The New Improved Ten Commandments

“1. I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE strange gods BEFORE ME. NEW! But it's OK to have idols of saints and pray to them.

2. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN. NEW! But you can take your enemies name in vain, that's OK.

3. REMEMBER THOU KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY. NEW! Unless in a time of war, a bingo event, a church fundraiser, an abortion clinic bombing, or anything else that your religious leaders tell you.

4. HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER. NEW! Unless they are gay, or do things that you deem "vulger".

5. THOU SHALT NOT KILL. New! Unless the killing involves: oil, people of different faiths, to save the mom, in cases of rape, or if your leaders tell you it's OK.

6. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. New! Unless it's against children (we'll cover it up), or with hotties (you can always be forgiven!)

7. THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. NEW! Unless it's from members of your own congregation, or, if it's from your enemies.

8. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR. NEW! Unless you need to go to war with them or disagree with them, so you will need to villify them in order to make other people buy into the fact that thier evil.

9. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE. NEW! Unless your are a TV evangelist.

10. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS. New! Unless the "goods" are oil, or things that we would consider a threat.



9.”

“I thought it was 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor his wife's ass...”

“As George said....

THOU SHALT BE HONEST AND GOOD.

THOU SHALL KEEP THY RELIGION TO THY SELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1”

“"separation of church and state" ...> not in the constitution or any amendments

Yes, it's a joke. But jokes are supposed to resemble reality.”

“However one cares to interpret the U.S. Constitution keeping religion out of governance is good policy.

The Taliban would disagree with me though.”

“Yo, Sarge - Do you know the actual wording?”

“Yes Phaedrus.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."”

“Marko - Should we eliminate all laws and start from scratch with a legal system that doesn't have roots in a particular religion?”

“The legal system has roots in religion, Sarge? It may coincide idealogically, but do you honestly need an established religion to tell you that murder, for example, is wrong. For myself, that is innate. I don't get my morals from religious bases...
last edited: 3/03/05 8:45:13 AM”

“You might not get your morals from religios bases, but our legal system is rooted in religion, whether or not it was necessary to do so.”

“I dunno Sarge, I think we're pretty well stocked up on laws right now.

To answer your question.......NO!”

“Can you nail that down to a few more specifics?”

“It doesn’t mean that all religions are banned from any state contact. It means that all religions are welcome. It’s all inclusive, not exclusionary.

Why don’t liberals like freedom?”

“Why does Nigal ask stupid questions?”

“It's only stupid because it's true. In my younger years would ever see myself even having to ask such an outlandish question? No. But there we have it.”

“Treebird - Although I was referencing religion in a way as to not specify Christianity alone, here is a site that answers your question in pretty good detail.

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm

I would argue that more than Christianity and the 10 commandments has influenced our legal system though.”

“Hell, the 83rd Congress signed into law that the cornerstone of our country’s law is based upon the seven universal laws of God found in Genesis 9 and the Oral Torah. If anything we are a Jewish state.

It’s all window dressing though.”

“"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."”


So, is it wrong to call this separation of church and state? It seems to me that the idea is to keep government safe from religion and religion safe from government.”

“Phaedrus, it is separation of church and state in a narrow definition only in that government is not to establish a national religion. But, to say that it means government is not to have religion "in" it, is completely wrong. The constitution is designed to limit the abilities of the government - not to limit the ability of the people to 'define' our government. In other words, government cannot tell you who to pray to, but if "We the People" decide we want government to follow certain principles, that is not forbidden.”

“You're not playing fair, Pheadrus.”

“"......but if "We the People" decide we want government to follow certain principles, that is not forbidden."

Sure, as long as those "principles" don't violate "...keeping government safe from religion and religion safe from government."”

“I asked a guy I know who is definitely a Right leaning Christian, if it would be OK to take turns with various displays in a Court House, like the Bible one month and the Koran the next.

His response...."Of course not, were Americans, why would we promote Islam"”

“So, if we, the people decide by popular majority vote - say 70% to 30% - that Christianity is to be the de facto religion in the US, that's allowable then?

That sounds to me a lot like just what the first amendment is trying to avoid.”

“MarkO - Where did you get that from? "keeping safe"

mtnsteve - In greater context, I think if most Americans were Islamic we would be having this discussion re: Islam. But, since we're mostly Christian, we're having it re: Christianity. The point being we're based in Christianity, and we are mostly composed of Christians, so Christian principles would logically be the most prevelant in our government. If someday we became mostly Muslim, I would expect that to change. But, alas, we're not mostly Muslim. It also has to do with being a Democratic Republic. Through voting we can freely elect people to support our ideals. The downside to that is often the minority (non-Christians in this case) feel they're being unfairly represented and treated. That is to be expected. Unless we divide the country into an infinite amount of representative geographic boundaries, we're always going to have that problem.

Phaedrus - no body is trying to establish Christianity as the "de facto religion". What you are in affect doing is trying to mute the philosophical beliefs of the "people" in this democratic republic. Our government is not designed to be a neutral oversight. It's designed to be a republic where we elect people (and ideals) to represent us and rule us.
last edited: 3/03/05 9:45:36 AM”

“"His response...."Of course not, we're Americans, why would we promote Islam"

This dude is more than "leaning to the right".
He's on the loonie fringe.

There ya go!

That attitude is certainly un-American.

Sarge, we're to keep it safe from religious extremists of any brand, what else?

The Constitution is to protect any and all of us from tyranny of the majority, who ever they may be.
last edited: 3/03/05 9:50:01 AM”

“MarkO: "Sarge, we're to keep it safe from religious extremists of any brand, what else?

The Constitution is to protect any and all of us from tyranny of the majority, who ever they may be."

Please reword/clarify that first question.

What makes you think the constitution is to protect any ...??? Where do you get that from?”

“The constitution does not protect the government from religion. It was to protect the religion from the government.”

“Nigal - precisely. Nice summary.”

“Let's not make this an ad hominem (personal) attack thread.

That having been said, the ten coomandmants have nothing to do with law and everything to do with morality. In my opinion, government should not be in the business of enforcing morality. It should make laws that say, "If you do X, the punishment is Y.

The ten commandmants are about having no other gods before God, honoring your parents, not coveting your neighbor's ass (today that would be his SUV) or his wife etc. Is anyone saying that we should go back and criminalize adultery? We have much more important things to worry about.

Also, has anyone noticed that the only groups pushingfor display of the ten commandmants in courthouses and state houses are CHRISTIAN groups. They are attempting to have the government endorse a religious tenet. I think that whjen the founding fathers said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . " THAT is exactly what they meant.

What if some portion of the Koran laid out ten guidelines for living a good and honorable life? Would the same people be saying that be pushing to display THAT in the same way? What if it is the teachings of Buddha which also talks about honoring ones parents?

Those of you who think that it is OK to place the ten commandmants in courthouses and state houses, would you feel the same if you had been raised Buddhist or Muslim? Or would you feel the same if Buddhists or Muslims were demanding some other religious text be displayed?

Lastly for now, the majority rules, but only so long as it does not trample the rights of the few. After all, are the rights of the minority any less important than the rights of the majority? The Constitution and nine wise folks in D.C. don't think so.

That's my story and I am sticking to it. I could be wrong.”

“AJ - You seem to have not read the previous posts before you posted your views/questions. All of those things were already refuted/addressed.”

“So how does it help to protect my religion from the government by displaying the ten commandments in government buildings, espcially if my religion has nothing to do with the ten commandments?”

“Or does the first amendment only apply to those in the majority?
last edited: 3/03/05 10:31:23 AM”

“Phaedrus - Who said it was supposed to protect your religion from the government?

How does the seat belt laws help protect your religion from the government?

First amendment applies to everybody. No first amendment right is broken by allowing the majority to vote for specific moral representation.”

“Doesn't housing symbols of a specific religious sect in government buildings represent "respecting an establishment of religion"? Sure seems like it to me. No one is denying people the right to believe as they will by disallowing the public-funded enshrinement of such symbols.”

“Simple question for you Phaedrus.

If the founding fathers used the word "God" and "creator" in documents during our founding (ie - Declaration of Independence), and those same men wrote the first amendment, would it not reason that they did not interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" differently than you are choosing to?”

“Good grief - the 10 Commandments *are* undeniably a part of our laws' history. That's why it's on the Supreme Court fer crying out loud! It's not religious expression, it's historical expression! There's no valid reason to exclude it from courts and such. None.”

“We can digress into a discussion on the beliefs of the founding fathers (a rather diverse group, by the way), but it won't change the modern interpretations of the constitution. The interpretation has changed on various subjects drastically over the years, as it should have. Without said changes in interpretation, we would have no law against slavery, women would not have the right to vote, blah blah blah.

Should we allow the government to enshrine religious symbols in government buildings is really the issue at hand.”

“Phaedrus - So you are saying that we should not consider the constitution in the debate? Or, you're saying that we should re-interpret the constitution? Is that right?”

“Oryx - When someone can give me a good example of why our courts should enforce a law prohibiting coveting my neighbor's wife, I'll agree.”

“Sarge - the constitution should be interpreted by the supreme court. I believe there was an enormous outcry about the ruling that the ten commandments had to be removed from the Alabama courthouse, yes?”

“Show me legal statute or precedent setting case law that is based upon the ten commandmants. Our system of law is NOT based upon the ten commandmants.”

“Phaedrus - actually your last point raises another good point. Because there ISN'T a law such as that, that is further evidence that the government is not establishing a religion. What it is doing as allowing people to extract specific beliefs from their religion into the legal system. (ie - Thou shall not murder.) You helped make the point that there is nothing wrong with the 10 commandments in government. Thanks.”

“AJ- You did it again! Look at the link posted at 8:59:12 AM.”

“You're welcome, I guess. Respecting an establishment of religion is the key phrase open to interpretation, not establishing a religion. I enjoy a good equivocation fallacy as well as the next guy.”

“How is that open to interpretation? Sure, you can freely interpret how you want, but since we're civilized here, I think historical context is relevant. Don't you? Should we not put it into historical perspective? Is that your argument? A little research goes a long way here.

I just looked up "respecting" and "establishment" in the dictionary. I think their meanings are pretty clear.

Maybe you're using the "definition of 'is' is" argument?”

“I got a ticket the other day for changing my oil on the Sabbath.”

“It wasn't as bad as the time I was arrested for backtalking my parents.”

“quick question here. Do you think your tax dollars should go to a church based fund. Isn't Bush proposing your tax dollars to be used to promote marriage counseling thru church based programs?
last edited: 3/03/05 11:23:59 AM”

“sarge, this is not a new debate.

At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm”