I was hoping someone had posted on this.  I was a little suprised to see what a big deal it is for everyone.  Some of the national broadcasts jumped at the oportunity to show white-trash acting like psychotics worshiping some idol.  I don’t understand what’s so complicated about the case.  As far as I’ve read it wasn’t paid for by taxpayers, it was private donation.  The 1st amendment states that CONGRESS shall PASS NO LAW establishing or restricting the exercise of any religion.  Congress nor any state legislative body is involved, & no law has been passed.  Or maybe I’m missing it: that’s WHY the Supreme Court has to hear it: it’s new territory.

So it might have more to do with what kind of donations of art may public places accept.  The 10 commmandments, between Judaism, Christianity, Islam, & Mormonism, represent the foundational beliefs in the immutability of right & wrong for 97% of people. & those who are opposed the display of the 10 commandments in particular aren’t opposed to the idea of right & wrong or the rule of law, but the source.  There is no corresponding artwork that could portray the “opposition” because Hammurabi’s code is even worse, & it’s hard to find appropriate abstract art that represents the absence of a source.

What really percilated my thoughts on the subject was a friend who e-mailed me this cartoon.  It got me to thinking, when I get enough money I want to donate commemorative markers of the Bill of Rights to my church & a few others.  To me, the Bill of Rights is the Reason our churches in America exist the way they do, just like (to me) our courts in America exist the way they do because of the 10 commandments.  Not that it’s a kind of barter or compromise that would end the conroversy, but I honestly like the idea.

In the end, I don’t really care how the court rules.  A display of art (while vital in communicating our fundamental values) is not an issue of life or death.

Sorry, this is the moved link for that cartoon.

or not, I don’t know how to post the graphic I have saved, but it’s by Tom Toles & it shows a monument to the Bill of Rights in a church & a priest saying “I’m not sure if this is the best place for it.

The cartoon is here. At least it should be.

Is this Peter Fredson guy a robot? Where does he have all the time to write such great stuff?

ellie, what about the commandment that says “Thou shalt worship no god before me?” What message does that send to the children who are Hindus, Buddhists, Confucianists, Daoists or of any other non-Abrahamic religion? Not to mention those who simply don’t believe in god(s). Frankly I wouldn’t want my kids to have to deal with that on top of everything else they deal with at school.

Is this Peter Fredson guy a robot?

I don’t care, but I wish I had more opportunity to read his articles.

In a nutshell, there are members of the majority that respect that there are minorities with other opinions. There are religious believers that understand that the display of their religious texts on public property is potentially offensive to people with different beliefs and there are those do not.

And there are those that do what they want and to Hell with anybody who disagrees.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to sit by idly (idoly?) and do nothing. “First they attacked Jews, but I wasn’t a Jew, so I did nothing. Then they attacked Poland, but I wasn’t from Poland. Then they . . .” What constitutes a pattern? When will I be affected? Was America founded on the rule of law or the rule of fantasy? How many people are alive today that remember what happened when Japan adopted Shintoism as the State Religion? How many people are alive today that remember what happened when the Taliban adopted Islam as the State Religion? H E L L O

thx Vern.  As for the 1st commandment, if you read my comment, I wrote that it was ARTWORK meant to commemorate where most people believe the rule of law originates.  You assume that people who look at artwork of the Greek gods would be offended by their artwork.  & as for the eastern religions you mentioned, from the children I met who were raised in those traditions had a pretty good philosophical understanding that there is nothing to worship so they’d laugh at it, & they also understand the idea of respecting something greater than one’s self.  Afterall, to them, isn’t Abrahamic religions another leg of the elephant?

leguru, Uh, no middleastern religionocracies (YES, I’m making up that word) are based on the rule of law.  So until we eliminate any kind of art in public that celebrates anything other than humans we’re not safe from the onslaught?  What exacltly is the attack here?  Poeople believing something different than you & feeling the confidence in their freedom to express & celebrate it?  I understand if you just need a place to vent & hold your pity-party that there’s a vast conspiracy against you (God knows, enough Christians in church see atheists that way).  But do you actually believe that you could or even should eliminate anyone else’s ability to express & celebrate beliefs?  Sure, there are a million ways to do so innapropriately, but does a lack of social grace=illegal behavior to you?  Okay, so it’s a position of authority doing so that bothers you.  I personally feel that as long as I can still express my dissent without being physically locked up by the government, I’m thankful to be here.  I see the question of the day as: how the hell do you get a messianic victim complex without a Messiah?

Oops, I goofed. I had meant to post the link to Brooke Allen’s article; “Our Godless Constitution”, as a comment to this blog.  The article can be found at The Nation, http://www.thenation.com I recommend this as an insightful look at our Founding Fathers’ view of the separation between church and state.  I have read Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography and it echoes the Deist view of a neutral god of nature.  The FF’s were students of the Enlightenment, not of organized religion.  Remember, the idol at the Capitol building is Athena, not Jehovah.

Ellie,
The attack here is that religions that are state sponsored and supported will become so politically strong that they oppress others. Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Anything that becomes more sacred than human beings diminishes the value of a human being.

Exactly my point.  No one is establishing state sponsoring or support of any religion here.  You have the most illogical circular argument if expression of a belief that humans are valuable, sacred & deserve to be protected by laws diminishes their sacred value...?

Exactly, rennman03.  So we’re silly to feel oppressed by a statue of Athena as an artistic celebration of our philosophical heritage, but somehow it all makes sense to be oppressed by something people actually still believe in?  We can only celebrate symbols of cultural origins that most people don’t share & are inoffensive because we’ve abandoned belief in the reality?

Interpretation:
Ellie, I have to wonder what exactly is your interpretation of the establishment clause. Are you suggesting a strict literal meaning that defeats the purpose? In other words as long as the congress does not literally establish “XYZ” religion as a national religion it passes the test? Such an interpretation would mean that it would be ok to spend billions of dollars on one religion as long as you do not say that religion is the national religion.

Funding:
To claim that just because the funding is not from the government it is ok suggests that as long as a person donates money, their display should be up. As you point out this may have to do with the kind of donations that are accepted. But if the only donations (of a religious persuasion) that are accepted happen to be from one religion, it is hard not to see some form of bias, is it.

Persuasion/Effect:
A person may not change his mind because of a statue but that really is not the point. Just as, even if the state establishes a religion, it does not mean that all would change their religious outlook.

For example, in parts of Virginia, during the school day students are taken out of public school and sent to a nearby church for religious studies. Students can obviously opt in or out, with those opting out staying in school and waiting for their other classmates to return before proceeding with lessons. Now would one claim that because choice was offered and no one was converted that this is proper?

Secular:
One thing I find ironic is how people who seek to place religious symbols claim that they are in effect secular. I can understand they do it so as to get it through existing laws.

Now if it is INDEED secular and have no religious implication whatsoever, why is it that it is the religious people who are supporting it. If it indeed has no religious implication then by right its defenders should be fairly representative of the population rather than those of one particular faith. 

Source:
Why would the Hammurabi be worse? The main attack against it would be its punitive criminal sanctions. But it talks about justice and good governance, protection of the weak, family rights, property, false testimony and even legal procedure. Contrast to the 10Cs, whereby the first 4 talks about god from worship to sabbath and the remaining ones talk about criminal matters and some relationships.

If you compare both these sources, one would realise the Hammurabi’s code covers a greater aspect of law. In fact with regards to the 10Cs there is a fundamental flaw. Take for example the prohibition of murder. All right, it is prohibited but what if someone murders. Hmm it does not really say anything with regards to the treatment of the murderer…

On top of that there is the roman law. Which, if you think about it, could be seen as the source for the ten commandments. After all it was only after the Roman Emperor declare Christianity to be the main religion that Christianity went from a minor cult into a larger religion. The Roman Republic and Empire had a rule of law and it did not originate from the 10 Cs.

But one simple question, why not just put the bill of rights up there rather than any of these “sources.”

97% point
Where did you get that figure that the 10 Cs are the foundational belief of 97% of the people of US?

Where did you get that figure that the 10 Cs are the foundational belief of 97% of the people of US?

You need to ask this question of our beloved ellie?

Pop Tarts:  Your reply to ellie was right on the money.  I couldn’t have done better. Your reasoning was a good counterweight to the Far Right misleading propaganda. Your “secular” comment on “secular” reflects my thought on misleading or bewildering logic. The ploy is that mention of God is not religious ... but is “ceremonial deism” and if you put a document on U.S. history next to mention of God, then the entire display becomes “secular.”

Interestingly, upon further investigation, do you know who donated these 10 commandment monumnents around the country?  Cecil B. DeMille donated them to promote his movie, the 10 commandments, staring...the NRA chairman!  See, you’re right, it IS all a conspiracy…

When I check adherents.com, I couldn’t find any seperate statistic for the US, so after I checked several states & cities, adding the # of Jews, Christians, Muslims, & Mormons, I guessed around 97%.  I couldn’t find any sites that gave that statistic straight, because everyone was researching other things.  If you can find a better place, I’d appreciate it.

Yup, I’m a VERY strict interpretation of the establishment clause.  Start donating $ to the government for atheist causes!  No one’s ever done it, so we have no clue how it would be dealt with.

those opting out staying in school and waiting for their other classmates to return before proceeding with lessons.

I would consider that choice.  They can spend that time exploring what they do/don’t believe.  Anyway, back to my point about choice of private donations, if someone wants to privately donate a monument to the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism (which are personal, not public legal) or the Quran or whatever, go ahead.  I think that’s what the Supreme Court is really considering.

[Hammurabi’s code is] about justice and good governance, protection of the weak, family rights, property, false testimony and even legal procedure.

I would disagree.  There’s not much difference between women as family & women as property, so no, the weak aren’t protected.  As for the other differences you see…

with regards to the 10Cs there is a fundamental flaw. Take for example the prohibition of murder. All right, it is prohibited but what if someone murders

What you see as a flaw, I see as a strength.  The whole point of making a artistic monument to the 10C’s is that they are simple fundamental guidelines.  The specific punishments are laid out in Deuteronomy & Leviticus.

The 10C’s were a way of freeing the people from the tyranny of the god-king religionocracy of the pharoh in Egypt.  There was no law but what the pharoh decided that day.  Kind of like Plato’s pholosopher king.  There were no unchanging laws, we just trust a really smart person to tell us what to do, & what laws is he himself subject to?

the roman law. Which, if you think about it, could be seen as the source for the ten commandments.

What fucked up history class did you take?  Or should I say where were you when you were supposed to be in history.  The Roman EMPIRE had no law but power.  Whoever had power, made the rules.  (Once again, the whole reason law sets people free.) 2nd, the Roman empire came thousands of years after the 10 commandments, & Christ himself fulfilled them. so when Christianity was established as their state religion, gentiles were trying to eliminate the Jewish roots of their new “cult.” Basically, the Roman Empire has little to do with the legal aspects of our cultural heritage.

I never said the monuments were secular, & wouldn’t.  They’re cultural, & culture includes religion.  most religions hold that God’s creation of humans makes them valuable.  But how humans could possibly hold any value aside from being created by a benevolent God is another debate.

So, to take a sideways look at this - Ellie - if I donated an art piece that commemorated the works of Anton LaVey to a school, and they placed it in the hallway for all students to view, that would be peachy keen for you? I dare to believe that many people would have a major problem with that. 

(Just in case you need a refresher - Anton LaVey was the author of the Satanic Bible.)

I didn’t need the refresher, I read about him at the Kerry fundraiser.  Are you referring to artwork or to passages?  Either way, a school is different than a courthouse, but either way, I’m in the minority in saying yes.  Although this is in part based on the fact that I don’t think any of his followers have either the money or the generosity to do so, & even if they did, it would help Christianity more than hurt it by scaring & offending people.

But how humans could possibly hold any value aside from being created by a benevolent God is another debate.

But how God could possibly hold any value aside from being created by benevolent humans is another debate. Is it time for that debate?

leguru,

But how God could possibly hold any value aside from being created by benevolent humans is another debate. Is it time for that debate?

Benevolant or just ignorant?

Hell, I sure hope it’s time. It’s a topic I hear about too rarely.

The bullshit being slung in this thread is almost mind-numbing.  There are some things that need to be straightened out.

Ellie said:

The 1st amendment states that CONGRESS shall PASS NO LAW establishing or restricting the exercise of any religion.

No it doesn’t.  It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

It’s a semantic thing, but a fairly important one.  If their intent was to say that congress can’t ESTABLISH A STATE RELIGION, don’t you think they would have said, “Congress shall make no law respecting THE establishment of religion,...” See how that one word completely changes the meaning of the sentence?  Considering the amount of time spent on hammering it out, I’m sure it says EXACTLY what it was meant to say, that Congress shall not pass laws that give special consideration to a particular religion.

Another question to anyone that cares to answer:  If the 10 commandments are the basis of our system of law, why is it that only two and a quarter of them have legal analogues?  (Bearing false witness is only illegal in very narrow situations.) And the two that ARE in the 10 c’s also appear in codes of law that pre-dated the judeo-christian traditions AND in regions that had NO contact with that tradition?

Looking at the whole picture, any similarity between the 10 commandments and our system of law is purely coincidental.

Another small point:  The Roman Empire most certainly WAS NOT solely based on the law of power.  It had a very, very, very sophisticated system of law that could conceivably be called the root of the common law system that IS what our system is base on.  The ascendency of the Emporer didn’t happen until the last few hundred years of the classical Empire.  Before that, the Emporer was just as accountable to the Senate as the President is supposed to be today.

And how about that misinterpretation of Gen 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” We all know the correct interpretation is: “So Man created god in His own image, in the image of Man created he him.” Or, the women’s lib version: “So God created man, and then She corrected Her mistake.”
And, Lobo: Ave Caesar, morituri te salutamus!

another leg of the elephant?
Appears not. From an article in last week’s Sunday Post-Dispatch.

Ship me somewhere east of Suez, where the best is like the worst,

Where there a’n’t no Ten Commandments and a man can raise a thirst,

The Circuit Court judge who ruled in favor of the state of Texas in 2002 included that quote from Kipling. In a brief filed in the current Ten Commandments case, The Hindu American Foundation took exception to being told to go somewhere else. Their brief goes on to say

“Law, under this view, is not the result of rational deliberation by human beings in furtherance of the public good, but rather the product of direct, divine command,” reads the brief. “The substance of the Ten Commandments, far from being universal, is expressly predicated on the existence of one very specific god, the Judeo-Christian God, and no other.”
...
“Hindus cannot reconcile their ... teachings with the very First Commandment, which mandates the exclusion of all divine manifestations other than the Judeo-Christian God,”

The sentiment about rational deliberation would have resonated with the FF.

97%
I’m not sure what this adds, but Table 1 in the Summary of this Pew Foundation survey gives a breakdown of religious affiliation.

http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=55

Basically, the Roman Empire has little to do with the legal aspects of our cultural heritage.
Not everyone agrees. This is, on the influence of Hellenism in the classicial era, is from The Passion of the Western Mind by Tarnas.

Roman legal thought, containing a new sense of objective rationality and natural law derived from the Greek concept of the universal Logos, introduced systematic clarity into commercial and legal interactions throughout the empire, cutting through the welter of divergent local customs and evolving principles of contract law and property ownership crucial for the West’s later development

as is this on the early Christian era

The Church’s conception of humanity’s relationship to God as a judicial one strictly defined by moral law was partly derived from Roman law

Drat. Lobo got in while I was still editing.