Jewish view on the Ten Commandments monument debate ? - CORRECTED
BigRanch
The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around by
the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in the fray
by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish document, is
it not?
So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only an
anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
Feedback? Thanks.
-Juan-
Big Ranch Productions
Rancho Grande Pictures
Asher N
news:qv-dnYrfjbl...@texas.net:
Problem is, there are several versions of the 10 Commandements. The one on
the monuent is a Xian translation.
Herman Rubin
>The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around by
>the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in the fray
>by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish document, is
>it not?
>So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
>previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
>Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only an
>anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
>misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
There was no denial of being exposed to anything.
The denial was of having a religious expression of some
religions on a state building. Only three of the Ten
are currrently a matter of law.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Susan Cohen
"BigRanch" <joh...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:qv-dnYrfjbl...@texas.net...
> ((e-mail address corrected in this message))
>
> The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around by
> the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in the
fray
> by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish document, is
> it not?
Not the set with which you are probably familiar, no.
>
> So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
> previledge
Or, rather, his decision to keep everyone from having the one particular
version of the Ten Commandments being forced on everyone, whether they
believe in a particular religion or not
of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
> Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only
an
> anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic.
Nope. It's just protecting the law.
> Feedback?
Okay.
If anything, the judge who set up the monument was anti-semitic, because he
posted what was probably a deliberately edited version of the Ten
Commandments, and would have refused to have anything set up that would deny
the existence/supremacy of his particular god, as Judaism, or many other
religions, would do. He was promoting his religion in defiance of the law &
would have supressed the promotion of other religions.
Susan
Lisa
> "BigRanch" <joh...@texas.net> wrote in
> news:qv-dnYrfjbl...@texas.net:
>
> > ((e-mail address corrected in this message))
> >
> > The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around
> > by the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in
> > the fray by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish
> > document, is it not?
> >
> > So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
> > previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the
> > Ten Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not
> > only an anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might
> > have misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
> >
> > Feedback? Thanks.
>
> the monuent is a Xian translation.
That's not the only issue. If you can have the 10 Commandments there,
why not the Sermon on the Mount? The fact is, there's not supposed to
be any favored religion in this country. That's the whole point of
the First Amendment. What about Muslims, who don't care about the 10
Commandments? What about Wiccans and Hindus and other Americans who
have traditions that don't include the 10 Commandments? By claiming,
as this soon-to-be-ex-judge did, that the 10 Commandments are the
basis of American law (a claim laughable even to those of us who
believe that God gave those commandments), he was reading out those
Americans who don't come from a Jewish or Christian background. What
right does he have to do that? Hint: none at all.
Furthermore, a judge, more than anyone else, should respect the law.
Whether he is in personal agreement with it or not. Otherwise he's no
more than a petty tyrant exercising his own power.
Ultimately, the Jewish take on this should be secondarily for the
removal of the monument, and primarily for the removal of this judge.
Men like him are a danger to Jews as well as to anyone else who might
fall into a category that he considers "less than equal".
Lisa
Beach....@nospam.com
can the US
have a law that outlaws religions? Well, that is what the first commandment
(more accurately
called first utterance) is. It outlaws any other "god", idol, or worship. Thus,
it outlaws
Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, most Native American religions, atheism, arguably,
many
practices of Christianity (statues used in worship), whiccan or any other
religion. Thus,
it has no place in an American courtroom.
Worship how you please. If you want to talk about what the 10 commandments
mean
to Jews, for Jews, that's another issue. But this judge is acting as a
Christian, using a
specific translation of laws that outlaw other religions.
The Puritans were good examples of people that outlawed other religions. They
burned
a lot of people at the steak who they "suspected" of not having the right
religious views.
Hopefully, we've progressed to a land of tolerance, respect, and acceptance all
religious
views.
Benjamin Franklin had a pulpit built where anyone of any religion could speak,
be they
Christian, Islamic, Jewish, or any religion at all. He was a leader in what the
Simon Wisenthal
Foundation might now call, "Tolerance".
Susan Cohen
<Beach....@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3F517596...@cfl.rr.com...
> That is not the question.
It was for the poster, & that's to what I spoke.
I agree with you about everything else, tho'.
Susan
Robert
> So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
> previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
> Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only
an
> anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
> misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
No, not at all. In fact, this was a very pro-Jewish act. Remember, that
monument did *not* have the Ten Commandments on them, despite what most news
reports erroneously claimed. The facts are these: That monument only held a
Christian translation, of a fraction of the actual Hebrew text, in an order
that violates the Jewish understanding of them...and worse, they were being
applied and interpreted by a fundamentalist Christian.
How fair would it be for Jews, or any non-Christians, in that courtroom?
Not very, I would think.
I just wish that someday someone would make a decent and useful Ten
Commandments monument. This would include the full and unedited Hebrew text.
Alongside it, we could have three translations: Jewish, Catholic Christian,
and Protest Christian. Each would have their own numbering, translation, and
commentary. In that case, just maybe, there would be enough historical
context for it to be a real monument, instead of a tool to push one version
of fundamentlist Christianity.
When you get a chance, please check out this article.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Shalom,
Robert
Lawrence Szenes-Strauss
> So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
> previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
> Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only an
> anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
> misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
>
> Feedback? Thanks.
<snip>
Hi Juan,
It is, I daresay, I little more complicated than that. Firstly,
there's the issue of the term "antisemitic." Though it can of course
refer to a negative view of the Jewish religion, more often it refers
to racism focused against Jews. On that note, I wouldn't say that the
removal of the monument is antisemitic since, as you pointed out,
nobody involved in the process appears to have been thinking about us
in the first place. :)
(You'll note that I spell "antisemitism" as one word, a habit which
has been catching on lately. Some time ago, some anti-Jewish Arab
groups realized that they could claim with perfect honesty that they
were not "anti-Semitic," since they also speak a Semitic language and
are thought of as a Semitic people. "Antisemitism," one word, is
easier to define for staunch literalists.)
As for the rest of it, I actually support the decision. The issue is
not about whether I like having the Ten Commandments on display --
which I do -- but with whether it was legal in the first place.
Putting up biblical monuments in a federal courtroom constitutes
government endorsement of a particular religion, which violates the
First Ammendment.
There is a concept which appears in the Talmud, "dina d'malchuta
dina," meaning "the law of the state is the law." Jews are required to
honor the laws of the local government so long as those laws do not
contradict Jewish law. (Thankfully, such contradictions don't tend to
show up in America.) Since Jewish law does not actually require us to
display the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, we must defer to civil law
before our own opinions.
I hope this helps,
~L
Ken
First, I am speaking for myself only, not as any Great Jewish
Perspective.
Please keep in mind that with only one very recent exception, Israel,
every time in recent history (That's more than a couple thousand
years.) a government has become involved in religion, it has not
benefited Jews in any way. History is instead replete with
persecution at best, annihilation at worst. So with this in the
front, not the back, of my mind, I prefer that our government stay
completely out of religion.
Remember the line, "We're from the government and we're here to help
you."? Well, Jews laugh at that line more than anyone else. So no
matter what version or versions are in a courthouse, no matter how
many religions are represented, I believe they should all be removed.
Obviously, there is only one, and I believe that one should never have
been placed in a publicly owned building in the first place.
Ken
Jeffrey Smith
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <qv-dnYrfjbl...@texas.net>,
>BigRanch <joh...@texas.net> wrote:
>>((e-mail address corrected in this message))
>
>>The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around by
>>the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in the fray
>>by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish document, is
>>it not?
>
>>So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
>>previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
>>Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only an
>>anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
>>misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
>
>There was no denial of being exposed to anything.
>
>The denial was of having a religious expression of some
>religions on a state building. Only three of the Ten
>are currrently a matter of law.
It wasn't because it was a State building, it was because it was a
Court building. In the US, just as here in the UK, there are three
separate strands of national authority. There is the State, the
Courts, and the Church. The over-riding concern is that at no point
should any of them be seen to be impinging on any of the other two.
In the UK, the first thing you are asked to do when giving evidence in
Court is to swear on the Bible. You are given the choice of Old or New
Testaments. Of course, if you are an authodox Jew, you will not swear
at all but affirm. If this is not the importation of religion into the
courtroom, then I don't know what is.
Jeffrey Smith.
To reply by email, remove the four XXXX characters.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
It reminds me of Mel Brooks in his film HISTORY OF THE WORLD where as
Moses me says, "The Lord has given me 15 [you hear the sound of a shattered
tablet] OY VEY ! TEN Commandments".
Seriously, a country which has "In GOD we trust" on every dollar bill and in
whose courtrooms people take an aoth on a Bible and state "So help me God"
is somewhat schizophrenic when it suddenly prohibits placing the TEN
COMMANDMENTS in a courthouse.
Josh
James Kahn
>That's not the only issue. If you can have the 10 Commandments there,
>why not the Sermon on the Mount? The fact is, there's not supposed to
>be any favored religion in this country. That's the whole point of
>the First Amendment. What about Muslims, who don't care about the 10
>Commandments? What about Wiccans and Hindus and other Americans who
>have traditions that don't include the 10 Commandments? By claiming,
>as this soon-to-be-ex-judge did, that the 10 Commandments are the
>basis of American law (a claim laughable even to those of us who
>believe that God gave those commandments), he was reading out those
>Americans who don't come from a Jewish or Christian background. What
>right does he have to do that? Hint: none at all.
I half agree, but where do you draw the line? God is mentioned
in all sorts of ways that presumably offend Wiccans and Hindus.
We have "In God We Trust" on our money, Congress begins its sessions
with a prayer of some sort, etc., etc. This logic would put an
end to all of those things as well, which most people, including
myself, have no real objection to. Even Thomas Jefferson
felt there was some divine authority for the rights enunciated in
the Constitution.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan
Asher N <asher...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Problem is, there are several versions of the 10 Commandements. The one on
> the monuent is a Xian translation.
In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could count
that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
The whole thing has been a huge embarrassment to Alabama but if the end
result is that Moore is permanently removed from the state supreme court
(he's suspended right now), it's worth it.
--
TMCMan
Eliyahu Rooff
"Jeffrey Smith" <jeffrey...@xxbtinternetxx.com> wrote in message
news:vbl3lvcdob73id2r7...@4ax.com...
While the issue gained prominence because it was a court building, that
wasn't really germain to the decision. Had the monument been similarly
placed in a post office, IRS office or a Social Security Administration
building, it would have been just as illegal. The underlying problem remains
the same, in that the message intended was that "This country is based upon
my religion and not yours, and mine deserves special acknowledgement from
everyone including you." The judge should have understood that monuments and
displays which are indended to promote a particular religion cannot be
installed on or in publicly owned property as he did with this monstrosity.
Despite the judges insistance that the commandments are the basis of US law,
the fact remains that the parts of the commandments which are actually
mirrored in US law can be found in many other codes of law throughout
history, and the things which make the commandments unique are not a part of
US law. We have no laws requiring that everyone acknowledge the existance of
G-d, prohibiting us from using His name in vain, or from making images of
Him. We have no statutes requiring us to honor our parents or keep Shabbat
properly, nor are there any laws imposing penalties for coveting what others
possess. Many of these commandments tell us what we must desire in our
hearts and how we must feel toward others; areas where the corpus of civil
law wouldn't even dare to tread.
>
> In the UK, the first thing you are asked to do when giving evidence in
> Court is to swear on the Bible. You are given the choice of Old or New
> Testaments. Of course, if you are an authodox Jew, you will not swear
> at all but affirm. If this is not the importation of religion into the
> courtroom, then I don't know what is.
>
Current practice here in Washington State, both in State and Federal courts,
is that the person preparing to testify is told to raise his right hand,
whereupon the judge says, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth?" and the person replies, "I do." No Bible, no
mention of G-d, and the person is also allowed to affirm rather than swear
if he has a problem with this. Practice in the UK may be different, but
you're looking for a problem where none exists. The oath isn't intended to
invoke a religious obligation or to assure that G-d will send down lightning
bolts if someone lies. It simply imposes a legal liability if they commit
perjury or intentionally omit information from their testimony.
Eliyahu
Eliyahu Rooff
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:bisn66$app$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
the dollar bill has long ceased to have any connection with a particular
religion or to advance the interests of any religion, displays such as the
one in question are intended to support and promote the religious beliefs of
a particular church or individual, and, as such, are prohibited in a
publicly-funded forum. To get a better idea of the problems with this, let's
imagine for a moment that the monument, instead of being something with
which we agree, was a monument to the Koran or a statue of Krishna, placed
in a position of honor in the court house where everyone who enters and
leaves has to see it. It also conveys the message that the Judge intends to
follow the teachings of his own religion, rather than to follow the law of
the country, when ruling on cases before him. If he were only judging
members of his own church, this wouldn't be much of a problem. However, he
has no right to do this when making rulings and decisions affecting the rest
of us. Suppose he were Muslim, and decided to have a shoplifter's hand
amputated in accordance with his own beliefs?
When a judge assumes his office, he takes an oath to uphold the Constitution
and the law of the land, as interpreted by the higher courts, and is
obligated to do so. To allow judges to do otherwise invites anarchy and a
return to the time when "there was no king in those days, and every man did
what was right in his own eyes."
Eliyahu
Ken
> the monuent is a Xian translation.
>In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
>created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
>commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could
count
>that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
>The whole thing has been a huge embarrassment to Alabama but if the
end
>result is that Moore is permanently removed from the state supreme
court
>(he's suspended right now), it's worth it.
This is a follow up to tooooomuchcoffeemans(sp.?)posting, but it
wouldn't be accepted as a follow up there.
Since I had heard in the news "The Ten Commandments", I assumed that
it was some recognized Protestant version. Do you or anyone out there
have a transcript of what these "ten commandments" actually say?
Eleven instead of ten? That's pretty good. My guess is that the
eleventh is "Thou shalt not remove this monument." Just a guess
though. I'm also assuming that the monument is in English. Anybody
know if this is correct?
Thanks,
Ken
Joel Shurkin
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns93E7B3429A8E...@66.250.171.186>,
> Asher N <asher...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Problem is, there are several versions of the 10 Commandements. The one on
> > the monuent is a Xian translation.
>
> In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
> created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
> commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could count
> that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
How so 11?
>
> The whole thing has been a huge embarrassment to Alabama but if the end
> result is that Moore is permanently removed from the state supreme court
> (he's suspended right now), it's worth it.
When I lived in Georgia we used to say ³Thank God for Alabama.²
J
--
"I have nothing in the world but the hour in which I am. It pauses for a
moment, and then, like a cloud, moves on.²
Samuel a¹Nagid 10th century Spain
Joel Shurkin
Baltimore
Joel Shurkin
<mtc4b.120353$0v4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Robert
<judai...@yahoo.com.spammenot> wrote:
For a hilarious, accurate and wonderful account of the core of the
argument, I recommend, from the San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/
0
8/26/MN274126.DTL
Creedmoor Chronicles
"Jeffrey Smith" >
It wasn't because it was a State building, it was because it was a
> Court building. In the US, just as here in the UK, there are three
> separate strands of national authority. There is the State, the
> Courts, and the Church.
There is NO national authority invested in ANY church in the US, outside of
Ward D in Creedmoor, which has just been placed under the authority of the
Admou"r meCreedmoor - in other words, the inmates run the asylum. Seriously,
the US has full separation of religion and state - there is nothing even
remotely parallel to the Church of England in the US!
IS
Garry
Kahn) wrote:
>In <cc62d1fa.03083...@posting.google.com> li...@starways.net (Lisa) writes:
>
>>That's not the only issue. If you can have the 10 Commandments there,
>>why not the Sermon on the Mount? The fact is, there's not supposed to
>>be any favored religion in this country. That's the whole point of
>>the First Amendment. What about Muslims, who don't care about the 10
>>Commandments? What about Wiccans and Hindus and other Americans who
>>have traditions that don't include the 10 Commandments? By claiming,
>>as this soon-to-be-ex-judge did, that the 10 Commandments are the
>>basis of American law (a claim laughable even to those of us who
>>believe that God gave those commandments), he was reading out those
>>Americans who don't come from a Jewish or Christian background. What
>>right does he have to do that? Hint: none at all.
>
>I half agree, but where do you draw the line? God is mentioned
>in all sorts of ways that presumably offend Wiccans and Hindus.
>We have "In God We Trust" on our money, Congress begins its sessions
>with a prayer of some sort, etc., etc. This logic would put an
>end to all of those things as well, which most people, including
>myself, have no real objection to.
I suspect the general consensus is that these things are so fully
digested as part of american tradition at this point that we simply
won't examine them. That doesn't apply to new institnutions of
religion.
> Even Thomas Jefferson
>felt there was some divine authority for the rights enunciated in
>the Constitution.
You're mistaken. In the draft of the Declaration of Independence,
which is Jefferson's statement of the rights you mention, Jefferson
wrote:
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are
created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive
rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of
life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness."
The continental congress amended these to read "All men are created
equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable
rights."
Also of interest on this point is the writing of James Madison:
"Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is
at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it
may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be
pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews
with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven,
more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in
merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these
governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the
senses."
". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on
the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of
miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern
part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in
favor of the rights of mankind."
"A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of
America, 1788
_______________________________________
A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
The entire purchase price goes to charity. http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
Garry
<lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Despite the judges insistance that the commandments are the basis of US law,
>the fact remains that the parts of the commandments which are actually
>mirrored in US law can be found in many other codes of law throughout
>history, and the things which make the commandments unique are not a part of
>US law.
This is a common misrepresentation made in support of religious
displays in courtroom -- that American law traces to biblical law. It
does not; it traces to english common law, which was largely shaped by
the laws of the Saxons, centuries before the bible was introduced to
england.
Asher N
news:310820031420491673%jo...@nasw.org:
> In article <tooooomuchcoffee-00...@news.newsguy.com>,
> ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns93E7B3429A8E...@66.250.171.186>,
>> Asher N <asher...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Problem is, there are several versions of the 10 Commandements. The
>> > one on the monuent is a Xian translation.
>>
>> In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
>> created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
>> commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could
>> count that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
>
> How so 11?
Never got a real good look on the news, but the 'remember shabbat' seemed to
be #5, so they either dropped one, or there was 11.
Ken
After I posted asking if anybody had a transcript of the monument in
Alabama, I did a Google search. I didn't come up with a complete
transcript, but the link below touches on the monuments wording and
some of the differences in different versions. This is for the
original poster so he can realize that the ten commandments is not a
one-size-fits-all item.
Ken
http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/living/1062149990145100.xml
James Kahn
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:57:40 +0000 (UTC), ka...@nospam.panix.com (James
>Kahn) wrote:
>> Even Thomas Jefferson
>>felt there was some divine authority for the rights enunciated in
>>the Constitution.
>You're mistaken. In the draft of the Declaration of Independence,
>which is Jefferson's statement of the rights you mention, Jefferson
>wrote:
>"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are
>created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive
>rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of
>life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness."
I wasn't basing my statement on the official wording of the Declaration,
but on my understanding of Jefferson's belief system. For example,
if you look at the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, written
by Jefferson, it says
"Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to
influence it by temporal punishment or burthens, or by civil incapacitations,
tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure
from the plan of the Holy author of our religion..."
Or check out the Notes on the State of Virginia, e.g.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis,
a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the
Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that
His justice cannot sleep forever."
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan
Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org> wrote:
> In article <tooooomuchcoffee-00...@news.newsguy.com>,
> ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
> > created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
> > commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could count
> > that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
>
> How so 11?
I believe he has "I am the Lord Thy God" as 1 and "Thou shalt have no
other gods before Me" as 2.
> >
> > The whole thing has been a huge embarrassment to Alabama but if the end
> > result is that Moore is permanently removed from the state supreme court
> > (he's suspended right now), it's worth it.
>
> When I lived in Georgia we used to say ³Thank God for Alabama.²
>
I'm in Mississippi, and our cheer is "We're Number Forty-Nine! We're
Number Forty-Nine!"
--
TMCMan
Susan Cohen
in
> whose courtrooms people take an aoth on a Bible and state "So help me God"
> is somewhat schizophrenic when it suddenly prohibits placing the TEN
> COMMANDMENTS in a courthouse.
Yes, I agree that we should take "In G-d We Trust" off the money.
But as Eliyahu pointed out, not all courtrooms ask people to swear on
Bibles.
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> Problem is, there are several versions of the 10 Commandements. The one on
>> the monuent is a Xian translation.
>
>>In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
>>created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
>>commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could
>>count that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
snip
> Since I had heard in the news "The Ten Commandments", I assumed that
> it was some recognized Protestant version. Do you or anyone out there
> have a transcript of what these "ten commandments" actually say?
> Eleven instead of ten? That's pretty good. My guess is that the
> eleventh is "Thou shalt not remove this monument." Just a guess
> though. I'm also assuming that the monument is in English. Anybody
> know if this is correct?
Nah. Anyone who grew up in New York knows that the 11th is;
"Post no bills".
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Kesiva v'CHasima Tova
Joel Shurkin
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <310820031420491673%jo...@nasw.org>,
> Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <tooooomuchcoffee-00...@news.newsguy.com>,
> > ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
> > > created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
> > > commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could count
> > > that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
> >
> > How so 11?
>
> I believe he has "I am the Lord Thy God" as 1 and "Thou shalt have no
> other gods before Me" as 2.
That¹s what happened. Maybe he has 11 toes.
>
> > >
> > > The whole thing has been a huge embarrassment to Alabama but if the end
> > > result is that Moore is permanently removed from the state supreme court
> > > (he's suspended right now), it's worth it.
> >
> > When I lived in Georgia we used to say ³Thank God for Alabama.²
> >
>
> I'm in Mississippi, and our cheer is "We're Number Forty-Nine! We're
> Number Forty-Nine!"
--
Joel Shurkin
<s...@spam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:24:06 +0000 (UTC), "Eliyahu Rooff"
> <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Despite the judges insistance that the commandments are the basis of US law,
> >the fact remains that the parts of the commandments which are actually
> >mirrored in US law can be found in many other codes of law throughout
> >history, and the things which make the commandments unique are not a part of
> >US law.
Add to that the Urban Legend that the country was founded by pious
Christians to be a Christian nation. Jefferson was a deist, Washington
could not have cared less, and Franklin was a famous skeptic.
J
>
> This is a common misrepresentation made in support of religious
> displays in courtroom -- that American law traces to biblical law. It
> does not; it traces to english common law, which was largely shaped by
> the laws of the Saxons, centuries before the bible was introduced to
> england.
> _______________________________________
>
> A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version
> of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
> The entire purchase price goes to charity.
> http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
>
> Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
--
Art Werschulz
ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> writes:
ISTR that being the generally-accepted enumeration al pi the
Southerners amongst whom I was raised. Unfortunately, I don't
remember which one was elided.
Going into stream-of-consciousness-mode, I started thinking about how
dull Southern Baptist weddings are (cake & non-alcoholic punch).
OTOH, I've had the pleasure, zechut, and such of attending three
chatunot (chassenehs, if you prefer) this month; the final sheva
brachot for the Morrocan wedding is tonight.
--
Art Werschulz (a...@comcast.net)
207 Stoughton Ave Cranford NJ 07016
(908) 272-1146
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org> wrote:
> > ToooooMuchCoffeeMan <tooooomu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In fact, the version on the monument is a, uh, unique translation
> > > created by the judge himself. It's the only known set of the 10
> > > commandments that contains 11. I don't know how Judge Moore could
> > > count that high with his shoes on, but there you have it.
> >
> > How so 11?
>
> I believe he has "I am the Lord Thy God" as 1 and "Thou shalt have no
> other gods before Me" as 2.
So do we. Why does that create 11? Unless he makes "Graven Images" a
seperate one rather than a continuation of 2. Or he splits "Don't
Covet" into 2. <Sigh>
p_al...@hotmail.com
> So do we. Why does that create 11? Unless he makes "Graven Images" a
> seperate one rather than a continuation of 2. Or he splits "Don't
> Covet" into 2. <Sigh>
In all of this mess, bad punctuation is what gets you to sigh?
Yisroel Markov
See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95821,00.html
---------------------------
The following is a list of the Ten Commandments as they appear on the
Alabama monument:
1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou Shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy
5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
10. Thou shalt not covet
---------------------------
Note the truncation of the last commandment. I guess the mention of
"thy neighbour's ass" was judged to be too risque for the courthouse
:-)
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote
>
>> So do we. Why does that create 11? Unless he makes "Graven Images" a
>> seperate one rather than a continuation of 2. Or he splits "Don't
>> Covet" into 2. <Sigh>
>
> In all of this mess, bad punctuation is what gets you to sigh?
Not exactly. It's more that one of the basic portions of our Torah
is purposely misconstrued.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain.
p_al...@hotmail.com
> 10. Thou shalt not covet
>
> Note the truncation of the last commandment. I guess the mention of
> "thy neighbour's ass" was judged to be too risque for the courthouse
> :-)
Hey, that's what we call it too, "lo tachmod" (google for tachmod,
more than half the citations are just "lo tachmod"). If you put the
details in the courthouse, the defendant would say "but I coveted my
neighbor's stereo, not his farm animals". And it is more informative
than a set of tablets with just roman numerals on them.
David S. Maddison
21:17:44 +0000 (UTC) "BigRanch" <joh...@texas.net> wrote:
>((e-mail address corrected in this message))
>
>The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around by
>the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in the fray
>by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish document, is
>it not?
The Torah (the "Old Testament") contains laws for both Jews and
non-Jews. The Ten Commandments are essentially directed toward Jews.
Those non-Jews who elect to follow the Torah follow the seven Noachode
laws that were revealed to Noah.
>So, to me, federal judge Myron Thompson's decsion to deny everyone the
>previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
>Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only an
>anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
>misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
>
>Feedback? Thanks.
The US Constitution guarantees separation of theology and state. The
removal of the "Ten Commandments" from State property is entirely
appropriate as they are there in violation of the Constitution. The
removal is neither anti-Christian nor anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, the
very existence of a law and justice system may be considered to be a
fulfillment of one of the Noachide laws (for those that believe in the
Torah) and no further symbolism is necessary or appropriate. A judge
should have known better than to violate the Constitution which he is
sworn to uphold.
David
p_al...@hotmail.com
> > mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote
> >
> >> So do we. Why does that create 11? Unless he makes "Graven Images" a
> >> seperate one rather than a continuation of 2. Or he splits "Don't
> >> Covet" into 2. <Sigh>
> >
> > In all of this mess, bad punctuation is what gets you to sigh?
>
> Not exactly. It's more that one of the basic portions of our Torah
> is purposely misconstrued.
>
> Thanks for the opportunity to explain.
He's doing it on purpose? The judge knows how to read the trop to
find out where the commandments end? Did he even decide on the
translation himself or did he call up a monument maker and say "I want
a Ten Commandments for the lobby"?
And does it really matter how one counts them? Either way images and
coveting are prohibited. I'd compare it to a disagreement between the
Rambam and the Chinuch on whether something is one of the 613 mitzvot
(where one makes it a separate mitzva, and the other makes it part of
another one). It's Torah, but if someone got it wrong, but still did
the right thing, I wouldn't worry about it.
Now if one left out a "don't", or changed a period to a question mark
that would be miscontruing.
Ken
> See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95821,00.html
>
> ---------------------------
> The following is a list of the Ten Commandments as they appear on the
> Alabama monument:
>
> 1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 2. Thou Shalt not make unto thee any graven image
> 3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
> 4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy
> 5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
> 6. Thou shalt not kill.
> 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
> 8. Thou shalt not steal.
> 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
> 10. Thou shalt not covet
> ---------------------------
>
> Note the truncation of the last commandment. I guess the mention of
> "thy neighbour's ass" was judged to be too risque for the courthouse
> :-)
>
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
> www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Thanks for the research. The best link I found said there is eleven,
but didn't give a transcript.
Thanks again,
Ken
Abe Kouris
>
> The Ten Commandments are recognized mostly as a document paraded around by
> the "religious-right", but it seems that what keeps getting lost in the fray
> by everyone is that the Ten Commandments is actually a Jewish document, is
> it not?
>
> previledge of being exposed to the Big "Top Ten" by requiring that the Ten
> Commandments monument be removed from the Alabama courthouse is not only an
> anti-Christian act, I think it is also anti-semetic. (I might have
> misspelled the word. PLease forgive, I am a humble Gentile.)
>
No need to be humble. Gentiles are also created in God's image, no?
As for the issue in question, one of the more reasonable writing on
the subject appeared in this week's _New Yorker_:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030908ta_talk_menand
"Moses in Alabama" by Louis Menand
He discusses the natural tension between the "Establishment" and "Free
Exercise" clauses of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. He
also points out:
"Roy Moore and his defenders and apologists have been advancing the
same argument葉hat God's laws (the Christian God's, that is) are the
foundation for, and are therefore entirely congruous with, man-made
American law. . . .
"As a national platitude, at the "In God We Trust" level of things,
this seems unexceptionable to everyone except those who might be
called card-carrying atheists, people who become litigious every time
they hear a reference to God in a public place. What makes the Roy's
Rock story so bizarre, though, is that the Justice's chosen symbol
completely subverts the point it is supposed to make."
This is because, under secular American Law, only two of the Ten
Commandments are prohibited. (When was the last time you ever saw
anyone prosecuted for making a graven image? Heck, if they did that,
In Justice Moore's Alabama, they'd have to tear down a very large
number of Confederate War Memorials and staues of Robert E. Lee. And
what about "honor your father and mother?" I'm a father, and oy, I
know that one is certainly not observed! :) The only two Comandments
also prohibited by secular law are murdering and stealing, and I might
disagree with Menand and add "Bearing false witness," if that
Commandment refers to perjury and not simple lying. And, of course, I
imagine that even in Alambama Sabbath observance isn't obligatory, not
is worshiping God, and it's certaoinly legal anywhere to be a pagan
and covet, and commit adultery, though the guilty party might get
nailed in the divorce settlement.)
So much for the Ten being the foundation of our civilization.
And, in fact, I might even argue that, despite the fact that the Ten
are a convenient size to use as a decoration over the Aron Kosh (Holy
Ark) in a typical synagogue, they're not necessarily the foundation of
Jewish civilization, either. Of course, every SCJM regular knows that
there are not 10 commandments, but 613. Some of you might even know
the breakdown between the positive and negative commandments, and the
number of commandments that Jews can actually fulfil, given that the
Bet Ha Mikdash (Holy Temple) has been destroyed, and won't be rebuilt
until God decides it's time to do so, and a lot of the Commandments
are involved with the sacrificial cult. Whatever, there are most
certainly more than 10 commandments that a Jew, even a non-observant
one, has to worry about.
For example, the Ten Commandments say nothing about either kashrut (to
pick a ritual commandment) or lashon hara (to pick an ethical
commandment), both of which are, in my humble opinion, two of the
foundations of the Jewish religion. Neither of these are in the Ten
Commandments.
What this all means is that I think that Justice Moore was trying to
shove his Christianity down the throats of everyone who appeared in
his court, whether they were Christians or not. And I most certainly
don't believe that they are the foundation of universal moral law, and
I even have my doubts about their importance in Jewish Law. So, all
in all, I'm glad that the higher courts forced their removal. I hope
that Justice Moore (hopefully soon former Justice Moore) will have the
menschlicheit to take the monument and donate it to a local church, a
far more appropriate place for this item to be displayed.
Abe
Asher N
@posting.google.com:
That's because 'I am the Lord thy God' appears on a line by itself. The
reaction I had when seeing the monument on the new was 'how come "remember
the sabbath" is fifth?'
Harry Weiss
You have to combine that with them splitting the second commandment into two.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com