Ten Commandment challenges spread

[shanek]

Here's the list of ten commandments they should be posting:

Article I

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.

Article II

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[pgwenthold]

Only because ya'all can't agree on anything. That's why you need the materialist/atheist Policy Manual (Mathematics of Morality for Secular Humanists).

Which is really funny, considering that even with a supposedly holy bible, christians can't agree on what the ten commandments are. The ten commandments I learned as a catholic youth are different from those I see put out around here (and are different from those that the Alabama judge posts in his courtroom).

I want to know, how can he select to post that version of the "Ten Commandments" over the catholic version and _not_ be establishing one religion over another?

 

[Upchurch]

Here's the list of ten commandments they should be posting:

Golly. I agree with that.

Looks like us moral anarchists can agree on some things after all.

edited to add: Looks like I was wrong. I guess there really is something that I would like to see posted state and federal government buildings in place of the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments.

 

[hgc]

...

Remember the question you forgot to answer: Have moral anarchists like yourselves ever organized to effectively "govern" anything for more than a day or two?"

...

I don't know who these so-called "moral anarchists" are, but I will say that people who think like I do founded this country. How's that for doing something effective?

Like me how? They don't believe that the government of said country has a religious basis.

Now I'll take a crack at "moral anarchy": I think it refers to the belief that slavery is really swell, such as you believe.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't know who these so-called "moral anarchists" are

Okay, I've been thinking about the term "moral anarchist" and I think hammegk may have inadvertently been on to something.

Consider the following definition of anarchist: "one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order"

Isn't this what the Revolutionists did? Now, granted, it's a fast and loose usage of the word, especially when you add "moral" to it, but it does work (kinda).

Now, what I object to is that we who advocate that the U.S. remain a secular state are the ones who are the "anarchists" in this scenerio. A secular state is the established order. It is those who advocate making the U.S. a religious state are the ones atempting "to overthrow the established order" and are, therefore, anarchists (kinda).

 

[hammegk]

I don't know who these so-called "moral anarchists" are, but I will say that people who think like I do founded this country.

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

You might actually believe that the Founding Fathers might have wasted a millisecond of their valuable time discussing the "logical Reason" incest -- or homosex -- or cannibalism -- or screwing your sheep-- you get the idea -- was "immoral". When enough people share the "eewwww! factor", they can go on to worry about societally beneficial projects.

How's that for doing something effective?

That's my point. It's worked very very well. Why do folks like you want to Balkanize our population into god-knows-how-many special interest groups arguing that their "morality" is as good as that society has used as a cement to hold a given socio-econ-political system together aginst all comers?

Like me how? They don't believe that the government of said country has a religious basis.

Yup, and minorities like yours can be as wrong as majorities.

Now I'll take a crack at "moral anarchy": I think it refers to the belief that slavery is really swell, such as you believe.

I believe you prefer personal attack to substance, as I sometimes do too.

No, slavery was not moral; unfortunately for the slaves themselves it was legal. My comments above give you more of my thoughts on moral anarchy. Capische?

 

[hgc]

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

I haven't mistaken anything for anything else. You're the one who introduces pointless terminology such as "moral anarchist." I haven't labeled myself or the founders.

You might actually believe that the Founding Fathers might have wasted a millisecond of their valuable time discussing the "logical Reason" incest -- or homosex -- or cannibalism -- or screwing your sheep-- you get the idea -- was "immoral". When enough people share the "eewwww! factor", they can go on to worry about societally beneficial projects.

No, I don't know whether or not they did. But then I also don't know what this has to do with our discussion. We're talking about putting putting religious symbolism (ie., 10 commandments) in/on or goverment structures, which is a blantant endorsement of religion by our government.

That's my point. It's worked very very well. Why do folks like you want to Balkanize our population into god-knows-how-many special interest groups aruing that their "morality" is as good as that society has used as a cement to hold a given socio-econ-political system together aginst all comers?

Once again you attribute motives to "folks like

" that I don't hold or espouse. People can believe anything they want to believe, religion-wise, and there is an incredible variety of belief in our country, which is a good thing. Is that what you call "balkanization?" But in order for us to have that freedom, it's important that the government stay out of it. It's really not so hard to understand. Why don't you get it?

Yup, and minorities like yours can be as wrong as majorities.

I'm not making a value judgement, in this discussion, about mine or anyone else's religious beliefs. So what am I wrong about? That the constitution spells out that our government should not be in the religious establishment business? That our the constitution provides protection for the minority against the potential tyranny of the majority?

I believe you prefer personal attack to substance, as I sometimes do too.

No, slavery was not moral; unfortunately for the slaves themselves it was legal. My comments above give you more of my thoughts on moral anarchy. Capische?

No, I don't prefer it, and I haven't done it. I attacked your previous statements that the descendents of slaves benefit today from slavery. This is morally very slippery, as it justifies all kinds of reprehensible things. Why you even slipped in a new equivocation just now -- it was legal. By your logic you might say that Jews who enjoyed the benefit of living in this country for the past many decades instead of having lived in communist eastern Europe ought to be thankful for the holocaust which brought them here.

 

[Upchurch]

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

You might actually believe that the Founding Fathers might have wasted a millisecond of their valuable time discussing the "logical Reason" incest -- or homosex -- or cannibalism -- or screwing your sheep-- you get the idea -- was "immoral". When enough people share the "eewwww! factor", they can go on to worry about societally beneficial projects.

hammegk, do you see that this is a different thread than the one about the morality of incest? Is your position that America is not a secular state based on fact that those advocating a secular state have an opinion you don't agree with on an unrelated subject?

 

[hgc]

I think you mistake "moral" for "political". They were sure political anarchists.

...

Well, I don't subscribe to the definition of "anarchist" quoted above by Upchurch. It should include that the established order they are overthrowing is to be replaced by no governmental authority whatsoever. This is obviously not what the founders had in mind or did. They were not political anarchists. I also don't know how such a political (non)system could ever be implemented and the result be called "civilization."

 

[Upchurch]

Well, I don't subscribe to the definition of "anarchist" quoted above by Upchurch.

I don't really either. I was just stretching to try to make sense of what hammegk said (and failing, apparently)

 

[Hexxenhammer]

I heard a story about seperation of church and state on NPR not too long ago. I guess no one really thought about it until the first half of the 20th century. Then it was turned into something that protestants used to keep Catholics from getting elected. Apparantly protestants were somehow secular since there were more of them. Reap what you sow says I.

And, in an argument similar to the ones my dad uses when talking about gun control, what happens when religion creeps into our government? Our government buildings have religious iconography all over them, kids are forced to pray in school, teaching of evolution is banned from science class, abortion is outlawed, women die in back alley clinics, independant thought is repressed, gays are persecuted, welfare and aid programs are dismantled for "faith based charity", race riots, muslims are lynched for being "terrorists", people have to carry firearms in the open to protect themselves from starving gangs...my God, it'll be a paradise. And then comes the infighting between the differing sects. Catholics vs liberal protestants vs fundamentalists vs jews and they're all against the muslims. Mass chaos.

 

[pgwenthold]

And then comes the infighting between the differing sects. Catholics vs liberal protestants vs fundamentalists vs jews and they're all against the muslims. Mass chaos.

In fact, many of the "prayer in school" lawsuits have been sect vs sect. One of the recent famous ones involving the football game prayer in Texas was Catholic/Mormon vs Baptist.

 

[c0rbin]

What I don't really understand is the origin of this concept that the US is somehow a Christian country. By design, that is specifically what it isn't.

Ask these people to locate the word "God" in the constitution.

Then laugh at them.

 

[Tmy]

Who really gives a shiznit what "the founding fathers would think" Theyre dead. And have been fora long time. Its not like they were Gods, just men. Politicians at that. Might as well ask "what would President Taft think?"

 

[c0rbin]

"what would President Taft think?"

More buttered confections, please.

 

[Upchurch]

Who really gives a shiznit what "the founding fathers would think"

Well, I give a shiznit. they're the ones that defined what the U.S. is and what it means to be an American (not to be confused with the poster of the same name, in more ways than one).

 

[hammegk]

.....We're talking about putting putting religious symbolism (ie., 10 commandments) in/on or goverment structures, which is a blantant endorsement of religion by our government.

No bubby. What it is is a moral statement, albeit Judeo-Xian. If you can get ya'all together and write up something at least two of you agreed on, post your own moral statement.

That our the constitution provides protection for the minority against the potential tyranny of the majority?

Did you think no similar protection -- which allows the majority their freedom too -- makes sense.

No, I don't prefer it, and I haven't done it. I attacked your previous statements that the descendents of slaves benefit today from slavery.

I say the descendents are better off here than they would be in Africa. Care to refute that?

This is morally very slippery, as it justifies all kinds of reprehensible things. Why you even slipped in a new equivocation just now -- it was legal.

Slippery slope is right, and the moral anarchists (see also egotism of atheists) is pushing us down the slope.

By your logic you might say that Jews who enjoyed the benefit of living in this country for the past many decades instead of having lived in communist eastern Europe ought to be thankful for the holocaust which brought them here.

No, you said that, not me.

I note that Israel also exists, and also note that Liberia exists (as does Haiti).

The Third Reich is a perfect example of moral relativism in a society. What was "moral" was today's guess by his henchmen of the what The Boss really wants.

 

[Andonyx]

I'm sorry, "I am the lord thy god thou shalt have no other gods before me" is not a moral statment, it is a religious statment.

'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' Is not a moral statement on any civic or public level, it is religious.

'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' Is not moral, it is religious.

'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' Is not moral it is religious.

If this is displayed on a Government building, why can I go that building and engage in business or commercial transaction on Sunday?

Or if it's Judeo / Xtian, why does the government do any business from sundown Friday to sundown Sunday?

If it IS a moral statment, then why is the government engaging in immoral behavior.

If statement number two is moral, and not simply religious, why then can they place these commandments in the same room with a statue of Lady justice, or why is our money engraved with the pyramid and the eye logo.

The government is engaging in some awfully immoral behavior.

 

[Upchurch]

No bubby. What it is is a moral statement, albeit Judeo-Xian.

What makes you think that a moral statement belongs on public property at all, especially at a site representing the government?

Did you think no similar protection -- which allows the majority their freedom too -- makes sense.

The Boy Scouts are a majority in our society? I had no idea.

 

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by hgc
.....We're talking about putting putting religious symbolism (ie., 10 commandments) in/on or goverment structures, which is a blantant endorsement of religion by our government.

No bubby. What it is is a moral statement, albeit Judeo-Xian. If you can get ya'all together and write up something at least two of you agreed on, post your own moral statement.

Well lets review the 10 commandments and analyze them for morality statements:

1. You shall have no other gods before me.

That in no way reflects a moral statement.

2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

That is not a moral statement.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

That is a suggestion so you dont offend religious folk... but not a moral statement.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

That is not a moral statement.

5. Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

And the final 5 are moral statements.

It would make alot more sense to list the Bill of Rights on the buildings rather than 10 commandments.