Which Ten Commandments?
I can't find my Catholic Bible, but I borrowed this from the internet, which I trust will sufficiently illistrate the changes and alterations. There are also other alteration in other Protestant denominations, also in versions and translations of the bible.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... gle+Search
I couldn't paste this in comparative columns, but it should work in this order:
Protestant
Catholic
Hebrew
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
1. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
2. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; And showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother; in order that thy days may be prolonged upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
OT: Chiff & Fipple: Fair & Balanced
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
If I am not mistaken, the only difference is in the numbering between the Roman Catholic and some Protestant catechisms, but the very same commandments.DaleWisely wrote:Really. Please do elaborate.Lorenzo wrote: Many denominations,
such as the Catholic church, do not incorporate the holy Decalogue as we
know it...it has been altered.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
-
chas
- Posts: 7707
- Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
- Location: East Coast US
Jim wrote:
I know that rank-and-file Government employees are not allowed freedom to espouse their religious views as part of their service. I don't think it should be any different for Justices. Heck, the right to vote is the most ingrained right we have as Americans, but rank-and-file Gov't employees are not even allowed to have a political bumper sticker on a car that they use for official government business. [i. e., I'm allowed to have a sticker for a candidate on my car, but were I to make an official Gov't trip in my car, I would have to scrape that sticker off.] They can do whatever they please on their own dime, but it's a whole nother ball of wax what they do when on the time clock for the taxpayer.
Of course, election regulations are totally different for elected and appointed Feds, but I don't know how different the regulations for exercise of religion are, nor if they're different at all. Gov't employees are allowed, for example, to pray before and after work and during lunch and breaks, but definitely not when they're supposed to be working. [I know that Ashcroft took some heat for his prayer breakfasts, which were not during working hours, but were viewed by some as coercive, and the people being coerced weren't even in danger of being thrown behind bars.]
This is all true of Feds, but it's explicit in the Constitution that what's forbidden of the Feds is forbidden of the states, which Justice Moore also seems to ignore (i. e., his assertion that the Federal courts have no jurisdiction over this matter that even he considers a Constitutional issue).
[/quote]
Actually, Moore's defense in court was that HE'S being denied his Constitutional right of free exercise of his religion.Now if this argument prevails, what justifies Moore's monument
isn't the second clause--this isn't an instance of the
free exercise of religion. It's merely NOT an establishment
of religion--there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
I know that rank-and-file Government employees are not allowed freedom to espouse their religious views as part of their service. I don't think it should be any different for Justices. Heck, the right to vote is the most ingrained right we have as Americans, but rank-and-file Gov't employees are not even allowed to have a political bumper sticker on a car that they use for official government business. [i. e., I'm allowed to have a sticker for a candidate on my car, but were I to make an official Gov't trip in my car, I would have to scrape that sticker off.] They can do whatever they please on their own dime, but it's a whole nother ball of wax what they do when on the time clock for the taxpayer.
Of course, election regulations are totally different for elected and appointed Feds, but I don't know how different the regulations for exercise of religion are, nor if they're different at all. Gov't employees are allowed, for example, to pray before and after work and during lunch and breaks, but definitely not when they're supposed to be working. [I know that Ashcroft took some heat for his prayer breakfasts, which were not during working hours, but were viewed by some as coercive, and the people being coerced weren't even in danger of being thrown behind bars.]
This is all true of Feds, but it's explicit in the Constitution that what's forbidden of the Feds is forbidden of the states, which Justice Moore also seems to ignore (i. e., his assertion that the Federal courts have no jurisdiction over this matter that even he considers a Constitutional issue).
[/quote]
Charlie
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
-
Caj
- Posts: 2166
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Binghamton, New York
- Contact:
DaleWisely wrote: So, in the speech today, which took a bit of an ugly turn, Judge Moore, who has been defending himself by saying that he is "acknowledging God," said that "certain elected officials" in Alabama--and he went on to name the Governor and the Alabama A.G. Mr. Pryor--were "failing to acknowledge God."
I heard a funny bit on MSNBC, where this guy actually said, and I apologize for any inadvertent misquoting: "this isn't about religion, it's about acknowledging almighty God."
As for law being based on the 10 commandments, that's just silly. So is the oft-spoken claim that the 10 commandments are a decent moral code for anyone regardless of religion (don't kill, don't lie, don't steal, don't cheat on your wife, don't ... have any other gods before the Judeo-Christain one....) Those few commandments which are universal enough to find themselves echoed in law are very simplistic, obvious moral no-brainers that can be found in just about any code of law.
Caj
-
Walden
- Chiffmaster General
- Posts: 11030
- Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Coal mining country in the Eastern Oklahoma hills.
- Contact:
From the Presbyterian catechism:
(Westminster Shorter Catechism)
The First Commandment is, "thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
. . .
The Second Commandment is, "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, isiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep my commandments."
. . .
The Third Commandment is, "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."
. . .
The Fourth Commandment is, "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
. . .
The Fifth Commandment is, "honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
. . .
The Sixth Commandment is, "thou shalt not kill."
. . .
The Seventh Commandment is, "thou shalt not commit adultery."
. . .
The Eighth Commandment is, "thou shalt not steal."
. . .
The Ninth Commandment is, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
. . .
The Tenth Commandment is, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
From the Lutheran catechism:
(Luther's Small Catechism)
The First Commandment.
Thou shalt have no other gods.
. . .
The Second Commandment.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.
. . .
The Third Commandment.
Thou shalt sanctify the holy-day.
. . .
The Fourth Commandment.
Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother [that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long upon the earth].
. . .
The Fifth Commandment.
Thou shalt not kill.
. . .
The Sixth Commandment.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
. . .
The Seventh Commandment.
Thou shalt not steal.
. . .
The Eighth Commandment.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
. . .
The Ninth Commandment.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
. . .
The Tenth Commandment.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his.
From the Church of England Catechism:
HE same which God spake in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus, saying, I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
I. Thou shalt have none other gods but me.
II. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.
III. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain.
IV. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
V. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
VI. Thou shalt do no murder.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
(Westminster Shorter Catechism)
The First Commandment is, "thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
. . .
The Second Commandment is, "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, isiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me, and keep my commandments."
. . .
The Third Commandment is, "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."
. . .
The Fourth Commandment is, "Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid- servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
. . .
The Fifth Commandment is, "honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
. . .
The Sixth Commandment is, "thou shalt not kill."
. . .
The Seventh Commandment is, "thou shalt not commit adultery."
. . .
The Eighth Commandment is, "thou shalt not steal."
. . .
The Ninth Commandment is, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
. . .
The Tenth Commandment is, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
From the Lutheran catechism:
(Luther's Small Catechism)
The First Commandment.
Thou shalt have no other gods.
. . .
The Second Commandment.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.
. . .
The Third Commandment.
Thou shalt sanctify the holy-day.
. . .
The Fourth Commandment.
Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother [that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long upon the earth].
. . .
The Fifth Commandment.
Thou shalt not kill.
. . .
The Sixth Commandment.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
. . .
The Seventh Commandment.
Thou shalt not steal.
. . .
The Eighth Commandment.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
. . .
The Ninth Commandment.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.
. . .
The Tenth Commandment.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his.
From the Church of England Catechism:
HE same which God spake in the twentieth Chapter of Exodus, saying, I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
I. Thou shalt have none other gods but me.
II. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, and visit the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and shew mercy unto thousands in them that love me, and keep my commandments.
III. Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his Name in vain.
IV. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
V. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
VI. Thou shalt do no murder.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his servant, nor his maid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
Reasonable person
Walden
Walden
-
LeeMarsh
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2001 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Odenton, MD (Wash-Baltimore Area)
Chuck and Jerry made some good points. I thought I'd share a piece of information that would have provided Judge Moore with an alternative that would have resolved the case.
There is a room in the RFK building, the main U.S. Department of Justice building where the Attourney General has his office. It's called the Great Hall of Justice. It has an atrium in entrance way that has a large mural perhaps 30 feet tall. The mural include a number of men who where instrumental in the establishment of our legal system They included Hamarabi, Moses, and serveral othes whose name escape me. The point is, the mural places the ten commandments, in perspective to its contribution to the legal system, and in a way that doesn't violate anyones freedom of religion. It's not that Moore shouldn't have the ten commands represented, it shouldn't be the center of judicial thought.
As for his references to 'acknowledging god', I always remember jesus taught that there were only 2 commandments, Love god, and Love each other. He taught this simple approach before pharasees and saducees. By stating that all the law was fullfilled in those commands challenged their legal system. Their religious standing was based on all these rules, that this Nazerine was saying wheren't the point. Further he said if you lived that way, if you lived by following rules, you couldn't make it. Perhaps because it is part of the human condition to be imperfect, so our laws are imperfect and ability to follow them imperfect. It seems to me that few people regardless of their religion would argue with the simple commands to love, these are directives even agnostics can abide. An atheist friend of mine even agreed after we agreeded that god was that which you belived in.
When Moore argues about moral and religious commitment, he demonstrates exactly why the founding fathers agreed to the provide constitutional guarantees for religious freedom. Moores christianity proposes the ascendency of the 10 commandments as right and just. I find this at odds to my christian beliefs. I am thankfull that we have a constitution that allows me to live my life without having anothers religious beliefs imposed on me.
For me, it's not that the ten commandments aren't good. It's just not the way I can live my life, in the sense that I can't govern myself by rules, there are to many and my understanding to little. I can only live successfully by following principles and applying them the best I can. Love, faith, hope these are my principles. For me the commandment is to build these, practice these, pursue these. The are not a done deal, they are not conditions in a contract, they are not some absolute that can be done all the time, they are not etched in stone. They are grown, nurished, given light and room to breath.
When I look at our legal system, it seems to me that nobody wins. I think this is because the legal system can't make right, it can only limit wrong. It can only enforce limits on losses. It can't make someone do the loving thing, it can only try to stop them from doing some hatefull things. We need this system to establish limits and consequences on behaviors, but it is not a matter of moral rightness. It is the fairest system we can come up with to resolve conflicts when the moral judgement of the parties fail to resolve differences. I respect our judicial system, I've spent the last 7 years of my life helping the Department of Justice do a better job. I think our system is one of the best in the world, but that doesn't make it perfect, nor does it make it the answer to every conflict.
In the case of Judge Moore, I agree with the federal courts, protecting religious freedom is more important than the statement Mr. Moore wanted to make. I think, it is peoples beliefs that guide them in their attempts to do right, and the freedom to build those beliefs is assuring that folks have the best chance to do good, to do right, to build the principles that we need to live by.
I generally try to stay out of these discussions because living the principles is more persuasive than arguing them. Part of living those principles includes my belief in power of music to build community. So however you agree or disagree with the statements above, I am hoping you continue to ...
There is a room in the RFK building, the main U.S. Department of Justice building where the Attourney General has his office. It's called the Great Hall of Justice. It has an atrium in entrance way that has a large mural perhaps 30 feet tall. The mural include a number of men who where instrumental in the establishment of our legal system They included Hamarabi, Moses, and serveral othes whose name escape me. The point is, the mural places the ten commandments, in perspective to its contribution to the legal system, and in a way that doesn't violate anyones freedom of religion. It's not that Moore shouldn't have the ten commands represented, it shouldn't be the center of judicial thought.
As for his references to 'acknowledging god', I always remember jesus taught that there were only 2 commandments, Love god, and Love each other. He taught this simple approach before pharasees and saducees. By stating that all the law was fullfilled in those commands challenged their legal system. Their religious standing was based on all these rules, that this Nazerine was saying wheren't the point. Further he said if you lived that way, if you lived by following rules, you couldn't make it. Perhaps because it is part of the human condition to be imperfect, so our laws are imperfect and ability to follow them imperfect. It seems to me that few people regardless of their religion would argue with the simple commands to love, these are directives even agnostics can abide. An atheist friend of mine even agreed after we agreeded that god was that which you belived in.
When Moore argues about moral and religious commitment, he demonstrates exactly why the founding fathers agreed to the provide constitutional guarantees for religious freedom. Moores christianity proposes the ascendency of the 10 commandments as right and just. I find this at odds to my christian beliefs. I am thankfull that we have a constitution that allows me to live my life without having anothers religious beliefs imposed on me.
For me, it's not that the ten commandments aren't good. It's just not the way I can live my life, in the sense that I can't govern myself by rules, there are to many and my understanding to little. I can only live successfully by following principles and applying them the best I can. Love, faith, hope these are my principles. For me the commandment is to build these, practice these, pursue these. The are not a done deal, they are not conditions in a contract, they are not some absolute that can be done all the time, they are not etched in stone. They are grown, nurished, given light and room to breath.
When I look at our legal system, it seems to me that nobody wins. I think this is because the legal system can't make right, it can only limit wrong. It can only enforce limits on losses. It can't make someone do the loving thing, it can only try to stop them from doing some hatefull things. We need this system to establish limits and consequences on behaviors, but it is not a matter of moral rightness. It is the fairest system we can come up with to resolve conflicts when the moral judgement of the parties fail to resolve differences. I respect our judicial system, I've spent the last 7 years of my life helping the Department of Justice do a better job. I think our system is one of the best in the world, but that doesn't make it perfect, nor does it make it the answer to every conflict.
In the case of Judge Moore, I agree with the federal courts, protecting religious freedom is more important than the statement Mr. Moore wanted to make. I think, it is peoples beliefs that guide them in their attempts to do right, and the freedom to build those beliefs is assuring that folks have the best chance to do good, to do right, to build the principles that we need to live by.
I generally try to stay out of these discussions because living the principles is more persuasive than arguing them. Part of living those principles includes my belief in power of music to build community. So however you agree or disagree with the statements above, I am hoping you continue to ...
Last edited by LeeMarsh on Mon Aug 25, 2003 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Enjoy Your Music,
Lee Marsh
From Odenton, MD.
Lee Marsh
From Odenton, MD.
Now, those of you who support the Ten Commandments in the court, how would you feel about a statue of Buddha? Bacchus? Zarathustra? Haile Salassie (JAH)? Eno? Kali? An inverted cross? The justice prays aloud in court; how would you feel if the judge lit a joint (Coptic communion) or nibbled on a little peyote (religious ritual for some Native Americans) or sacrifices a goat before a trial?
I support the Ten Commandments, etc, and was answering
your questions in terms of the First Amendment. As I see it,
his monument is neither
prohibited nor protected by the constitution, for the
reasons I gave. Moore's display of the Ten Commandments
is neither the establishment of religion nor is it
protected by the constitutional right to the
free exercise thereof. The Constitution is silent
on the monument. There may be more difficulties for
purely religious symbols (Jesus, Kali) in terms of the establishment
clause..
The actions you mention inside
the court room (the prayer, the goat, the reefer) aren't protected by
the Constitution, I believe. For the reasons I gave,
allowing a brief prayer doesn't commit us to
allowing a goat sacrifice or ceremonial reefers.
This is how people who support Moore should argue.
I take your point that Moore isn't arguing as I did; he's
invoking the free exercise clause. That may be a mistake,
at least partly for the reasons you gave.
Indeed, if introducing the monument is a religious
act, it prompts the response that its the establishment
of religion. Best
I support the Ten Commandments, etc, and was answering
your questions in terms of the First Amendment. As I see it,
his monument is neither
prohibited nor protected by the constitution, for the
reasons I gave. Moore's display of the Ten Commandments
is neither the establishment of religion nor is it
protected by the constitutional right to the
free exercise thereof. The Constitution is silent
on the monument. There may be more difficulties for
purely religious symbols (Jesus, Kali) in terms of the establishment
clause..
The actions you mention inside
the court room (the prayer, the goat, the reefer) aren't protected by
the Constitution, I believe. For the reasons I gave,
allowing a brief prayer doesn't commit us to
allowing a goat sacrifice or ceremonial reefers.
This is how people who support Moore should argue.
I take your point that Moore isn't arguing as I did; he's
invoking the free exercise clause. That may be a mistake,
at least partly for the reasons you gave.
Indeed, if introducing the monument is a religious
act, it prompts the response that its the establishment
of religion. Best
-
Chuck_Clark
- Posts: 2213
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Illinois, last time I looked
Amidst all the bushwah about the ten reasonable ideas being the sole and only basis of all Western Law, or at least our law, which as we know is the only one that really matters, it occurred to me that if you think about it, only three of them have any real relationship to secular law. I'm not talking about the various blue laws which kept holy the sabbath - or else! What I'm talking about is the basic contract that allows civilized society to exist. Forget all the coveting crap - only the Inquisition thought those were enforceable. And leave out the business about "I'm da god and you better remember it!". Oh, yeah, the honor your mom and pop one really isn't relevant either. And while the law might prohibit lying in certain limited circumstances, it's hardly a universally accepted concept.
What it boils down to is :
1: Don't kill (unless the government says it's OK);
2: Don't Steal (unless you ARE the government); and.
3: Don't go grabbing the other guy's old lady. Sorry, ladies, but back when the book was written, what you did wasn't really all that important since women were subservient to men.
Now, if you take a logical step back and consider, is it REALLY necessary to cite specific divine laws on those three items? If we all go about killing folks or stealing their stuff or stealing the affections of their mates, society just ain't gonna hold up all that long. So, if you think it through, the big ten aren't relevant to the law at all - since the only ones that matter at all to the social contract stand alone as obvious prerequisites of civilization.
In a very real sense, then, this appears to your humble correspondent to be a very real case of Much Ado About NOTHING.
What it boils down to is :
1: Don't kill (unless the government says it's OK);
2: Don't Steal (unless you ARE the government); and.
3: Don't go grabbing the other guy's old lady. Sorry, ladies, but back when the book was written, what you did wasn't really all that important since women were subservient to men.
Now, if you take a logical step back and consider, is it REALLY necessary to cite specific divine laws on those three items? If we all go about killing folks or stealing their stuff or stealing the affections of their mates, society just ain't gonna hold up all that long. So, if you think it through, the big ten aren't relevant to the law at all - since the only ones that matter at all to the social contract stand alone as obvious prerequisites of civilization.
In a very real sense, then, this appears to your humble correspondent to be a very real case of Much Ado About NOTHING.
-
tinlaw
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Cadiz, KY
This talk about what the founders (of the United States) believed is interesting. I have studied this topic a little bit myself, and rather than say that 400 historians have verified that the founders were indeed either Christians themselves or thoroughly immersed in the Christian world view, I will say something more specific.
The first amendment was drafted by a man by the name of Fishcer Ames, I'm sure you all learned about him in school. The amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Well, since words mean something, there was much discussion among those drafting the amendments about what word or words should follow "respecting the establishment of a...". The word "religion" was chosen because it was universally understood to mean a Christian denomination.
Obviously, we don't use that definition for "religion" today. We include all types of observances, Christian and non-Christian in our understanding of religion. But the Constitution can hardly be understood properly if we refuse to try to understand what the founders meant by the words they used.
I'm not saying that only Christians should have religious freedom, but it cannot be said that goat sacrifice or statues of Shiva were ever even dreamed of by the founders.
While the Constitution protects citizens from having their personal religion interfered with by Congress, how does that prohibit a monument to the ten commandments from standing in a court building? Since when can a federal court fine a state because it's actions are distastful to a Federal judge? The Constitution was drafted to limit the power of the Federal government, not to limit the powers of the state governments, except where specifically mentioned (for example: no state could join the union if it didn't have a representative form of government.)
So many here are arguing about their own personal beliefs and ignoring the beliefs of the wise, forwarding thinking people who actually gave birth to this nation, which is still the most free nation on earth. We are more concerned about someone offending us than we are about maintaining the moral and legal foundations which have held the country up.
There is nothing progressive or enlightened about presuming that we are wiser and more compassionate than those who came before. Until we have all studied forms of government as they did, and endured the sacrifices that they did to win freedom, we would do well to adopt their outlook as our own.
We could all learn something from eastern cultures about respect for the ancients and their wisdom. Here, every new generation thinks they are smarter and more experienced than any that have gone before. How naive.
Quoting Dale: Hi to any who have made it to the end of this
The first amendment was drafted by a man by the name of Fishcer Ames, I'm sure you all learned about him in school. The amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Well, since words mean something, there was much discussion among those drafting the amendments about what word or words should follow "respecting the establishment of a...". The word "religion" was chosen because it was universally understood to mean a Christian denomination.
Obviously, we don't use that definition for "religion" today. We include all types of observances, Christian and non-Christian in our understanding of religion. But the Constitution can hardly be understood properly if we refuse to try to understand what the founders meant by the words they used.
I'm not saying that only Christians should have religious freedom, but it cannot be said that goat sacrifice or statues of Shiva were ever even dreamed of by the founders.
While the Constitution protects citizens from having their personal religion interfered with by Congress, how does that prohibit a monument to the ten commandments from standing in a court building? Since when can a federal court fine a state because it's actions are distastful to a Federal judge? The Constitution was drafted to limit the power of the Federal government, not to limit the powers of the state governments, except where specifically mentioned (for example: no state could join the union if it didn't have a representative form of government.)
So many here are arguing about their own personal beliefs and ignoring the beliefs of the wise, forwarding thinking people who actually gave birth to this nation, which is still the most free nation on earth. We are more concerned about someone offending us than we are about maintaining the moral and legal foundations which have held the country up.
There is nothing progressive or enlightened about presuming that we are wiser and more compassionate than those who came before. Until we have all studied forms of government as they did, and endured the sacrifices that they did to win freedom, we would do well to adopt their outlook as our own.
We could all learn something from eastern cultures about respect for the ancients and their wisdom. Here, every new generation thinks they are smarter and more experienced than any that have gone before. How naive.
Quoting Dale: Hi to any who have made it to the end of this
In a very real sense, then, this appears to your humble correspondent to be a very real case of Much Ado About NOTHING.
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Two parties are making much ado of
something small--Judge Moore, who has gone about this
in a way so as to make his monument a Very Important
Statement, and the Supreme Court, which
has managed to interpret the first Amendment in such
a remarkable way that putting up this thing violates it.
Also organizations for the separaton of church and state,
which are offended and see this as a big deal.
As the core moral and legal values of a society are
often thought to issue from a divine law giver, historical
statements of such values, the sort of covenant
that begins the rule of law, are likely to mention God.
That doesn't make posting them in a public
place devoted to the law the establishment of religion.
Much ado about nothing. Some may not like the
God-stuff, others may think it's deeply meaningful,
but the thing itself is innocent. If the people of Alabama
want to keep it or replace it with the Code of Hammurabai
or just take it away, that's up to them.
But let me add this: the particular historical way
that core values are stated can have special force
in people's minds. In New Orleans, when our murder rate
was the highest per capita in the country, large banners
were hung across the streets, literally from one side of
a street to another, in the neighborhoods where the
shootings were happening. They said:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
A Buddhist statement:
I UNDERTAKE THE PRECEPT TO REFRAIN FROM
TAKING LIFE
would have been less effective. The Biblical
Commandment from the Commander And Chief,
has a special force in our society, even
if you're not a believer. Thank heaven.
Tinlaw, I really enjoyed reading your post. Best to all
Yes, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Two parties are making much ado of
something small--Judge Moore, who has gone about this
in a way so as to make his monument a Very Important
Statement, and the Supreme Court, which
has managed to interpret the first Amendment in such
a remarkable way that putting up this thing violates it.
Also organizations for the separaton of church and state,
which are offended and see this as a big deal.
As the core moral and legal values of a society are
often thought to issue from a divine law giver, historical
statements of such values, the sort of covenant
that begins the rule of law, are likely to mention God.
That doesn't make posting them in a public
place devoted to the law the establishment of religion.
Much ado about nothing. Some may not like the
God-stuff, others may think it's deeply meaningful,
but the thing itself is innocent. If the people of Alabama
want to keep it or replace it with the Code of Hammurabai
or just take it away, that's up to them.
But let me add this: the particular historical way
that core values are stated can have special force
in people's minds. In New Orleans, when our murder rate
was the highest per capita in the country, large banners
were hung across the streets, literally from one side of
a street to another, in the neighborhoods where the
shootings were happening. They said:
THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
A Buddhist statement:
I UNDERTAKE THE PRECEPT TO REFRAIN FROM
TAKING LIFE
would have been less effective. The Biblical
Commandment from the Commander And Chief,
has a special force in our society, even
if you're not a believer. Thank heaven.
Tinlaw, I really enjoyed reading your post. Best to all
-
Jerry Freeman
- Posts: 6074
- Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:00 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Location: Now playing in Northeastern Connecticut
- Contact:
Here is the introductory text of the actual court ruling:
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws. To answer this question, the court applies two Supreme Court precedents: Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), and Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983).
Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God--in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws. To answer this question, the court applies two Supreme Court precedents: Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), and Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S. Ct. 3330 (1983).
Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.
-
Lorenzo
- Posts: 5726
- Joined: Fri May 24, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Oregon, USA
Yes Chuck, good thinking.That's the essense of it all that is related to gov't in the US or State Code books, your #3 point being related to marriage contracts. Excuse my ignorance, but where in the US Constitution can you find anything remotely related to the 10 Commandments, or Christianity?
Seems a little narrow to say that the framers understanding of specific terms like "God" or "religion" or "Christian" was limited in definition. I imagine these scholars were brodaly familiar with probems in Europe regarding certain religious views and practices. Luther, for instance, became an fierce anti-semite and proved himself unqualified to preach about religious liberty. These kind of familiar problems were what inspired the framers to reach out further in religious tolerance than anyone had before in gov't.
George Washington, Deist
Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.
Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."
In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."
On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.
George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."
Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.
-http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
Seems a little narrow to say that the framers understanding of specific terms like "God" or "religion" or "Christian" was limited in definition. I imagine these scholars were brodaly familiar with probems in Europe regarding certain religious views and practices. Luther, for instance, became an fierce anti-semite and proved himself unqualified to preach about religious liberty. These kind of familiar problems were what inspired the framers to reach out further in religious tolerance than anyone had before in gov't.
George Washington, Deist
Christian preachers who ardently wanted Washington to be portrayed as one of them have made up many stories of George Washington's strong Christian beliefs. One of the primary purveyors of these propaganda pieces was Mason Locke Weems, a Christian preacher who came up with the fable of George Washington and the cherry tree. He also feverishly promoted the myth of George Washington and Christianity.
Washington, like many people in colonial America, belonged to the Anglican church and was a vestryman in it. But in early America, particularly in pre-revolutionary America, you had to belong to the dominant church if you wanted to have influence in society, as is illustrated by the following taken from Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. "Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence."
In the book Washington and Religion by Paul F. Boller, Jr., we read on page 92, "Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world."
On page 82 of the same book, Boller includes a quote from a Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford, who was an associate of Ashbel Green another Presbyterian minister who had known George Washington personally. Bradford wrote that Green, "often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."
Like truly intelligent people in all times and places, Washington realized how very little we know about life and the workings of the universe. He wrote that the ways of Providence were "inscrutable." Yet he DID the very best he could in all aspects of his life. When things were dark and it looked like the Revolution would be lost, he never gave up. Even when people in his own ranks were turning on him and trying to sink him he persevered because of his deep heartfelt Deistic belief in Providence.
George Washington coupled his genuine belief in Providence with action. After the American defeat at Germantown in 1777 he said, "We must endeavor to deserve better of Providence, and, I am persuaded, she will smile on us." He also wrote that we should take care to do our very best in everything we do so that our, "reason and our own conscience approve."
Washington's toleration for differing religions was made evident by his order to the Continental Army to halt the observance of Pope's Day. Pope's Day was the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes' Day in England. A key part of Pope's Day was the burning of the effigy of the Pope. In his order, Washington described the tradition as, "ridiculous and childish" and that there was no room for this type of behavior in the Continental Army.
-http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
