregate on the basis of color or creed.Now we have Christians who want to regress away from these enlightenment-era ideals back into an era of slavery, genocide, and tyranny.Ill pass.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(adren@line;44360)
Should the 10 commandments be on public display? Are they the basis of US Law?In my opinion, they aren't.The first 4 commandments violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The last 6 are valid but are rather generic and present throughout many societies.
They can be displayed, as freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Too often the idea that freedom of religion is construed to mean that if one displays a public reference to one religion that this is equated with forcing this same religion on all. I don't know where that idea got started. The constitution says,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThe second part is overlooked. Displaying the 10 commandments is simply the free exercise thereof, and just because it is displayed does not mean that the mandates of it are forced upon people or respecting this same religion.To that end, I understand and acknowledge that other religions have the right to display their ideas and beliefs as well e.g. for the holidays a Jewish menorah or a Taoism proverb. Actually, I would welcome it, even though I consider myself a narrow-pathed Christian. Just because it is displayed does not mean that the government is mandating it. Likewise with the ten commandments. Let the people decide what they want to believe.Can you find any fault in my reasoning? I am not censoring anyone, and to not display the 10 commandments or any other religious view would be censorship.
Should the 10 commandments be on public display? Are they the basis of US Law?In my opinion, they aren't.The first 4 commandments violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The last 6 are valid but are rather generic and present throughout many societies.
They can be displayed, as freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Too often the idea that freedom of religion is construed to mean that if one displays a public reference to one religion that this is equated with forcing this same religion on all. I don't know where that idea got started. The constitution says,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThe second part is overlooked. Displaying the 10 commandments is simply the free exercise thereof, and just because it is displayed does not mean that the mandates of it are forced upon people or respecting this same religion.To that end, I understand and acknowledge that other religions have the right to display their ideas and beliefs as well e.g. for the holidays a Jewish menorah or a Taoism proverb. Actually, I would welcome it, even though I consider myself a narrow-pathed Christian. Just because it is displayed does not mean that the government is mandating it. Likewise with the ten commandments. Let the people decide what they want to believe.Can you find any fault in my reasoning? I am not censoring anyone, and to not display the 10 commandments or any other religious view would be censorship.
(tim_from_pa;47919)
Can you find any fault in my reasoning?
Yes.The contemporary problem of displaying the Ten Commandments on public display in a courtroom or government building - which I believe was the implied problem, since the original poster asked if they should be considered the basis of U.S. law - is not a matter of a citizen choosing to display religious imagery on his own property. It reflects a tacit endorsement of those religious values by a government institution.Had it simply been a matter of one person displaying the Ten Commandments on his own property, then of course we'd allow him to do so. But when it's a government building, it's a different matter entirely. How would you feel if government decided to have 17:22 of the Qu'ran in every courtroom? Do you think that the ramifications of that are completely innocuous, that it doesn't speak of any intermingling of religion and politics? There's no endorsement of a particular religious faith implied?To display religious material on government property is a clear endorsement of that religion. That is the very definition of "respecting an establishment of religion," and it is not Christians are perfectly able to engage in "free exercise of Christianity" without using the government as a mouthpiece for it.
Can you find any fault in my reasoning?
Yes.The contemporary problem of displaying the Ten Commandments on public display in a courtroom or government building - which I believe was the implied problem, since the original poster asked if they should be considered the basis of U.S. law - is not a matter of a citizen choosing to display religious imagery on his own property. It reflects a tacit endorsement of those religious values by a government institution.Had it simply been a matter of one person displaying the Ten Commandments on his own property, then of course we'd allow him to do so. But when it's a government building, it's a different matter entirely. How would you feel if government decided to have 17:22 of the Qu'ran in every courtroom? Do you think that the ramifications of that are completely innocuous, that it doesn't speak of any intermingling of religion and politics? There's no endorsement of a particular religious faith implied?To display religious material on government property is a clear endorsement of that religion. That is the very definition of "respecting an establishment of religion," and it is not Christians are perfectly able to engage in "free exercise of Christianity" without using the government as a mouthpiece for it.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
To display religious material on government property is a clear endorsement of that religion. That is the very definition of "respecting an establishment of religion," and it is not Christians are perfectly able to engage in "free exercise of Christianity" without using the government as a mouthpiece for it.
That's assumption. The issue is if a certain religion is the basis for government to rule, not the free exercise thereof including displays---- a display is not something that mandates in law. The thread merely started as a question regarding if government should use the ten commands as a basis for law. The constitution already answers that, although as pointed out, many of its principles are incorporated there. We need be to have an orderly society for what would happen if people had the right to murder, or steal or whatever else?To put it plainly, this association with displays with endorsement is clearly walking its way beyond the government buildings. Take school for instance. Look at all the flack that kids get when they want to have a bible study, (not forcing on to anyone else), with the protesters claiming that the school is endorsing it. From the other end, that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (After all the kids just want to improve themselves and should be praised for that instead of taking drugs and whatnot--- then the same critics sit on their fingers in dark places an wonder why there are so many problems in this generation).The same can be said regarding some work situations. The subjective intolerance especially to Christianity is spreading like a disease so that the only place left is "do it at home" or at church. Christianity is a life faith that involves all aspects and cannot be shelved. And I believe that with other religions as well.
That's assumption. The issue is if a certain religion is the basis for government to rule, not the free exercise thereof including displays---- a display is not something that mandates in law. The thread merely started as a question regarding if government should use the ten commands as a basis for law. The constitution already answers that, although as pointed out, many of its principles are incorporated there. We need be to have an orderly society for what would happen if people had the right to murder, or steal or whatever else?To put it plainly, this association with displays with endorsement is clearly walking its way beyond the government buildings. Take school for instance. Look at all the flack that kids get when they want to have a bible study, (not forcing on to anyone else), with the protesters claiming that the school is endorsing it. From the other end, that is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (After all the kids just want to improve themselves and should be praised for that instead of taking drugs and whatnot--- then the same critics sit on their fingers in dark places an wonder why there are so many problems in this generation).The same can be said regarding some work situations. The subjective intolerance especially to Christianity is spreading like a disease so that the only place left is "do it at home" or at church. Christianity is a life faith that involves all aspects and cannot be shelved. And I believe that with other religions as well.
I think it all boils down to whether you love Jesus or not. Those who do aren't offended by the 10 commandments. They point out that we have sin in our lives. They remind us of God's standards. Jesus said He came to fulfill them. He said the greatest 2 were to love God with everything you have and your neighbor as yourself. If He saw nothing wrong with them, then neither do I. So many people today want to hear only what "tickles" their ears or what makes them feel better about themselves. That's fine at times. But sometimes, a reality check helps us to get back in line. I fully believe many in our country intended on the worship of God and Christ. I think they didn't mention it so as to protect a specific "religion" from forming and oppressing the people. The 10 commandments are not a religion. They are a standard everyone can live by unless they are Godless, which wasn't the case with our Founding Fathers. But, an even better question is do we have these commandments posted in our homes? Are we teaching them to our own children? It all starts with our accountability.
(tim_from_pa)
The thread merely started as a question regarding if government should use the ten commands as a basis for law.
And whether they should be on public display. That's what I was answering. I think a cursory inspection of the founding documents will reveal that Christianity and/or the Ten Commandments are not the basis of our law.(tim_from_pa)
Take school for instance. Look at all the flack that kids get when they want to have a bible study, (not forcing on to anyone else), with the protesters claiming that the school is endorsing it.
I'd actually like to see an example of this in the news, so I can look at the details and know it's not a complete strawman.(tim_from_pa)
The same can be said regarding some work situations. The subjective intolerance especially to Christianity is spreading like a disease so that the only place left is "do it at home" or at church. Christianity is a life faith that involves all aspects and cannot be shelved. And I believe that with other religions as well.
And yet, there are obviously only so many provisions that the government can make for the ubiquitous practice of a certain religion. I think we can look at the potential implementation of Sharia law in Britain as an example of that. The line is drawn when the religious expression goes beyond the personal level and starts affecting others.
The thread merely started as a question regarding if government should use the ten commands as a basis for law.
And whether they should be on public display. That's what I was answering. I think a cursory inspection of the founding documents will reveal that Christianity and/or the Ten Commandments are not the basis of our law.(tim_from_pa)
Take school for instance. Look at all the flack that kids get when they want to have a bible study, (not forcing on to anyone else), with the protesters claiming that the school is endorsing it.
I'd actually like to see an example of this in the news, so I can look at the details and know it's not a complete strawman.(tim_from_pa)
The same can be said regarding some work situations. The subjective intolerance especially to Christianity is spreading like a disease so that the only place left is "do it at home" or at church. Christianity is a life faith that involves all aspects and cannot be shelved. And I believe that with other religions as well.
And yet, there are obviously only so many provisions that the government can make for the ubiquitous practice of a certain religion. I think we can look at the potential implementation of Sharia law in Britain as an example of that. The line is drawn when the religious expression goes beyond the personal level and starts affecting others.
(tim_from_pa;47919)
They can be displayed, as freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Too often the idea that freedom of religion is construed to mean that if one displays a public reference to one religion that this is equated with forcing this same religion on all. I don't know where that idea got started. The constitution says,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThe second part is overlooked. Displaying the 10 commandments is simply the free exercise thereof, and just because it is displayed does not mean that the mandates of it are forced upon people or respecting this same religion.To that end, I understand and acknowledge that other religions have the right to display their ideas and beliefs as well e.g. for the holidays a Jewish menorah or a Taoism proverb. Actually, I would welcome it, even though I consider myself a narrow-pathed Christian. Just because it is displayed does not mean that the government is mandating it. Likewise with the ten commandments. Let the people decide what they want to believe.Can you find any fault in my reasoning? I am not censoring anyone, and to not display the 10 commandments or any other religious view would be censorship.
Then we would have to display every law and rule book from every religion, then before you know it everyone would be complianing about placement, size of the display, preference, and any one particular area would be littered with religious edicts. Its better to just leave it out completely.
They can be displayed, as freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. Too often the idea that freedom of religion is construed to mean that if one displays a public reference to one religion that this is equated with forcing this same religion on all. I don't know where that idea got started. The constitution says,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofThe second part is overlooked. Displaying the 10 commandments is simply the free exercise thereof, and just because it is displayed does not mean that the mandates of it are forced upon people or respecting this same religion.To that end, I understand and acknowledge that other religions have the right to display their ideas and beliefs as well e.g. for the holidays a Jewish menorah or a Taoism proverb. Actually, I would welcome it, even though I consider myself a narrow-pathed Christian. Just because it is displayed does not mean that the government is mandating it. Likewise with the ten commandments. Let the people decide what they want to believe.Can you find any fault in my reasoning? I am not censoring anyone, and to not display the 10 commandments or any other religious view would be censorship.
Then we would have to display every law and rule book from every religion, then before you know it everyone would be complianing about placement, size of the display, preference, and any one particular area would be littered with religious edicts. Its better to just leave it out completely.
The only reason that would happen is because the very name of JESUS carries so much power and conviction. Every beautiful name of God-Elohim, Adonai, Jehovah Jireh, Yaweh, all pack a "punch", but the Father gave Jesus the name above ALL names, and it is the dividing sword. It cuts to the right way or to the wrong way. The 10 commandments remind people of the Bible, hence they think of God; then Jesus. He cannot be ignored because we were made to praise Him. There is more controversy over Biblical material being in the public than any other subject we ever see/hear of. That's because Jesus forewarned us that the world hated Him, so they will hate those who stand with Him as well. I don't know about you, but it makes me feel joyous to think I could be counted on His side. I have the 10 commandments in my home. My girls have learned a way to remember each one by drawing symbols with each number. It's pretty cool. I have to remind them of these from time to time when controversy comes our way. But why wouldn't anyone want to follow them? Which one of them is harmful to anyone else? That's what I can't figure out. They are all meant for peoples' good!
(adren@line;47962)
Its better to just leave it out completely.
I don't know about that. The main reason that people don't want any religions "edicts" on public property is because of the 10 commandments. Jesus is very famous (or in some circles infamous). People could care less about Allah, or Buddha, or whatever. Its Jesus they either love or hate.
Its better to just leave it out completely.
I don't know about that. The main reason that people don't want any religions "edicts" on public property is because of the 10 commandments. Jesus is very famous (or in some circles infamous). People could care less about Allah, or Buddha, or whatever. Its Jesus they either love or hate.
(His By Grace;47976)
There is more controversy over Biblical material being in the public than any other subject we ever see/hear of. That's because Jesus forewarned us that the world hated Him, so they will hate those who stand with Him as well.
No, it's exactly the opposite: It's because Christianity is by far the most prevalent religion in America, so most issues of religious expression are going to center around it simply as a matter of probability. If 90% of the American population is Christian, than 90% of the controversy over displaying religious material in public will be about Christian material.(His Bye Grace)
But why wouldn't anyone want to follow them? Which one of them is harmful to anyone else? That's what I can't figure out. They are all meant for peoples' good!
It's because there are people in America who aren't Christian, so they take issue with abiding by the first four commandments, which explicitly state that they submit to the Judeo-Christian God. Obviously, a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu isn't going to want to do this.No one (except complete sociopaths) is offended by the notion that we ought not to kill or steal, but this is just common sense. It doesn't need to be justified by religious doctrine.
There is more controversy over Biblical material being in the public than any other subject we ever see/hear of. That's because Jesus forewarned us that the world hated Him, so they will hate those who stand with Him as well.
No, it's exactly the opposite: It's because Christianity is by far the most prevalent religion in America, so most issues of religious expression are going to center around it simply as a matter of probability. If 90% of the American population is Christian, than 90% of the controversy over displaying religious material in public will be about Christian material.(His Bye Grace)
But why wouldn't anyone want to follow them? Which one of them is harmful to anyone else? That's what I can't figure out. They are all meant for peoples' good!
It's because there are people in America who aren't Christian, so they take issue with abiding by the first four commandments, which explicitly state that they submit to the Judeo-Christian God. Obviously, a Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu isn't going to want to do this.No one (except complete sociopaths) is offended by the notion that we ought not to kill or steal, but this is just common sense. It doesn't need to be justified by religious doctrine.
Similar threads
