• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ten Commandments/Moore/O'Reilly

Elind

Philosopher
Elind
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
7,787
Location
S.E. USA. Sometimes bible country
It seem that Bill O'Reilly, who I always thought was one of the smarter talkers on TV, is now a full fledged Moore and Ten Commandments supporter, not to mention prayer in school.

However he repeatedly claims that the 10 commandments are the basis of our law, and constitution, without getting specific about anything. Not being a scholar in these matters I can't refute this with facts and references, but I do know that most of the commandments are not crimes in our system (but they are in many others) and I know that most (all?) of the personal liberties we value were not granted by churches and priests in the past, and many are opposed by Christian groups even today. I also have trouble understanding how any 10 "commandments", which are essentially the same for all human cultures, can be described as a basis of our far far far more complex legal system.

I believe that our main legal and governmental principles were imported from England, and Europe, and that the primary principles of modern "democracy" were developed in England, and certainly not by the Church of England.

So; can anyone concisely summarize what could be called the basis for our law and belief in personal rights, and what is the basis (if there is a logical one) for the O'Reilly/Moore position?
 
The O'Riely/Moore position is pure historical revisionism. The 10C's are not the law and have nothing to do with it. Our constitution containes no mention is "God", "Jesus", "Christianity" or the "Ten Commandments" in our constitution. We are a secular nation, not a theocracy.

Bill O'Riely and Roy Moore are asshats.
 
However he repeatedly claims that the 10 commandments are the basis of our law, and constitution
Click to expand...
He's full of ◊◊◊◊. :)

Edited to add smilie to make the post seem less negative.
 
Yahweh said:
He's full of ◊◊◊◊.
Click to expand...
I omitted the smilie to make the post more accurate.

For kicks, why not call up your local law school and ask to speak to a professor of constitutional law. Politely ask the professor whether the Ten Commandments really are the basis for the Constitution, as so many people seem to be saying these days.

As for O'Reilly, his credibility went into the crapper with Fox's suit against Al Franken.
 
Brown said:
For kicks, why not call up your local law school and ask to speak to a professor of constitutional law. Politely ask the professor whether the Ten Commandments really are the basis for the Constitution, as so many people seem to be saying these days.
Click to expand...
I'm way ahead of you...

The "10 Commandments is ware da Law comes from" debate has been quite the ruse in the teacher's lounge. American History teacher (he also teaches American Government) says the 10 commandments have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Math Teacher (I figure he's got a brain on him if he teaches College Freshman level Calculus) agrees, the 10 commandments monument should have been moved because it was a violation of the "No promotion of religion" clause in the Alabama Constitution.

Even the new English Teacher (she is a Mormon, she came over from Oregon) says the people are overreacting.

Most (meaning 90% or more) of teachers belong to some denomination of Christianity, not a single one of them believe the monument had any place on a federal Courthouse (let alone a place in the Government), they also agree the Commandments have nothing to do with the Constitution.
 
Elind said:
However he repeatedly claims that the 10 commandments are the basis of our law, and constitution, without getting specific about anything. Not being a scholar in these matters I can't refute this with facts and references, but I do know that most of the commandments are not crimes in our system (but they are in many others) and I know that most (all?) of the personal liberties we value were not granted by churches and priests in the past, and many are opposed by Christian groups even today. I also have trouble understanding how any 10 "commandments", which are essentially the same for all human cultures, can be described as a basis of our far far far more complex legal system.

I believe that our main legal and governmental principles were imported from England, and Europe, and that the primary principles of modern "democracy" were developed in England, and certainly not by the Church of England.

So; can anyone concisely summarize what could be called the basis for our law and belief in personal rights, and what is the basis (if there is a logical one) for the O'Reilly/Moore position?
Click to expand...
If you're interested in a more scholarly examination of the relationship between the Ten Commandments and U.S. legal tradition, you can check out this thread.
 
One thing that I have heard stated by the supporters of this nonsensical theory is that the intent was there.

According to them, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their creator" is a reference to god.

Am I the only person who thinks that phrase was carefully worded? If the founders of this country (apologies to anyone here from another nation) had meant that god had given them these rights, I think they would have said as much. I find it more plausible that they had some idea that they would run into people who believed in different gods, or possibily even no gods (Atheism, I'm sure was around then, though I have no evidence, it is an assumption. And I am sure it wasn't prevailant, even though I'm sure it was there.), and that these people should be afforded the same rights. To me, it's a bit of a fancier way of saying "Since your parents gave you life, you have these rights."
 
"Endowed by their creator" certainly infers (or at least allows for) the existence of more than one creator. "Endowed by The Creator" would be more appropriate for a single creator God.
 
Creating threads with really long titles (with no spaces) like "Commandments/Moore/O'Reilly " screws up the way the front page formats, pushing the posters' names off screen to the right (really long screen names like "ManfredVonRichtoven" do the same thing.

I hope pointing this out doesn't inspire anyone to start a thread titled "Antidisestablishmentarianism", although I have to admit to being a little curious as to the effects of a really long title ('course, that would only be one more character. But anyway.)

This is an interesting topic though. I'd make a contribution, but I have to go check to see if anyone's left the cap off the toothpaste tube again.
 
article.JPG


"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,"

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Click to expand...

http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm
actual article 11 of the Treaty
 
Some Friggin Guy said:
One thing that I have heard stated by the supporters of this nonsensical theory is that the intent was there.

According to them, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their creator" is a reference to god.

Am I the only person who thinks that phrase was carefully worded? If the founders of this country (apologies to anyone here from another nation) had meant that god had given them these rights, I think they would have said as much. I find it more plausible that they had some idea that they would run into people who believed in different gods, or possibily even no gods (Atheism, I'm sure was around then, though I have no evidence, it is an assumption. And I am sure it wasn't prevailant, even though I'm sure it was there.), and that these people should be afforded the same rights. To me, it's a bit of a fancier way of saying "Since your parents gave you life, you have these rights."
Click to expand...
If I understand you correctly, you think Jefferson meant something like "endowed by their respective creators", but that seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think it's hard to argue that "endowed by their Creator" is not a reference to God, albeit a nonsectarian one. Later on in the same document, Jefferson refers to "the Supreme Judge of the world". Some of Jefferson's other important political documents, such as Virginia's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, also contain references to "Almighty God" and the like. All of which is not to say that Jefferson thought that non-theists should not have the same rights, of course.
 
Darn, can't find the thread where I mentioned this but Roy Moore is on the 700 Club right now. If you have a decent download speed I hope that you will watch it starting at about 23 minutes in.

Apparently people aren't under the governance of the government (Supreme Court), the Alabama Constitution is supreme to the U.S. Constitution, and we're living under a tyrrany.

...I'm watching it live and I want to bang my head against the monitor...

The Constitution is about the acknowledgement of God. The 10 Commandments are about acknowledging God. The state of Alabama must acknowledge the Christian God according to Moore's interpretation...

Ahhhhh, I can't take much more...

If Moore and Robertson call each other "Chief Justice" and "Doctor" one more time I'm going to kill myself..

The entire first amendment is only about acknowledging the Christian God.. period.

The American people love you Roy Moore!!!

Feh... download todays show guys.. ugh...
 
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." -- [Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." -- James Madison . .

The day will come when the mystical generation of jesus by the supreme being will be classed with the fable of the generation of minerva in the brain of jupiter...Th.Jefferson,1787.


'The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.' - Thomas Jefferson


'I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.' - Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of [hu]mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamaties that engine of grief has produced! -- John Adams

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my
neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- [Thomas Jefferson]

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?
To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Thomas Jefferson
(ref. Bartlett's 16th Ed., p.343)

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity. -John Adams-
Click to expand...
 
I was listening to O'Reilly a day or two ago and hist now starting to call his (and presumably Moore's) position as "The War Against Secularism(tm)". :rolleyes:
 
Pahansiri said:
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
This one bears repeating. It's the same idea found in my "God on welfare" thread.

I have yet to hear a fundie address this one at all.
 
Yahzi said:

This one bears repeating. It's the same idea found in my "God on welfare" thread.

I have yet to hear a fundie address this one at all.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine most fundies would find it an absurd point. They seem to want God reflected in our public life not to support God and religion, but rather so that God will be pleased with our country and will favor us in the future. Those darned athiests that want to take God out of public life are making God angry, etc. This is what Falwell seemed to be getting at with his infamous post 9-11 comments.

They think the country needs help from God, not vice-versa. Also, to think our country is so good we don't need God would be arrogant blashemy. To say this whole mess shows religion needs government is a bit of a strawman from the fundy perspective.
 
Some Friggin Guy said:
One thing that I have heard stated by the supporters of this nonsensical theory is that the intent was there.

According to them, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their creator" is a reference to god.

Am I the only person who thinks that phrase was carefully worded? If the founders of this country (apologies to anyone here from another nation) had meant that god had given them these rights, I think they would have said as much. I find it more plausible that they had some idea that they would run into people who believed in different gods, or possibily even no gods (Atheism, I'm sure was around then, though I have no evidence, it is an assumption. And I am sure it wasn't prevailant, even though I'm sure it was there.), and that these people should be afforded the same rights. To me, it's a bit of a fancier way of saying "Since your parents gave you life, you have these rights."
Click to expand...
Also note the phrase Nature and nature's god in the D of I. Odd phrasing, what? It is influenced by Deism, not Christianity.
 
ceo_esq said:
If I understand you correctly, you think Jefferson meant something like "endowed by their respective creators", but that seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think it's hard to argue that "endowed by their Creator" is not a reference to God, albeit a nonsectarian one.
Click to expand...

Non-sectorian "God" - Big G?

As noted below, there are problems with this. First of all, the originators seemed to really go out of the way to _not_ say "god," leaving it vague enough that we argue about it. Highly unusual for a government document at the time. Why, if they meant God, wouldn't they just say "God"? Maybe because they wanted to make sure they didn't.

Second, from a more simple perspective, the phrases that are used are _far_ more consistent with a deistic reference than christian. Thus, even if you want to insist that it is religion based, what would be the basis for claiming it is judeo-christian? Lots of religions have creators, so it can't just be that.

If they meant God, why didn't they say God. It was a common thing at the time, so it would have been very easy for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom