The Ten Commandments

[Court]

There's a Supreme Court case going on right now that would make it
legal to allow the display of the Ten Commandments on public property.
While I am a person that believes in Christian values, I do not believe
that the Commandments should be displayed on public property. If they
are, then other religious groups would follow in placing "religious
structures" also, claiming the same reason as Christians are now. I
don't mind Jews, or Hindus, or Muslims or whatever, as long as the
display shows no hate toward anyother groups. But, there are some
idiots out there, like Neo-Nazis and Klan members who whould imply the
death and destruction of Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, and African
Americans. I don't like to judge others, but these types of people are
some of the lowest forms of life of the earth. Their acitons are
deplorable and in no way should be allowed to happen. Yet, if this Ten
Commandments case passes, I fear that the worst could happen. If
anyone has any follow-up opinons on this issue, feel free to write.

[Sam Carana]

I agree! The argument that the Ten Commandments was the basis of our
law, culture and society in general is false. Perhaps the Ten
Commandments did influence things, but that influence is decreasing,
to an extent that some of the Commandments are now in conflict with
the culture that is dominant today in the more developed countries.

Let's go into more detail, noting that there seem to be different
versions of what constituted the Ten Commandments, but I'll just pick
a common one:

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Comment: In conflict with the freedom to choose one's preferred
religion, as protected by the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Comment: Not make any photos? That's also in conflict with the 1st
Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

Comment: In conflict with freedom of speech, as protected by the 1st
Amendment to the Bill of Rights.

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Comment: In conflict with the rights of people to do their shopping
where and when they want to, and with the right of shopowners to seek
to have a viable business.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.

Comment: Loosing relevance as young people are allowed to have a say
at younger ages, specifically regarding choosing their own partners,
their preferred profession, etc.

VI. Thou shalt not kill.

Comment: Yes, still valid, but that's only the last one out of six
until now. Also, killing is legal in the case of the death penalty,
abortion, in war and in cases of self-defense.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Comment: In conflict with the rights of people to choose their own
consentual sexual relationships.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.

Comment: Yes, still valid, but in dispute regarding copying of MP3
files, etc. Who decides what was theft?

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Comment: Yes, still valid, but it's unclear what the neighbour has to
do with it. Again, who decides what was false?

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Comment: Again, it's still valid, but it seems to duplicate or overlap
with VII.

General comments: It seems inappropriate to seek to portray the
essence of a complex system of law and moral values in just ten
phrases, particularly given that most of them actually are in conflict
with modern times. The conclusion is that the Ten Commandments do not
represent today's culture and should not be publicly displayed as if
that was the case, because that would be "bearing false witness" and
thus would pervert one of the few commandments that still had some
applicability today.

[jrichard]

And why stop at 10? If you keep reading in Exodus, the list of laws
keeps going. I have always been amused that so many Americans want only
the first 10, while ignoring the rest.

[MoreSense]

This is a good discussion, and I'm glad to see we can also agree on
some issues! I see this as part of a wider discussion on the question
whether the state should be secular. Should Church and State be
separate? Should the State be secular, i.e. should government not
impose any specific religion?
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/discussion/browse_thread/thread/eee676db7d551ed7

According to a recent survey, only a minority of Britons (44%) now
believe in God, compared with 77% in a Gallop poll taken in 1968.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne­ws?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/britainr­eligion

Of those who said they believed in God, hardly any went to church
regularly.
http://www.yougov.com/yougov_w­ebsite/asp_besPollArchives/pdf­/STI04010...

What are the implications? Associated questions that I raised earlier are:

- Should government departments rule out Christmas parties and 'merry
Christmas' wishes?

- Should Christmas be celebrated as a public holiday, or Easter?

- Should shops and schools be forced to close on Sundays and public holidays?

- Should the words 'in God we trust' be on coins and bills?
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/­docs/in_god_we_trust.html

- Should the word 'God' be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance?
Michael Newdow does not want his young daughter exposed to the words
"under God" in the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
used at ceremonies at his daughter's school. Michael won that case
more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it
was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school
students to pledge to God.

But in June 2004, the Supreme Court said that Michael Newdow could not
lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary
school-aged daughter, on whose behalf he sued, and because the girl's
mother objected to the suit.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06­/14/scotus.pledge/

Michael has meanwhile refiled the pledge-suit in the Sacramento
federal court, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents
or the children themselves.

[jrichard]

<This is a good discussion, and I'm glad to see we can also agree on
some issues!>

I imagine we'll find many common sentiments and many differences over
time.

< I see this as part of a wider discussion on the question
whether the state should be secular. Should Church and State be
separate? Should the State be secular, i.e. should government not
impose any specific religion?
http://groups-beta.google.com/ group/discussion/browse_thread

/thread/e... >

Yes, big questions. My personal view is that the Constitution
specifically warns against this and God is conspicuously absent from
it's wording.

Of course, we love to interpret what the "founders thought," but I
think an honest historical perspective reveals that they thought the
states should decide on matters of religion and the Federal government
should stay out of it (not that they all agreed on this, and they each
pushed their own views when they had the chance, just like today).

But we've had a civil war since then and the reconstruction of our
union afterwards dramatically changed the relationship between the
states and the union, making the protection of individual autonomy by
the federal government (instead of the protection of the states'
autonomy) the primary relationship. This was not what the framers
intended, but I'm not sure how they would have weighed in on this
shift.

One of the more frustrating aspects of these discussions is that we
have had at least four different social contracts in our history, each
using the same language but striving towards different goals by
different means. It makes looking to the past difficult, because we
have to decide which parts were changed for good reasons and which
parts are still in effect today.

<According to a recent survey, only a minority of Britons (44%) now
believe in God, compared with 77% in a Gallop poll taken in 1968.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne ?ws?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/britainr ?eligion

Of those who said they believed in God, hardly any went to church
regularly.

http://www.yougov.com/yougov_w ?ebsite/asp_besPollArchives/pdf
?/STI04010...
What are the implications?>

I'll tell you this: church membership is generally on the decline in
Europe, but idealism appears to be rising on the whole. Part of this is
that the institution of the church is changing to meet the needs of the
societies that are redefining their own relationships between
individuals and state.

< Associated questions that I raised earlier are:
- Should government departments rule out Christmas parties and 'merry
Christmas' wishes? >

Thomas Jefferson would say yes. When he was President, he refused to
officially acknowledge Christmas. When he was a state governor, he did
officially recognize Christmas and Easter.

John Adams would say no, that the Federal government can reflect the
common mood of the people, so long as it doesn't force that mood on any
given state culture.

<- Should Christmas be celebrated as a public holiday, or Easter? >

Well, I think celebrating those holidays in the public sphere is fine.
Both of those traditions predate Christianity, and it wasn't until
Constantine's rule that they were reinterpreted as celebrations of the
Christian faith.

Many people celebrate those holidays for different reasons with
different ideals and symbolism. Giving them the freedom to celebrate
those holidays as they see fit is definitely in keeping with the spirit
of the freedom of religious expression.

But I also think we should allow people of other faiths to have the
freedom to pause and celebrate their own religious traditions as well.
We're getting better about that, but still have a ways to go.

<- Should shops and schools be forced to close on Sundays and public
holidays? >

No, and I think that's why such laws have been struck down again and
again. There shouldn't be laws that require businesses to stay open,
either.

<- Should the words 'in God we trust' be on coins and bills?

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/ ?docs/in_god_we_trust.html >

Well, they weren't for most of our history. It was Eisenhower who made
a lot of these changes, and I think we should examine if the inclusion
is harmful to Americans.

Personally, I think it's fine, so long as we don't ram home WHICH God
or WHICH faith interpretation of God it is that we're intertwining our
civic religion with.

I think it is fine to involve the God and Creator language in our
justifications for doing things, so long as we don't make a point to
force others to conform to a particular understanding or interpretation
by doing so.

Admittedly, very gray area.

<- Should the word 'God' be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance? >

Well, it wasn't in the original version. It was another 1950s add-on.

I think the real question is what the pledge is and what it means.

The pledge was originally a reconstruction invention, requiring
citizens to pledge allegiance to the union as "one nation, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all." This was to drive home the point to
the Southerners that they were promising not to consider their states
above the union itself, that the union could not be broken up and that
the liberty and just treatment of every person (including persons of
color) were protected by that union.

It was a tool to force the southerners to conform to the northern
national (and Republican, which was the liberal party at that time)
view of our union. It was introduced into schools to try and get to the
next generation early. It was required of naturalized citizens so that
they would not bring more pro-states' rights into the union through
immigration.

It is interesting that a tool designed to build unity is not a tool
that is building division. I think the framers knew religious
differences could tear apart society (and we should remember that most
of them were here in the first place because that's exactly what
happened on their native soils), and probably would not have been
surprised that the inclusion of "under God" would turn unity into
discord.

If the pledge is required for citizenship and we truly believe in
freedom of religious expression, then I think there exists a strong
argument for removing "under God" from the pledge. If we are supposed
to truly have the freedom of religious expression in the private
sphere, than I think it does cause problems for a parent who does not
want to raise their child in a mainstream Christian world-view to have
that child recite the pledge of allegiance as a required or impressed
part of the school day in public school.

Of course, they can always home-school or put their child in a private
school, provided they feel that strongly about it and can afford to pay
for it.

But should a significant number of Americans decide that even simple
expressions of faith like the pledge have no place in the public
sphere, I suspect it will be removed.

< Michael Newdow does not want his young daughter exposed to the words
"under God" in the teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
used at ceremonies at his daughter's school. Michael won that case
more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it
was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school

students to pledge to God. >

Yes, I followed that case with interest.

<But in June 2004, the Supreme Court said that Michael Newdow could not

lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary
school-aged daughter, on whose behalf he sued, and because the girl's
mother objected to the suit.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06 ?/14/scotus.pledge/

Michael has meanwhile refiled the pledge-suit in the Sacramento
federal court, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents

or the children themselves. >

Yes, a case much have a claim of cause to be tried. The Supreme Court
cannot rewrite laws or toss them out on principle (that's the role
reserved for the legislative branch). There must be a case where people
are affected for them to get involved. And it should be interesting to
see how the class-action approach fares.

(Of course, we'll probably have a dramatically different Supreme Court
by then, but it should still be an interesting case to follow).

[Deborah]

> One of the more frustrating aspects of these
> discussions is that we have had at least four
> different social contracts in our history, each
> using the same language but striving towards
> different goals by different means. It makes
> looking to the past difficult, because we have
> to decide which parts were changed for good
> reasons and which parts are still in effect
> today.

Whatever social contracts people may have signed and what amounts of
duress and coercion have been used in the process is a good question.
Nevertheless, we have our rights and they should not be made part of a
contract, as if they were negotiable, because that would effectively
deny their inalienability.

[jrichard]

Deborah,

just the be clear, I am talking about social contract in the way Hobbes
and Locke talked about it: an implied acceptance of the "way things are
and should be," not a document.

But therein lies the rub. The founders stated in their Declaration of
Independence from Great Britain that there were certain inalienable
rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (a spin on Locke's
"life, liberty and the pursuit of property").

However, they certainly didn't see those inalienable rights as bestowed
upon their slaves. Nor women. Nor those who didn't own property at
first.

And they quickly codified those rights into our original formal
contract, the Constituion. They knew that if the states were to remain
autonomous yet banded together that they needed a document that spelled
out the principles and foundations of the national infrastructure.

And every couple of generations, we reinterpret those principles and
foundations to suit our needs. The Constitution always guarrantees the
same ideals, but those ideals mean different things at different times,
and they affect society in different ways at different times.

And so in a sense, our rights and liberties are negotiable, because
each generation defines what they mean for present circumstances. And
that's why the founders wrote a "liviing, breathing document" instead
of a closed summary document that could not be amended or changed.

[MoreSense]

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding what rights are, something I
have noticed in earlier discussions. Let's call things by their proper
name. A declaration should not be presented as if it was a contract. A
declaration is a unilateral document. It was unilateral, because
England disagreed. A contract is something that is typically
negotiated and signed when parties do agree. Our rights should not be
presented as if they were subject to negotiation. Our rights are
inalienable and the Declaration of Independence was a declaration. Our
rights remain the same, they may have been described better or worse
over time and in various documents, but such descriptions are merely
efforts to capture the implications on specific issues. It is not up
to governments to decide or to "negotiate" what our rights are,
because rights constitute the very area that is off limits to
government.

[jrichard]

<You seem to have a basic misunderstanding what rights are, something I

have noticed in earlier discussions.>

I love it when you tell me what I do and don't understand. ;-)

< Let's call things by their proper
name. A declaration should not be presented as if it was a contract. A

declaration is a unilateral document. It was unilateral, because
England disagreed.>

Oh, England eventually recognized it, years after the war. We did get a
return document.

< A contract is something that is typically
negotiated and signed when parties do agree.>

Typically.

But if you read the Declaration of Independence, you see that Jefferson
was calling on a contract with a higher power. Since England did have a
claim to America, the founders had to claim the higher contract with a
creator to trump England's claim.

And if we remember our history, this was important since most of the
colonies had standing charters linking them to the king as his
property.

< Our rights should not be
presented as if they were subject to negotiation. >

But it is the law that gives us our legal rights. The law is what
ensures our freedom. But we can only be free if we respect that law,
the great equalizer than ensures no person receives preferential
treatment (part of "all men being created equal," if you will).

<Our rights are
inalienable and the Declaration of Independence was a declaration. Our

rights remain the same, they may have been described better or worse
over time and in various documents, but such descriptions are merely
efforts to capture the implications on specific issues. >

Our rights are codified in our Constitution, to ensure that it was
established from the outset what the legal rights of individuals were,
what the legal rights of states were and what the legal rights of the
federal government were. And yes, those rights have changed in their
meaning and how they are protected (to say nothing of the extension of
those rights across races and genders).

The justification for our rights was deemed "self-evident" by the
framers, but it certainly wasn't self-evident to a majority of them
that African-Americans deserved the same rights.

And they knew that power could not be guaranteed through personality
(since people die) or through socially held ideals (after all, they
were the educated ones in society, they certainly didn't expect all
classes of Americans to have the same values and ideals that they had
spent years debating before compromising). So they established a system
of law that provided rights for us all, to ensure those values were
preserved.

Remember, the Bill of Rights was written after the Constitution and was
only added on when it became apparent that the states would not ratify
the Constitution without their inclusion.

Our rights are guaranteed by these laws, and as we change the laws and
change the way they are applied, our rights do change (at least in the
practical sense). During Prohibition, the 18th Amendment took away our
right to sell or consume alcohol. Twelve years later, we needed the
21st Amendment to repeal the 18th and restore those rights.

<It is not up
to governments to decide or to "negotiate" what our rights are,
because rights constitute the very area that is off limits to
government. >

The theory is that it should be off limits to the executive. The
legislative branch can amend our rights in the Constitution with a vote
by a overwhelming majority (I believe it's a 2/3 vote by Congress and
3/4 of the state have to ratify). And Congress can certainly write
other laws that abridge our rights, but the judiciary is supposed to
strike those laws down as unConstitutional.

(That's why I don't think this proposed ban on gay marriage amendment
will prevail, even in the unlikely event it passes a floor vote of 2/3
of the Congress, I see no way 3/4 of the states will ratify it).

What keeps the government from taking away our rights is the
Constitution. And the only way the Constitution has any power is when
the justices are using it to interpret the laws written by Congress.

[Deborah]

It seems that we have a basic disagreement about this as well. Our
rights are not the result of the law, but the issue of rights
inevitably emerges as the law seeks to develop in more sensible ways.
Dicators may decide whatever they want, but the moment the law seeks to
adhere to more logic and to make more sense, our rights can no longer
be ignored.