TEN AMENDMENTS vs. Ten Commandments
TheANTICHRISTguy
something that I'd noticed quite some time ago: That the 10 Commandments, from
a legal perspective, are utterly incompatable with the 10 Amendments. And
therefore it would be a contradiction to post BOTH in a courthouse. Their
solution? Remove the Ammendments and put up the Commandments. (Their website
is called: Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the TEN
COMMANDMENTS)
As a Libertarian Atheist, I certainly beg to differ, to say the least. And
below I state my case.
While I fully agree that Ya can't have both, I'll take the Amendments. Below is
my objective opinion of both:
The Ten Amendments--a review:
The first widescale recognition that humans have rights. Lotsa rights. And in
the 212 years since their ratification, they have ushered in an era of greater
peace, prosperity, and progress than God Almighty managed to show mankind in
the previous 18 centuries combined. When it comes to "top-ten" lists, God may
be able to kick Letterman's azz, but he is clearly outmatched by the Founding
Fathers.
The Ten Commandments--a rebuttal:
[Warning: the passage below contains what some may call Blasphemy or even
Heresy. Religious fanatics may wish to avert their gaze.]
I. THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Why? Can't handle the competition?
Maybe you're not the best god for the job; I might wanna interview a few more.
If you ARE the best god, then why are you afraid to let me shop around a
little? Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that this commandment prohibits me from
worshiping Pam Anderson, and let's get real here--that's NOT gonna happen.
[note that this commandment, if upheld by courts, would violate the 1st
Amendment--freedom of religion.]
II. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THE ANY GRAVEN IMAGES. Why? What's up with a god
who doesn't like his picture taken? Do gods have "bad hair days", or what?
[note that this commandment, if upheld by courts, would violate the 1st
Amendment--freedom of the press.]
III. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN. Vain? Wanna
talk vain? Can't help but notice that the first three rules for US to live by
here on Earth involve you you you. Just what we need, a god with various mental
problems including an inferiority complex, paranoia, and, well, a
"God-complex." [Note that this commandment, if upheld in courts, would violate
the 1st Amendment---freedom of speech.]
IV. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY. Oh, fine and dandy for YOU, god.
You don't have shopping and a to-do list 40 items long to complete on one of
your two days off. Just because YOU got to rest on the seventh day doesn't mean
that OUR schedules aren't a little fuller, ya know? Created Heaven and Earth.
Sure. But what have you done for us LATELY? [note that this commandment, if
upheld by courts, would violate the 1st Amendment--freedom of religion. It
would also violate the rights of shopkeepers to set their own hours of
operation. A right which is now taken for granted, but which Sunday Commerce
pioneers like Michigan's own Hendrick Meijer endured boycotts and
death-threats to establish.]
V. HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. Oh puhleeeze. What if your father is an
unemployed drunk and your mother makes the cover of Crack-Ho magazine? [note
that this commandment, if upheld in court, would violate the 10th Amendment.]
VI. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. No? What if you're about to be dismembered by a
crazed, ax-bearing lunatic, and you happen to have a Beretta in hand? [note
that this commandment, if upheld in court, might violate the Second Amendment]
VII. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. What if your wife gains so much weight
that her "lady-place" is indistinguishable from the rolls of fat surrounding
it? What if you have an "open marriage"? What if you're a porn star, and you do
this for a living, to support your wife and kids? What if your spouse is in a
coma? What if you're a cop and you pull Pam Anderson over for DUI and she says
"isn't there some OTHER breathalyzer test that I could maybe pass easier,
ociffer?" Clearly, god, you haven't thought this one out very well. [Note that
this commandment, when held up in court--as it was recently in Utah--violates
the 1st and 10th Amendments, though it may help to enforce the 8th Amendment
<very-wide-grin, to those of you who don't have to look it up> ]
VIII. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. True. Ya really shouldn't. Might wanna pass this on
to the IRS and other taxing authorities worldwide.
IX. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. Another good one.
Gettin' better at this, God!
X. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THEY NEIGHBORS HOUSE, WIFE, ASS, ETC. Now that's just
plain wrong. It goes against human nature AND Capitalism (a system which took
US centuries to discover, but that YOU, supposedly, could have pointed us
toward a bit earlier, had you known about it. Might have also wanted to mention
the earth being round, and revolving around the sun. And being littered with
dinosaur bones. Would have enhanced your credibility AND saved the church from
having to do some serious back-peddling upon the discoveries of Columbus,
Copernicus, and Darwin. I'm just sayin'....) And again, we have the Pam
Anderson factor flying in the face of another one of your silly rules.
Can we assume, Mr. God, that these Commandments were just a rough-draft? Take
the two good ones, do some homework, and re-issue them on your son's next
visit, OK? Considering your omnipotence, we'll make this an "open book" test,
and <hint-hint> you may consult the writings of the Founding Fathers or Ayn
Rand.
Your humble servant,
Bob
CPTFreedm
> Recently, I ran across a christian website who's web-masters emphasized
> something that I'd noticed quite some time ago: That the 10 Commandments, from
> a legal perspective, are utterly incompatable with the 10 Amendments.
They aren't "utterly incompatible" by any means.
> And
> therefore it would be a contradiction to post BOTH in a courthouse.
None whatsoever.
> Their
> solution? Remove the Ammendments and put up the Commandments. (Their website
> is called: Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the TEN
> COMMANDMENTS)
Their web site is full of inaccuracies from both a Christian and a
Secular perspective.
> As a Libertarian Atheist, I certainly beg to differ, to say the least. And
> below I state my case.
So are libertarian atheists and libertarian Christians incompatible or
contradictory?
> While I fully agree that Ya can't have both, I'll take the Amendments. Below is
> my objective opinion of both:
You don't favor theocracy as http://www.tencommandments.org does.
Your opinions, as posted, hardly qualify as "objective". Re-read what
you've written.
> The Ten Amendments--a review:
>
> The first widescale recognition that humans have rights.
This is incorrect. Perhaps a more thorough grounding in history,
political science and economics would help you. Start with late
medieval humanism and work your way through the *philosophes*.
> Lotsa rights.
Endowed by our creator according to those who enumerated those rights.
> And in
> the 212 years since their ratification,
By "the grace of God" and in "the Year of Our Lord" etc, etc.
> they have ushered in an era of greater
> peace, prosperity, and progress than God Almighty managed to show mankind in
> the previous 18 centuries combined.
This is also quite highly debatable. I won't say patently wrong
because historical perspectives have a subjective nature. To state it
as fact, as you appear to do, is incorrect.
> When it comes to "top-ten" lists, God may
> be able to kick Letterman's azz, but he is clearly outmatched by the Founding
> Fathers.
You fail to demonstrate this contention.
> The Ten Commandments--a rebuttal:
>
> [Warning: the passage below contains what some may call Blasphemy or even
> Heresy. Religious fanatics may wish to avert their gaze.]
What about secular fanatics? Humanist fanatics? Atheist fanatics?
> I. THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME. Why? Can't handle the competition?
> Maybe you're not the best god for the job; I might wanna interview a few more.
> If you ARE the best god, then why are you afraid to let me shop around a
> little? Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that this commandment prohibits me from
> worshiping Pam Anderson, and let's get real here--that's NOT gonna happen.
> [note that this commandment, if upheld by courts, would violate the 1st
> Amendment--freedom of religion.]
Quite witty, but pretty much without substance. One shouldn't be
ignorant of that which one chooses to question or criticize.
> II. THOU SHALT NOT MAKE UNTO THE ANY GRAVEN IMAGES. Why? What's up with a god
> who doesn't like his picture taken? Do gods have "bad hair days", or what?
> [note that this commandment, if upheld by courts, would violate the 1st
> Amendment--freedom of the press.]
It has to do with the major monotheistic religions (most of the
world's faithful btw) frequent proscriptions (by some branches)
against "idolatry".
> III. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN. Vain? Wanna
> talk vain? Can't help but notice that the first three rules for US to live by
> here on Earth involve you you you.
You need to purchase a thesaurus. Your grasp of language appears to
be rather weak. In your haste to be linguistically humorous, you fail
to address the commandment you purport to be criticizing.
> Just what we need, a god with various mental
> problems including an inferiority complex, paranoia, and, well, a
> "God-complex." [Note that this commandment, if upheld in courts, would violate
> the 1st Amendment---freedom of speech.]
I am enjoying your bizarre misrepresentations however. Pretty
humorous ;)
> IV. REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY AND KEEP IT HOLY. Oh, fine and dandy for YOU, god.
> You don't have shopping and a to-do list 40 items long to complete on one of
> your two days off. Just because YOU got to rest on the seventh day doesn't mean
> that OUR schedules aren't a little fuller, ya know? Created Heaven and Earth.
> Sure. But what have you done for us LATELY? [note that this commandment, if
> upheld by courts, would violate the 1st Amendment--freedom of religion. It
> would also violate the rights of shopkeepers to set their own hours of
> operation. A right which is now taken for granted, but which Sunday Commerce
> pioneers like Michigan's own Hendrick Meijer endured boycotts and
> death-threats to establish.]
Its amazing how you can take such things so out of context. Perhaps
if you enjoyed better time/productivity management skills you wouldn't
be jealous. ;)
> V. HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. Oh puhleeeze. What if your father is an
> unemployed drunk and your mother makes the cover of Crack-Ho magazine? [note
> that this commandment, if upheld in court, would violate the 10th Amendment.]
Perhaps if your unemployed drunk father and Crack-ho mother had
honored THEIR father and mother they wouldn't be in such a state.
Actually, anthropologically, respect for elders and parents was
culturally ingrained in most societies until modernism decided such
wasn't necessary.
> VI. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. No? What if you're about to be dismembered by a
> crazed, ax-bearing lunatic, and you happen to have a Beretta in hand? [note
> that this commandment, if upheld in court, might violate the Second Amendment]
Your translation is faulty. The admonition is thou shalt not
*murder*. Entirely different perspective there. Or do you advocate
murder as a right?
> VII. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. What if your wife gains so much weight
> that her "lady-place" is indistinguishable from the rolls of fat surrounding
> it?
Shouldn't you and she have addressed that in a loving manner before
she became so ponderous?
> What if you have an "open marriage"? What if you're a porn star, and you do
> this for a living, to support your wife and kids? What if your spouse is in a
> coma? What if you're a cop and you pull Pam Anderson over for DUI and she says
> "isn't there some OTHER breathalyzer test that I could maybe pass easier,
> ociffer?" Clearly, god, you haven't thought this one out very well.
Clearly you haven't. Stability in families has been a cultural
imperative throughout history (and variegated cultures) until modern
times. I see that you advocate sexual gratification over familial
stability and commitment. Well your statement makes you appear that
way.
> [Note that
> this commandment, when held up in court--as it was recently in Utah--violates
> the 1st and 10th Amendments, though it may help to enforce the 8th Amendment
> <very-wide-grin, to those of you who don't have to look it up> ]
Sorry pal, this doesn't remotely impact the first, and monogamy is
hardly an excessive bail or fine nor a cruel or unusual punishment.
Do keep trying. Oh, btw I agree with your positions about the 10th
(and 9th) ammendments. These questions are, by design of the
founders, the purview of the sovereign States.
> VIII. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. True. Ya really shouldn't. Might wanna pass this on
> to the IRS and other taxing authorities worldwide.
Why does your permissiveness end here? If commitments are breakable
by convenience in your philosophy, why is stealing proscribed?
> IX. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. Another good one.
> Gettin' better at this, God!
What's beautiful is he loves you ;) despite your gregarious fun
poking.
> X. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THEY NEIGHBORS HOUSE, WIFE, ASS, ETC. Now that's just
> plain wrong. It goes against human nature AND Capitalism (a system which took
> US centuries to discover,
Again you display ignorance of history and economics. Capitalism is
old. VERY old. It isn't plain wrong either. Why waste your time
coveting what is mine? Work on acquiring your own. Let the others
covet on you some ;) It certainly isn't plain old wrong. Coveting
what belongs to others is the driver of socialism. Wanting your OWN
stuff is what freedom and opportunity are about.
> but that YOU, supposedly, could have pointed us
> toward a bit earlier, had you known about it.
How much earlier? Capitalist transactions are recorded in Assyrian
cunieform(sp) and sanskrit and hieroglyphs thousands of years BCE.
Read a book.
> Might have also wanted to mention
> the earth being round, and revolving around the sun.
Why mention it? Aristotle knew it, BCE, so did Pythagoras, BCE. We
are endowed (by God for some, by *luck* for such as you) with
intellect to figure these things out.
> And being littered with
> dinosaur bones. Would have enhanced your credibility AND saved the church from
> having to do some serious back-peddling upon the discoveries of Columbus,
> Copernicus, and Darwin.
Columbus had no clue even unto death that he had "discovered"
anything. Many Copernican postulations have been shown to be
incorrect as has MUCH of Darwin's work. "God" didn't have to back
peddle, only the politician in the Vatican did.
> I'm just sayin'....) And again, we have the Pam
> Anderson factor flying in the face of another one of your silly rules.
Beautiful thing about those "rules" though. You're still free to do
as you wish. I like the idea that its safer to be a believer than an
atheist. If you're right, and a believer is wrong - well you're both
wormdirt. However if you're incorrect and the believer is correct,
you're in for eternal regret/suffering etc etc, while that believer is
set up nicely for the same eternity. Escape the logic of that heh ;)
> Can we assume, Mr. God, that these Commandments were just a rough-draft?
I'm not God, but that would be a poor assumption on your part.
>Take
> the two good ones,
There are 10 good ones. Your opinion of quality isn't universal, nor
is mine.
> do some homework, and re-issue them on your son's next
> visit, OK?
I'm afraid you'll be a little to busy to notice on his "Son's next
visit". Are you totally ignorant of that which you criticize?
> Considering your omnipotence, we'll make this an "open book" test,
> and <hint-hint> you may consult the writings of the Founding Fathers or Ayn
> Rand.
God doesn't do test as far as anyone I've read or seen has been able
to determine. Certainly not from the likes of you! (or me!).
Nice post though. The founders, many of whom were devout Christians,
purposefully designed a secular State. The
http://www.tencommandments.org people are wrong in even more ways than
you have appeared to be in this post.
Do not initiate force. You are free to do (say,believe,act) as you
will, so long as your actions do not impinge on my freedoms to do
likewise.
CPTFreedm
Andrew J. Brehm
> > VI. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. No? What if you're about to be dismembered by a
> > crazed, ax-bearing lunatic, and you happen to have a Beretta in hand?
> > [note that this commandment, if upheld in court, might violate the
> > Second Amendment]
>
> Your translation is faulty. The admonition is thou shalt not *murder*.
I don't want to actually participate in the discussion, but this short
piece might be helpful.
I do not know what the original (aramaic? hebrew?) version of the old
testament says about that point, but the German Lutheran translation
says
"Du sollst nicht toeten."
which means exactly
"Thou shalt not kill."
I'm not sure whether Luther translated the version he had (in Latin)
badly or not, but it is true that the first protestantic bible did say
"thou shalt not kill", not "thou shalt not murder".
(The translation of the bible was an important part of the founding of
the Lutheranm church because one of the major criticisms of Luther was
that the Roman church would not let "normal" peasants read the bible
(peasants didn't understand Latin).
I am not arguing whether the original version meant "kill" or "murder"
(I assume you are right), but the Christian and protestantic version did
speak of "killing" in general.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
TheANTICHRISTguy
>From: cptf...@hotmail.com
>They [the Commandments & the Amendments] aren't "utterly incompatible" by any
means.
Yes, they are. An court which chooses to ENFORCE the Ten Commandments must do
so at the expense of actually violating the Ten Amendments.
>So are libertarian atheists and libertarian Christians incompatible or
>contradictory?
Contradictory and Incompatable. Yes. Selflessness, the creed of Christianity
(as well as most other religions) runs contrary to the self ISH ness required
to fuel Capitalism--the "official" economic system of Libertarianism.
>This is incorrect. Perhaps a more thorough grounding in history,
>political science and economics would help you.
Wow, you were able to name my strong-suits in college. Straight "A"'s in each
of those subjects. Uncanny.
>Endowed by our creator according to those who enumerated those rights.
>
Yeah, I'm prepared to forgive our dear old dads for that little
misaccreditation. The'd not had a chance to review the findings of Darwin at
the time the Founding Documents were written.
>By "the grace of God" and in "the Year of Our Lord" etc, etc.
Must have really stunned those people back then, on the day Christ was born,
when all their calenders ceased counting down and began counting forward. I
mean, shouldn't they have been able to see that something important was coming
their way, like, hundreds of years in advance?
>This [that our Founding Documents gave us more peace, prosperity, and progress
than this god-person had managed to provied in the previous 18 centuries] is
also quite highly debatable. I won't say patently wrong
>because historical perspectives have a subjective nature. To state it
>as fact, as you appear to do, is incorrect.
I defy anyone to provide me with any evidence to the contrary (and invoke only
one guideline for getting this information to me--they must not use any
technology invented in America during the past 2 & 1/4 centuries. For it is
laughable to state that there was more progress BEFORE the US Constitution was
ratified than there has been SINCE, while arguing your case via electronic
media.)
>[Regarding my concerns that religious fanatics might be offended by my post]
>What about secular fanatics? Humanist fanatics? Atheist fanatics?
Well, I think most "Atheist fanatics" would tend to agree with my positions.
And Humanist fanatics and secular fanatics I don't care much about their
reactions. Religious fanatics, however, have proven themselves to be quite
dangerous, having brought us inquisitions, witch-hunts, pedophilic priests, and
the oxy-moronic term "holy war".
>Quite witty, but pretty much without substance. One shouldn't be
>ignorant of that which one chooses to question or criticize. [Refering, of
course, to my "no other gods before me" tirade ]
You, sir or madam, may have missed the substance, but I assure you it was
there. My point was that any court which would ENFORCE the "no other gods"
commandment would do so at the expense of VIOLATING my First Amendment rights.
>You need to purchase a thesaurus. Your grasp of language appears to
>be rather weak. In your haste to be linguistically humorous, you fail
>to address the commandment you purport to be criticizing. [Refering to my, ah,
"misunderstanding" of the word "vain".] OK...then let me make it clear. Since I
have every goddamn right in the world to blaspheme, the 10 commandments do not
belong in a courthouse, where officers of the state are supposed to be
protecting my First Amendement rights.
>Perhaps if your unemployed drunk father and Crack-ho mother had
>honored THEIR father and mother they wouldn't be in such a state.
Or maybe they would. Regardless, it's clear that this "honor they parents"
thing should be decided on a case by case basis; with the parents children
themselves being the final judge, NOT the court system. 10 commandments must
GO!!!
>Your translation is faulty. The admonition is thou shalt not
>*murder*. Entirely different perspective there.
If he'd have MEANT murder, he should have SAID murder. Not my job to interpret.
Maybe God should buy a thesaurus?
>Shouldn't you and she have addressed that in a loving manner before
>she became so ponderous? [regarding my "what if the wife gets fat" arguement
against the "adultry" commandment.]
Yes, indeed. I'd recommend putting a weight-clause in the pre-nup.
> I see that you advocate sexual gratification over familial
>stability and commitment. Well your statement makes you appear that
>way.
Not exactly. What I advocate is that each individual be allowed to make that
choice for themselves, uncoerced by either church or state.
>Sorry pal, this doesn't remotely impact the first, and monogamy is
>hardly an excessive bail or fine nor a cruel or unusual punishment.
>Do keep trying.
No No, what I was saying, I think, is that you MIGHT be able to make a case for
state prohibition of Bigamy based on the "Cruel and Unusual punishment" clause.
>Why does your permissiveness end here? If commitments are breakable
>by convenience in your philosophy, why is stealing proscribed?
Because stealing is wrong INDEPENDENT of religious dogma.
>What's beautiful is he [God] loves you ;)
Well, make him stop! Get him off me! My favorite little handbook advocating
Atheism is filled with stories of the horrendous things He does to people he
loves.
>Again you display ignorance of history and economics.
Then I guess it sucks to be the kids in my History and Econ 101 classes next
semester.
Capitalism is
>old. VERY old.
Actually, the TERM was coined by Karl Marx. Of course, the SCIENCE of
Capitalism is a bit older. Indeed, it dates back to 1776. For though not
mentioned by name, it was clearly the system advocated by Adam Smith in his
best-seller "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of
Nations"--most often known by the last four words of its title. The POLITICS
of Capitalism was certainly born here--by the Founding Fathers who were all
familiar with that book. The PRACTICE of Capitalism, in effect to some extent
at all times and all regions where humans were able to avoid starvation,
certainly existed But never before with widespread governmental sanction and
approval.
>
>Columbus had no clue even unto death that he had "discovered"
>anything.
Actually, he discovered that he could sail great distances without falling off
the edge of the earth. No small discovery at the time.
>> And again, we have the Pam
>> Anderson factor flying in the face of another one of your silly rules.
>
>Beautiful thing about those "rules" though. You're still free to do
>as you wish.
Pammy will be very unhappy to hear that.
I like the idea that its safer to be a believer than an
>atheist.
Something tells me that your god, if he did exist, would be a tad bit
dissapointed in your "better play it safe" approach to faith. When you come to
visit me in hell, you may find that you'll have to climb up a few flights of
stairs on the way from your place to mine.
If you're right, and a believer is wrong - well you're both
>wormdirt. However if you're incorrect and the believer is correct,
>you're in for eternal regret/suffering etc etc, while that believer is
>set up nicely for the same eternity. Escape the logic of that heh ;)
Well, for starters, my idea of hell would be to spend eternity surrounded by
Christians. But again, your "logic" assumes that those who believe in god
"just in case" will find that god has reserved space for them in heaven.
>
>> Can we assume, Mr. God, that these Commandments were just a rough-draft?
>
>I'm not God, but that would be a poor assumption on your part.
Not really. I've shown 8 of them to be either silly or downright wrong. If I
wrote a paper that was only 20% correct, I'd hope that it would be understood
that it was just a draft copy.
>
>There are 10 good ones. Your opinion of quality isn't universal, nor
>is mine.
There ARE 10 good ones. Rules so sacred that they DO belong in courthouses
nationwide. But they are not Commandments, they are Amendments.
>I'm afraid you'll be a little to busy to notice on his "Son's next
>visit". Are you totally ignorant of that which you criticize?
Are you? You've just said to a known Atheist that I'm gonna be busy during the
2nd comming. News-flash: Jesus, if he ever existed, was as mortal as you and
me. And he ain't comming back from the dead.
>God doesn't do tests as far as anyone I've read or seen has been able
>to determine.
No problem, I've designed a test for his followers to take on his behalf. It
can be found at-- http://hometown.aol.com/theantichristguy/quiz.html
>Nice post though. The founders, many of whom were devout Christians,
And many more were Deists. Still others, Atheist. But the one thing I suspect
they would have had little trouble universally agreeing upon is to KEEP THE 10
COMMANDMENTS OUT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
>Do not initiate force. You are free to do (say,believe,act) as you
>will, so long as your actions do not impinge on my freedoms to do
>likewise.
Well, if accused of a crime, I believe I have the right to be tried in a
courthouse which doesn't meddle in religious doctrines.
---Bob