okay well id like to say “sadie” uhmm you have a lot to say but nothing to back it up with..where DO you get ur info. mines from the Bible. Its true our country was founded “one nation under God” NOT “one nation under Sadie or any of her stupid comments that she might make” im sure u have a lot to say but to back it up you need proof. & excuse me i study history and have many history classes & all will tell you the same thing that our country is based on the constitution our constitution is based on Christianity therefore how about YOU take a history class and learn about our founding fathers and that our first president George washington was the one who added “so help me God” in his oath of office

Redeemer:

I believe that it is quite unbelievable how our nation has changed. It has went from “One nation under God�, to a nation overwhelmingly against God.

At face value, that’s a laughable statement - the U.S. being the most religious Western nation by a large margin. The way I see it, the U.S. went from one nation born to the Enlightenment to “One nation under God” and it has remained there ever since. The one visible change is that the current administration cedes more ground to the Christian fundamentalist fringe than any administration before.

If you are going to look at this case upon a religious or perhaps the more appropriate term would be “spiritual� view point then there are two basic elements to examine, good and evil.

I’ll stick to right and wrong, thank you.

In today’s culture it is unacceptable to have prayer in the public school system, as well as the Ten Commandments.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. What is unacceptable, and rightly so, is teacher-led prayer. If the reasons aren’t obvious, then it’s futile to pursue this line of argument.

It seems that the “good� that the Christian population has to offer is being removed for its inequality among other religions, so why not the bad as well? Ashley is right. When it comes down to it, anything that has to do with the good view of Christianity is being slowly thrown away, while more and more “evil� is being accepted.

Strangely enough, I agree with that sentiment. It is open to debate whether or not Christianity has done more good than harm since its inception and if there is a justifiable claim to a ‘good view’ of Christianity, but these days the fundamentalist fringe takes the center stage at every turn, while the moderate Christians do not raise a visible opposition. From my point of view, quite obviously there is little reason to give Christianity the benefit of doubt; the spectrum from vocal fundamentalists to silent moderates drones out just about any conceivable good there is.

It is a well-known fact that whether or not there is a God, living a Christian life betters this world because of their values.

That’s a mighty big claim. Prove it.

If everyone followed the Ten Commandments in this world there would be almost no need for prison systems, or perhaps even law enforcement.

After 2000 years of a running start, today’s prisons are full of Christians. Unless human nature itself changes, you describe an utopian dream.

I do not believe that the name of this team was intentionally made to hurt Christians or to desensitize people to the idea of the devil, or Satan, but I do believe that if something as harmless as the 10 Commandments can be removed, then so can the name New Jersey Devils.

Like Ashley and/or Terry, you compare apples to oranges.

Terry,

I explicitely stated the use of the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments. Since you either missed the reference or are unaware of the difference between the Protestant and Catholic versions of the Ten Commandments, here’s a reproduction of what the Catechism has to say:

1. I am the Lord your God: You shall not have strange Gods before me.
2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
3. Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not kill.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

Rather than accuse me of lying, please try to read more carefully and educate yourself about your own faith.

So, I have backed up my statement

Sure, and I can do quote mining of my own. It’s very simple, really. I don’t see anything uniquely Christian in the Constitution; if Christianity inspired it, the Christian message has been diluted to homeopathic proportions. If the U.S. were a Christian nation, a stronger claim you did not make, the wording of the constitution would differ and not leave the issue open to debate.

There are already enough threads on this topic around here and little incentive to add to it.

Wow...you really don’t know anything about Christianity. The Theme of Christianity is love and kindness. Compassion and forgiveness.

The Inquisition, the crusades, plenty of religious wars in Europe, all the mayhem the missionaries inflicted on native populations, homophobia, misogyny, a theology of self-loathing, antisemitism - shall I continue?

I don’t deny that it’s possible to cherry-pick from Christianity and end up with something compassionate, but it’s not the rule. You yourself refer to the “No True Christian” fallacy:

We don’t hate anyone, or at least true Christians arent supposed too.

Whatever.

Thus spake Lauren:

id like to say “sadie� uhmm you have a lot to say but nothing to back it up with..

I’ve got plently of information on which to back up my views. Here are a few places around the Internet that I get some information from:

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=resources_brochure_christiannation

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/amr/amerc.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/r-misc/reyes021705.htm

...to name but a few. Also, if you were to conduct a rudimentary search throughout the archives of this blog, you will find plenty that will put to rest the silly idea that the Founding Fathers intended for this nation to be a “Christian” one. Lauren, you clearly are the one who cannot back up what you are saying. Not only that, but you have no clue what you are talking about. For example, you go on to spew forth this:

Its true our country was founded “one nation under God

My suggestion to you that you take a basic course in American history still stands, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge on the subject will know that the phrase “one nation under God” did not come into existence as part of the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, at the height of the McCarthy Communist Witch Hunts.

Also, our Founding Fathers were not Christians. They were Deists. Give that class some thought, Lauren.

Trollen, again:

where DO you get ur info. mines from the Bible

A more irrelevant statement you will not find, people. Lauren, I am proud to tell you that I am not a Christian; therefore, the bible is absolutely meaningless to me. It is also meaningless to our discussion, since the bible has no place in public policy in this country.

It gets even funnier, folks:

NOT “one nation under Sadie

Oh dear, oh no, oh fuck! You mean to tell me that the United States of America was NOT founded under me in 1776? But all my life I have been taught that! *sobs*

At least I have something in common with “God,” then, as this country was no more founded under “him” than under me.

Me: A guy named Lou gets to decide that. Man you people must be pretty bored and/or out of touch to defend this assemblyman

Terry: Yea buddy, a assemblyman works for the government. Therefore, when his actions are approved, America’s government backs him up.

[Pushing aside the massive crock of shit that Terry just left on my computer screen.] Oh, I’m sorry. Do you really believe that the government is going to force the Devils to change their name? Mwaha ha ha ha! They’re in for a hell of a fight if they try.

To Lauren:

I believe that the government was founded on the Bible.

And you would be wrong.

Maybe if you put down that one dollar bill, switched off the military/legal TV dramas and picked up a nice thick history book (other than you-know-which-one) you would learn that America was not always “..one nation UNDER GOD” and that America’s founding fathers were actually quite clear about why limits to the role of religion in government are necessary. Seriously, look it up.

Lauren asked:

Why base it (gov’t) on anything else (besides Christianity)? Because there’s this funny thing I’ve noticed about people like this Assemblyman in NJ, as well as Redeemer, Ashley, Terry and Lauren. They *think* they know they have all the answers in one disgusting little old book written more than a millenia ago by 40 different men, translated a couple times and then stuffed into every hotel room in North America ... And since they *think* they know they have all the answers in this little book, they also have no need to seriously consider evidence and argumentation (however logical and true it may be), which could save them from pursuing total bullshit solutions for problems which are either a)non-existant or b)complex in the extreme.

So we get “answers” to the world’s problems like: if everyone followed the 10 Commandments and read the bible every night there would be no need for jails. Which is just total bullshit, as elwedriddsche correctly illustrated. Or, you know, brilliant ideas like, hey, let’s change the name of a private business because we, a small group of whiners, have (and I’m quoting the Assemblyman himself here...) “a little bit of an issue” with the name. And for our rock-solid defence (just in case anyone gets up the nerve to ask why we are wasting tax dollars) we’ll just say that the devil secularists got to take away the 10 commandments from gov’t buildings a few years back, so it’s fairzies, right?

I’m going to say this again because I don’t think you got it the first couple times, Terry.

THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES dealing with two different types of institutions - SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT on the one hand (which you are free to boycott if the name of a local myth-creature bugs you, but maybe that’s just too much work for you) and a FIRST AMMENDMENT VIOLATION on the other hand. Hockey and the 10 Commandments. Apples and oranges ... that is unless you think the Jersey “Devils” are somehow violating your rights.

Hockey and the 10 Commandments. Apples and oranges

Of course you and I know that. I suspect that all the logical, rational discourse in the world will fail to please Terry and Lauren, however (who I suspect are actually one and the same person). These two (or one) are clearly happily ignorant, and would clearly rather be uninformed about both issues.

Lauren, take some time out to learn more about the country that you think is the STRONGEST in the world (a dubious statement in and of itself) because you incorrectly believe it is based on Christianity.

Terry, learn how to spell, use correct syntax, and form coherent sentence structures. Noun, verb, subject is the ticket!

Me, I’m tired of wasting my precious time and precious brain cells on these two idiotic trolls. Have a nice day, everyone, and remember: America is NOT a Christian nation!

Well, “massive crock” rgjp and “under me” Sadie are doing a good job here of sticking it to the Man.  But elwed- *sigh*.

You say

I don’t see anything uniquely Christian in the Constitution; if Christianity inspired it, the Christian message has been diluted to homeopathic proportions.

Which homeopathic proportions?  Obviously, it makes a difference if the Christianity is present in the Constitution in, say, D4, or D30 concentrations.  Remember, the more diluted, the stronger.  I bet you didn’t even check.

Luckily, I did, however.  The words “Jesus” and “Christ” appear a total of zero times in the Constitution.  This is equivalent to a concentration of D∞, the strongest possible homeopathic dosage.  So the Constitution is not merely somewhat Christian, it is infinitely Christian.

You might say, that by these lights, the Constitution is also Muslim, Wiccan, and SpaghettiMonsterish.  Sorry, I can’t hear you- I have my fingers in my ears.  Lalalala!

Remember, the more diluted, the stronger.  I bet you didn’t even check.

Nope, but I’m tempted to do the math which Dx is statistically equivalent to D∞.

Oh, and to toss in a gratuitous link:

Homeopathic Products Used for Mass “Suicide”

Wow, this thread has suddenly become busy. I don’t have time at the moment to respond in my usual verbose manner to all the claims being made here, but I’ll see if I can’t squeeze in some time over the weekend. Looks like it’s more of the same old “America was founded on Biblical principles” crap.

You guys are putting forward well out there - although I’m afraid for the folk here defending the assemblyman you’ll have to put forawrd something other than rhetoric if you want to be taken seriously.

Four questions: Who the hell are the Gideons anyway? How are they getting into every hotel/motel?
Has anyone else noticed that when we slam one trollish comment on religion it only takes about a week for the thread to revive? (Red Hannah, then this) Is this the norm?

Just curious.

Has anyone else noticed that when we slam one trollish comment on religion it only takes about a week for the thread to revive?

I suspect we’ve shown up on someones religious blog. Possibly folks trickling over from this site though based on the number of comments (and the content itself) it doesn’t seem he’s got a lot of visitors to send.

But at least we know now that we’re “intellectually arrogant.”

I’ve wondered the same damn thing about the Gideons. The thought always reverts my mind back to these lyrics, though:

“Rocky Racoon, fell back in his room
Only to find Gideon’s bible.
Gideon checked out, and he left it no doubt
To help with good Rocky’s revival.”

Anyway, I’ll take being “intellectually arrogant” over being non-intellectually arrogant any time of day.

Gideons don’t just go to hotels. They brought bibles to my public school one time for all of us. It was my first bible, actually. Pretty sure that wouldn’t happen anymore. I think that happened in the same year my school board got rid of the strap as a punishment.

While the TB’s don’t usually have much staying power, let’s do a poptarts anyway and pry all the conflated issues apart. Oh, and make sure the TB’s answer them one by one.

The topic of this thread is a state assemblyman who supports the change of name of a privately owned hockey team, the New Jersey Devils, because that name is allegedly offensive to some Christians. There are at least two obvious problems with this.

First, it is debatable whether such a state-sponsored intervention into the private sector would itself run afoul of the Establishment Clause. I haven’t yet formed an opinion on this idea…

Second, there are significant ramifications to free speech. The assemblyman’s central claim can be reframed like so: It is not permissible to engage in otherwise protected speech if anybody takes offense. If this were a legal or legislative principle, adult public discourse would be reduced to toddler talk. Maybe Consi sees fit to help out, but I recall that Federal Circuits and/or the Surpreme Court have struck down laws with similar ramifications.

For free speech to be meaningful, it is inevitably more important for an individual to be allowed to give offense than it is for the majority not to be offended.

The above is the topic’s bone of contention and anything beyond that scope is nothing but red herrings tossed into the fray.

Red Herring #1: Roy Moore’s rock. My recollection is that the momument was installed under cover of the night. Whenever an action that can conveniently and legally be performed during office hours is instead performed in a clandestine fashion, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that whoever cut the orders was aware of wrongdoing and an upcoming controversy.

Red Herring #2: The court-ordered removal of a monument that shouldn’t have been installed in the first place compares to a public official pushing to change the name of a privately owned franchise. It doesn’t and if the reasons are not obvious to a reader, it’s probably futile to belabor this point.

Red Herring 3#: The U.S. is a Christian nation / The U.S. Constitution is inspired by Christian principles.

If the U.S. were a Christian nation, the framers of the constitution would have explicitely enshrined this intention. I maintain that the very fact that a debate about this is possible renders the claim moot.

As far as using Christian principles as an inspiration for the constitution, just a few remarks. It doesn’t suffice to mine framer’s quotes that may or may not support such an intent; what has to be shown that such is actually the case. Anybody making that claim has to show specifically what is uniquely Christian about the constitution and federal laws; so far nothing has been presented that passes the laugh test. There’s obviously the subset of the Christian commandments that matches the Golden Rule (a.k.a. the Principle of Reciprocity, as opposed to the Republican version); there’s an acknowledgement that society is comprised of mostly good guys and a few bad apples, but neither of those is uniquely Christian.

I’ve now wasted enough time on this. Les, your turn

By the way, something seems seriously messed up.

The posts by unregistered users now show up as some-registered-userN. Then there’s something similar between the Smileys link and the tag strip; has this always been here?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc and all that, but did the flag thingy have a few odd side effects?

Hopefully, we’ve scared Terry and Lauren away, since they obviously can’t back up their incoherent statements and non-arguments. Same goes for Redeemer, who likewise had nothing factual or original to add to the discussion.

I too await Les’ input on the subjects, as that will surely drive the trolls away once and for all. It always seems to.

uhhhm what y0u guys think and what is factually true are 2 different things..you are right, there are NO actually words such as Jesus or Christ but they ARE God and Christians find that all the same God, the Son and the Holy Spirit so TECHNICALLY Jesus IS in the the g0vernment. and who you callin a troll? do you even know what a troll is..it has NOTHING to do with being a Christian

The html buttons seem to not be working.  Yeah, I still get the name thing elwed pointed out happening.  I noticed it yesterday, where Ragman(some number) was listed as the poster.  The emails had the correct names, but it still ooked me b/c I don’t want anyone to think that was me spewing ignernt drivel.

Lauren said: and who you callin a troll? do you even know what a troll is..it has NOTHING to do with being a Christian

Somehow, I think you’re the one who doesn’t know what a troll is in the context that the word was used.  Would calling you a newbie be more accurate?

Names and email address are okay in the “Stupid Evil Comments” sidebar… Upon closer inspection, both the names and email addresses of unregistered posters are mangled.

Well I just took out the IPtoNation code to see if it was causing the problem and that’s not it. I didn’t think it would be either because it’s only on this page that it’s happening.

Don’t have much time at the moment as I’m getting ready to go up to my parent’s place for the weekend, but later tonight I’ll dig through the reply chain and see if I can figure out what’s going on.

Looks like Lauren is back to spew out more nonsense. Lauren, I’m calling YOU a troll, because that is clearly what you are.

As a non-Christian, I’ll take my government just as I live my life--Jesus-free. Looks like I’m in luck, since that is how the Founders envisioned it. Just because you don’t want it to be true does not mean it’s not. All of you trolls here need to learn a whole hell of a lot more about this country and its history.

Separation of church and state is one of the hallmarks (and I would argue the number one prerequisite) of a free society. If you don’t like it, move to Iran.

Les, I too am noticing some oddities regarding the comment generator. For one thing, the “quote” option is not working, and for another, the name “Qoayn” is sitting right beneath the Smileys option. It also appears that the “bold,” “italics,” and “underline” options are likewise disabled.

America was not founded as a Christian country. There is no such thing. Countries don’t believe in Christ. People do.

The writings of the Founding Fathers are replete with pious-sounding statements by the various Deists and agnostics and freethinkers who founded this country extolling precisely the ethical tradition which has its origins in the Ten Commandments, and from which pretty much the whole Western ethical and legal tradition flows. T suggest that this needs to be “proven” is merely to admit a lack of acquaintence with the history of that tradition to global to be remedied by replies written in the comments of a blog.

Dude, you need to do some reading. A great deal of it. The question is not in dispute among those who have even a clue. The writings of theFounders- who once again, were not Christians, for the most part- are a good place to start.

But those pious-sounding statements are ethical, not theological. The writings of agnostic Patrick Henry, Deist Thomas Jefferson, Unitarian John Quincey Adams discuss Jesus as a Lawgiver, if at all- and not as a Savior.

On the other hand, they assume the ethical tradition of the previous seventeen hundred years. Two different subjects.

As to the subject which this thread supposedly concerns, it’s stupid to try to change this team’s name by legislation. The point here isn’t really religious at all.

Let’s assume, for the purpose of the discussion, that there is neither a God nor a devil. Let’s assume that Satan is merely a symbol, OK?

The question remains what that symbol stands for.
One need see it as nothing other than a symbol to ask that question, and to wonder given that symbolism, it’s an appropriate name- not, mind you, whether people who choose to use it should be forced not to.

What is Satan a symbol for? For evil. Now, I know that even religious schools- DePaul comes to mind- for some reason sometimes call their teams things like “The Blue Demons.” Never understood it, myself. The symbolism really ought to make pretty much any decent person- religious or not- uncomfortable.

Otherwise we ought to have no problem deconstructing that symbol, and calling teams the New Jersey Child Molesters, the Anaheim Anti-Semites, the Houston Hitlers, and the Richmond Rapists. Those things, after all, are what the symbol “Satan” symbolizes. I don’t favor legislating against names like the New Jersey Devils, but I wonder what the hell people are thinking who regard it as in anything but very odd taste- given its symbolism.

One more thing: “Nature and nature’s God” is, to Deist Tom Jefferson’s way of thinking, the ultimate origin of all human rights. The Declaration of Independence is pretty explicit about it.

This was a revolutionary idea at the time; the previous consensus, in both Eastern and Western philosophy, is that you get the rights the guys with the big guns decide they want to let you have. If your rights are going to come from a source higher than the government, there has to be a source higher than the government. To simply assert that people should have those rights because it would be ever so nice doesn’t fly. If our rights don’t come from God, they come from the government- and the goverment can take them away at any time. Who’s to say otherwise? Remember, if there’s no God around to give you your rights, you don’t get a vote.

A god- some god- is absolutely essential to the entire philosophy of the Founders. On the other hand, Jefferson’s “nature and nature’s God” isn’t the Holy Trinity. He’s the god of nature. the god of Plato, the god of the Lowest Common Denominator. He’s the god of Deist Tom Jefferson, who supposedly created the world, set it working like a piece of automatic machinery, and sat back- never interfering- to watch what happened next.

The god of Jefferson isn’t the Holy Trinity isn’ Allah isn’t the deity of the Jehovah’s Witnesses...well, you get the idea. In our system, you get to have choose your own deity. You are free to make the lame argument that despite all their differences in every respect, every name for god really is about the same being. The god of the Lowest Common Denominator is really just one more option- and he is not the Father of Jesus Christ.

So choose your own god. Or choose none. But know that if for the purposes of political philosophy you operate under the assumption that there is no
God, the government logically steps into the breech- and you have a claim only the rights the government or those with power are generous enough to let you have. That’s why even Jefferson felt it necessary to quite pointedly base his political philosophy on the existence of some sort of god.

And it’s also why pretty much all of the Founders- unorthodox as they were in their own religious beliefs- felt that a vague, generic endorsement of at least the god of the lowest common denominator was utterly essential to the system they founded.

You want proof? Read the Founders themselves. Start with the Declaration of Independence.

What is Satan a symbol for? For evil. Now, I know that even religious schools- DePaul comes to mind- for some reason sometimes call their teams things like “The Blue Demons.� Never understood it, myself. The symbolism really ought to make pretty much any decent person- religious or not- uncomfortable.

Otherwise we ought to have no problem deconstructing that symbol, and calling teams the New Jersey Child Molesters, the Anaheim Anti-Semites, the Houston Hitlers, and the Richmond Rapists. Those things, after all, are what the symbol “Satan� symbolizes. I don’t favor legislating against names like the New Jersey Devils, but I wonder what the hell people are thinking who regard it as in anything but very odd taste- given its symbolism.

Bob, I’ll go along with your characterization of the Founding Fathers as theists. However, I consider myself to be a pretty decent person, and I find concern over the symbolism of “devils” and “demons” laughable- and depressing.  Your slippery slide from “Devil” to “Satan” to “Child Molester” is ridiculous, especially given your premise (for the purposes of this argument) that the Devil does not exist.  How is calling something, a hockey team or, say, a carnivorous Tasmanian marsupial, a “devil” connected to child molesting?  Devils are fabulous beings present in many religions, who supposedly throw things in the way (dia-bolus) of people at the behest of God (Old Testament) or do evil “on their own” (New Testament).  Many, if not most, devout Christians don’t believe in a literal devil any more, and lots of my Christian friends think nothing of calling their children “little devils”.  None of them call their children “little rapists”.  The difference?  Child molesters, Hitler, and anti-Semites exist and do real evil.  Devils and demons do not.

If you find the word “devil” or “demon” in the name of a hockey team offensive, you might also consider all those people who continue wearing brown shirts offensive, too…

To equate or even analogize an annoying mythical being ("Satan" or a devil) with real-world evildoers (i.e. Hitler or anti-Semites) is laughable. To do so for something as trivial as a hockey team mascot is all the more ludicrous. Your hypothetical “slippery slope” exists nowhere but in your own mind.

But those pious-sounding statements are ethical, not theological.

And yet for many Christians and many conservatives in general, the distinction seems not to exist.

If you were to do some reading throughout the mess of replies this comment has generated, you’d find some pretty inane posts (by people named Terry, Redeemer, and Lauren) who say that the United States and the Constitution were founded on the bible. That is clearly wrong.

And I’m willing to bet that you and I define “ethical” in pretty different terms. I’ll trust MY definitions, thank you very much.

Here are my $0.02 worth on Bob’s comment.

Somebody sensitive enough to be troubled by team name like the New Jersey Devils should probably go the full mile and take issue with the violent and aggressive sport named hockey.

As far as the symbolism is concerned, it seems fairly obvious to me. The New Jersey Devil of myth makes a great team name - not because of the allusion to evil, but because that critter was alleged to be a ferocious hunter. Same for team names like Something Sharks, Whatever Demons, Growling Lions, Thatplace Saints and so on. All these names are symbols for power and prowess, without a passing thought to evil or good.

A track and field team might be named after rabbits for their fleetness, but I can’t conceive of a hockey team named after a hare. Sports fans might prove me wrong, but I’m not holding my breath. I won’t repeat the sample names offered by Bob, but it should be obvious where he goes wrong in picking them.

An interesting comment, however, is this:

You are free to make the lame argument that despite all their differences in every respect, every name for god really is about the same being. The god of the Lowest Common Denominator is really just one more option- and he is not the Father of Jesus Christ.

This is the “U.S. is a Christian nation” goalpost shifting argument is a nutshell. I believe the framers of the constitution thought long and hard about it and their failure to make explicit reference to the Christian deity is deliberate and not a mere oversight. The cognitive dissonance of Christian fundamentalists comes into play right here - while they believe unquestioningly in the literal truth of the Bible, they refuse to take the constitution literally. Rather than the framers making vague references to a Deist creator and meaning precisely that, the fundamentalists interpret the framers to have intended to refer to a generic, one god fits all interpretation. Therefore, what the framers enshrined in the consitution can refer to any god at all. Therefore, it can refer to the Christian god. The Christian god is the One True God according to dogma, therefore the framers cannot have referred to another god. Since the U.S. is predominantly Christian (of some denomination or other), it follows that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

In the other words, the fundamentalist’s argument relies on a non-literal interpretation of the constitution.

It also appears like Bob overplays the 10CC’s worth, by failing to acknowledge human history more than 2006 years in the past.

When viewed as an ethical guideline, the 10CC’s are a profound failure. They only tell you what not do, instead of giving constructive advice. It’s not hard to construct hypothetical conundrums to which the 10CC’s are of no help whatsoever. They also convey a mentality that everything that isn’t expressly forbidden must be allowed, a deeply troubling ethical philosophy in my eyes. I also don’t see how traits like e.g. compassion and charity follow from them.

To make a long story short, Christians still have a long way to go to show the merits of their religion. And it bears to repeat what Martin Willet calls the Big Lie of Religion - that faithful people are better people.