I am less interested now as to where monuments like this are placed, as to whether or not the edicts contained therin are "in place" in people's hearts, as Raf said so well in the other thread.
Oh -- btw -- update on our own experience with it all up here, concerning our local monument. A private church (from out of town) bought the monument previously displayed on City property. Then they donated it back to the group that fought so hard for it's preservation (so it never left town), and it is now in another prominent spot here in town -- this time on private land, not "gummint owned". :)-->
Here's hoping it is just as prominantly displayed in the hearts, and lives of the locals -- in public, in action, and in sincerity.
The story mentions one place where they put it up next to the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. I think it should probably stay there (although the other two documents were placed in a naked attempt to keep the Ten Commandments there). I don't know, i could probably go either way on that.
Displaying it on private land, where it will be seen by plenty of folk, seems to be the best solution to me.
I argued about this with my brother, and ended the argument by telling him that if he does not have the Ten Commandments up in his living room, he has no right to continue the discussion. He agreed (surprisingly).
I heard former Judge Roy Moore on the radio today saying the issue wasn't the ten commandments, but the sovreignty of God.
Then perhaps some good person could have the judge explain that the 'Sovereign God' doesn't have even the right to vote in this country. It may be due to the fact that is illustrated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence shown here:
quote:... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Note that it doesn't say "from the consent of God".
Perhaps the good judge shoud take a gander at that and see who really is the 'sovereign' ruler according to the document, hmmm?
Evidently someone has been asleep during civics class.
The consent of the governed via a republican form of government as set up by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; the Bill of Rights (the 1st Amendment being a part of that) being neccessary to protect the rights of the minority from the sometimes mob mentality of the majority.
Come on, Johniam, you mean to tell me you can't reason better than that? --> You mean to tell me that you actually agree with Roy boy that the sovereignty of God has to be officially recognized as part of/propagated by the state?
Where do these myths and religious urban legends come from? I saw the story that is recounted on the link you provided over at Living Epistles. It didn't ring true, but I didn't have any evidense for or against.
While most of the Founding Fathers were members of mainstream Christian churches, there were a distinct minority who were Deists or humanists. One hardly has to invent alleged sayings of the founders to support the contention that most of them were Christians.
Remember that within the context of the 1780's, religious diversity meant various Protestant sects, Jews and Catholics were barely tolerated, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists were virtually unheard of and the native religions were being wiped out along with their adherants.
Times have changed. And it's not just a matter of the "evil" atheists and secular humanists trying to eliminate God from government, but recognition that an ever-growing percentage of our people are not Christian.
quote: Come on, Johniam, you mean to tell me you can't reason better than that? You mean to tell me that you actually agree with Roy boy that the sovereignty of God has to be officially recognized as part of/propagated by the state?
Hey, man. I'm coming to Atlanta. I'm going to knock on your door like those wayfers and ask you if you'll sign a petition making it law that all public buildings must display a 10 commandments sticker affixed to the main entrance door. Thanks! I knew I could count on you.
There are many ways of indicating the sovereignty (or suzeranity) of God.
But it seems to me a twisted logic that refuses the 10 commandments on public buildings then has him on every coin and banknote.
A bit like "trying to serve God and Mammon!" ;)-->
Not at all.
References to "God" are debatable, and debated, on many levels. But the 10 Commandments, we'll agree, go a step further. Not content to refer to the existence of God, this NAMES that God and forbids worship of any other. Insofar as this is a commandment of the Judeo-Christian God, erecting a monument in praise of the 10 Commandments, particularly when the issue on the mind of the government official in question is "the sovereignty of God," certainly crosses the line in regard to endorsing a religion.
"In God We Trust" on our money does no such thing (although others argue it should be removed as well, such arguments don't get much traction. Likewise "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance).
When the Pledge of Allegiance, it being primarily used as a civics-lesson-by-example to teach students about loyalty to country, includes the part about "under God" as a part of that oath, that pledge of loyalty to your country, then yes, it is an endorsement of religion, and not only that, but conveys the idea that to be loyal to your country, you must believe that this country is 'under God'.
And unfortunately, neither this argument nor the reasoning behind separation of church and state doesn't get much traction today, mainly because of popular patriotic-colored spoutings high on emotion yet altogether ignore what the Constitution and the men who wrote it really communicated about the relationship between government and religion. Look at some of the responses here. Classic examples of 'if it looks red, white, and blue' then its good enough for me' mentality.
If we don't get the 10 commandments, I think there's still value to having something like them posted in front of ANY government office, or anyplace that career politicians gather and pass...notably -
Thanks for your distinction which is of course valid.
In popular perception though it is precisely the Judeo-Christian God which comes to mind before any other.
And a secular state should surely stay clear of making religious pronouncements or endorsing belief in a higher power. That way freedom to believe or not to believe is equally afforded to its citizens.
I absolutely agree with you. However, I was drawing the distinction that has been drawn by the courts over the years. I did not mean to imply agreement with it. If you listen to the arguments of those who support keeping "under God" in the Pledge, it is abundantly clear that they believe removing those words would offend the Judeo-Christian God. I could be wrong on this, but I'd bet good money that there are painfully few instances of Zeus worshippers who want "under God" to stay in the Pledge because removing it would offend the Olympian council.
I really don't get why it is so important for people that their government acknowledges their God. God doesn't want your government's worship. He wants yours. Then again, I'm just a commiep pinko left wing lunatic atheist loving anti-God zealot. Just ask the folks on the political threads. :)-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
10
9
6
Popular Days
Oct 16
12
Oct 17
10
Oct 12
9
Oct 14
6
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 12 posts
GarthP2000 10 posts
johniam 9 posts
Trefor Heywood 6 posts
Popular Days
Oct 16 2004
12 posts
Oct 17 2004
10 posts
Oct 12 2004
9 posts
Oct 14 2004
6 posts
GarthP2000
Yup! Looks like God can't inspire people with the principles imbedded in the 10 Commandments without 'gummint' assistance, hmmm?
Whatta witness for Him!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I was surprised when I heard this today on the news.
Given all the back and forth discussion from The Earlier 10 Commandments Thread, I for one have been able to let it go, and move on.
I am less interested now as to where monuments like this are placed, as to whether or not the edicts contained therin are "in place" in people's hearts, as Raf said so well in the other thread.
Oh -- btw -- update on our own experience with it all up here, concerning our local monument. A private church (from out of town) bought the monument previously displayed on City property. Then they donated it back to the group that fought so hard for it's preservation (so it never left town), and it is now in another prominent spot here in town -- this time on private land, not "gummint owned".
:)-->
Here's hoping it is just as prominantly displayed in the hearts, and lives of the locals -- in public, in action, and in sincerity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The story mentions one place where they put it up next to the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence. I think it should probably stay there (although the other two documents were placed in a naked attempt to keep the Ten Commandments there). I don't know, i could probably go either way on that.
Displaying it on private land, where it will be seen by plenty of folk, seems to be the best solution to me.
I argued about this with my brother, and ended the argument by telling him that if he does not have the Ten Commandments up in his living room, he has no right to continue the discussion. He agreed (surprisingly).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Raf -- one of these days you are just going to have to accept the fact that You make a lot of sense!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I heard former Judge Roy Moore on the radio today saying the issue wasn't the ten commandments, but the sovereignty of God.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Figures.
Does anyone need further proof that he was making a religious statement by having that monument in his courthouse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Then perhaps some good person could have the judge explain that the 'Sovereign God' doesn't have even the right to vote in this country. It may be due to the fact that is illustrated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence shown here:
Note that it doesn't say "from the consent of God".
Perhaps the good judge shoud take a gander at that and see who really is the 'sovereign' ruler according to the document, hmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Consent of the governed? So, if I, the governed, consent to the 10 commandments being on govt property it's OK. Works for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Evidently someone has been asleep during civics class.
The consent of the governed via a republican form of government as set up by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; the Bill of Rights (the 1st Amendment being a part of that) being neccessary to protect the rights of the minority from the sometimes mob mentality of the majority.
Come on, Johniam, you mean to tell me you can't reason better than that?
--> You mean to tell me that you actually agree with Roy boy that the sovereignty of God has to be officially recognized as part of/propagated by the state?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
John,
I'm glad you don't object. I do. Others do. Government simply doesn't have the right to do this.
Maybe the court will decide differently, but they would (in my opinion) be wrong to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
Arent the ten commandments already engraved in the room where the supreme court meets?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No.
Take a look.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Where do these myths and religious urban legends come from? I saw the story that is recounted on the link you provided over at Living Epistles. It didn't ring true, but I didn't have any evidense for or against.
While most of the Founding Fathers were members of mainstream Christian churches, there were a distinct minority who were Deists or humanists. One hardly has to invent alleged sayings of the founders to support the contention that most of them were Christians.
Remember that within the context of the 1780's, religious diversity meant various Protestant sects, Jews and Catholics were barely tolerated, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists were virtually unheard of and the native religions were being wiped out along with their adherants.
Times have changed. And it's not just a matter of the "evil" atheists and secular humanists trying to eliminate God from government, but recognition that an ever-growing percentage of our people are not Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Garth:
quote: Come on, Johniam, you mean to tell me you can't reason better than that? You mean to tell me that you actually agree with Roy boy that the sovereignty of God has to be officially recognized as part of/propagated by the state?
Hey, man. I'm coming to Atlanta. I'm going to knock on your door like those wayfers and ask you if you'll sign a petition making it law that all public buildings must display a 10 commandments sticker affixed to the main entrance door. Thanks! I knew I could count on you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
There are many ways of indicating the sovereignty (or suzeranity) of God.
But it seems to me a twisted logic that refuses the 10 commandments on public buildings then has him on every coin and banknote.
A bit like "trying to serve God and Mammon!"
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Johniam,
Only if you campaign for Kerry. And get yourself a "Vote For Hillary in 2008" sticker.
Do that, and I'll sign your petition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not at all.
References to "God" are debatable, and debated, on many levels. But the 10 Commandments, we'll agree, go a step further. Not content to refer to the existence of God, this NAMES that God and forbids worship of any other. Insofar as this is a commandment of the Judeo-Christian God, erecting a monument in praise of the 10 Commandments, particularly when the issue on the mind of the government official in question is "the sovereignty of God," certainly crosses the line in regard to endorsing a religion.
"In God We Trust" on our money does no such thing (although others argue it should be removed as well, such arguments don't get much traction. Likewise "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf,
When the Pledge of Allegiance, it being primarily used as a civics-lesson-by-example to teach students about loyalty to country, includes the part about "under God" as a part of that oath, that pledge of loyalty to your country, then yes, it is an endorsement of religion, and not only that, but conveys the idea that to be loyal to your country, you must believe that this country is 'under God'.
And unfortunately, neither this argument nor the reasoning behind separation of church and state doesn't get much traction today, mainly because of popular patriotic-colored spoutings high on emotion yet altogether ignore what the Constitution and the men who wrote it really communicated about the relationship between government and religion. Look at some of the responses here. Classic examples of 'if it looks red, white, and blue' then its good enough for me' mentality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
If we don't get the 10 commandments, I think there's still value to having something like them posted in front of ANY government office, or anyplace that career politicians gather and pass...notably -
thou shalt not lie
thou shalt not steal
thou shalt not screw your interns
The list could go on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
return implys existing
hmmmm thousands upon billion years later and quite possible befor~~~
hence
eons stoned tablets 10 comandments...
where is Moses to solve this type of Red Sea?
seems ol Mo fkd up a tap or two a rock of water...
bloody man that Mo was....
so many thoughts a simple tap that would prevent one the promised land no matter ones stand to lead ... ~~~ need i go on???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Raf
Thanks for your distinction which is of course valid.
In popular perception though it is precisely the Judeo-Christian God which comes to mind before any other.
And a secular state should surely stay clear of making religious pronouncements or endorsing belief in a higher power. That way freedom to believe or not to believe is equally afforded to its citizens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Tref,
I absolutely agree with you. However, I was drawing the distinction that has been drawn by the courts over the years. I did not mean to imply agreement with it. If you listen to the arguments of those who support keeping "under God" in the Pledge, it is abundantly clear that they believe removing those words would offend the Judeo-Christian God. I could be wrong on this, but I'd bet good money that there are painfully few instances of Zeus worshippers who want "under God" to stay in the Pledge because removing it would offend the Olympian council.
I really don't get why it is so important for people that their government acknowledges their God. God doesn't want your government's worship. He wants yours. Then again, I'm just a commiep pinko left wing lunatic atheist loving anti-God zealot. Just ask the folks on the political threads.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
SRTS: The thread title refers to the return of the debate, not the "return of the 10 commandments."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Raf:
The closest thing I can find to the founding fathers' view is in the DOI when the phrase "endowed by their Creator" appears.
But it is more a statement of principle about rights in general than an instruction that this undefined Creator should be offically included.
I remember Agape's record included the song "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."
But as you say the nation is made up of individuals and their citizenship is not decided by what they believe or worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.