The Great Ten Commandments Statue Debate

[Sundance]

I was watching a recommended YouTube video by Anthony Padilla entitled “I Interview Satanists”, or something along those lines, and there was a reference to the debacle regarding the presence of Ten Commandments statues on the grounds of various courthouses in the United States — most notably Austin, Oklahoma City, Little Rock — and whether or not these monuments are constitutional.

Many people (namely Satanists, atheists, humanists, and other secularists) have asserted that they serve to exclusively project the Christian religion, thus violating the Establishment clause. Others (mainly Christians) defended, and continue to, their presence under the Free Exercise clause.


I’m going to offer a reflection on the matter from the perspective of a Roman Pagan in defense of the Christians.


Firstly, contrary to the protestations of the opposition, The Ten Commandments are not merely significant religiously (they are). However, this religious significance is not limited to the followers of only one religion. Christianity did not even create the Ten Commandments; they originate from Judaism. In addition, the Islamic holy text, The Qur’an, makes reference to several of the Commandments. The second significance they possess (the more relevant one) is as a small set of moral and ethical values, which are the purpose of any kind of civil laws anyway. They’re laws which dictate how a person and society as a whole ought to operate. This unto itself shouldn’t be problematic. To illustrate my first point, consider how although he spoke clearly of God, the kingdom of God, salvation, many atheists and agnostics have examined and were even inspired by the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If they’re capable of doing this with the New Testament, why not with the Ten Commandments?

The issue here, to lead into my second point, at least as voiced by the opposition, is the explicit reference to a deity in the Ten Commandments.

To start off, my personal sentiment is that any reference to a god or to a religion (especially to the deities of my religious forebearers) are wonderful. They reflect the majesty of what human beings conceive of, but I digress.

My second point is this: why is the mere mention of a god or image of a god or goddess – any invocation of any deity at all – so problematic to atheists and secularists, especially in situations in which no religion exclusively is exalted or one is not being compelled to adopt the belief?

There shouldn’t be any issue at all, especially if the historical, chronological context of the Ten Commandments is considered. If one is going to talk about the religious elements of the Commandments, one ought to be aware that they originate from a world in which every single thing a person did possessed a religious significance. This was true not exclusively for Jews or Christians, but also Greek and Roman (and, indeed, other) Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, other indigenous peoples around the world, etc.

To illustrate my point here, consider how we name our days of the week, a few months of the year, our planets…they all contain the names of various Pagan gods. Or how the medical profession uses the symbols of the gods Hermes and Asclepius (the caduceus and the rod, respectively). Would anyone in our time honestly consider excising these (outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and some Quakers) because they are allusions to or eponyms of gods and goddesses? No. No one would, because no one is being compelled to adopt Pagan religion. Indeed, the very image of Justice used in American courthouses, government property, is that of a Roman goddess, Justitia.

Why take an issue with the mere mention of the Jewish or Christian God in a phrase or a document or on a monument when there is no compulsion to be Jewish or Christian?


To level with Satanists here, more directly, what in regards to justice, mercy, equality under the law, law itself and order does Baphomet represent? In light of everything mentioned so far, what would warrant his inclusion in the setting of a courthouse? Is he a god of justice and order?, law?, ethics? morality? What’s his angle? Does the Jewish and Christian God not already have these things locked up?


To conclude here, I think that the entire debacle makes a mountain of a molehill. Certain people take offense to a “religious” monument, missing the essential point of it.

 

[Sheldon]

I was watching a recommended YouTube video by Anthony Padilla entitled “I Interview Satanists”, or something along those lines, and there was a reference to the debacle regarding the presence of Ten Commandments statues on the grounds of various courthouses in the United States — most notably Austin, Oklahoma City, Little Rock — and whether or not these monuments are constitutional.

Many people (namely Satanists, atheists, humanists, and other secularists) have asserted that they serve to exclusively project the Christian religion, thus violating the Establishment clause. Others (mainly Christians) defended, and continue to, their presence under the Free Exercise clause.


I’m going to offer a reflection on the matter from the perspective of a Roman Pagan in defense of the Christians.


Firstly, contrary to the protestations of the opposition, The Ten Commandments are not merely significant religiously (they are). However, this religious significance is not limited to the followers of only one religion. Christianity did not even create the Ten Commandments; they originate from Judaism. In addition, the Islamic holy text, The Qur’an, makes reference to several of the Commandments. The second significance they possess (the more relevant one) is as a small set of moral and ethical values, which are the purpose of any kind of civil laws anyway. They’re laws which dictate how a person and society as a whole ought to operate. This unto itself shouldn’t be problematic. To illustrate my first point, consider how although he spoke clearly of God, the kingdom of God, salvation, many atheists and agnostics have examined and were even inspired by the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If they’re capable of doing this with the New Testament, why not with the Ten Commandments?

The issue here, to lead into my second point, at least as voiced by the opposition, is the explicit reference to a deity in the Ten Commandments.

To start off, my personal sentiment is that any reference to a god or to a religion (especially to the deities of my religious forebearers) are wonderful. They reflect the majesty of what human beings conceive of, but I digress.

My second point is this: why is the mere mention of a god or image of a god or goddess – any invocation of any deity at all – so problematic to atheists and secularists, especially in situations in which no religion exclusively is exalted or one is not being compelled to adopt the belief?

There shouldn’t be any issue at all, especially if the historical, chronological context of the Ten Commandments is considered. If one is going to talk about the religious elements of the Commandments, one ought to be aware that they originate from a world in which every single thing a person did possessed a religious significance. This was true not exclusively for Jews or Christians, but also Greek and Roman (and, indeed, other) Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, other indigenous peoples around the world, etc.

To illustrate my point here, consider how we name our days of the week, a few months of the year, our planets…they all contain the names of various Pagan gods. Or how the medical profession uses the symbols of the gods Hermes and Asclepius (the caduceus and the rod, respectively). Would anyone in our time honestly consider excising these (outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and some Quakers) because they are allusions to or eponyms of gods and goddesses? No. No one would, because no one is being compelled to adopt Pagan religion. Indeed, the very image of Justice used in American courthouses, government property, is that of a Roman goddess, Justitia.

Why take an issue with the mere mention of the Jewish or Christian God in a phrase or a document or on a monument when there is no compulsion to be Jewish or Christian?


To level with Satanists here, more directly, what in regards to justice, mercy, equality under the law, law itself and order does Baphomet represent? In light of everything mentioned so far, what would warrant his inclusion in the setting of a courthouse? Is he a god of justice and order?, law?, ethics? morality? What’s his angle? Does the Jewish and Christian God not already have these things locked up?


To conclude here, I think that the entire debacle makes a mountain of a molehill. Certain people take offense to a “religious” monument, missing the essential point of it.

This is nothing to do with atheism or secularism, or religion come to that, it is a question of not violating the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The founding fathers rightly recognised the best protection for the rights of individuals, to practice whatever beliefs or the lack thereof, was a secular constitution, the complete and absolute separation of church and state.

Why so many citizens of the US don't value that essential right is baffling to me, but you should be thankful it is there to protect your rights.

 

[F1fan]

My second point is this: why is the mere mention of a god or image of a god or goddess – any invocation of any deity at all – so problematic to atheists and secularists, especially in situations in which no religion exclusively is exalted or one is not being compelled to adopt the belief?

The reason the Founding Fathers requited a separation of church and state is because the Kings of England had divine rights that enabled them to make any decree and it could not be challenged in any way, even if illegal. If a kind ordered a person killed there would be no due process. The authority of the king comes directly from God. This is why the Declaration of Independence proclaims "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This isn't an endorsement of religion, but aims to use the very power and authority the king relies on to challenge any divine rights, and instead that all are created equal and only with law is there due process and freedom.

But whast we are seeing with the far right Republicans since Reagan is an alliance between the GOP and evangelicals to help each other attain and consolidate political power over an agreed upon set of policies. Among these has been banning abortion. With trump's election this meant that the GOP majority senate could in stall sympathetic justices to this agenda. They were able to install three anti-abortion justices to have a conservative majority, and within a few months they are expected to release a decision that will overturn Roe v Wade, and make abortion illegal in about half the USA. It is this use of religion that is what separation of church and state intended to do, but of course the GOP has ignored this, and used it to help attain and maintain power and influence.

Wer have also seen organized efforts to eliminate evolution in public school curriculums. In Kansas they were able to get a majority of 6 of 10 school board members back in the late 90's, and they set out to replace science books with controversial text books. Fortunately within a year two of these Christian extremists had resigned, one due to business fraud, and the other a woman who was cheating on her husband. Love those Christian values. These folks tried to install more creationists in these positions but Kansans wanted none of it, even though it is still a very red state.

Today we are seeing Christians banning books, pushing for bans on trans gender liberties, and pushing an archaic social value system, which is really just intolerance.

To illustrate my point here, consider how we name our days of the week, a few months of the year, our planets…they all contain the names of various Pagan gods. Or how the medical profession uses the symbols of the gods Hermes and Asclepius (the caduceus and the rod, respectively). Would anyone in our time honestly consider excising these (outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and some Quakers) because they are allusions to or eponyms of gods and goddesses? No. No one would, because no one is being compelled to adopt Pagan religion. Indeed, the very image of Justice used in American courthouses, government property, is that of a Roman goddess, Justitia.

Imagine if Pagans were the majority in the USA and in political positions and they decided that no non-Pagan could work on any day of the week named after their Gods because it is sacred. Is that liberty? If Christians have to convert to being Pagan just to avoid being arrested for working, is that Justice? This illustrates why government needs to be separate from any religion and any majority of religious people. We are seeing serious violations happening due to republicans not respecting this important constitutional principle.

Why take an issue with the mere mention of the Jewish or Christian God in a phrase or a document or on a monument when there is no compulsion to be Jewish or Christian?

Not a problem with Jews because they mind their own business. But with Evangelical Christians they assume an authority over all others due to their religious belief, and that makes them a threat to democracy. Fortunately there are many divisions and sects in Christianity that dilute the unity, from liberals to moderates to extremists, they are a diverse bunch.

To level with Satanists here, more directly, what in regards to justice, mercy, equality under the law, law itself and order does Baphomet represent? In light of everything mentioned so far, what would warrant his inclusion in the setting of a courthouse? Is he a god of justice and order?, law?, ethics? morality? What’s his angle? Does the Jewish and Christian God not already have these things locked up?

Well, superficially, which is what the Christians have in mid to have their monuments put in public places, it would sabotage the authority Christians claim to have with their religious privilege that it is above the Constitution and law. If the 10 Commandments have to share space with a Satanist statue that will deflate the pride and other deadly sins the Christian is tempted to feel. And that is a victory for liberty.

To conclude here, I think that the entire debacle makes a mountain of a molehill. Certain people take offense to a “religious” monument, missing the essential point of it.

I disagree. The point of Christians putting monuments in public places is a type of bullying and expression of a power they assume to have. These folks create a mountain of controversy by violating the Constitution. That they can't honor their own religion and the Constitution suggests a serious flaw in their devotion and their patriotism.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I was watching a recommended YouTube video by Anthony Padilla entitled “I Interview Satanists”, or something along those lines, and there was a reference to the debacle regarding the presence of Ten Commandments statues on the grounds of various courthouses in the United States — most notably Austin, Oklahoma City, Little Rock — and whether or not these monuments are constitutional.

Many people (namely Satanists, atheists, humanists, and other secularists) have asserted that they serve to exclusively project the Christian religion, thus violating the Establishment clause. Others (mainly Christians) defended, and continue to, their presence under the Free Exercise clause.


I’m going to offer a reflection on the matter from the perspective of a Roman Pagan in defense of the Christians.


Firstly, contrary to the protestations of the opposition, The Ten Commandments are not merely significant religiously (they are). However, this religious significance is not limited to the followers of only one religion. Christianity did not even create the Ten Commandments; they originate from Judaism. In addition, the Islamic holy text, The Qur’an, makes reference to several of the Commandments. The second significance they possess (the more relevant one) is as a small set of moral and ethical values, which are the purpose of any kind of civil laws anyway. They’re laws which dictate how a person and society as a whole ought to operate. This unto itself shouldn’t be problematic. To illustrate my first point, consider how although he spoke clearly of God, the kingdom of God, salvation, many atheists and agnostics have examined and were even inspired by the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If they’re capable of doing this with the New Testament, why not with the Ten Commandments?

The issue here, to lead into my second point, at least as voiced by the opposition, is the explicit reference to a deity in the Ten Commandments.

To start off, my personal sentiment is that any reference to a god or to a religion (especially to the deities of my religious forebearers) are wonderful. They reflect the majesty of what human beings conceive of, but I digress.

My second point is this: why is the mere mention of a god or image of a god or goddess – any invocation of any deity at all – so problematic to atheists and secularists, especially in situations in which no religion exclusively is exalted or one is not being compelled to adopt the belief?

There shouldn’t be any issue at all, especially if the historical, chronological context of the Ten Commandments is considered. If one is going to talk about the religious elements of the Commandments, one ought to be aware that they originate from a world in which every single thing a person did possessed a religious significance. This was true not exclusively for Jews or Christians, but also Greek and Roman (and, indeed, other) Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, other indigenous peoples around the world, etc.

To illustrate my point here, consider how we name our days of the week, a few months of the year, our planets…they all contain the names of various Pagan gods. Or how the medical profession uses the symbols of the gods Hermes and Asclepius (the caduceus and the rod, respectively). Would anyone in our time honestly consider excising these (outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and some Quakers) because they are allusions to or eponyms of gods and goddesses? No. No one would, because no one is being compelled to adopt Pagan religion. Indeed, the very image of Justice used in American courthouses, government property, is that of a Roman goddess, Justitia.

Why take an issue with the mere mention of the Jewish or Christian God in a phrase or a document or on a monument when there is no compulsion to be Jewish or Christian?


To level with Satanists here, more directly, what in regards to justice, mercy, equality under the law, law itself and order does Baphomet represent? In light of everything mentioned so far, what would warrant his inclusion in the setting of a courthouse? Is he a god of justice and order?, law?, ethics? morality? What’s his angle? Does the Jewish and Christian God not already have these things locked up?


To conclude here, I think that the entire debacle makes a mountain of a molehill. Certain people take offense to a “religious” monument, missing the essential point of it.

Hey, you want to put up a monument to the 10 commandments, go for it! Just erect it on YOUR property, not OUR property. Problem solved. The ones making a mountain out of a mole hill are the ones insisting that they MUST erect such statues on OUR property, instead of simply keeping them on THEIR property where they belong.

 

[Sundance]

This is nothing to do with atheism or secularism, or religion come to that, it is a question of not violating the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The founding fathers rightly recognised the best protection for the rights of individuals, to practice whatever beliefs or the lack thereof, was a secular constitution, the complete and absolute separation of church and state.

Regarding not violating the constitution, I agree. However, where I disagree is that when it comes to the Founding Fathers and religion, many of them also recognized the importance that religion has in fostering ethical and moral ideals. Case in point: the existence of the Jefferson Bible and his owning of a Qur’an despite being a Deist.

Why so many citizens of the US don't value that essential right is baffling to me, but you should be thankful it is there to protect your rights.

I think that most of us are. I am.

 

[F1fan]

Regarding not violating the constitution, I agree. However, where I disagree is that when it comes to the Founding Fathers and religion, many of them also recognized the importance that religion has in fostering ethical and moral ideals. Case in point: the existence of the Jefferson Bible and his owning of a Qur’an despite being a Deist.

Gee whiz I'm an atheists and have numerous Bibles and other religious books.

And isn't the Jefferson Bible an edit where all the magical nonsense is removed?

 

[Sundance]

The reason the Founding Fathers requited a separation of church and state is because the Kings of England had divine rights that enabled them to make any decree and it could not be challenged in any way, even if illegal. If a kind ordered a person killed there would be no due process. The authority of the king comes directly from God. This is why the Declaration of Independence proclaims "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This isn't an endorsement of religion, but aims to use the very power and authority the king relies on to challenge any divine rights, and instead that all are created equal and only with law is there due process and freedom.

For the most part, I agree with you. However, your quotation of the Declaration of Independence is interesting. While you are correct in your statement that the quote does not endorse any particular form of religion, it quite clearly invokes not merely a human power or authority or basis but Divine. That’s why the words preceding them are there: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Why were they considered self-evident, especially in a day and age, where monarchies were the norm and secular republics had yet to be established? Because of the common understanding held by people in that time that human life has worth or value because of the belief that human beings are created in the Image of God.

But whast we are seeing with the far right Republicans since Reagan is an alliance between the GOP and evangelicals to help each other attain and consolidate political power over an agreed upon set of policies. Among these has been banning abortion. With trump's election this meant that the GOP majority senate could in stall sympathetic justices to this agenda. They were able to install three anti-abortion justices to have a conservative majority, and within a few months they are expected to release a decision that will overturn Roe v Wade, and make abortion illegal in about half the USA. It is this use of religion that is what separation of church and state intended to do, but of course the GOP has ignored this, and used it to help attain and maintain power and influence.

Wer have also seen organized efforts to eliminate evolution in public school curriculums. In Kansas they were able to get a majority of 6 of 10 school board members back in the late 90's, and they set out to replace science books with controversial text books. Fortunately within a year two of these Christian extremists had resigned, one due to business fraud, and the other a woman who was cheating on her husband. Love those Christian values. These folks tried to install more creationists in these positions but Kansans wanted none of it, even though it is still a very red state.

Today we are seeing Christians banning books, pushing for bans on trans gender liberties, and pushing an archaic social value system, which is really just intolerance.

The doings of certain Republicans have very little to do with the topic at hand: the presence of the Ten Commandments statue outside of various American courthouses.

Imagine if Pagans were the majority in the USA and in political positions and they decided that no non-Pagan could work on any day of the week named after their Gods because it is sacred. Is that liberty? If Christians have to convert to being Pagan just to avoid being arrested for working, is that Justice? This illustrates why government needs to be separate from any religion and any majority of religious people. We are seeing serious violations happening due to republicans not respecting this important constitutional principle.

I agree that these things do constitute a violation of the Free Exercise clause, but again, these are not the matter.

Not a problem with Jews because they mind their own business. But with Evangelical Christians they assume an authority over all others due to their religious belief, and that makes them a threat to democracy. Fortunately there are many divisions and sects in Christianity that dilute the unity, from liberals to moderates to extremists, they are a diverse bunch.

Indeed, so why be too concerned, especially with the population shifts happening as they are?

Well, superficially, which is what the Christians have in mid to have their monuments put in public places, it would sabotage the authority Christians claim to have with their religious privilege that it is above the Constitution and law. If the 10 Commandments have to share space with a Satanist statue that will deflate the pride and other deadly sins the Christian is tempted to feel. And that is a victory for liberty.

No religious or secular group is above the laws that govern our society. Though, as I mention in my OP, the Ten Commandments, enshrining as they do a small representation of ethics and morality, would share the courthouses of America with images of a Pagan goddess (Justitia), as the visual representation of the concept of Justice.

I disagree. The point of Christians putting monuments in public places is a type of bullying and expression of a power they assume to have. These folks create a mountain of controversy by violating the Constitution. That they can't honor their own religion and the Constitution suggests a serious flaw in their devotion and their patriotism.

Is it? I don’t see it that way. Again, there is nothing inherently distinctively or exclusively Christian about the Ten Commandments, from the belief in a single God to stressing truthfulness, a respect for life and the property of others to honoring your parental figures and upholding decency regarding sexual matters, is there?

 

[Sundance]

Gee whiz I'm an atheists and have numerous Bibles and other religious books.

And isn't the Jefferson Bible an edit where all the magical nonsense is removed?

Yes it is, and that’s exactly my point. Isn’t it possible to appreciate the essential point of something in spite of it there being something one disagrees with?

Hmmmm I’m curious, which other religious books do you have? What are some things you appreciate about what you’re learning?

 

[Aštra’el]

I am just as much Christian as I am satanist... and yet I am neither. I am perfectly fine with the Ten Commandments monument being displayed, as they are far more culturally significant to this country’s history than anything having to do with satanism.

Besides. It’s the satanic temple. Aka The Last Jedi of satanism, lol, completely devoid of anything remotely “satanic”, minus whatever symbols and motifs they’ve lifted off of their religious and anti-religious predecessors.

 

[Sheldon]

Regarding not violating the constitution, I agree. However, where I disagree is that when it comes to the Founding Fathers and religion, many of them also recognized the importance that religion has in fostering ethical and moral ideals.

That's some shifting of the goal posts, the separation of church and state, and a secular constitution is the best protect people have for believing and practicing any religious beliefs they want, or none at all. The "ethical debate" can happen without violating the constitution and forcing one's beliefs on others, which the 1st amendment was written specifically to avoid.

Case in point: the existence of the Jefferson Bible and his owning of a Qur’an despite being a Deist.

I own a copy of both bible and Koran, and I am an atheist, so I am dubious. However this is irrelevant to the point, that a complete separation of church and state is there to protect the rights of the individual.

 

[sayak83]

I was watching a recommended YouTube video by Anthony Padilla entitled “I Interview Satanists”, or something along those lines, and there was a reference to the debacle regarding the presence of Ten Commandments statues on the grounds of various courthouses in the United States — most notably Austin, Oklahoma City, Little Rock — and whether or not these monuments are constitutional.

Many people (namely Satanists, atheists, humanists, and other secularists) have asserted that they serve to exclusively project the Christian religion, thus violating the Establishment clause. Others (mainly Christians) defended, and continue to, their presence under the Free Exercise clause.


I’m going to offer a reflection on the matter from the perspective of a Roman Pagan in defense of the Christians.


Firstly, contrary to the protestations of the opposition, The Ten Commandments are not merely significant religiously (they are). However, this religious significance is not limited to the followers of only one religion. Christianity did not even create the Ten Commandments; they originate from Judaism. In addition, the Islamic holy text, The Qur’an, makes reference to several of the Commandments. The second significance they possess (the more relevant one) is as a small set of moral and ethical values, which are the purpose of any kind of civil laws anyway. They’re laws which dictate how a person and society as a whole ought to operate. This unto itself shouldn’t be problematic. To illustrate my first point, consider how although he spoke clearly of God, the kingdom of God, salvation, many atheists and agnostics have examined and were even inspired by the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. If they’re capable of doing this with the New Testament, why not with the Ten Commandments?

The issue here, to lead into my second point, at least as voiced by the opposition, is the explicit reference to a deity in the Ten Commandments.

To start off, my personal sentiment is that any reference to a god or to a religion (especially to the deities of my religious forebearers) are wonderful. They reflect the majesty of what human beings conceive of, but I digress.

My second point is this: why is the mere mention of a god or image of a god or goddess – any invocation of any deity at all – so problematic to atheists and secularists, especially in situations in which no religion exclusively is exalted or one is not being compelled to adopt the belief?

There shouldn’t be any issue at all, especially if the historical, chronological context of the Ten Commandments is considered. If one is going to talk about the religious elements of the Commandments, one ought to be aware that they originate from a world in which every single thing a person did possessed a religious significance. This was true not exclusively for Jews or Christians, but also Greek and Roman (and, indeed, other) Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, other indigenous peoples around the world, etc.

To illustrate my point here, consider how we name our days of the week, a few months of the year, our planets…they all contain the names of various Pagan gods. Or how the medical profession uses the symbols of the gods Hermes and Asclepius (the caduceus and the rod, respectively). Would anyone in our time honestly consider excising these (outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, and some Quakers) because they are allusions to or eponyms of gods and goddesses? No. No one would, because no one is being compelled to adopt Pagan religion. Indeed, the very image of Justice used in American courthouses, government property, is that of a Roman goddess, Justitia.

Why take an issue with the mere mention of the Jewish or Christian God in a phrase or a document or on a monument when there is no compulsion to be Jewish or Christian?


To level with Satanists here, more directly, what in regards to justice, mercy, equality under the law, law itself and order does Baphomet represent? In light of everything mentioned so far, what would warrant his inclusion in the setting of a courthouse? Is he a god of justice and order?, law?, ethics? morality? What’s his angle? Does the Jewish and Christian God not already have these things locked up?


To conclude here, I think that the entire debacle makes a mountain of a molehill. Certain people take offense to a “religious” monument, missing the essential point of it.

The Ten Commandments promotes religious exclusivism. So how can it be part of a publicly funded display in a pluralist society. You remember what is there in the first few commandments right? Why not then put the shahada, declare a theocracy and be done with it?

 

[Sundance]

That's some shifting of the goal posts, the separation of church and state, and a secular constitution is the best protect people have for believing and practicing any religious beliefs they want, or none at all. The "ethical debate" can happen without violating the constitution and forcing one's beliefs on others, which the 1st amendment was written specifically to avoid.

There is no shifting of the goal posts. I make no different a point or have any different justification for it here than in my OP, do I?

Again, I’ll restate that while The Ten Commandments were written from a particular perspective, it’s whole purpose is to communicate how a person is to conduct themselves ethically and morally. Additionally, as you state correctly, the 1st Amendment was written to keep the government from interfering in the private religious affairs of its people, through not advocating for any particular form of religion (or atheism) to the exclusion of the others, as was the case in England at the time, which is why the Supreme Court has, time and time again, held to accommodationism, not the interpretation of separation that disallows for religious expression altogether.

I own a copy of both bible and Koran, and I am an atheist, so I am dubious. However this is irrelevant to the point, that a complete separation of church and state is there to protect the rights of the individual.

I agree with you in principle.

 

[Sundance]

The Ten Commandments promotes religious exclusivism. So how can it be part of a publicly funded display in a pluralist society. You remember what is there in the first few commandments right? Why not then put the shahada, declare a theocracy and be done with it?

I am not unaware. The beginning of the Ten Commandments does contain the injunction to acknowledge one God. This is true. However, they (at least in where they are sourced from) are only applicable to Jews and Christians, no one else.


The Commandments do not end with acknowledging God. Let me ask you, as I have another poster: what is exclusively or distinctively Christian (or even Jewish for the matter) about the Ten Commandments, outside of the source material? Do Christians alone believe in a single God? Does the Christian religion have a monopoly on injunctions against lying, theft, murder, or sexual immorality? Does the Christian religion alone teach that one shouldn’t bear false witness against one’s neighbor, or that being envious, coveting another person’s things is wrong?

 

[Left Coast]

Again, I’ll restate that while The Ten Commandments were written from a particular perspective, it’s whole purpose is to communicate how a person is to conduct themselves ethically and morally.

In the view of Bible believers. But everyone doesn't share those values. Would you mind the state erecting a monument alongside the 10 Commandments with the Eightfold Path of Buddhism? Or perhaps the Humanist Manifesto? Or a passage from the Quran or Bhaghavad Gita?

If the answer is no, then it's clear the Bible is being given preferential treatment here.

Additionally, as you state correctly, the 1st Amendment was written to keep the government from interfering in the private religious affairs of its people, through not advocating for any particular form of religion (or atheism) to the exclusion of the others, as was the case in England at the time, which is why the Supreme Court has, time and time again, held to accommodationism, not the interpretation of separation that disallows for religious expression altogether.

No one is advocating disallowing religious expression protected by the 1st Amendment. If you want to religiously express yourself, go for it - on your own property, with your own money. This issue is about whether the state should be permitted to use taxpayer funds to give preferential treatment to one form of religious expression over others.

 

[Left Coast]

The Commandments do not end with acknowledging God. Let me ask you, as I have another poster: what is exclusively or distinctively Christian (or even Jewish for the matter) about the Ten Commandments, outside of the source material?

They command worship of YHWH and prohibit worship of any other. They also command observance of the Sabbath.

 

[Sundance]

In the view of Bible believers. But everyone doesn't share those values. Would you mind the state erecting a monument alongside the 10 Commandments with the Eightfold Path of Buddhism? Or perhaps the Humanist Manifesto? Or a passage from the Quran or Bhaghavad Gita?

If the answer is no, then it's clear the Bible is being given preferential treatment here.

I would not mind it myself, not at all. In fact, I would be enthusiastic about it. (Insofar, as the values pertaining to justice, fairness under the law, the equality of people were highlighted, the location being a courthouse.)

No one is advocating disallowing religious expression protected by the 1st Amendment. If you want to religiously express yourself, go for it - on your own property, with your own money. This issue is about whether the state should be permitted to use taxpayer funds to give preferential treatment to use form of religious expression over others.

I wouldn’t disagree here, for the most part. However, the monuments in question are the result of the actions of private citizens, not state involvement.

 

[Sundance]

They command worship of YHWH and prohibit worship of any other. They also command observance of the Sabbath.

Again, as applicable to those who believe in that particular God. If you don’t, then it shouldn’t matter, as it’s not talking to you.


As for the observation of a Sabbath, a day of rest and relaxation, we already do that in Western societies. Where do you think the concept of a weekend comes from?

 

[sayak83]

I am not unaware. The beginning of the Ten Commandments does contain the injunction to acknowledge one God. This is true. However, they (at least in where they are sourced from) are only applicable to Jews and Christians, no one else.


The Commandments do not end with acknowledging God. Let me ask you, as I have another poster: what is exclusively or distinctively Christian (or even Jewish for the matter) about the Ten Commandments, outside of the source material? Do Christians alone believe in a single God? Does the Christian religion have a monopoly on injunctions against lying, theft, murder, or sexual immorality? Does the Christian religion alone teach that one shouldn’t bear false witness against one’s neighbor, or that being envious, coveting another person’s things is wrong?

Not all religions believe in a single God, and atheists believe in no God(s). So why on earth would a religious command instructing people to believe in a single specific God (or to not worship images of God) be erected on a public space and with public funds in a pluralistic country where a significant fraction does not subscribe to that belief? If it is meant only for Christians, Jews and Muslims then it should be erected only in private places of these religious communities. The basic fact is
1) Millions of Americans do not have YHWH as their God and they are equal citizens.
2) Millions of Americans do worship other Gods and their images and they are equal citizens.
3) Millions of Americans have their freedom of speech and are perfectly entitled to misuse the name of a God they do not believe in
4) Millions of Americans have no interest in keeping sabath day for a God they do not believe in.
A State funding the erection of a sectarian religious monument containing such religious commandments is preferential treatment of one religious group over another. Preferential propagation of that specific sectarian God belief over the belief of others using tax money.

If you are only arguing about erecting the last 6 commandments and not the first 4 then we can have a discussions. But the first 4 cannot be there if a state is actually a secular or a plural state.

 

[Left Coast]

I would not mind it myself, not at all. In fact, I would be enthusiastic about it. (Insofar, as the values pertaining to justice, fairness under the law, the equality of people were highlighted, the location being a courthouse.)

Then I welcome your defense of those statues being erected alongside the 10 Commandments.

I wouldn’t disagree here, for the most part. However, the monuments in question are the result of the actions of private citizens, not state involvement.

The statues I recall being the target of controversy were on the grounds of courthouses, which is public property maintained by the state.

 

[Sundance]

Not all religions believe in a single God, and atheists believe in no God(s). So why on earth would a religious command instructing people to believe in a single specific God (or to not worship images of God) be erected on a public space and with public funds in a pluralistic country where a significant fraction does not subscribe to that belief? If it is meant only for Christians, Jews and Muslims then it should be erected only in private places of these religious communities. The basic fact is
1) Millions of Americans do not have YHWH as their God and they are equal citizens.
2) Millions of Americans do worship other Gods and their images and they are equal citizens.
3) Millions of Americans have their freedom of speech and are perfectly entitled to misuse the name of a God they do not believe in
4) Millions of Americans have no interest in keeping sabath day for a God they do not believe in.
A State funding the erection of a sectarian religious monument containing such religious commandments is preferential treatment of one religious group over another.

If you are only arguing about erecting the last 6 commandments and not the first 4 then we can have a discussions. But the first 4 cannot be there if a state is actually a secular or a plural state.

All of what you say is the truth. I don’t disagree here. If it were me, I would prefer something more akin to the Capitol Building in which you have the images of various lawgivers throughout the ancient and mideval eras.


However, it’s important to note that the monuments (as I’ve aforementioned) are the product of the initiative of private citizens, not any action from the state.