The Ten Commandments

[MJDuncan1982]

Clearly Western culture and law was began by the Ten Commandments.

The Greeks developed a system of law before the Ten Commandments and are considered to be the first "Western" culture. I would consider the Athenian Solon, not Moses, the de facto "founder" of the tradition that would result in our Constitution.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

So what's with the low profile they insist on keeping ? Are they still hiding from the Nazis?

 

[Annie]

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.

Free, that is sounding like right out of Germany ala 1936-38. Is that what you meant? Hitler was right?

 

[dilloduck]

Free, that is sounding like right out of Germany ala 1936-38. Is that what you meant? Hitler was right?

I know this wasnt meant for me but I think the assesment was correct--Hitlers' actions were what was wrong.

 

[freeandfun1]

The Greeks developed a system of law before the Ten Commandments and are considered to be the first "Western" culture. I would consider the Athenian Solon, not Moses, the de facto "founder" of the tradition that would result in our Constitution.

Perhaps, and from what I understand, he is also represented in a carving in the Supreme Court just as Moses and Mohammed are. Why isn't anybody complaining about them? It was the same in Alabama against Judge Moore. The very court that ruled against him had their own "religious" carvings on the front of the courthouse. Moses, Mohammed, etc.

 

[freeandfun1]

Free, that is sounding like right out of Germany ala 1936-38. Is that what you meant? Hitler was right?

I mean it from a religious standpoint. I have many Jewish friends and they will say the same thing. Most never attend Synogouge except for on special occassions, and then to attend, you have to buy your seat. At the country club I belong to, about 80% of the club is Jewish and they are mostly in the 70's and they all say the same thing about the younger generation. I am repeating what many Jews tell me. Too many have turned totally away from their religion except for convenience sake. Maybe it is because I live in Vegas and the Jewish community here has very close ties to the Jewish communities in NY and LA. I am not a racist, but I do call things as I see em and I will repeat what others of the race being talked about personally tell me. The same thing is happening in the Christian community. The difference is, it is typically more beneficial for younger Christians to sever their ties with Christianity and say they are "spiritual".

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Perhaps, and from what I understand, he is also represented in a carving in the Supreme Court just as Moses and Mohammed are. Why isn't anybody complaining about them? It was the same in Alabama against Judge Moore. The very court that ruled against him had their own "religious" carvings on the front of the courthouse. Moses, Mohammed, etc.

I think you're right - at least about Solon, not sure about Mohammed.

There are some such as Aristotle, who are predominately secular and some such as Jesus, who are predominately nons-secular. And there are many in between. Were it up to me, none would be in the building. Adorn the walls with our great judicial minds instead.

Perhaps the history of the law should be left for a legal museum.

 

[Annie]

I mean it from a religious standpoint. I have many Jewish friends and they will say the same thing. Most never attend Synogouge except for on special occassions, and then to attend, you have to buy your seat. At the country club I belong to, about 80% of the club is Jewish and they are mostly in the 70's and they all say the same thing about the younger generation. I am repeating what many Jews tell me. Too many have turned totally away from their religion except for convenience sake. Maybe it is because I live in Vegas and the Jewish community here has very close ties to the Jewish communities in NY and LA. I am not a racist, but I do call things as I see em and I will repeat what others of the race being talked about personally tell me. The same thing is happening in the Christian community. The difference is, it is typically more beneficial for younger Christians to sever their ties with Christianity and say they are "spiritual".

I think I hear you. Your 'friends' are from a club you all belong to. The Jews are trying to fit in. You are hearing what they want you to hear, just like the thousands that wanted Germany to be what it wasn't in '33-'45. We want to hear what they want to tell.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

And it seems Mohammed is there as well. I apparently need to get my ass to D.C.

http://www.usscplus.com/info/building.htm

 

[no1tovote4]

The Greeks developed a system of law before the Ten Commandments and are considered to be the first "Western" culture. I would consider the Athenian Solon, not Moses, the de facto "founder" of the tradition that would result in our Constitution.

That would depend entirely on if you wanted to ignore the significance of Christianity and the other Western regligions in Western culture. The laws before hand were based strongly on Hammurabi, but after the Conversion from Paganism they were clearly based on the Ten Commandments and the Bible as well. To simply deny the significance because it helps your argument is being deliberately ignorant.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

That would depend entirely on if you wanted to ignore the significance of Christianity and the other Western regligions in Western culture. The laws before hand were based strongly on Hammurabi, but after the Conversion from Paganism they were clearly based on the Ten Commandments and the Bible as well. To simply deny the significance because it helps your argument is being deliberately ignorant.

I don't ignore the significance of Christianity and other Western religions. I simply said that I think Solon is a better 'source' for our legal tradition than the Ten Commandments. Sure they were an influence but Western law existed before them.

Not quite sure what argument you are referring to. The only thing I asserted here is that I thought Solon was a better candidate than Moses. I don't see how denying the significance of a later influence helps that arugment...nor did I deny it.

So far there haven't been sources on either side of this argument but I'm looking.

 

[no1tovote4]

I don't ignore the significance of Christianity and other Western religions. I simply said that I think Solon is a better 'source' for our legal tradition than the Ten Commandments. Sure they were an influence but Western law existed before them.

Not quite sure what argument you are referring to. The only thing I asserted here is that I thought Solon was a better candidate than Moses. I don't see how denying the significance of a later influence helps that arugment...nor did I deny it.

So far there haven't been sources on either side of this argument but I'm looking.

Here is an interesting affidavit talking about the historical significance of the Ten Commandments in American Law. There are many interesting points given.

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm

 

[musicman]

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.

(Paraphrasing) "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...". Close, right?

Let's employ a little bit of common sense here. The U.S. Constitution is, from beginning to end, a heroic effort by our wise and far-seeing founding fathers to limit the power of large, centralized government. It recognizes man's natural urge toward tyranny, and tries, in every way possible, to provide us with safeguards against that tendency. Even the closing sentence of the document states that any power NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED to the federal government reverts AUTOMATICALLY to the states, or the people. The thread running through the entirety of the Constitution is, "The government that governs least, governs best". This means that our primary safeguard against tyranny is decentralization, and its attendant devolution of power to - ultimately - the INDIVIDUAL.

What the establishment section means, then, is that Congress makes no law in this regard because it's none of Congress' BUSINESS. Whose business is it , then? Read the closing sentence of the Constitution . It's OUR call - we the people. These things are meant to be decided at the community level. I'm not making this stuff up - read the damn thing!

So, when you have tyrannical courts overstepping their constitutional authority and telling communities which religion MAY BE ESTABLISHED (whether you call it "secularism", "humanism", or "anything but Christianity"), what else would you call it but a theocracy, or tyranny?

 

[Bonnie]

Musicman

What the establishment section means, then, is that Congress makes no law in this regard because it's none of Congress' BUSINESS. Whose business is it , then? Read the closing sentence of the Constitution . It's OUR call - we the people. These things are meant to be decided at the community level. I'm not making this stuff up - read the damn thing!

I think many in government forget that little item.

 

[musicman]

Musicman




I think many in government forget that little item.

And pretty damned conveniently for THEM, too - LOL!

 

[ReillyT]

(Paraphrasing) "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion...". Close, right?

Let's employ a little bit of common sense here. The U.S. Constitution is, from beginning to end, a heroic effort by our wise and far-seeing founding fathers to limit the power of large, centralized government. It recognizes man's natural urge toward tyranny, and tries, in every way possible, to provide us with safeguards against that tendency. Even the closing sentence of the document states that any power NOT SPECIFICALLY GRANTED to the federal government reverts AUTOMATICALLY to the states, or the people. The thread running through the entirety of the Constitution is, "The government that governs least, governs best". This means that our primary safeguard against tyranny is decentralization, and its attendant devolution of power to - ultimately - the INDIVIDUAL.

What the establishment section means, then, is that Congress makes no law in this regard because it's none of Congress' BUSINESS. Whose business is it , then? Read the closing sentence of the Constitution . It's OUR call - we the people. These things are meant to be decided at the community level. I'm not making this stuff up - read the damn thing!

So, when you have tyrannical courts overstepping their constitutional authority and telling communities which religion MAY BE ESTABLISHED (whether you call it "secularism", "humanism", or "anything but Christianity"), what else would you call it but a theocracy, or tyranny?

OK. First, secularism isn't a religion but the absence of religion (just a minor point, read on). The court has in the past gone out of its way to prevent governments and government units and employees from taking actions which promote religious views. This does promote governmental secularism, but it doesn't establish secularism in society. Private individuals always have the right to practice, demonstrate or proselytize their religious beliefs in anyway they see fit. Thus, the courts don't tell anyone what religion may be established. Communities or people may establish and practice any religion they wish. Governments cannot influence them in their choice. If the government were to prevent practice of religion by the people (private individuals) this would affront the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Second, if your emphasis is focused on the fact that this amendment only mentions Congress, then consider what this would mean. That would mean that the president (or any other federal official), not being a member of Congress, could either establish or prohibit religion as he sees fit. Obviously, the Supreme Court didn't like this possibility and didn't believe, based on research into the founders' intent, that this was intended; so they read the provision to include any federal official. Hence, no federal official (or the federal government) can establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Then, in the 1860's, the Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment. I give you that the exact meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is hard to figure out. However, after a period of years where the Court interpreted much of the 14th Amendment to be meaningless in order to prevent equal rights to African-americans, the court eventually ruled that the 14th Amendment, by specifically preventing the States from infringing on the rights of private persons, incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States. It is for this reason that States (or its subsidiary bodies) can't establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is also the reason that the States can't prevent free exercise of speech, must provide trial by jury, and must obtain a warrant to search your house. These amendments (an the Supreme Court decisions interpreting them) go out of their way to protect the private individual from the tyrannical efforts of their governments - Federal and State.

There are good (maybe not good, but perhaps decent) arguments that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be shown. However, if you are worried about the tyrannical efforts of government, this is not an argument that you want to take.

 

[ReillyT]

The closing sentence of the Constitution reads:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

I can only assume you meant Amendment X.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

OK. First, secularism isn't a religion but the absence of religion (just a minor point, read on). The court has in the past gone out of its way to prevent governments and government units and employees from taking actions which promote religious views.

And even that was an overstep of what the constitution says.

A publicly funded nativity scene is not a LAW establishing religion, nor is it a LAW prohibiting the establishment and practice thereof.

It's simply not a law. It's decorations.

 

[ReillyT]

And even that was an overstep of what the constitution says.

A publicly funded nativity scene is not a LAW establishing religion, nor is it a LAW prohibiting the establishment and practice thereof.

It's simply not a law. It's decorations.

I agree, but a teacher telling her students that Islam is the true faith and that they should reject whatever faith their parents practice in favor of it isn't a LAW either. However, it is equally prohibited. That was the point of the first part of my earlier post.

 

[musicman]

OK. First, secularism isn't a religion but the absence of religion...[/QUOTE}



Wrong. Religion is the means through which we attempt to understand that which is transcendant - that which exists eternally, outside ourselves. If secularists find transcendance in "the politics of meaning", or a worldly utopia, it is still very much their religion - and it's not a very tolerant one, either, as we're finding.

But, this problem was addressed by the framers when they granted - to Congress and Congress alone - the power to enact laws. It seems to me that it is the usurpation of the separation of powers that's getting us into all this trouble.

Then, in the 1860's, the Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment. I give you that the exact meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is hard to figure out. However, after a period of years where the Court interpreted much of the 14th Amendment to be meaningless in order to prevent equal rights to African-americans, the court eventually ruled that the 14th Amendment, by specifically preventing the States from infringing on the rights of private persons, incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States. It is for this reason that States (or its subsidiary bodies) can't establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is also the reason that the States can't prevent free exercise of speech, must provide trial by jury, and must obtain a warrant to search your house. These amendments (an the Supreme Court decisions interpreting them) go out of their way to protect the private individual from the tyrannical efforts of their governments - Federal and State.

Do you mean to say, then, that the Court took it upon itself to circumvent the deliberately designed devolutionary flow of power outlined in the Constitution, in interpreting the 14th Amendment?