The Great Ten Commandments Statue Debate

[Clara Tea]

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.



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.

I want to write to those Babylonians, and ask them to make the months shorter so my money will last longer.

 

[Sundance]

"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.

Yes, I can.

Bill of Rights Institute

Ten Commandments & other displays | Freedom Forum Institute

I had come across these earlier in my deeper investigation, and — upon examination — I think you may be correct. I had misjudged the situation. I was wrong.

 

[Sundance]

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.

You’re correct in everything you state, and I’m immensely impressed by your grasp of history.

 

[Sundance]

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.

I suppose it’s because the Ten Commandments enshrine one system of ethics and morality. In my opinion, I would’ve like to see a collection of statues relating to all of the sources of Western law, especially Ancient Greek and Roman.

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.

Indeed. This is also true.

 

[firedragon]

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.

What do you refer to as "your property" and "Our property"?

I guess your property means someones personal property. By "Our property" do you your own personal property you own?

 

[QuestioningMind]

What do you refer to as "your property" and "Our property"?

I guess your property means someones personal property. By "Our property" do you your own personal property you own?

YOUR property refers to personal property. OUR property refers to public property.

 

[firedragon]

YOUR property refers to personal property. OUR property refers to public property.

Ah. So this "public property" is not really "our" unless you are making this "our" definition niche to one of your chosen groups.

So that's double standards.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ah. So this "public property" is not really "our" unless you are making this "our" definition niche to one of your chosen groups.

So that's double standards.

Don't be silly... OUR refers to property that belongs to ALL of us. So if someone wanted to put up a statue honoring Adolph Hitler in the your town square YOU and ANYONE who objected to it could say, "Put that statue up on YOUR personal property... do not attempt to erect it in OUR public square."

Everyone has a right to make such objections, so there's no double standard.

 

[firedragon]

Don't be silly... OUR refers to property that belongs to ALL of us.

So by "Us", if you include all in the world, the everyone has a right to it, not only those who belong to your what ever group who doesnt like the others claiming a part of that "us".

Public property in a country is owned by everyone. Not only your group.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So by "Us", if you include all in the world, the everyone has a right to it, not only those who belong to your what ever group who doesnt like the others claiming a part of that "us".

Public property in a country is owned by everyone. Not only your group.

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? That's precisely what I said. It's property owned by ALL of us. Thus things erected or displayed on property own by ALL of us should be agreed on by ALL of us. So if I don't think a statue honoring Hitler should be erected in the town square them I have a right to veto such a statue. If you don't think a statue honoring Chairman Mao should be erected in the town square then YOU have a right to veto such a statue. It's property that belongs to the entire public so the entire public should agree on what's put there.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

 

[74x12]

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 10 commandments are so archetypical to our culture and society. Especially to the rule of law. It's not an affirmation of a certain religion to have a piece of art derived from that religion. People should realize that "religious" themes permeate Washington DC. We have ancient gods and goddesses all over it. The obelisk is really venerating Osiris' dismembered male member if you go back far enough.

But the baphomet is different. In my opinion since these satanists claim to be truly atheists and not worship any god. Not even satan. Therefore what is their point? I think it's very arguable that their point is to offend Christians. That seems to be their primary angle and they will admit they love to offend Christians. In my opinion that puts them squarely into the "hate group" category.

Imagine if we had a dedicated group calling themselves a new religion based on one thing. To hate Islam or God forbid ... Judaism. I mean that's the whole purpose of your religion? Just to hate another religion? That is not acceptable. We don't have to accept their art work in public places considering that they're something very much like a hate group.

Finally, it should be up to the people of that local jurisdiction. What art do they want? They should decide; not some fringe satanist group coming out of no where. So I guess the bottom line is ... that even if it is technically "permissable" that doesn't mean it's acceptable to the community.

 

[firedragon]

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

No.

That's precisely what I said. It's property owned by ALL of us. Thus things erected or displayed on property own by ALL of us should be agreed on by ALL of us. So if I don't think a statue honoring Hitler should be erected in the town square them I have a right to veto such a statue. If you don't think a statue honoring Chairman Mao should be erected in the town square then YOU have a right to veto such a statue. It's property that belongs to the entire public so the entire public should agree on what's put there.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Okay. So you have now combined "your property" and "Our Property".

Great.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No.



Okay. So you have now combined "your property" and "Our Property".

Great.

Okay, thanks for confirming that you have an issue with reading comprehension. PLEASE point out where I combined the two. I said that YOUR or MY property is PERSONAL property and OUR property is PUBLIC property. You can put virtually anything you want on PERSONAL property, but PUBLIC property belongs to ALL of us and anything erected there needs to be agreed upon by ALL of us.

It's really a very basic concept and I'm baffled as to why you have so much trouble grasping it.

 

[firedragon]

PLEASE point out where I combined the two.

Didnt you just do that in the last post?

Okay. So you separate them.

 

[Sheldon]

It's not an affirmation of a certain religion to have a piece of art derived from that religion.

I disagree, and art is too vague a term here. Some people might consider a pentangle to be art, so this is wildly open to subjective interpretation.

Imagine if we had a dedicated group calling themselves a new religion based on one thing. To hate Islam or God forbid ... Judaism. I mean that's the whole purpose of your religion? Just to hate another religion? That is not acceptable.

Why? Are there no ideas that you dislike intensely, and should it not be permissible for people in a free society to say so, and say why? It's usually the case that people hate aspects of religions anyway, and perhaps behaviours of some members of that religion. However it is worth noting that disliking religions is not the same as hatred or bigotry of that religious group. Hating an idea or aspects of an idea is not the same as hating those that hold those ideas.

But the baphomet is different. In my opinion since these satanists claim to be truly atheists and not worship any god. Not even satan. Therefore what is their point? I think it's very arguable that their point is to offend Christians. That seems to be their primary angle and they will admit they love to offend Christians. In my opinion that puts them squarely into the "hate group" category.

Maybe they're offended by some things Christians do, and are making a point by reciprocating, but I have encountered many Christians who profess to hate Satanism, why is that ok and hating Christianity not? Surely under the 1st amendment a person has the right to choose what to believe, or not?

We don't have to accept their art work in public places considering that they're something very much like a hate group.

Well it almost seems as if you "hate" them?

The 10 commandments are so archetypical to our culture and society.

The first 4 are different ways to worship the Abrahamic deity, and they are part of a religion, thus archetypal or not, it would certainly be a violation of the 1st amendment to display them on state property. You can paint them on the outside of your house if you want, but the state and religion must be separate.

You should be glad of the separation that the 1st amendment enforces, as it means your right to believe whatever you want and say so, or nothing at all is protected by that amendment.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

"ackchyually..."

Don't be shy, enlighten us with the criteria for authentic satanism.