Judge Orders Removal of Oklahoma Ten Commandments Monument Within 30 Days

[schaeffer]

Considering the first commandment, the ten commandments are very religion specific.

Last time there was a major skirmish in my area about the ten commandments on public property, lots of people started displaying them in their yards on signs. Works for me!

 

[lax16]

The belief in Jewish monotheism, the prohibition against graven images, and remembering the Sabbath are too specifically linked to Jewish and Christian religions to be displayed on government property. They are not directly linked to the legal system, nor should they be. By removing the Ten Commandments from public, government property, I am NOT discarding the Ten Commandments. Rather, I am relegating this religious document to its proper place, that is, in people’s homes, on display in front of homes, churches, and religious schools and other religious institutions. It does not belong on state property because it endorses a specific religion and we do not have a state religion in this country.

Why not just modify it then? Remove those commandments dealing with Judeo-Christian principals only?

Even atheists can have a quote that might contribute to a peaceful, law-abiding society. I say, add that as well!

Wouldn’t a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist religious teaching on public display be somewhat offensive to you as a state endorsement of another religion? I’m sure it would. Then put yourself in the shoes of others, who are minority religious groups that form part of the great mosaic of our country. That mosaic also includes those who are deists, agnostics, and atheists.

If the teaching contributed to the running of a peaceful society, I would absolutely not find it offensive! Why limit it to just the Ten Commandments? How about a Buddhist message on world peace? Sounds good to me! And a Muslim teaching on peaceful treatment of one another? Even better!

I always put myself in the shoes of others, meltzerboy. Thanks for the reminder though.

This is about giving credit where credit is due, IMO. That’s what the atheists are going after, not necessarily the message.

 

[meltzerboy]

Why not just modify it then? Remove those commandments dealing with Judeo-Christian principals only?

Even atheists can have a quote that might contribute to a peaceful, law-abiding society. I say, add that as well!

If the teaching contributed to the running of a peaceful society, I would absolutely not find it offensive! Why limit it to just the Ten Commandments? How about a Buddhist message on world peace? Sounds good to me!

I always put myself in the shoes of others, meltzerboy. Thanks for the reminder though.

This is about giving credit where credit is due, IMO.

Displaying only some of the Commandments does not solve the problem. This abridgment of the original artifact might be offensive to believers, and rightly so. The Ten Commandments is a package deal. Believers would not want to give the impression that the commandments which are left out are not important or are optional. I believe it’s either all or none of the Commandments on STATE PROPERTY.

I don’t think this is a matter of “giving credit.” It is an issue of separation of Church and State.

 

[lax16]

I think quite a few people don’t agree with a lot of them when you really look at them, and would say that some of them are not common sense.

I don’t see anything wrong with “coveting” something, for example. To desire something is normal.

And then…in a peaceful society…I can see a lot of problem with these two:
I am the Lord thy God
Thou shalt have no other gods
Because this would cause argument and war…deciding which god is the one god we are talking about. And some people do have more than one god.

And then…I see a problem with the “graven image” bit, because many religious people do pray in front of images and statues of Jesus and Mary, etc.

And…most people don’t even know what it means to take a name “in vain”.

Remembering a Sabbath day is an issue as well, since many people do not have a Sabbath day, or they have different ones.

Honoring thy father and thy mother…this commandment can also be problematic, since what if your father and/or mother are hurtful people who abuse you?

Thou Shalt Not Kill…is generally good. But many religious people also believe in capital punishment and would have no qualms personally killing someone in defense using their own guns…or that we ask soldiers to kill. So this one is iffy, too.

The only ones that seem to make sense to be posted at a courthouse are three:
Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness
And these really don’t have anything to do with religion. These truly are “common sense” ones.

I mean…what would graven images and having only one god have to do with a legal courthouse?

.

I agree. Why not modify the display instead of remove it?

 

[lax16]

Displaying only some of the commandments does not solve the problem. This abridgment of the original artifact might be offensive to believers, and rightly so. The Ten Commandments is a package deal. Believers would not want to give the impression that the commandments which are left out are not important or are optional. I believe it’s either all or none of the Commandments on STATE PROPERTY.

I don’t think this is a matter of “giving credit.” It is an issue of separation of Church and State.

Was that ever offered as a solution?

I wouldn’t find it the least bit offensive. I think it is common sense.

So, an atheist wants the benefit of the law, but doesn’t want to know where the people who made these laws got their convictions from?

 

[meltzerboy]

Was that ever offered as a solution?

I wouldn’t find it the least bit offensive. I think it is common sense.

So, an atheist wants the benefit of the law, but doesn’t want to know where the people who made these laws got their convictions from?

Why does an atheist have to know this? The law is for the purpose of providing legal benefit and recourse for everyone in a fair and equitable manner (whether this is in fact the case is the topic of another thread). The law is not designed to be a history lesson.

You might not find an abridgment offensive, but I would and so would plenty of (Orthodox) Jews and Christians. What you and I personally think as individual members of society, however, is not the issue. The issue is for the court system and the government to be as fair-minded as possible to all of us in society.

 

[lax16]

Wiki says that “one of the oldest known prohibitions against murder appears in the Mesopotamia law code written on tablets–the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu --written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC.”

.

Ancient Greeks had laws as well. I can’t find a good primary source on it though.

 

[lax16]

Why does an atheist have to know this? The law is for the purpose of providing legal benefit and recourse for everyone in a fair and equitable manner (whether this is in fact the case is the topic of another thread). The law is not designed to be a history lesson.

I don’t think an atheist needs to know it. I would like to know why they want the benefits but recoil at the source from which those benefits are derived.

Monuments are meant to be history lessons, not the laws themselves.

You might not find an abridgment offensive, but I would and so would plenty of (Orthodox) Jews and Christians. What you and I personally think as individual members of society, however, is not the issue. The issue is for the court system and the government to be as fair-minded as possible to all of us in society.

Why would an abridgment be offensive? It was never proposed so we will never know how Orthodox people would feel.

Society is made up individual members with personal thoughts. These individuals make up our court system and government. I don’t think they are any more important than you or me.
I don’t agree that they are being fair-minded to all.

 

[lax16]

Of course Atheists are glad for the do-not-kill law. I imagine everyone is.
I don’t think anyone thinks it came from thin air. It comes from thinking, fair people who appreciate life and the lives of others. This appreciation was around way before religion
.

But why do people care about others? Why make it a law?

I’m sure the appreciation of it has been around forever, however I am wondering when and where it became law.

 

[lax16]

But many lawmakers did not get their convictions from a religion.
And many religions and religious leaders in the past have consistently broken laws and have much killing, stealing, adultery, coveting, and abuse etc in their history…so it doesn’t make sense to relate these good, common sense laws to religion or religious people.

But how do we separate the person from their belief system? People make laws based on their ideals, beliefs and principals. But, these beliefs came from somewhere…

For example, Abraham Lincoln said "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.

We are all grateful for the bravery of Abraham Lincoln and yet he gives credit to God.

Do you mean…like…cross off seven of the commandments and leave the three that everyone pretty much agrees upon (but not even)??

What would be an example of “modifying” it…what do you picture?
.

I picture just the pertinent Commandments listed. For example, a new display with the numbered commandments that deal with killing, stealing…and a heading that says “From The Ten Commandments”.

 

[newcalling]

Why does an atheist have to know this? The law is for the purpose of providing legal benefit and recourse for everyone in a fair and equitable manner (whether this is in fact the case is the topic of another thread). The law is not designed to be a history lesson.

You might not find an abridgment offensive, but I would and so would plenty of (Orthodox) Jews and Christians. What you and I personally think as individual members of society, however, is not the issue. The issue is for the court system and the government to be as fair-minded as possible to all of us in society.

L’shanah tovah tikatev v’taihatem, MB. Happy Rosh Hashanah.

I am mixed on this issue. When I was pagan I simply rolled my eyes at religious displays on public property, but I did not object to them because I felt that it was alright for public property to reflect the culture of the public, including religious views. As a Christian, I see that some people are offended by the display, and it may actually hurt our chances to win their hearts. Maybe if we just had it as an example of legal history, maybe with the code of Hamurabi and an Egyptian legal stella next to it or something, maybe people would be less offended? What if we just reduced it to the ten words in Hebrew, maybe even written in middle/Davidic Hebrew script which almost no one can read? I don’t know. I think that removing it altogether is a shame, but maybe it is what we have come to. I know that I don’t see the actions of our political leaders, on either side of the aisle, as very Christian or Jewish.

You and I agree about “in God we trust” not belonging on our money. I think it’s almost ironic that we discuss it in this thread because I see it as a blatant and pretty extreme violation of the commandment against using the Lord’s name in vain and profaning it. Some people use money for godly purposes, but I don’t think that something with even the word God should be used to oppress the poor, fund unjust wars or be tucked into the g-string of a stripper. Putting that motto on money certainly hasn’t done anything to make our use of it more godly, righteous or holy.

 

[Neofight]

I would rather see a nation that lives the 10 Commandments rather than just displays them; I would rather see a nation that lives the 10 Commandments rather than just laments the prohibition against displaying them.

 

[Convert1]

I believe it was the U.S. Appeals Court according to the link you provided. Regardless, is the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion ALWAYS good enough for you, say, in the recent decision to make SSM the law of the land? Somehow, I would wager you agree with the SCOTUS rulings only when it conforms to your personal opinions and religious views. Please correct me if I jumped the gun.

Look, I respected your opinion. I would hope you would respect mine. I referred to the opinion of the US Supreme court of Appeals that supported my point regarding the use of the word God on our currency…because I believe relates to the topic at hand. Your assumption as to what I would or would not agree with in other areas as it relates to SCOTUS is irrelevant, and obviously your attempt at deferring the debate. It is unfortunate that you cannot find it within yourself to just politely disagree with another’s position.

 

[EIF5A]

Who exactly is offended by the Ten Commandments monument?

Are they truly offended, or do they feel the need to be offended because inclusiveness and neutrality of everything and anything is the rage these days?

Our nation has Judeo-Christian history. It’s a fact that revisionist history cannot cover up.

It’s like someone’s prodding an innocent bystander, “Hey, you there, don’t you feel ignored and offended?” “Why, yes, yes I do!”

 

[meltzerboy]

Look, I respected your opinion. I would hope you would respect mine. I referred to the opinion of the US Supreme court of Appeals that supported my point regarding the use of the word God on our currency…because I believe relates to the topic at hand. Your assumption as to what I would or would not agree with in other areas as it relates to SCOTUS is irrelevant, and obviously your attempt at deferring the debate. It is unfortunate that you cannot find it within yourself to just politely disagree with another’s position.

Well, I asked you to correct me and you have. I apologize for offending you personally since I had no such intention. Sometimes discussions on the politics forum get a little out of hand and words may be misinterpreted. I wasn’t attempting to defer the debate but rather just trying to make a point. I do agree with you that the currency issue relates to the present topic and am in fact glad you brought it up.

 

[meltzerboy]

L’shanah tovah tikatev v’taihatem, MB. Happy Rosh Hashanah.

I am mixed on this issue. When I was pagan I simply rolled my eyes at religious displays on public property, but I did not object to them because I felt that it was alright for public property to reflect the culture of the public, including religious views. As a Christian, I see that some people are offended by the display, and it may actually hurt our chances to win their hearts. Maybe if we just had it as an example of legal history, maybe with the code of Hamurabi and an Egyptian legal stella next to it or something, maybe people would be less offended? What if we just reduced it to the ten words in Hebrew, maybe even written in middle/Davidic Hebrew script which almost no one can read? I don’t know. I think that removing it altogether is a shame, but maybe it is what we have come to. I know that I don’t see the actions of our political leaders, on either side of the aisle, as very Christian or Jewish.

You and I agree about “in God we trust” not belonging on our money. I think it’s almost ironic that we discuss it in this thread because I see it as a blatant and pretty extreme violation of the commandment against using the Lord’s name in vain and profaning it. Some people use money for godly purposes, but I don’t think that something with even the word God should be used to oppress the poor, fund unjust wars or be tucked into the g-string of a stripper. Putting that motto on money certainly hasn’t done anything to make our use of it more godly, righteous or holy.

I tend to agree with your argument here.

A Good Year to you as well!

 

[Convert1]

Well, I asked you to correct me and you have. I apologize for offending you personally since I had no such intention. Sometimes discussions on the politics forum get a little out of hand and words may be misinterpreted. I wasn’t attempting to defer the debate but rather just trying to make a point. I do agree with you that the currency issue relates to the present topic and am in fact glad you brought it up.

Thank you. I appreciate your kind response.

 

[lax16]

What you are saying still doesn’t make sense to me.
The idea of not-killing comes from somewhere…but why do you think it comes from a god or a religion? People have understood that taking another human life is bad wayyyyy before talk of gods and religion.
We know it’s bad because of what you said earlier…common sense–we see the hurt it causes and we don’t want anyone to kill us, either…and we want our communities to survive and thrive. It’s logical. So as a community, people got together and decided to make it a law not to kill others and to give a punishment for it if you did.

Ancient Greeks did not necessarily believe in killing each other, but would take unwanted babies to the trash heap. That is killing, is it not?

The early Christians determined this was not in keeping with their new way of living and believing. They would rescue babies from the trash heap and raise them.

So, if I am to say today that I am pro-life, from conception to natural death, can I take credit for that belief? Obviously, somebody thought to go against the norm and make it a standard, in some cases a law, long before I did. I could claim it’s common sense and I came upon my belief system by own volition, but that cannot be so. I have to take into account my upbringing, books I have read, etc to form an opinion.

Therefore, I do not believe anyone comes to conclusions on their own, ever.

For every moral or good deed these gods seem to do in holy scriptures, they turn around and do immoral, unfair, unlawful deeds as well.

Please use examples from scripture where God commands anyone to do something immoral.

In your Lincoln quote, he mentions god…not actually giving credit, as you say…but he mentions him. It was an era when people were more religious and they talked that way.
But just because a President mentions a god, it still doesn’t mean a god is responsible for the laws and the inspiration for those laws.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose.
(Abraham Lincoln)

Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
(Abraham Lincoln)

In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong.
(Abraham Lincoln)

I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how a man could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.
(Abraham Lincoln)

If Lincoln were alive today and was an Atheist, do you truly believe he wouldn’t have the same convictions he had as a Theist?
He was a smart, fair, just man…and that is how he thought and acted.

He was raised a Baptist. How could one separate that from the person he became?

I mean…the bible does not condemn slavery…it actually gives rules on how to treat your slave and how close to death you are allowed to beat your slave without getting into trouble.
If the words in the bible are inspired words of god, then…well…you can do the math.
Lincoln was against slavery and saw the immorality of it and wanted to make it illegal–that high moral principal and sense of fairness and compassion for his fellow human being in that regard surely did not come from the bible. In fact, it went against it.

I have never heard of a Christian that beat their slaves because of the Bible, have you?

I picture just the pertinent Commandments listed. For example, a new display with the numbered commandments that deal with killing, stealing…and a heading that says “From The Ten Commandments”.

But then…why even call them part of The Ten Commandments?
Those three laws are common beliefs in many, many religions and philosophies and psychologies. It would make no sense to ascribe them to just the Judeo-Christian religion as if that is where they come from or as if it is the only place they reside.

.

Where are they from then?
Apparently atheists find them distasteful, so they won’t claim them as theirs.
I think it would be great for other faiths to contribute their own version of these laws and ideals. They would not be numbered “Thou Shalt Not’s”… but that is great.

 

[Honorius]

I am surprised no one has had a coronary yet over some of the plaques in U.S. capitol.

aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers

 

[lax16]

Seriously?

Off the top of my head:

-God asks Abraham to kill his child.
-God kills the entire world in a flood, including innocent children and babies not born yet.
-God gives the law that if your child is disobedient, you must take him or her to the center of town and stone them to death.
–God slaughters all the Egyptian firstborn
-God kills good-guy Job’s ten children for no good reason, and takes away everything else…
–God has bears tear apart children just because they tease a prophet.
–God kills 15,000 people with a plague…just for complaining…

And so on, and so forth.

Oh, the Old Testament. First of all, Catholics do not take the Bible literally.

But, the point I was making is that God did not command people to sin. He reacted to their sinfulness by doing A,B and C.

I don’t know why one needs to separate it. But it’s not everything that he was.
He was also raised by a certain kind of parents, he inherited a certain kind of personality, he was educated as a lawyer, and he read on various topics voraciously. He analyzed people and nature and history and studied philosophy and Shakespeare. He most likely drew many of his thoughts and ideas these ways, thereby shaping who he was.

Of course. That was my point. We are all a combination of many things.

I’ve never known anyone–christian or otherwise–who owned slaves. Have you?
The bible describes in detail the proper way to beat your slaves.
During the abolition movement, many christians supported slavery–as you know–and used passages in the bible to give validity to their position:

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.
— Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.
— Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterian pastor

… the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.=
— Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention

People use the Bible for all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make it official Christian teaching. And if Protestants want to quote the OT to justify slave ownership, that is wrong. Has the Catholic Church ever approved of slave ownership? No, of course not.

I believe I’ve already answered that question.Twice.
They come from PEOPLE; smart, compassionate, fair-minded, wise, enlightened, reasonable, logical, respectful people.
I dare say Lincoln would never flood the world and kill everyone in it…or ask you to kill your beloved child as a test.
Various religions may have adopted the words and thoughts of great minds…but the ideas do not originate and are not exclusive to religion…and especially, not to a *specific *one.

.

Yes, Lincoln used his views of Christianity to stand up for what is right and was killed for it.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t know of anyone who is compassionate and fair-minded that didn’t learn it from someone else first or want to be the opposite of something they didn’t like.
Lincoln couldn’t have flooded the world or get people to kill their firstborn even if he wanted to.

Old Testament bible study is very complicated from a Catholic perspective and I can not do it justice.