Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to I wanna post the Ten Commandments in public
Xeno-x - a good article on what you are speaking of is found >>>>
HERE
The typical argument when discussing the work adorning the walls of the Supreme court's walls is premised on "if they can do it, why can't we do it?" The subtle difference between that specific artwork and a public entity posting the ten commandments on their walls is a point that escapes most people. Any posting of the ten commandments as the ten rules that all good Christians should live by in a public establishment, does two things that are unconstitutional. First it favours the precepts of one specific religion, secondly it acknowledges the existence of one version of God. In a regional courthouse, as was the case in the much ballyhood Montgomery Alabama decision of November 2003, the ten commandments were not being presented in a historical context or with equal representation to other religious precepts but entirely on their own.
posted by
gomedome
on March 29, 2006 at 7:46 AM
| link to this | reply
re opn the supreme coour building schatz
a previoius blogiteer addressed that
its not the 10.
forgot exactly what it was
the blogiteer i believe has long since departed so there is not reference here to exactly what is on the facade there.
however, a quick search of the internet should give anyone who wants to search the information desired.
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 29, 2006 at 7:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Schatz - yes, as a species we are a joke,
we invent invisible beings to fight over, we destroy our own habitat and live in a constant state of collective denial. Yet there are people that feel the solution to these problems is to double efforts in selling the notion of invisible beings while ignoring the destruction of our habitat and elevating the level of our collective state of denial. That in a nutshell is why I write this post. I don't feel we need more of this. Thanx for stopping bye.
posted by
gomedome
on March 28, 2006 at 7:40 PM
| link to this | reply
Justsouno - as usual, your comments are good comedy
I didn't actually call you a fool, the term was used in this posting generically and non specifically, in reference to those who happen to be Christian that feel they have a right to impose their faith on others. One of the ways they demonstrate this sense of entitlement is by insisting that others be subjected to the articles of their faith while not allowing the same consideration for other religions. That is the basic theme of this posting which of course sailed right over your head. As for your question "Who said that they coudl not be posted in public." well, your Supreme Court for one, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down in November 2003 concerning the granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments that was placed in the courthouse of Montgomery, Alabama. There are many other examples as well.
This is the funniest part of your comment "I welcome any religious group for exactly what they are, and need to have mine welcomed too." . . .yeah right sure you do. Now finally when you ask "Is there anywhere on this that says you are not to call others fools. There is in my religion." But apparently your religion overlooks a prohibition against calling people "evil" and a number of other names as you have called me specifically in the past. Yes the word "Christian" and the word "fools" were used in the same sentence in this post, which may or may not except present company, but you feel somehow that this sentence was speaking directly to you . . go figure.
posted by
gomedome
on March 28, 2006 at 7:33 PM
| link to this | reply
Aren't the ten commandments on the front of the supreme court?
I'm fairly sure, although I haven't been there myself, I've seen pictures.
Poor, stupid humans are we. Fools, all of us. We are afraid of things that are unfamiliar, we resist even the healthiest of change. Most of religion means going blindly along with whatever that religion spoon feeds us. Sometimes, not so bad, other times, devastating.
I love to read you. You always make me think.
posted by
Schatz
on March 28, 2006 at 5:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Who said they could not be posted in public. You are very misguided
when you call me a fool. You can't call others fools and avoid violence. You talk from both sides of your mouth. I welcome any religious group for exactly what they are, and need to have mine welcomed too. You aren't man enough to do that are you? Is there anywhere on this that says you are not to call others fools. There is in my religion.
posted by
Justi
on March 28, 2006 at 5:17 PM
| link to this | reply
the 10 of exodus, mountainclimber
aren't the "Lord's Commandments". we all know that, especially if one decides that Jesus is the "Lord" referred to.
but what we read in the King James has been changed.
The 16th Century Anglicans who put together that bible put a lot of their theology into that tome. Much of the intent of the original authors has been lost through centuries of human misperception.
For instance, the Hebrew word for the King James "commandment" more accurately is "precept". This would indicate something entirely different from the ironclad "commandment" that the King James Anglicans placed their in there "divine right of kings" mindset.
Also the "Thou shalt": of "Thou shalt not" is italicized in many cases, meaning that the Anglican interpreters of the Hebrew inserted the "thou shalt". Again, we see an instance of the Anglican interpreters placing their own particular type of emphasis in this original work.
So we then are left with a negative. So we can say something like, "Kill not."
Then there is the matter of the different readings in the different passages, the difference between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions.
Also the difference between the Jewish and Christian versions. And differences between Christian denominations. A lot of this has to do with the first three, where the first ends and the second begins and so on. My take on this -- if you read them correctly, you will find that they actually blend in, one into another, so that they are more likely one precept than three separate. Besides, you will find no number in the bible -- whether ten or seven or whatever. This is a construct separate from the precepts themselves.
Basically we are then left with the conclusion that the concept of "Ten Commandments" is far from sacrosanct.
And now I find I shouild post this on my own blog.
posted by
Xeno-x
on March 28, 2006 at 2:23 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet - thank you and one thing is certain
The majority of those who would promote their right to display articles of their faith in public would not be willing to extend the same rights to everyone.
posted by
gomedome
on March 28, 2006 at 9:44 AM
| link to this | reply
MountainClimber56 - that doesn't make any sense
Hindus don't have a "Lord" and the version of the Ten Commandments that you refer to as the "Lord's Commandments" are only relevant to adherants of Christian religions. For the rest of us, both the Hindu version that I posted here and the Christian version, are articles of someone else's faith. Whether either of them should be posted in public places is a different debate but access in a democratic society must include either all versions or no versions.
posted by
gomedome
on March 28, 2006 at 9:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
Excellent reminder that there are other commandments. Thanks!
posted by
sannhet
on March 28, 2006 at 9:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, whether you are Christian or Hindu, thou shalt not
rewrite the Lord's commandments! The one that needs to be heard today loud and clear everywhere is "Thou shalt not kill!"
posted by
MountainClimber57
on March 28, 2006 at 9:05 AM
| link to this | reply