The Ten Commandments

[Adam's Apple]

The Supreme Judge & the Supreme Court
By Cal Thomas
March 2, 2005

In the latest culture war battle, the Ten Commandments have reached the Supreme Court. One federal court has ruled that displaying the 10 standards God requires in order to be declared righteous is constitutional because it is part of this country's legal heritage. Another federal court has ordered them removed from public property because their message implies a government endorsement of religion. The justices will decide whether displaying the commandments in government buildings is constitutionally "kosher."

There are some amusing things about this case. First, it is a group of conservative Christians behind the effort. Not many Jewish groups are petitioning government for this right, even though the Ten Commandments are uniquely Jewish. Moses was Jewish, and the Ten Commandments preceded all of the other laws that followed.

No human has ever obeyed them all. That's why the ancient Israelites had to slaughter so many animals and offer blood and other offerings (grain, fellowship and "wave" among them) and once a year slaughter the Passover lamb to atone for their sin (for younger readers, sin was our condition before we became dysfunctional).

What puzzles me is the extent to which those who want government to endorse their faith seem ready to compromise their true beliefs in order to receive an honorable mention from the state.

Some seem willing to settle for a moment of silent prayer in government schools, a type of religious Miranda right, in which believing students have the right to remain mute. Others are willing to place their God as co-unequal with almost anything, just to have his name publicly mentioned...

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor defended the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance case the court dismissed last year, calling those words "ceremonial deism." She defined the term as the use of religious idiom for "essentially secular purposes," thus satisfying the court's requirement that basically says Rudolph, Santa and Jesus may co-mingle on public property at Christmas (X-mas?) and Rudolph or Santa may be displayed separately or together, but not Jesus alone.

Is this what conservative Christians wish to settle for: a governmental genuflection or acknowledgement that they exist? Do Christians wish to permit government not only to set the parameters for the pubic expression of their faith, but to define the faith itself?

www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas030205.asp

 

[dilloduck]

I'm thinking that removal of the 10 commandments is the ultimate anti-semtic act.----where is the JDL on this one?

 

[Adam's Apple]

Good question, Dillo. As the article indicates, the Jews have not involved themselves in the Ten Commandments issue currently before the SC. Maybe they think they have been persecuted enough for their religion and are hesitant to become involved in another battle.

 

[no1tovote4]

Good question, Dillo. As the article indicates, the Jews have not involved themselves in the Ten Commandments issue currently before the SC. Maybe they think they have been persecuted enough for their religion and are hesitant to become involved in another battle.

What if they just think that they can work to follow the 10 Commandments without them being displayed in the courts? That it really is unimportant in the big picture.

I can't figure out why people get so angry over the Commandments being displayed somewhere. To me, a Buddhist, the first three are not followed, but it is much like art. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't there is no reason that people can't show art that I don't like. The 10 Commandments have a cultural value to most of the country, can't see why I would want them to take it down...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

What if they just think that they can work to follow the 10 Commandments without them being displayed in the courts? That it really is unimportant in the big picture.

The liberal Jews are stupid then - if they think they can just ignore this issue without ultimate negative consequences to their people. In the long run this is a critical issue in the big picture.

I can't figure out why people get so angry over the Commandments being displayed somewhere. To me, a Buddhist, the first three are not followed, but it is much like art. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't there is no reason that people can't show art that I don't like. The 10 Commandments have a cultural value to most of the country, can't see why I would want them to take it down...

Why do some people "get so angry"? There is organization behind this "anger" and basically people are set up to complain. This "anger" does not just come out of the blue. They are pushing this issue in the courts because THEY ARE OUT TO DESTROY RELIGION IN THIS COUNTRY AND REPLACE IT WITH SECULARISM AND THE STATE AS THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY OVER MAN. The commies love this stuff and as I have stated before the ACLU is a Communist organization.

There is NO valid reason for us to bow to the wishes of a tiny minority which we know is OUT TO DESTROY AMERICAas we have known it for centuries. It just blows me away that this issue in all it nickpicky stupidity even reached the level of the Supreme Court. The Courts should have rejected this legal assault before it even got started. But stupid Americans and activist judges are so enthralled with PCness today they don't even know what is really going on here. We are doing nothing more than watch our freedoms get eroded before our very eyes.

 

[dilloduck]

I guess Jews would rather just let Christians think that it is only a Christian symbol to avoid a conflict between the religions and will just let the Christians do the work to protect it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Since the Old Testament is revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and the 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament, just which religion is the government "endorsing"? It is quite confusing to me. I heard a lawyer that was arguing against the display say that displaying the Commandments is tantamount to the government endorsing A religion. So which one? Are the attorneys arguing against the Commandments truly so IGNORANT?

 

[dilloduck]

Since the Old Testament is revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and the 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament, just which religion is the government "endorsing"? It is quite confusing to me. I heard a lawyer that was arguing against the display say that displaying the Commandments is tantamount to the government endorsing A religion. So which one? Are the attorneys arguing against the Commandments truly so IGNORANT?

no--but most of em will just do anything for money. Good point tho!

 

[ReillyT]

Actually, not a good point. The establishment clause forbids government endorsement of religion - not just a particular religion, but any religion. It doesn't matter if the display makes all members of all religions happy - if the display is for a religious purpose (as opposed to an homage to lawgivers or a de minimus display of religion), it has generally be forbidden.

 

[manu1959]

why does it say in god we trust on the govt's money then?

 

[ReillyT]

It has never been definitively decided whether "In God We Trust" on the currency represents an establishment of religion (as far as I know), but even Justice Brennan when he was on the court suggested it did not. Brennan opined that such statements as this on our currency are mere instances of "ceremonial deism" that have lost all religious significance through rote repitition. This is what I meant when I referred to de minimus symbols of religion, although I guess "de minimus" doesn't fully capture why "In God We Trust" is probably permissible.

I can't tell you whether any other examples of demonstration of religious faith are permissible or not. Most of them have never been litigated. All I can tell you is that, generally speaking, the establishment clause forbids government endorsement of religion generally, not just particular religions.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Regarding the argument that displaying the Commandments on government property is tantamount to endorsing a religion, I have heard lawyers argue just the opposite--that the Ten Commandments are a body of laws upon which our legal system (as well as many other Western countries) was based. The display of the Ten Commandments is paying respect and honor to that fact.

 

[no1tovote4]

Regarding the argument that displaying the Commandments on government property is tantamount to endorsing a religion, I have heard lawyers argue just the opposite--that the Ten Commandments are a body of laws upon which our legal system (as well as many other Western countries) was based. The display of the Ten Commandments is paying respect and honor to that fact.

There is definitely historical precedence here. Clearly Western culture and law was began by the Ten Commandments. It would be much like showing Hammurabi's law in Baghdad. There is more than just religious significance, it is only those who cannot see beyond the religious significance, whose views are limited IMO, that think it is an endorsement of one particular religion. Anyway the Establishment clause is that the Legislation can make no laws regarding the establishment of religion not that art cannot show scenes of religious nature in a Court or that we cannot display a historical document, even if it does have religious as well as historical reference.

It would be against the establishment clause to have the Legislature make a law to remove all of those symbols and a clear attempt for them to establish secular humanism as the public religion of the US.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is definitely historical precedence here. Cleraly Western culture and law was began by the Ten Commandments. It would be much like showing Hammurabi's law in Baghdad. There is more than just religious significance, it is only those who cannot see beyond the religious significance, whose views are limited IMO, that think it is an endorsement of one particular religion. Anyway the Establishment clause is that the Legislation can make no laws regarding the establishment of religion not that art cannot show scenes of religious nature in a Court or that we cannot display a historical document, even if it does have religious as well as historical reference.

It would be against the establishment clause to have the Legislature make a law to remove all of those symbols and a clear attempt for them to establish secular humanism as the public religion of the US.

Well said. These anti-God and anti-American people need to be summarily squashed by the Courts in one fell swoop! I can't believe how they have the Courts and the American people dancing around on the head of a pin about all these stupid, silly arguments - whether it is about In God We Trust on money or a statue of the 10 Commandments.

Even if they don't win in Court, they win by creating doubt in the minds of people about our very basic rights to free speech, whether it is religious expression or not. No government religion has ever been established in the more than 200 years of our country and that certainly isn't happening in today's unreligious world!

:finger: to the seditionists

 

[deaddude]

I'm thinking that removal of the 10 commandments is the ultimate anti-semtic act.----where is the JDL on this one?

you realy think it beats out the holocaust?

 

[dilloduck]

you realy think it beats out the holocaust?

How the hell you think that kind out shit gets started?

These things have been hanging on walls everywhere in the US for 200 years. Why ALL OF THE SUDDEN has someone decided they were offensive or unconstitutional???

 

[Bonnie]

freeandfun1

Since the Old Testament is revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, and the 10 Commandments come from the Old Testament, just which religion is the government "endorsing"? It is quite confusing to me. I heard a lawyer that was arguing against the display say that displaying the Commandments is tantamount to the government endorsing A religion. So which one?

True! But what can you expect from Jewish Libs in this country as they have really seperated themselves from abortion as well, but to many it's the same thing as the death camps.

 

[freeandfun1]

freeandfun1


True! But what can you expect from Jewish Libs in this country as they have really seperated themselves from abortion as well, but to many it's the same thing as the death camps.

And that is because truly, they have given up their religious beliefs. Most Jews today really don't participate in their religious activities other than for wealth in my opinion. By being "Jewish" they are able to be within a pretty powerful "click" throughout the world and they help each other a LOT! That is the ONLY reason many Jews in America even keep any "claim" of being Jewish; it is a convenience in life for many and nothing more.

 

[Bonnie]

WASHINGTON—Alliance Defense Fund attorneys who observed oral arguments in two Ten Commandments cases before the U.S. Supreme Court today reported that the justices seemed to understand the issues involved, even acknowledging the importance of the Commandments to American history.

“The justices both said and understood from the arguments of the counsel that the Ten Commandments are a universal symbol of law that comes from God,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “They understood that this is reflected in the earliest history of the United States and should be allowed under the Establishment Clause.”

Earlier ADF Chief Counsel Benjamin Bull explained that, regardless of how the court decides today’s two cases, no single legal case will settle the matter once and for all. “This is a step, but it is not the final step,” he said. “These two cases are important, but they are part of an ongoing battle about whether Americans can acknowledge their own history. ADF is in this for the long haul.”

Ironically, the very building where the cases were argued today contains a wall carving of Moses holding stone tablets that list the Ten Commandments.

The two cases are Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, et al. and McCreary County v. ACLU. Information on the cases—as well as resources on Ten Commandments litigation in general—can also be found on ADF’s Ten Commandments Web page.

ADF attorneys are available to the media for comment on today’s oral arguments by calling (480) 444-0020.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/default.aspx?mid=800&cid=3357

 

[MJDuncan1982]

why does it say in god we trust on the govt's money then?

That was added during the Civil War. The motto was not something that the founders felt necessary to add.

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html