The Ten Commandments

Not to imply disbelief, but when did Alan Keyes say that?

Regardless, I've heard things similar to it (as in, the same statement, qualified by a "most of" opening), but I've yet to hear anyone claim exactly what you're describing. I don't know that's it matters at this point, though, because I think all here agree that it's a hollow claim if not at least refined somewhat.


Very true...though I do have a semantic gripe. I think there's a fine line between approval and endorsement, and seeing as how we have no state-sponsored religion, and are very strict about such things for the most part, I really don't think leaving the Ten Commandments up qualifies as the latter. In my mind it's just one notch above a prayer meeting notice on the bulletin board of a government lobby.

I don't know why our government buildings would want to have The Ten Commandments posted when there are Jennifer Lopez posters available.

I certainly hope not. I heard him say it on Hannity and Colmes. I heard it on another news network as well; it might have been CNN.

Edit: Sorry. You said WHEN. It was either Thursday or Friday night.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

Kong doesn't really see it as being that casual. A courtroom is a pretty formal place, and its walls are not anything like public bulletin boards where the average joe can post upcoming event fliers.

When the judge is on duty he is representing a branch of our government, the courtroom is constantly representing our government, and religion isn't the government's business. It's our business, and we should keep it that way.

This isn't a huge breach of church and state seperation, but being diligent about preserving and protecting that seperation is the best way for us to ensure our rights as citizens who are able to choose their beliefs without any sort of government interference.

Maybe it is just a little thing, but little things count too.

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

It would be better yes. But that doesn't mean i want them there at all. The question of morality should no longer be in the hands of current religions IMO. Monotheistic religons, for example, focus all intentions on an abstract idea of God that ends up becoming more important than the world they are supposed to "regulate" in my opinon.

Reductionism on this scale is a tricky business - i prefer "cooperation-where-possible balanced-with competition-where-necessary" as a central reduction for judging "quality" in moral actions. It covers many things. But i still don't want it that "enshrined" in a law court either at the moment. A consensus effort to establish "morals" in that area is necessary, if we are to replace the inflexible tenets of religious decrees with more mutable constants. If "law" wasn't so about power/money influence, then possibly this could be established - but it looks unlikely at the mo.

Yes - but where do you get your non-self-evident truths from Yods? What's in your magic bag? God i suspect. That omnipetent rabbit that keeps popping up to supposedly back up your arguments by decreeing them "true". Non-evident to the uniformed, but true non-the-less. The difference between you and me is i don't claim my claims might not have flaws. You claim the ones you support are true no-matter-what. It's implied here and stated else-where.

God you're frustrating. You're back in total "you're wrong coz i'm right" territory. How am i supposed to have a reasonable debate with that??
I DO assume that human-psychology interferred with the writing of the bible. What a peculiar belief on my part

Oh, i forgot, it's just true

I'm presupposing my beliefs are correct?? No, again, i'm saying mine can be mistaken, and yours too - different thing. Your the only one stating your ideas are 100% correct - and making debate impossible.


Yes, the other ones - about murder and theft etc, are valuable and do serve a purpose (when taken as strong but not "infiinte" truths). You've admitted in this statement that the ones that pertain soley to monotheistic/Christian perceptions therefore are at the very least, are less valuable, and serve less of a purpose i.e. they are only of meaning to those who are Christian etc.

Exactly: the context was: the bible-justifying-murder. So the dictionary definition, that extrapolates beyond what the original biblical wording could be perceived to say, was pointless. You can't use it to justify your belief that capital punishment is not murder in biblical terms. And in what way DID you justify your belief that the death penalty was not murder other than thru that dictionary definition?? Please repeat.

But this is not the only contradiciton of the killing rule. What about killing someone who's going to kill more people. There are so many contradictions. Luckily - it's not one i think NEEDS establishing as a seperate "moral" - as we should be judging each case on it's own merits. Therefore - to say "to kill is wrong" is a phrase that: (a) isn't necessary to say to those who know - and (b) won't have any effect on those who don't care.

What i'm ultimately saying here is: cut the bible out of the equation. It's not necesaary - we know murder can be both right and wrong - both better by it's presence or its absence. The only "God" that should come into it for me is the quality-assessing "god" of best and worth-while action judged holistically and logically. Very, very, very, very similar to your take: but based around a more flexible judgement system than your one-true-unobservable-unknowable god who is "100% right" and whose "100%" rightness can be 100% known known... i.e... based on the "knowable" god of the observable world - and the principle of the "unknown", instead. Very similar - just no over-simplified "God" to attach other silly principles to. Focus on what we have around us - not on some abstract ideal.

Qualatively assessed thank you

I don't defy your "logic"(as in posit the opposite) - i moderate it towards reasonableness.

i.e.

Your still seeing it as murder or not-murder. I'm saying there's bad-murder, good-murder, and no-murder. Different. I do indeed claim that a definitive statement can be partially valid. That last statement may be partially valid

This is all about a state of mind. I have no idea why i've just wasted 40 minutes writing what i know won't convince you. Our beliefs and actions might be similar - the difference is: when it comes down to be-all-and-end-all: the world in front-of-me, and the world-around-me which i can't see are both the fundamentals which i focus on.

I don't know exactly what it is you focus on when you draw your decisions, love and authority from "God", but it seems to me the world would be a better place if....the world was that focus/source - not an abstract idea [potentially of a bearded man ]. Having an abstract idea of the world is at least alright - you can keep comparing it to the real thing. Having an abstract idea (of God) based on an abstract idea (of absolute truth) is just too uncheckable abd uncomparable to be the basis for all our decions.


Sigh - i'll never change you - and it's not even fun trying - but i just want to shift your focus that tiny, important bit that doesn't allow you to attach all importance to an entirely uncheckable idea. Most impractical.

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

i spent some time skimming thru this thread. admittedly, i didnt read every word of every post... but enough to formulate an opinion.

firstly, i dont understand why people are up in arms about this. Religous beliefs are personal, no prescribed. If you belong to a 'christian state', that doesnt make you a christian.
I can understand that someone could be upset because they feel like religious beliefs are being cast on them, by having the ten commandments up in courtrooms or whatever, but honestly, is the really a threat to your beliefs?
If someone is so brainless that they thoughtlessly follow things they read on walls, then good luck to them trying to adhere to the ten commandments!
For those that arent so thoughtless, good luck in generating your own beliefs and set of values to live by, and be thankful for your freedom to do that.

perhaps ive completely misconstrued this thread, but those are my thoughts...

j

I actually agree now. I do think it should be removed. Well put.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

Csido....

your thoughts seem fairly pertinent to me except for one thing: placing those words in a place of law (which is the social determinant of "morality" on official, line-drawing levels) sets a bad precedent.

i.e. personally i feel the current idea of God as understood by many people has too many dogmatic sentiments attached to it to be placed into such an arena. Making it religion-specific is even worse. Even if these things don't get reflected in the letter of the law - there's the risk of the rhetoric of the court starting to reflect them in practice.

That's the short version anyway

I just love these discussions. You guys debate so well. So smart you are.

I'd like to make a few points:

1) Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State idea. If it's un-Constitutional--it's just plain un-Constitutional.

2) The monument in question is just not very nice to look at. It's just a block of stone with the bible carved into it, and opened to the page with the Ten Comandments (way off scale BTW). The Christ figure in Rio de Janeiro, at Sugar Loaf, you know the massive one on the mountain that has his arms spread out as if blessing the world, well that's just beautiful. I don't agree with Ten Comandments statue being where it is, but a nicer one may have met with a few more votes in its favor.

3) Also why does the statue have to be where it is, I mean why didn't the Chief Justice just install the statue on his own private property? Also Moore has been charged with 6 ethics violations, he's been suspended. This could be a case where someone isn't practicing what they're preaching eh...?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Ahhh, some blessed practicalities amonst the abstract analities

Nice one r3

I'm going to keep this short, as I've put too much of my time off into this as it is, and most of these arguments are utterly off-topic.You're making things up. While I believe in God's Word, I fully recognize my own shortcomings in interpreting it. I've said this more than once, but you seem intent on ignoring it.


I have never, ever, ever, EVER, EVER made the argument that what I believe is "just true." Nor have I ever made any argument whose validity was contingent on the presupposition that I'm right. Not once.

You asked why the Ten Commandments couldn't be different. The problem is the question, not the answer. I believe they are the way they are for the same reason a historical text book is the way it is: because to be otherwise would make it false. Your question is presupposing that the Ten Commandments were arbitrarily chosen.

On a side-note, Your constant misunderstandings wouldn't be such a big deal if they didn't always spark page-long diatribes. Toss in the denial of logic as a fully reliable deductive tool, and it ain't me that's impossible to debate with, bud.


You've got it completely backwards. They're MORE valuable, not less valuable, because they would not be otherwise evident.


Actually, that's the exact same exception I used as my example.


Round and round we go. I'll elaborate on the myraid of flaws in your standard of "the world" in the other, more appropriate thread sometime in the next couple of days. In short response to the above, though, I'll say this: if we all more or less followed the teachings in The Bible, the world would be an infinitely better place to live for one and all, and as such, I don't see from what grounds you can make claims like the one above.


Far more practical than a never-ending loop of ambiguousness which contradicts itself at every turn. Sorry Gol...I think you're a nice guy, but I suspect I'll be fighting worldviews like yours for most of my life.

The quick reply: likewise



I wish both of our mind-sets could find a way of getting the best out of each other in a constructive way.

EDIT: okay- i'll reply to the other stuff on the "orthodox christian..." thread Might as well...

OTHER EDIT: And apologese for the "just true" slur then. It's true that you don't claim that of your application/appreciation of "god's truths"

I'll take your word on that, though I think it's a safe bet that everyone here agrees that the idea has little to no merit.


That's true, the little things do count, and props for recognizing that it is, in fact, a little thing. No matter how vehement the Atheist, this is an issue of principle rather than of plausible concern.

That said, I think I'd be of the mind that if such a plaque or monument is already in existence, it'd be a terrible waste to go out of our way to tear it down, but I can certainly see the case against erecting new ones. I think that's about where I'd draw the line. I'm not sure, though...I think I'll solicit a few more opinions from around the office.


I disagree. A non-religious judge isn't likely to have his or her decision making swayed by some plaque outside of the courtroom, and any religious one that would compromise the law for their religious beliefs would almost definitely do so without the "aid" of such a monument.

Any case to be made against it is on technical grounds, rather than realistic concern, in my opinion.

Thanks Gg. I try.

Kong assumes that you are referring to the legal proceeding involved in taking down the plaque rather than the physical aspect of it when you say "it'd be a terrible waste to go out of our way to tear it down". Kong isn't necessarily in agreement, but he can see your point. Kong hasn't really thought about all of this very much.

That said, by going through the trouble of legal proceedings we have at least made it official and set a precedent for other judges and generations. It might be a lot of trouble for just this one case, but the final verdict's ramfications will cover more than just this solitary courtroom.

I'm pretty sure it's not going to be torn down, but removed intact. Moore was ordered to remove it himself, but now it's going to be done for him.

I basically agree with everything Kong has allready said about this thing. Just my opinion :

I think that in a nation that is seperated from the church, or any other religion, and that supports the right to exercise your own religion, there is no question about that all buildings and authorities belonging to the government administration should be free from all religious symbols. It is not a question about offending atheists but a question about segregation of people belonging (religious or non-regligious) to other religions than christianity. Christianity is, no matter how you turn it around or how seperated it is from the state, part of "the dominating ideology" of America. The religion of the ruling class, if you want to be bombastic about it.

I have never been to an american courtroom. Well, not to a swedish either... Anyway. Do they really solemnly swear upon the bible or is that only on Perry Mason?

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Some don't, but most still do; it's up to the judge. You can, however, choose to "affirm" rather than swear on a bible. I've heard that there are still a few courts in this country where you will be held in contempt if you refuse to swear on the bible; if so, that is a problem (and a few judges) that needs to be handled right away.

Ok, well, my turn to disagree. If the ten commandments were everywhere lawyers could use it in their rhetoric to convince juries ("But I ask you good people...Don't the words of the good lord outside this courtroom show that our law comes from God? Shouldn't this man be judged in the eyes of God as much as thru our attempts to dictate his will in law?" etc etc - rhetoric that can't be countered at the time, except by the judge if they feel inclined, which might sway a jury. You can't deny lawyers use rhetoric to affect juries)

So it's not just about judges. It's also about the perceptions of the people walking into the court too. And seeing as we seem to have established that certain of the ten commandments have no place connecting themselves with the law etc, i still insist my concern is a realistic one, BECAUSE of the technicalities, you word-smith you. You might notice that Kong said it's a little thing, but it counts. To me that meant it's a little thing that could add-up to/add-to bigger things etc.

That's all i'm saying too (just with more words )

Well there's an example of a religious item in a place of law/government affecting practice. Concerning.

Or is it just a technicality? I don't think so