Federal judge proposes cutting Ten Commandments down to six!

[Brown]

Something else from seven years ago worth remembering:

Originally Posted by Brown

Speaking is Matthew Staver of the Liberty Council (formerly the Moral Majority). He is from Jerry Falwell's syndicate. Unlike an attorney general, he would be presumably more knowledgable about religious matters. Justice Ginsburg asked Staver this question:

Quote:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: What about all the distinctions that have been made between messages that are brief -- or, I think, the expression has been "minimal" or "minimum" in some of our cases -- like "In God we trust," like "God save the United States and this honorable court," like "under God," and a document that is about worshipping the Lord, at least as many words devoted to that topic. So it's not a brief reference. It's a powerful statement of the covenants that the Lord is making with his people.

Here is the answer that comes out of Staver's mouth (the emphasis is mine):

Quote:

STAVER: The Ten Commandments is a unique symbol in the area of acknowledgment because of its historic role in influencing our law and government. It is displayed in this context for that unique role. It does have some statements in there about God but, frankly, very few when you look at the overall context.

What the hell? "Some statements in there about God?" "Very few?" Is he serious?? Justice Ginsburg must have wondered the same thing:

Quote:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Have you read the first four commandments and could you say that??

STAVER: Sure. And those are definitely and decidedly religious. There is no question that the Ten Commandments is a religious document. There is also no question that it has influenced our American law.

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Nitpick: Tut wasn't a monotheist, his predecessor Akhenaten was. After Akhenaten's death, the priests in charge reverted Egypt back to polytheism. The experiment in monotheism lasted for one reign only.

Yes, nitpicking . . . I am aware of his short reign and a lot more, but I knew you would know who "King Tut" was. His monotheism was a beacon and the first time it was promoted nationally or internationally. That is the point. It made the priests unhappy so they may be who "did him in."

[charles brough]

Originally Posted by slingblade

*looks around*


*sees she and Charles are posting on a site that promotes skepticism and critical thought*


*thinks if this place were a snake, it would have bitten Charles*



*sighs, smiles, and walks away*

Sorry but I don't know what your are saying---but it does seem "cute."

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by charles brough

Yes, nitpicking . . . I am aware of his short reign and a lot more, but I knew you would know who "King Tut" was. His monotheism was a beacon and the first time it was promoted nationally or internationally. That is the point. It made the priests unhappy so they may be who "did him in."

No. Tut was not a monotheist. There's no part of that correct.

Quote:

In his third regnal year, Tutankhamun reversed several changes made during his father's reign. He ended the worship of the god Aten and restored the god Amun to supremacy. The ban on the cult of Amun was lifted and traditional privileges were restored to its priesthood. The capital was moved back to Thebes and the city of Akhetaten abandoned.[12] This is also when he changed his name to Tutankhamun.

As part of his restoration, the king initiated building projects, in particular at Thebes and Karnak, where he dedicated a temple to Amun. Many monuments were erected, and an inscription on his tomb door declares the king had "spent his life in fashioning the images of the gods". The traditional festivals were now celebrated again, including those related to the Apis Bull, Horemakhet, and Opet. His restoration stela says:

The temples of the gods and goddesses ... were in ruins. Their shrines were deserted and overgrown. Their sanctuaries were as non-existent and their courts were used as roads ... the gods turned their backs upon this land ... If anyone made a prayer to a god for advice he would never respond.

[Dog Breakfast]

I've read a few articles about this (too bad I can't link to them yet since I haven't written enough posts!) and some of them are extremely snarky about it. The one in the Washington Times comes to mind specifically. Good luck finding it.

I think that snark is a result of a lack of understanding many people have with the difference between the supernatural and the non-supernatural. The first four commandments are supernatural, and the last six are not. People tend to think of them as a package, and tend not to see the difference between each one.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Dog Breakfast

(too bad I can't link to them yet since I haven't written enough posts!)

You may not be able to post an active link to them, but you can still post the address. Normally people replace the dots in the address with the word DOT, but if you're feeling clever you might try scrolling down to the "additional options" box (when using the advanced editor - click on "go advanced" instead of "post quick reply") and uncheck the "Automatically parse links in text" option so that the editor doesn't automatically make the link active and then prevent you from posting the active link. (I'm not sure if that'll work or not, but it's worth a try.)

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Pup

It amazes me that we can quibble over displays of the ten commandments, when our money still says "In God we trust." Hello?

Your money; many of us do not habitually use the US dollar.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Your money; many of us do not habitually use the US dollar.

But I bet you're not part of the "we" quibbling over displaying the ten commandments on U.S. public property, either.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Your money; many of us do not habitually use the US dollar.

The Euro notes just say "X Euro. Copyright 2002, ECB", which means European Central Bank. The ECB doesn't do God. I like the copyright provision, which means you aren't allowed to copy them.

Some of the other notes in my wallet bear the legend:

Quote:

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc promise to pay the bearer on demand Ten Pounds sterling, at their Head Office here in Edinburgh, by order of the Board.

The Royal Bank of Scotland has been churning out paper money since 1727, but it doesn't do God either.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Craig B

The Euro notes just say "X Euro. Copyright 2002, ECB", which means European Central Bank. The ECB doesn't do God. I like the copyright provision, which means you aren't allowed to copy them.

Except then for the Dutch-minted 1 and 2 Euro coins. The Dutch guilder coins carried the text "God zij met ons" ("God be with us") on the edge. The Dutch government asked and received permission from the ECB to continue this with the Euro coins.


FWIW, I don't agree, but then, I'm also not hurt by someone else asking a non-existent entity to help me.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by ddt

Except then for the Dutch-minted 1 and 2 Euro coins. The Dutch guilder coins carried the text "God zij met ons" ("God be with us") on the edge. The Dutch government asked and received permission from the ECB to continue this with the Euro coins.

FWIW, I don't agree, but then, I'm also not hurt by someone else asking a non-existent entity to help me.

The Greek Euro coins are decorated with the goddess Athena's owls, like ancient tetradrachms. But of course we don't know for how much longer Greece will manage to remain in the Euro monetary union. Maybe a prayer to Athena would help.

And the UK coins have Latin stuff about the Queen by the grace of God, defender of the faith. But that's been around a long time. The US monetary God-bothering dates only from the nineteen fifties. That's creepy.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Craig B

And the UK coins have Latin stuff about the Queen by the grace of God, defender of the faith. But that's been around a long time. The US monetary God-bothering dates only from the nineteen fifties. That's creepy.

1860s actually, but I don't disagree otherwise.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by Pup

1860s actually, but I don't disagree otherwise.

Yes. As in the previous examples, I had been looking only at the paper currency. See
http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State...pposition.aspx

Quote:

Oct. 1 (2007) marks the 50th anniversary of the appearance of "In God We Trust" on the paper currency of the United States.

[Pup]

Just because it's so gag-worthy, here's an excerpt from the letter that was originally sent by a minister suggesting the slogan be added (from the link about the coins):

Quote:

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You [Secretary of the Treasury] are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?
...
This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my heart I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by lionking

A very lateral suggestion. I wonder how the School Board will try to wriggle out of this one.

I expect as an expansion on what Brown quoted above:

Quote:

STAVER: The Ten Commandments is a unique symbol in the area of acknowledgment because of its historic role in influencing our law and government....

Or something like, "It happens to have religious content, but so does history, and this is displayed merely as a reference to significant legal history. It would be wrong to edit it, as it would be wrong to edit history. It would be like trying to display pictures of the Normandy landing, but cutting out all the ugly parts because someone finds them objectionable".

And its not a terrible argument: if it is displayed there as part of history, then it should not be cut off at 4. Though, if it is displayed there as part of history, I think it would be acceptable to display other parts of that same legal history, such as the Code of Hammurabi.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Listen the linguistical mastery of Mr Carlin on this subject

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You beat me to it.

About the judge, that was smart.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

Your money; many of us do not habitually use the US dollar.

Good point when there are so many countries that don't use any religious imagery on their money.

http://www.banknotes.com/ie75.htm

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Good point when there are so many countries that don't use any religious imagery on their money.

http://www.banknotes.com/ie75.htm

An alleged national worthy who happens to be a nun. Other denominations in the same series celebrated non-religious figures.

By the time that note came into into use, the Irish Republic was reasonably secularised. The earlier banknotes, issued during the decades of theocracy, had in fact no direct religious imagery, that I can remember. None, so far as I know, has ever borne a religious proclamation, like the modern US banknotes. The silver currency of Charles I, issued during his war with Parliament, bore the slogan (in Latin): "For the Protestant religion, the Laws of England, and the Liberties of Parliament". Alas, he was not believed, and lost his throne and his head.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Craig B

An alleged national worthy who happens to be a nun. Other denominations in the same series celebrated non-religious figures.

By the time that note came into into use, the Irish Republic was reasonably secularised. The earlier banknotes, issued during the decades of theocracy, had in fact no direct religious imagery, that I can remember. None, so far as I know, has ever borne a religious proclamation, like the modern US banknotes. The silver currency of Charles I, issued during his war with Parliament, bore the slogan (in Latin): "For the Protestant religion, the Laws of England, and the Liberties of Parliament". Alas, he was not believed, and lost his throne and his head.

Just '...happens to be a nun', hmmm?

And what was her day job? Oh, yeah, founder of a religious order.

Marital status? Oh yeah, 'Bride of Jesus'.

Current employment? Oh yeah, pursuing beatification as a Servant of God,

Career objective? Sainthood.

That wouldn't fly even in the US, it is clearly an endorsement of religion by any rational standard.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Good point when there are so many countries that don't use any religious imagery on their money.

http://www.banknotes.com/ie75.htm

That wasn't a religious image; that was a person, one who founded an organisation, albeit a religous one, dedicated to helping others. This isn't uncommon on banknotes, stamps et cetera. Was the US Postal Service promoting the Jedi religion with it's Star Wars stamps?

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Just '...happens to be a nun', hmmm?

Yes. She intended to assist others, using money bequeated to her, by taking in homeless women and children and providing care and an education for them. The SoM was founded more due to pressure from the church hierarchy.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And what was her day job? Oh, yeah, founder of a religious order.

No. Her "day job" was education, organisation and fund raising.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Marital status? Oh yeah, 'Bride of Jesus'.

She lived from more than fifty years before becoming a nun.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Current employment? Oh yeah, pursuing beatification as a Servant of God,

Well actually she's been dead for nearly 170 years so she's not doing much.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Career objective? Sainthood.

Originally Posted by crimresearch

That wouldn't fly even in the US, it is clearly an endorsement of religion by any rational standard.

Whereas 'In God We Trust' isn't? That's a weird double standard.

Perhaps before posting silly rants like this in future you could do some research? Hmmmmm?

[Dog Breakfast]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

You may not be able to post an active link to them, but you can still post the address. Normally people replace the dots in the address with the word DOT, but if you're feeling clever you might try scrolling down to the "additional options" box (when using the advanced editor - click on "go advanced" instead of "post quick reply") and uncheck the "Automatically parse links in text" option so that the editor doesn't automatically make the link active and then prevent you from posting the active link. (I'm not sure if that'll work or not, but it's worth a try.)

Thanks! It works! My wonderful Saint Anselm thread is officially on the scene!

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

That wasn't a religious image; that was a person, one who founded an organisation, albeit a religous one, dedicated to helping others. This isn't uncommon on banknotes, stamps et cetera. Was the US Postal Service promoting the Jedi religion with it's Star Wars stamps?



Yes. She intended to assist others, using money bequeated to her, by taking in homeless women and children and providing care and an education for them. The SoM was founded more due to pressure from the church hierarchy.


No. Her "day job" was education, organisation and fund raising.


She lived from more than fifty years before becoming a nun.


Well actually she's been dead for nearly 170 years so she's not doing much.





Whereas 'In God We Trust' isn't? That's a weird double standard.

Perhaps before posting silly rants like this in future you could do some research? Hmmmmm?

Riiight... and this 'Jedi religion' is an establishment on which planet again, exactly?

The fact that you are willing to mix fictional woo in with your denial of reality, doesn't make it incumbent on me to lie and pretend that the legal research I've posted here more than once on this exact topic, is suddenly false just because you stick your fingers in your ears.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Riiight... and this 'Jedi religion' is an establishment on which planet again, exactly?

The fact that you are willing to mix fictional woo in with your denial of reality, doesn't make it incumbent on me to lie and pretend that the legal research I've posted here more than once on this exact topic, is suddenly false just because you stick your fingers in your ears.

I have no idea what that means.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

That wasn't a religious image; that was a person, one who founded an organisation, albeit a religous one, dedicated to helping others. This isn't uncommon on banknotes, stamps et cetera. Was the US Postal Service promoting the Jedi religion with it's Star Wars stamps?

The £10 notes issued by the Clydesdale Bank have a portrait of Mary Slessor, a Scottish missionary who worked in Africa during the nineteenth century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Slessor . I have never heard of this arousing any religious controversy, because she is celebrated more for her work as an educator than as a converter. She seems to have been rather liberal in her religious attitudes anyway.

[maggot9779]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Riiight... and this 'Jedi religion' is an establishment on which planet again, exactly?

The fact that you are willing to mix fictional woo in with your denial of reality, doesn't make it incumbent on me to lie and pretend that the legal research I've posted here more than once on this exact topic, is suddenly false just because you stick your fingers in your ears.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

It is a thing here in the UK, although it is comparable to Pastafarianism.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Riiight... and this 'Jedi religion' is an establishment on which planet again, exactly?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by crimresearch

The fact that you are willing to mix fictional woo in with your denial of reality, doesn't make it incumbent on me to lie and pretend that the legal research I've posted here more than once on this exact topic, is suddenly false just because you stick your fingers in your ears.

What "fictional woo" are you referring to? Jedism is an actual movement.......
As for the rest of your rant

Originally Posted by Craig B

I have no idea what that means.

I think he's annoyed I disagree with him and use facts.

Originally Posted by Craig B

The £10 notes issued by the Clydesdale Bank have a portrait of Mary Slessor, a Scottish missionary who worked in Africa during the nineteenth century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Slessor . I have never heard of this arousing any religious controversy, because she is celebrated more for her work as an educator than as a converter. She seems to have been rather liberal in her religious attitudes anyway.

A similar situation to Catherine McAuley. It's about as controversial as the picture of the reigning monarch, who is head of the CoE, on UK banknotes.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

It's about as controversial as the picture of the reigning monarch, who is head of the CoE, on UK banknotes.

In Scotland that is probably marginally more controversial than the Slessor portrait.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Denver

I expect as an expansion on what Brown quoted above:



Or something like, "It happens to have religious content, but so does history, and this is displayed merely as a reference to significant legal history. It would be wrong to edit it, as it would be wrong to edit history. It would be like trying to display pictures of the Normandy landing, but cutting out all the ugly parts because someone finds them objectionable".

And its not a terrible argument: if it is displayed there as part of history, then it should not be cut off at 4. Though, if it is displayed there as part of history, I think it would be acceptable to display other parts of that same legal history, such as the Code of Hammurabi.

Code of Hammurabi, nothing. If it's just history and they have no issue either way with the part that is incidentally religious, then they should have no problem with displaying similar historical stiff that incidentally is from another religion.

E.g., the 4 Noble Truths, 8-Fold Noble Path, and 12 Links of Buddhism.

E.g., the 42 implicit commandments in the list of 42 sins one is required to declare before Osiris that he did not do, in the ancient Egyptian religion. (See, for example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maat#42...yrus_of_Ani.29 )

I mean, surely if they wish to display historical approaches to morality and giving commandments about morality, the Egyptian concept of Ma'at is much earlier than the Ten Commandments and helped define one of the most advanced civilizations at the time.

[AvalonXQ]

It would be silly to cut out the religious parts of the Ten Commandments just like it would be silly to cut the references to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Acting like the Judeo-Christian religion as expressed through our European roots had no influence on our national history and culture does everyone a disservice.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

It would be silly to cut out the religious parts of the Ten Commandments just like it would be silly to cut the references to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Acting like the Judeo-Christian religion as expressed through our European roots had no influence on our national history and culture does everyone a disservice.

Of course the religious commandments should remain in; but the commandments should not therefore be displayed inappropriately. Let religious believers display them in religious or private contexts.

The Declaration of Independence is a political document; it is not believed by anybody to be a message from a god.

Quote:

the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them ... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ... a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

These are mere observations; they are not commands. Appreciation of the Declaration of Independence is not affected by belief or disbelief. Anyway, it is a bit different from

Quote:

Deuteronomy 5: 6 I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

That's almost certainly untrue. The Exodus is myth.

Quote:

7 Thou shalt have none other gods before me. 8 Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth

Why ever not? Who cares?

Quote:

9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

That is vile and obscene. Nobody should be encouraged to worship such a god.

Quote:

10 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. 11 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 12 Keep the sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee ...

etc, etc. The last of these reminds me of the Presbyterian-inspired Sunday trading laws that prevailed in my native Scotland a few decades ago. Bars shut, no sporting fixtures, dance halls closed. I'd rather have my few remaining teeth pulled out than go back to that!

[MikeSun5]

I always wondered why "Thou shalt not rape" wasn't on the original list...

...oh yea, because guys in the Bible really enjoyed rape.

I think it was comedian Louis CK who had a bit on the commandments. Namely saying God's name in vain. Something to the effect of, "You can rape people, that's fine. Just don't say my name with a sh***y attitude."