The Ten Commandments

Yes, everyone realizes how religious this country is and was; not everyone realizes how many of our forefathers were free thinkers when it comes to religion, and how much many of them were very concerned about us taking religion too far in our government.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

Phew - thanks for checking C - do you know if they did the poll in the bible belt??? Scared the **** out of me

(come, come to secular britain y'all - the church-state thing is a national joke - and quite a good one. The Anglican's are so sweet and wooly and open. They're mystics like me )

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Last night Bill O'Reilly said that the Ten Commandments are what our laws are based on... Bill, Bill, Bill. I don't know Chris; it seems like a pretty common opinion to me.

Remove the bible from the court room and America will be destroyed? Don't think so.

You could also put it this way: If you want to build something new and strong and modern, you first have to tear down the old building - foundation and all.

That is of course if you really want to build something new, which I am pretty sure you don't.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

They didn't say where they did the polls but they did say each one was conducted in one specific area and not country wide.

__________________

You would be correct in that assumption. There are things wrong with America. There are more things right with America. I like the old girl as she is.

I'm with Sir Toose. I like America the way she is too. A place where Constitutional rights prevail, and a religious icon is not permitted upon the foyer of a government courthouse. Go America!

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

But Toose, don't you think it is better to move forward than to keep all the old stuff? Don't you think that the fact that our racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, xenophobia and other bigotries being so much worse a couple centuries ago (or even 50 year ago) than now has something to do with the fact that we might be moving in the right direction? Don't you think the fact that the extent that we believe slavery, torture, superstition, and many other ideas and acts are ok has diminished as much as it has means that we might be moving in the right direction? Whenever someone acts like everything was better a couple generations ago (or however many generations) I wonder what planet that person is living on. I happen to believe that this world is moving in the right direction, including with regard to religion.

Edit: Very well put, Reporter.

Here's to a reduction in religious (or other perspectives of) intolerance/blinkardness/insistence-on-superiority where they occur - and a more hand-in-hand appraoch to differences where possible (ain't i such a hippy )

Of course.

I'm all for progress, don't mis-understand my lack of eloquence for empty-headedness. I'm saying that I don't think we should junk the foundations of this country. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are deliberately 'loose' and they allow for change and growth. IMHO,the US is the greatest nation to have ever evolved. This country is great because of that foundation.

All those things you mention, Jer, happened under the current set of rules. There's no reason to think progress won't continue.

R66, you sly devil. Point taken.

Eww, don't use THAT word on a religious thread

I disagree. Believer or not, you surely recognize the importance most people ascribe to it, and therefore you must recognize the intense stigma attached to lying under such an oath. I find it highly unrealistic that swearing on The Bible has no effect, conscious or otherwise...even on yourself.


True. But it's just as true that many "free thinkers" try to gloss over the fact that the overwhelming bulk of them believed in God, that most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were religious, and recognized that the concept of unalienable rights needs to be grounded in such an idea.


Hold up there, bud. What "our laws are based on" or "what all our laws are based on"? The former really isn't worth complaining about. It's rather like saying "EVERYONE has a television!" The fact that The Ten Commandments strongly coincides with American morality and, to a significant degree, with American law, makes it a reasonable statement if not taken in an unusually literal sense.


If memory serves, one of the earliest American proponents of the abolition for slavery was devoutly religious. Seems to me that, if you regard religion as a deterrent at least comparable to slavery and torture, you'll be cutting off the branch you're sitting on if you try to dismantle it.


The danger in this thinking is that it's generally supposed that everything new is therefore good...but there are new evils just as there are new goods. The fact that things like slaverty tend to be shunned over time is a sign that we are improving OVERALL, yes, but for every new thing we introduce or old idea we toss out, there are hundreds we keep.

Good god Yoda - how many times must non christians tell you that swearing on the bible means NOTHING to us as a broad and varied group before you accept it [and stop telling this broad gropu of affiliates what they think] - the point is - it's even more likely to have a NEGATIVE effect in some ways i.e. "i don't believe in any of this so why should i care if i lie now?" - that is the CONSCIOUS stand-point of plenty of non-christians, whether you like it or not.

Soz Yods - but that's a daft and specious analgoy - based (it seems) on your idea that all morals are comparable to christian morals. Are you including the ten commandments in what are considered christian morals. Wouldn't that quote have been made with regard to this current issue? Haven't we established that the ten commandments do not pertain to non-christians? Yes - we have. How is "our laws" different from "all our laws" anyway? "Some of our laws" would have been a valid differentiation perhaps, given the history - but without this qualifier "our laws" means "all our laws". Let's not bring inaccurate rhetoric into the debate now

From what i know of american history, it was more the increasingly un-economic nature of slavery[and associated torture then] that forced the nation-wide change of heart.

Personally - i regard stand-alone-religions as having been the perpetrators/causes of many forms of torture and slavery over the years - something that can't be claimed of secular societies in any comparable way

Although i agree not everything new is good - it's also true that not everything old is good either.

I don't see how any of the claims I've made are contingent on the nation being 100% Christian.No argument there. Religion, by its very nature, needs to be voluntary. Just because the State is not run by the Church, it doesn't mean it should ignore its existence. We're not talking about treating The Pope like The President.I find this very hard to believe. See post above.Agreed on the issue of compulsion. The idea that anyone should be "forced" to swear on The Bible is outrageous. There should be alternatives for those who wish to employ them.You just spent an entire paragraph doing everything BUT answering the question. Yes, I know that no one has said they can't/shouldn't be Christian. Which is why I'm raising the question. Surely a Christian judge (or juror) is far more likely to let their religion interfere with their decision than the mere prescence of some hunk of stone outside. So, tell me: if the ultimate goal is objectivity, why is the greater of these two compromises allowed? It's a simple question.Or maybe it's because there's not a problem. I ultimately see things from as many points of view as you do: one. I don't believe I will "go to hell" if I lie. Please try not to caricaturize Christianity. You might as well paint Lucifer as a man in a red jumpsuit with a pitchfork.

That said, I'm rather shocked at how easily people here are dismissing the power of social stigma. It's easily one of the most potent forms of behavior-prevention out there.

And yes, I agree in regards to "forcing." I don't particularly think it's harmful or bad if it's offered up...but I do think it's ridiculous and inexcusable to deny someone an alternative if they should request it.You said it "contradicts freedom of religion." "Freedom of religion" is about having the freedom to choose your own religion -- nothing more, and nothing less. It's really shocking to me how people psychologically broaden their perceived rights over time.How so? What special knowledge has your 200 years of hindsight given you that they did not have access to? And how, pray tell, has history done anything other than bore their ideals out, through the rapid growth and influence of this country? I agree with most of what you're saying here, but not with your conclusion. Which is more important: the lack of any religious prescence, or the court's effectiveness? Because it seems to me that the prescence of the former generally enhances the latter.

I'm not telling them what they think: I'm expressing disbelief that it has no effect on them...and scoffing at the idea that it would have the OPPOSITE effect for anyone with any common sense in them. I really don't see how the above is much more than a contradiction. Are you really trying to tell me that something as clearly powerful as social stigma plays no role whatsoever in these matters?

Most morals are indeed comparable to Christian morals. You'd be hard-pressed to deny that you agree with the overwhelming majority of the morality Christ taught. Ditto for fire and most people of any (or no) religious persuasion.

As for the rest...I thought I'd already addressed that? When someone says "our laws are based on it," they're not necessarily saying "ALL of our laws are based on it." For two reason: 1) virtually no one speaks that literally, yourself included, and 2) it's highly unlikely that intelligent men like Alan Keyes and Bill O'Reilly, regardless of whether or not they get on your nerves, are so mixed up so as to actually believe that. The tiniest shred of critical thought shows that we're not talking absolutes here.

Isn't this singular, literalist approach something you usually despise if it comes from religion?


I'm referring to some of the earliest advocates of abolition, not of national opinion. The nationwide change of heart is another matter, and was likely effected by a great many things.

Someone mentioned something similar on another forum awhile back. Here was my response:

"Pol Pot killed off a fifth of his own country while simultaneously abolishing religion. Aleksander Solzhenitsyn claimed that 'Atheism is the core of the whole Soviet system' -- and consequently at the core of Stalin's 40+ million plus body count. Mao Tse-tung, who was only really religious in the sense that he thought of himself as God, killed well over 30 million people.

But let's set that aside: the total number of people killed isn't particularly relevant...MOST people are religious in some sense, and as such it's inevitable that they'll have more crimes to their name than their Godless counterparts. As such, what REALLY matters is the ratio between the two."

As I've stated in the past, societies founded on the rejection of God have been nothing short of tremendous failures. It seems to me that even the staunchest Atheist would have to acknowledge that religion is of use to mankind, if not also true.

True. But the old often has an edge on the good: it's withstood the test of time. Traditions are often in place for good reasons. New ideas are untested and potentially hazardous. That's not to say they should not be an option...but they, unlike the old, have yet to prove their worth.

They are coz you are arguing for christian rituals and beliefs to be given greater representation in the lawcourts that represent 100% of your country.

You're polarising/either-or-ing again. Who said anything about ignoring the church's existence? We said the bible or not-bible oath technique is slanted. And that applies to having the ten-commandments connected to the legal body too.

Yods, we are talking about what OTHERS believe - and it's fascinating when you just doubt what representatives of those people tell you. In britain there's no stigma of the type you mention. In fact there's more stigma in believing in the bible than not believing in it [and we're vaguely horrified to hear about the abuse/persecution agnostics/athiests/mystics etc etc seem to feel themselves to be under in the US].

Still, i can only imagine that a non-christian in the US doesn't care what Christians think over-all when deciding whether or not the bible has any bearing on their being truthful or not in court i.e. to them the bible is nothing special - that's the definition of them being non-christians. Why can't you accept this?

That's preferable, yes.

You put it in an accusatory way originally as if someone had said it or suggested it. It was you universalising this "attack" on christianity's place in the law-infrastructure from my POV (as you do above)

The ultimate goal is secularity/acceptance-of-reasonable-difference, not objectivity. Besides, what could reasonably be done about stopping people being creationists etc? I'd quite like their do be less dogma/100%-creeds in all areas - but as reasonable discussion of the points never gets anywhere - i think i'll just go into anti-monotheistic-subliminal-kiddie-advertising and get 'em while they're young

Okay, so loads of people say there's a problem (as this debate across your country has shown), but you say their isn't. Within subjectivity we can still IMAGINE and empathise with other points of view. They are distinct (at least - with most reasonable people )

Yes you are - and you do it again below (MOST frustratingly). Will you believe ME then if i talk just about myself and say that IF I SWORE ON THE BIBLE I WOULD FEEL NO COMPULSION AT ALL TO KEEP MY WORD. Say for example i swore on it out of a law court about something that didn't effect anyone etc (i.e. if it affected someone my debt to them to keep my word would affect me)- it would mean nothing to me. Let's say i swore to the air, on a bible, never to eat muesli. I would have no problem about eating muesli after that (except that it's muesli )

The only reason i would keep my word in court is coz i would be involved in a court case. It would have absolutely nothing to do with the bible. Alright sunshine?

Now if you're suggesting i should respect peer pressure to attribute more weight to the bible (i.e. - if i was in america), then surely that's Christians forcing me to conform to christian principles?

Well, i'd disagree with him in the moments where he backs up commandments like: that i should worship only the "one true god" (and on a sunday) etc. And that's not all that's in the bible anyway - or in christian practice. I don't remember Jesus ever saying there should be no sex before marriage (and i'm assured the bible doesn't actually say it either) - so why has that become a social rule? The point is that my personal morals coincide with some but by no means all of christian morality.


You've made declarations, you haven't addressed it. And i work with language and i can tell you that people DO speak like that all the time to represent absolutes.

PERSONALLY, when i see that phrase i assume it means ALL laws. Why else wouldn't it?? "Our laws" - very basic english - the word "our" -in this case meaning all americans - therefore what he basically said was "american laws". Fairly straight-forward. What i object to in christian-interpretation is not so much literalism as twisting-of-interpretation to lead to the desired conclusion. However, this two-word-phrase is highly deceptive if what he meant to say was "SOME of our laws". How can you not see the difference between "SOME of our laws" and "OUR laws". The second, to me, clearly indicates all american laws. It's hardly a complex phrase of paragraph that can be interpreted multiple ways. You believe what you want tho.

There you go again telling myself and those other guys what we believe (i may have done this to you once or twice but i apologised. - you only BELIEVE in absolute truths apparently, you just don't absolutely act on them )


It was this universalisation that followed immediately afterwards i was objecting to: "Seems to me that, if you regard religion as a deterrent at least comparable to slavery and torture, you'll be cutting off the branch you're sitting on if you try to dismantle it."

That was a very socratic-universalising-ridiculous-rhetorical jump that put words into people's mouths.

Yes, yes, but they replaced it with a doctrine that wasn't communally generated/adapted but top-down generated instead (even if happily enacted by unquestioning citizens) So - if we didn't have christianity we'd all be mass-murdering Communists, is that what you're saying? Very old-school american of you. And equally - despite the nominal presence of the Anglican church in England (i.e it's link to the state etc is a joke), this is not a christian country - it is a secular one. We don't run our lives by Christian principles - are we therefore raving communist mass-murderers?

Founded yes. Grown-away-from-religion (i.e. EUROPE as a whole) - no. And were you trying to say at the end there that atheists should think religions are "true"?? Very poor phraseology if you weren't.


Why have religions faded away in many ways in Europe then? I agree with many of your points - but there is the valid counter-argument that those parts of old habits, let's say religions for example, that are no longer valid - or inhibit valid adaptions - shouldn't be clung to.

I'd say the best thing about modern life is extended multiplicity, variety (when not being destroyed by certain scientific applications), AND A DESIRE TO ADAPT CONSTANTS TO FIT NEW KNOWLEDGE - as much as the the old advantages of religions were the social stability they brought. The two need to meet in the middle again - relgion needs to be adaptable, as it always used to - but now it needs to adapt some of its core tenets to fit with the modern world. That's my view from a secular country anyway.

This discussion is great! You guys are awsome.

I don't want to create a wedge within the flow of this conversation, but I have a few points. Gg, you live in the UK correct? How old is the oldest church (estimate if ness.) in your country? Yoda, you happen to live in one of America's states richest with history. In fact Yoda some of the US's bigget historical events have taken place in your state. Yoda take a guess (if you don't know already) at how old the oldest church in America is. My point: there is a bigger history beyond the US. Yoda you will love Europe--I think it might change the way you feel about certain issues. When I went to Spain the first time I saw places of worship 4000 years old! Yes we all know about world history, but to actually touch, smell and hear a Gregorian chant within the walls of a 800 year old church, sort of makes you understand what exactly a place of worship is there for, and that preaching from the bible is best heard at a place of beauty and inspiration, not out in the streets of everyday life--it just gets lost there, nobody listens to a sermon unless it's at a church.

Also, I'm afraid. Yes the religious right has me scared. They carry signs that say "f*gs go to hell". They shoot doctors in the name of the lord. They preach a good sermon, I mean some preach from the Bible--a book I feel is filled with great lessons--but they only do this to make money, take advantage of the poor, promising to send them a cloth blessed by the Pope or an amulet sworn to bring luck into your life--just check inside any lesser quality periodicals for these ads. Yes, these people scare me. Whereas, when I went to church in Europe you could actually feel the honesty emitting from the sermons(of course the donation box was located at the rear of the building).

One other point. Perhaps the 10 Commandments are just inherent ethics we are all born with, but someone was smart enough to write them down. For instance, say you never even heard of the Bible. You probably wouldn't want to kill someone because it's not in our nature to kill--unless our life threatened, or we're hungry. Inherently we know not to lie because if we have ever been lied to, we know how it feels, therefore we as thinking, feeling beings know what's good or bad already.
I mean the 10 commandments don't say "Thou shalt not eat our own excrement", but we know not to do it.

I think that there are churches or ruins of them that date from the end of the roman occupation. [not sure exaclty when that was] there was one that was estimated to be from around 1100-ish, i think, near my uni. I used to enjoy going into the cathedral as well, for a hangover-recovery-orange juice and mull/meditate too

Erm, the oldest places of worship are monuments like Stonehenge and the ones that seem to pre-date it (all found to have sound-resonance properties recently that set up a self-replicating soundwave, when enough people make a certain "baritone" consistant sound, which in turn can affect/vibrate the body. This ads to our appreciation of the type of worship that went on there [and why all the druids were male it seems ] - incidently, the same properties were found in some positioned stones which native-south-americans used to paint [with the hallicinogenic paint they sprayed on by mouth])

Yeah, in Spain there are some amazing worship sites. Tho modern habits are more about social bonding than actual religion it seems - in the ritualistic-south where i was. Some of the crazed-coke-kids i taught had little chains of gold that had: the Maria de Socorro [if someone had died in their family], jesus on the cross, and the sheild of one of the two local football teams!! [all in the same gold-ish material]. They love their glitz-n-ritual - but there's lots of positive bonding done through it [and some negative social-dogma too unfortunately]

Yeah, your points are cool above. I'm not sure the ten commandments are the best example of comparable-christian/secular/non-religious morality tho, coz of the "sunday" commandment and stuff like that.

Also, on a side note, Jesus, in certain parts of Spain is alot darker than our US version. He has tight curly hair and brown eyes! I must admit I was taken aback the first time I witnessed a Crucifixion statue in Spain. I had only seen Jesus as a blond, long-haired, blue-eyed "hippie" in the US, and to see him portrayed as black was a surprise. But if you actually think about it, knowing where Jesus is from, it makes sense. That makes me think that the Jesus we know in America is false logically. Could we possibly be worshiping a false representation of The Man in the US? I mean think about where Jesus is from, think about what people look like--their skin tones and eye color--from there. There are certain inconsistancies.