The Great Ten Commandments Statue Debate

[Left Coast]

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.

This is a bizarre reply. You asked how the commandments are specifically Jewish or Christian. I pointed out that they specifically command worship of one specific deity, YHWH. Your response is essentially..."well, ignore that part."

Um, no. We're not going to ignore that part and pretend it says something else. It says what it says. It's explicitly advocating the worship of one particular God.

If we're just going to ignore all the problematic parts of what public monuments say, then I guess you'd be fine with the state erecting any sort of monument, no matter what it says? Because we can just ignore any part we don't agree with?

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?

Observing the Sabbath requires more than "rest and relaxation," as any observant Jew could advise you. And not everyone has weekends - many people work. Which is expressly forbidden by the Torah. So again, it is a specifically Jewish commandment.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

They make graven images about a set of rules banning graven images.

 

[Sundance]

This is a bizarre reply. You asked how the commandments are specifically Jewish or Christian. I pointed out that they specifically command worship of one specific deity, YHWH. Your response is essentially..."well, ignore that part."

Um, no. We're not going to ignore that part and pretend it says something else. It says what it says. It's explicitly advocating the worship of one particular God.

If we're just going to ignore all the problematic parts of what public monuments say, then I guess you'd be fine with the state erecting any sort of monument, no matter what it says? Because we can just ignore any part we don't agree with?

You’re misinterpreting my previous response. My response not simply saying to ignore what’s clearly there. It’s “acknowledge that it’s there, be inspired if you find value therein, but if you don’t believe in it, let that be that.”

Actually, I think you got my initial question wrong. Which was (to clarify): In what manner is the content of the Ten Commandments exclusive to Christians?

As to the God referred to in the beginning, this particular God is acknowledged by Jews and Christians as such, but not exclusively by them.


While, yes, the Ten Commandments in general, not to speak specifically to a monument, weren’t written for people who aren’t Jewish or Christian, again, there is very little (I previously implied nothing, but that’s not true, so I will amend my response here) in content that is exclusive to those groups.

Observing the Sabbath requires more than "rest and relaxation," as any observant Jew could advise you. And not everyone has weekends - many people work. Which is expressly forbidden by the Torah. So again, it is a specifically Jewish commandment.

I understand that there is much more to a Sabbath day than merely rest and relaxation, according to Judaism. I’m merely remarking on one of the main origins of our concept of a weekend period in the Western world. It is true, many people do work on weekends.


Though, from what I recall being told, if you are not Jewish, you’re not required to even observe Sabbath. In fact, I think that for a non-Jew to commemorate the Sabbath (in the same manner) is forbidden.

 

[Sundance]

They make graven images about a set of rules banning graven images.

This is one of the ironies of the Christian religion, I suppose.

 

[sayak83]

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.

If its on public land how can be by private citizens? The govt must then be leasing that land for the statue or something. If neither public resources nor public land is being used then there is no problem. But public land is also a resource. Letting the resource of public land to be used is also state sponsorship.

 

[Sundance]

If its on public land how can be by private citizens? The govt must then be leasing that land for the statue or something. If neither public resources nor public land is being used then there is no problem. But public land is also a resource. Letting the resource of public land to be used is also state sponsorship.

I’m not sure about the other statues but from what I read, the one in Arkansas (I think) was commissioned with the help of the director Cecil DeMille.

 

[sayak83]

I’m not sure about the other statues but from what I read, the one in Arkansas (I think) was commissioned with the help of the director Cecil DeMille.

I have no idea about specific cases. I am only speaking of the general principle.
Is it on public land?

 

[Sheldon]

There is no shifting of the goal posts.

The ten commandments are part of Abrahamic religions, and since the 1st amendment was designed specifically to separate church and state, state buildings should not display them, or promote any religion. private citizens are free to believe whatever they want, but the state cannot be seen to promote any religion.

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.

You are entitled to believe that, but they are part of the Abrahamic religions, and promoting any religion on state buildings is a violation of the constitution.

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,

Then the state cannot promote the ten commandments on state buildings, without violating that constitution. Putting in god we trust on the currency is a less blatant violation, since it doesn't re[resent a specific religion, but it is a violation.

the Supreme Court has, time and time again, held to accommodationism, not the interpretation of separation that disallows for religious expression altogether.

The Supreme court has upheld the constitution, just as it is supposed to. It has nothing to do with accommodating anyone's views.

 

[Sundance]

I have no idea about specific cases. I am only speaking of the general principle.
Is it on public land?

It is.

 

[Sundance]

The ten commandments are part of Abrahamic religions, and since the 1st amendment was designed specifically to separate church and state, state buildings should not display them, or promote any religion. private citizens are free to believe whatever they want, but the state cannot be seen to promote any religion.

You speak truthfully. However, the Abrahamic religions are four completely different religions. With this established, I don’t see how the presence of something that isn’t exclusive (for the most part) would violate the First Amendment.

That is irrelevant, they are part of the Abrahamic religions, and promoting any religion on state buildings is a violation of the constitution.

Mmmm…any one religion exclusively.

Then the state cannot promote the ten commandments on state buildings, without violating that constitution. Putting in god we trust on the currency is a less blatant violation, since it doesn't re[resent a specific religion, but it is a violation.

This conclusion does not follow, because again, the Ten Commandments (at least in content, for the most part) are not exclusive to one any particular religion.

The Supreme court has upheld the constitution, just as it is supposed to. It has nothing to do with accommodating anyone's views.

Exactly, the Supreme Court has consistently defended the non-exclusive expression of religion on government grounds through the principle of accommodationism.

See here: Accommodationism in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[pearl]

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 are not in peril. They are neither stained, tarnished nor thrashed. They may be displayed in every church, synagogue, temple, home and storefront. They may be displayed in cars, on lawns, and in corporate boardrooms. Where this precious gift cannot and should not be displayed as an obvious religious text or to promote religion is on government property, particularly in a courtroom. Beyond displaying the Ten Commandments there is question of which formulation, no universal form among religious groups. The Catechism of the Catholic Church alone lists three versions: one based on Exodus 20:2-17; one based on Deuteronomy 5:6-21; and a shorter version that the CCC describes as a catechetical formula.
Roman Catholics and Lutherans number the commandments in one way, the Orthodox and Reformed churches in another. According to Jewish tradition, the Ten Commandments are only a part of the 613 commandments that make up Hebrew Scriptures. "Whose Ten Commandments are you going to post?" Whatever version is used constitutes a political statement.

 

[Sundance]

"The Ten Commandments are not in peril. They are neither stained, tarnished nor thrashed. They may be displayed in every church, synagogue, temple, home and storefront. They may be displayed in cars, on lawns, and in corporate boardrooms. Where this precious gift cannot and should not be displayed as an obvious religious text or to promote religion is on government property, particularly in a courtroom. Beyond displaying the Ten Commandments there is question of which formulation, no universal form among religious groups. The Catechism of the Catholic Church alone lists three versions: one based on Exodus 20:2-17; one based on Deuteronomy 5:6-21; and a shorter version that the CCC describes as a catechetical formula.
Roman Catholics and Lutherans number the commandments in one way, the Orthodox and Reformed churches in another. According to Jewish tradition, the Ten Commandments are only a part of the 613 commandments that make up Hebrew Scriptures. "Whose Ten Commandments are you going to post?" Whatever version is used constitutes a political statement.

I’m not knowledgeable about the particular ordering of the Ten as differentiated among different groups, so I will defer to you here.

However, I don’t necessarily agree with the ending statement. There is nothing inherently political in religious statements that mainly deal with ethics and morality. Though, if a statement expecting singular promotion was intended to be made by any particular religious group, then I would at least expect that they used something that had exclusive significance to them. Again, I take no issue with the use of any religious items on state property, insofar as they maintain a symbolic presence or as an expression of belief that others are not being required to adopt.

 

[Sheldon]

You speak truthfully. However, the Abrahamic religions are four completely different religions. With this established, I don’t see how the presence of something that isn’t exclusive (for the most part) would violate the First Amendment.




Mmmm…any one religion exclusively.




This conclusion does not follow, because again, the Ten Commandments (at least in content, for the most part) are not exclusive to one any particular religion.




Exactly, the Supreme Court has consistently defended the non-exclusive expression of religion on government grounds through the principle of accommodationism.

See here: Accommodationism in the United States - Wikipedia

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's pretty clear, and it doesn't matter if it is one specific religion or many. Any attempt to promote any part of any religion(s) on or in state buildings violates that 1st amendment.

The supreme court is rightly upholding the 1st amendment, it has nothing to do with accommodationism. They are obliged to uphold the constitution.

 

[sayak83]

It is.

Then my original objection stands....

 

[Sundance]

Then my original objection stands....

Noted. In this regard, then I suppose I would agree to some extent. See my response to Sheldon below.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's pretty clear, and it doesn't matter if it is one specific religion or many. Any attempt to promote any part of any religion(s) on or in state buildings violates that 1st amendment.

The supreme court is rightly upholding the 1st amendment, it has nothing to do with accommodationism. They are obliged to uphold the constitution.

The Supreme Court has variously ruled on this issue many times, but to summarize: general references to God and the artifacts of different religions are allowed in and on state grounds (insofar as no one religion is given priority over others or the elements compose part of an inconspicuous display), as in the Capitol Building in Washington, DC, for example? Do you take an issue here, as well?

 

[Sheldon]

The Supreme Court has variously ruled on this issue many times, but to summarize: general references to God and the artifacts of different religions are allowed in and on state grounds

"The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise."

That does not specify that it has to be a specific religion. Could you link some of these decisions for me please. As I said, I think the inclusion of the words "in god we trust" on the currency, is strictly speaking a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[F1fan]

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.

It's true that most all people believed in a God or Gods as is the case today. Children learn this from their parents and social experience, not because it is true.

I disagree with your interpretation. To my assessment they meant "self evident' to mean that what they were declaring was obvious to rational minds, namely that the divine rights that allow kings their authority can be used by an assembly of men to self-govern. The king's divine rights were neutered by what was "self evident".

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.

I disagree. Courthouses are part of our governments, so there is that connection. And these monuments are ONLY promoted by republicans. We see republicans moving farther right and more towards religious sympathies. Well, Christian sympathies. Creationism is a Christian idea and we see republicans wanting this taught in public schools. Look at the book bannings which are issues that conservative Christians oppose.

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

Because their efforts aim to violate laws and the Constitution.

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.

And if there are religious monuments outside of courthouses that will be judging these violation can we trust the institution to uphold the Constitution over their religious beliefs? Judges, cities, counties, states and the USA all need to honor the Constitution and the law.

Ironic that the Constitution and laws are violated to teach about ethics, right?

I suggest there are better places and ways to present ethics. Given the bad and immoral history of Christianity and many Christians, and even the God depicted in the Old Testament where the 10 Commandments are listed, it is hypocritical. There are vastly better representations of ethics that won't alienate many citizens.

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?

It's the people putting the monuments in illegal places that we are looking at, and they are Christians. You're right, do they care if it is from a Jewish text? No, the Christians stole the text for themselves and use it in ways the Jews don't. In a way, you raise a good point, is the way to Christians are using the 10 Commandments even valid? I suggest we defer to the Jewish interpretations and ignore how Christians interpret it.

 

[F1fan]

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?

The disagreement is seldom with the Bible. The disagreements are with how certain people and groups interpret the Bible.

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

I have Qurans, the Vedas, copies of the Gita, a Urantia book, etc.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Then why are they being placed on courthouse lawns? These are places where the law is to be objective and fair, yet here is a monument to one category of citizens.

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?

I'm not sure about the concept, but the Babylonians created the 7 day week. The 7 day creation myth in Genesis was derived for this. God did roast on the 7th day, and that may have been a social tradition among Hebrews. More recently it was liberal laws that created the 40 hour work week, weekends off, 8 hour work days, worker safety, etc. in response to the immoral business practices during the industrial revolution.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

Many religious laws are also civil laws. "Thou shalt not kill" is the same as arresting someone for murder.

Yet, everyone should have a right to practice religion as they choose. For this reason, we have a separation of church and state.

The problem arose from King Henry VIII trying to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon (Spain). Spain had been catholic, just as England had been, and Henry's daughter, Bloody Mary, was, understandably Catholic. It was affront to her that her father, a walking, talking pig, would oust her religion, and appoint himself to be the leader of the newly formed Anglican church. Henry had closed many Catholic churches and sold them to anyone who would practice his new Anglican religion. Mary, when she became queen, chopped the heads of over 150 holy men who refused to convert back to Catholocism. Then, the various new leaders of England tried to convert back to the Anglican religion (again, bloody).

King Charles I (of the Scot kings of England), told Parliament that they are there to advise him, and they have no real power. They chopped off the head of Charles I. All this bickering about religion (prior to this) made his son, Charles II, particularly attentive to an angry mob of 5,000 who insisted that he signs the "Great Petition" to form the "Exclusionary Act" which excluded any Catholic from the throne. When Charles II died, he appointed his brother James II (Catholic). This started the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion to make the Anglican illegitimate son of Charles II, James Scott (Duke of Monmouth) the king. It was a miserable failure due in part to James II finding rebels and arms before battle....The Earl of Argyle was drawn and quartered with his top aides in Scotland for supporting the Duke of Monmouth.

In 1687, William of Orange, and his wife, Mary, the daughter of James II, asked for William's throne back in Orange (in France, a territory of Great Britain). James II refused, so William took James's throne in the Glorious Rebellion, using some of the few living Monmoth rebels to accomplish this. Eventually, both William and Mary died, making Mary's sister, Ann, the queen of Great Britain, and she tracked down the Monmouth rebels and Glorious rebels.

Out of all of this war and angst in England, America formed the Constitution, allowing everyone to have religious freedom. But, in order to have freedom for everyone, there had to be rules that the government could not respect any one religion over another. This is what allows all religions to practice freely.