NationStates Jolt Archive

The battle between the supporters of secularism and the Christians in the USA has produced an odd concept. Or at least odd to me.

The solicitor general, Ted Cruz, is quoted by the BBC as follows:
"The Ten Commandments are indisputably a historical document that has an important secular impact on the development of Western legal codes and Western civilisation, and under US law it is sensible to acknowledge that," Mr Cruz says.
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4310273.stm)


Now you can dispute the right of the government in a secular state to place religious value statements on public statues if you wish, but my question is another one. Are the ten commandments really a historical document? If so, in what sense?

The battle between the supporters of secularism and the Christians in the USA has produced an odd concept. Or at least odd to me.

The solicitor general, Ted Cruz, is quoted by the BBC as follows:

Now you can dispute the right of the government in a secular state to place religious value statements on public statues if you wish, but my question is another one. Are the ten commandments really a historical document? If so, in what sense?

If the Ten Commandments are a 'historical document'... then why not Hammurabi's Code of Laws, from which the Ten Commandments (and the bulk of Mosaic laws) were largely culled?

That's my argument... fine... place a Ten Commandments statue, and next to it, place the Babylonian original.

There is no evidence to indicate either that it is or is not an historical document. Therefore I must choose the latter, however, should evidence be shown that proves its historical accuracy, I shall change my opinion.

There is however, proof that it is very old. And so to say that it is very old, I shall vote 'Aye.'

If the Ten Commandments are a 'historical document'... then why not Hammurabi's Code of Laws, from which the Ten Commandments (and the bulk of Mosaic laws) were largely culled?

That's my argument... fine... place a Ten Commandments statue, and next to it, place the Babylonian original.

You stole my arggumentative idea.
But yea, it's the point that counts.

Everything is a historical document. Write a word on a piece of paper, leave it on the counter for the night, and come back to it tommorow. Bingo, you've made a historical document!

So yes, it is.
But what should be addressed is "Does it have any place as the major contributor when it's predecssors had a larger impact?"

Why not post the Twelve Tables, while we're at it?

If the Ten Commandments are a 'historical document'... then why not Hammurabi's Code of Laws, from which the Ten Commandments (and the bulk of Mosaic laws) were largely culled?

That's my argument... fine... place a Ten Commandments statue, and next to it, place the Babylonian original.

Even if you believe they were derived from the Code of Hammurabi, which I do not, they are still a historical document as would be the Code of Hammurabi. How, where and when they should be displayed in the context of the First Ammendment are clearly a matter of debate. But anyone arguing that they aren't a historic document is on a fools errend.

the 10 Commandments were just 2 tablets, the Bible Elaborates of the 10 Commandments, so the Bible is more of a historical document then just the Tablets.

As for Babylon... well i have no idea what their laws were, although i heard it lots of weird ones, like no eating onions on the second day or something.

But the 10 Commandments, i think only half are in our laws technically..

Bleh...don't remember the 10 Commandments anymore. =\

Everything is a historical document. Write a word on a piece of paper, leave it on the counter for the night, and come back to it tommorow. Bingo, you've made a historical document!

So yes, it is.


Adressing this first though. The bible is a historical document. I accept that. Now are the ten commandments themselves, in isolation from the bible a historical document. The implication is that the tablets really existed. This is what I am questioning.

But what should be addressed is "Does it have any place as the major contributor when it's predecssors had a larger impact?"


This may presume a little too much knowledge on the part of the public that will see the statue. What percentage of people know anything about Hammurabi's code, compared to the percentage that know something about the ten commandments? Here, in NS, as most people are interested in politics (they probably would not be playing NS if they were not) the majority will know of the code, but in general I think very few.
A larger impact, depends on how you define this. More direct effect on the world, Hammurabi wins. More direct effect on individual social behaviour, the ten commandments win.

Are the ten commandments really a historical document? If so, in what sense?

IMO - yes. There is definately some truth in the claim that the commandments of the Bible have had a deep impact and a lot of influence on western societies and law throughout history - and therefor they are historical. Just like laws approving slavery, laws stating woman are second rate citizens, and laws allowing animals to be emperor etc. are.

If such laws should be carved out in stone and placed in front of government or legal buildings is a matter for another debate. If this is allowed - I see no reason not. But I would like to see a small plague on it saying which commandments are still reflected in the legal system, and which aren't.

The question isn't whether or not the 10 Commandments are a historical document. As noted above, my grocery list is a historical document.

The question is whether as a historical document alone, without any of the hoodoo attached to them as the "word of God," they are of such supreme importance that they ought to be posted on public buildings.

Particularly since they've got about as much literal bearing on contemporary law as Hammurabi's Code. Don't kill, don't steal, alright, but hold on:

Thou shalt not covet? Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain? No graven images? Remember the Sabbath? No other Gods before me?

What do you do with those commandments? How are those of solely historical relevance to U.S. law?

There is only possible reason, i would not agree with posting the 10 commandments, and that's because the first Commandment, says to Obey your 1 G-d...and Atheists...well yeah.

Then again, i think it should be up to the community to decide if they want it in their Court House. Would be much easier.

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??

I seem to recollect that the nation was founded on the principle of practicing whatever faith you want. I guess I just had some silly, misinformed history profs.

Adressing this first though. The bible is a historical document. I accept that. Now are the ten commandments themselves, in isolation from the bible a historical document. The implication is that the tablets really existed. This is what I am questioning.

Well, I don't really care if they did or not as it's told. I.e. as tablets carved out by Moses. They have existed as a text for a few thousand years though, which I think would constitute a historical document.


This may presume a little too much knowledge on the part of the public that will see the statue. What percentage of people know anything about Hammurabi's code, compared to the percentage that know something about the ten commandments? Here, in NS, as most people are interested in politics (they probably would not be playing NS if they were not) the majority will know of the code, but in general I think very few.
A larger impact, depends on how you define this. More direct effect on the world, Hammurabi wins. More direct effect on individual social behaviour, the ten commandments win.

It doesn't matter to me what the majority of people looking at it will know. We have a statue of Winston Chirchill outside the public Library, yet not many people who go by it every day know who it is (Freind of mine did a poll for a project).
I'd find it more fitting to memorialise something that has had a more direct effect on the world, if you're gonna memorialise any historical documents.

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??


Because Atheism and Agnostism is a growing trend in America. :p

Obviously i don't care if it's there, and like i said, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If a community decides it doesn't want it in their courthouse, it shouldn't be there.

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??

Because, as John Adams put it in our treaty with Tripoli "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion." That was John Adams, a Deist with strong Christian tendencies. The United States was founded as a non-sectarian Union of 13 republics by a collection of Deists, Anglicans, and Catholics (many of each group were also Freemasons, which just shows what Freemasonry is really about- tolerance and freedom).

I seem to recollect that the nation was founded on the principle of practicing whatever faith you want. I guess I just had some silly, misinformed history profs.


That is pretty iffy thing, you can practice whatever faith you want, but it was still more or less based on plenty of Christian/biblical laws.

I think up until recently, all meat markets were to be closed on Fridays.

That is pretty iffy thing, you can practice whatever faith you want, but it was still more or less based on plenty of Christian/biblical laws.

I think up until recently, all meat markets were to be closed on Fridays.

I dunno where you're from, but 'round here all the meat markets stay open later on Friday. Many also offer dollar tequila shots.

That is pretty iffy thing, you can practice whatever faith you want, but it was still more or less based on plenty of Christian/biblical laws.

I think up until recently, all meat markets were to be closed on Fridays.

Actually, it was based more on the Enlightenment and natural law. The Christian or biblical laws are relics of the colonial past. Christianity itself is a relic of the medieval past.

I dunno where you're from, but 'round here all the meat markets stay open later on Friday. Many also offer dollar tequila shots.


The law was probably repealed 60 years ago...to me that's pretty recent for a country like the US...that's how i heard it from my College Professor anyways.

Then again, i do live in Canada, i guess i just assumed the same thing was in the US.

Because, as John Adams put it in our treaty with Tripoli "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion." That was John Adams, a Deist with strong Christian tendencies. The United States was founded as a non-sectarian Union of 13 republics by a collection of Deists, Anglicans, and Catholics (many of each group were also Freemasons, which just shows what Freemasonry is really about- tolerance and freedom).

Thomas Jefferson, I think.

Thomas Jefferson, I think.

I believe this was during the lame duck period of the Adams Administration.

Thomas Jefferson.

Who was an atheist.

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814


Source (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm)

I believe this was during the lame duck period of the Adams Administration.

Yeah, you're right. I think I'm just so used to people saying it's TJ that I've come to think that it really was him.

Do we actually know if these famed tablets were actually made? It could just have been a metaphor from where I'm standing. Do we have proof they existed at all? A text taken from another source than the bible that reference to them will do.

As long as it is not proven that they existed, I don't agree that they are historical documents.

Do we actually know if these famed tablets were actually made? It could just have been a metaphor from where I'm standing. Do we have proof they existed at all? A text taken from another source than the bible that reference to them will do.

As long as it is not proven that they existed, I don't agree that they are historical documents.

I for one do not care whether there were actual tablets or not. The commandments are a historical document because they are recorded in the Bible, another historical document. That's enough. The stela we found Hammurabi's code on probably ain't the original, but that don't matter.

Who was an atheist.




Source (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm)

That's great, but I was thinking that it was Jefferson who signed the Treaty of Tripoli, not John Adams. I was mistaken however. Jefferson's religious preference had nothing to do with it.

Who was an atheist.




Source (http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm)


I dunno wikipedia states he was more of a Deist then an Atheist..and i trust wiki more then a site that has the word "nobelief" in it's name.

How do we know the ten commandments were not written by a guy tripping out on natural hallucnagenics?

How do we know the ten commandments were not written by a guy tripping out on natural hallucnagenics?


Because they're coherent....

How do we know the ten commandments were not written by a guy tripping out on natural hallucnagenics?

How do we know any of our historical documents were not written by a guy tripping out on natural hallucinogens?

I for one do not care whether there were actual tablets or not. The commandments are a historical document because they are recorded in the Bible, another historical document. That's enough. The stela we found Hammurabi's code on probably ain't the original, but that don't matter.
So, in your opinion, the Necronomicon is an historical document because H.P. Lovecraft talked about it in his novel?

I'm trying to find out where the line between historical document and fiction is. The part about the 10 commandments can very well be a parable (sp?)

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man." I like this quote, which demonstrates Jefferson's Deistic hostility to religious tyranny.

When they find the tablets I will say that it is an historical document.

Until then, it is still just another of the myths of the old testament.

How do we know any of our historical documents were not written by a guy tripping out on natural hallucinogens?

How do we know that I'm not tripping out on natural hallucinogens?

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??

No it wasn't. Americans have a ridiculous idea that somehow their country was founded by a bunch of Born-Again Christians. It's stupid, America was founded on purely economic grounds. Anyway, if you want to take any ideaological basis for the US, it was founded on the ideas of Rousseau and other atheists like him. Just because your idealised Pilgrim Fathers were a bunch of protestant sectarians does not mean that the US was founded on those principals.

If your a person that is going to be intimidate and opressed by a mild refernce to a belife that may not be yours... KILL YOURSELF YOU SPINELESS BASTARD.

So, in your opinion, the Necronomicon is an historical document because H.P. Lovecraft talked about it in his novel?

I'm trying to find out where the line between historical document and fiction is. The part about the 10 commandments can very well be a parable (sp?)

No, because the Necronomicon is never repeated verbatim in Lovecraft. It does not exist as a text inside or outside of his stories except as a sort of plot device. The Ten Commandments are not a work of fiction because they are (allegedly) recorded directly. But even if they aren't, they are a code that people believe and obey. I return to the Code of Hammurabi: Does it fail the test as a historical document because we don't have the original, only a transcription of it on another stela?

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that these commandments were in any way shape or form actually handed down by God. Their origin can be totally fictional, but we've got a hard copy of the commandments, as a set of laws by which believers lived/live. That alone makes them a historical document.

When they find the tablets I will say that it is an historical document.

Until then, it is still just another of the myths of the old testament.

So myths aren't historical documents?

No it wasn't. Americans have a ridiculous idea that somehow their country was founded by a bunch of Born-Again Christians. It's stupid, America was founded on purely economic grounds. Anyway, if you want to take any ideaological basis for the US, it was founded on the ideas of Rousseau and other atheists like him. Just because your idealised Pilgrim Fathers were a bunch of protestant sectarians does not mean that the US was founded on those principals.


Have you not read the founding documents? Oh, and I hate to break it to you but the pilgrims were a bit dead by the time our founding fathers got around to writing them. Read some of the memuoirs. These ppl WERE moral guided by thier faith. Perhapse reading up on american history would be advaisable before posting something relating to it...

Then again, i think it should be up to the community to decide if they want it in their Court House. Would be much easier.
How many people have to dissent to get them removed?

Yes, I would say they are a historical document. The Bible is several thousand years old (depending on which part, as it is a compilation), and it has had a significant effect on our legal system. I have no problem with somebody erecting a monument to the ten commandments. I also have no problem with someone erecting a monument to Hammurabi or whatever else they choose. Disagree if you like, but at least I am consistent. :p And considering that the United States was founded partly on the idea that people should not be restricted in the expression of their religious beliefs, I definitely have a problem with people saying what someone can or cannot put on the wall of their personal office space, so long as it is not obscene. If someone wants to tack the religious laws that they choose to abide by above their corporate-property desk, it is not going to bankrupt the company.

Separation was designed to prevent the state from enacting an offical religion and out lawing the rest. That isnt occuring with the posting of the ten commandments and besides there are only four that are religion specific anyway and they cover the big 3. no better disspute these other 6.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's

as for the first 4:

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Who's me? It isnt stated. Could be no one if you wanna be an atheiest.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Again whats graven to you? It's all gravy to me.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
If you have none... your all set... forget this one

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Ok... um... just ignore this one if you want. most religious ppl do...

So myths aren't historical documents?

That is a good point. However, the 10 Commandments are only a portion of the myth, they are not proven to be an actual document. The story of Moses on Mt. Sanai (?) is a historical document, but the 10 Commandments are technically not.

An even better question, does it even matter?

Separation was designed to prevent the state from enacting an offical religion and out lawing the rest. That isnt occuring with the posting of the ten commandments and besides there are only four that are religion specific anyway and they cover the big 3. no better disspute these other 6.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's

as for the first 4:

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Who's me? It isnt stated. Could be no one if you wanna be an atheiest.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Again whats graven to you? It's all gravy to me.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
If you have none... your all set... forget this one

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Ok... um... just ignore this one if you want. most religious ppl do...

You get into the argument of "freedom to" vs. "freedom from." And in this case the first four commandments are real sticklers. Yes, folks should have freedom to practice whatever religion they like, but at the same time, they should have freedom from having another religion thrust upon them. If you're compelled to go to court under the banner "Thou shalt have no god before me," that's a real problem.

Don't get me wrong, the commandments and the bible as a whole are very important documents. But they ain't the universal trump card.

That is a good point. However, the 10 Commandments are only a portion of the myth, they are not proven to be an actual document. The story of Moses on Mt. Sanai (?) is a historical document, but the 10 Commandments are technically not.

An even better question, does it even matter?

That's where I'm at. I don't care if they're real or not, whether they were handed down on the mountain or found in a box of crackerjacks. They're an important (I'd say historical) document because so many people follow them. But without the religious baggage, there's no reason why they should be on a court or public monument while the Manga Carta should not.

Even if you believe they were derived from the Code of Hammurabi, which I do not, they are still a historical document as would be the Code of Hammurabi. How, where and when they should be displayed in the context of the First Ammendment are clearly a matter of debate. But anyone arguing that they aren't a historic document is on a fools errend.

You can only call it a historical document when you show that it existed. Having faith that it existed does not make it historically accurate.

The first ammendment is not involved here. You can display them in your house, on your car. You can display them with other symbols of Religion.

What goes wrong is when you say we are going to display the 10 commandments and nothing else can be displayed.....

I think that it would be more helpful and more technically correct to say that the Commandments are recorded in a historical document, i.e. the Bible. A commandment isn't a document. A document is a piece of paper/tablet of stone/etc with writing on. The commandments are the actual writing. The argument about whether the commandments are a document or not because the stones don't exist is missing the point. The Commandments quite clearly exist (whatever document they're now written on), are extremely old (and therefore unarguably 'historical') and have been directly very influential in shaping Western history and law. Far, far more so than Hammurabi's laws, from which they may have been themselves derived.

What Cruz meant by saying that this should be acknowledged I don't know, but I see no need to resort to them to tell you what values should be imposed through the constitution. If any values are imposed then they should be the values of society at large in the present day, not what the values of the founding fathers were. Of course, if American values are still based on religion, as they may well be, then those are the values that should be used now, but there's no need to look to history.

That's where I'm at. I don't care if they're real or not, whether they were handed down on the mountain or found in a box of crackerjacks. They're an important (I'd say historical) document because so many people follow them. But without the religious baggage, there's no reason why they should be on a court or public monument while the Manga Carta should not.

If you go to this little field, just to the East of Windsor next to the river Thames, in the county of Royal Berkshire in England. You will find what looks like a bandstand from the park. In this is a small monument with a copy of the Magna Carta.
OK. It is Runnymeade, it is the historical location of the signing of a real, physical historical document, which still exists today.

There would be no question or legal challenge to a copy of the Magna Carta being erected as a public statue as it is secular. The dispute about the ten commandments is to do with it being religious in nature, but that is being discussed in two other threads. I was just trying to establish if it made sense to describe the ten commandments as a document.

What Cruz meant by saying that this should be acknowledged I don't know

I assume he wants the statue to stay - and by saying it is not meant to be a religious symbol but a reference to history he hopes to circumvent the constitution. And as far as I'm concerned that is perfectly fine - provided the thing is clearly marked as being a reference to history and one places tributes to comparable historical documents near it.

That's where I'm at. I don't care if they're real or not, whether they were handed down on the mountain or found in a box of crackerjacks. They're an important (I'd say historical) document because so many people follow them. But without the religious baggage, there's no reason why they should be on a court or public monument while the Manga Carta should not.
That where we differ.
I will grant that they're important. I will accept that they're historical. I disagree that they are a document.

To me, the bible, or the manuscript where they are talked about are a document. The tablets (if non-existent) are not what I call a document. Now, if they were indeed real, then a document it is.

But in order to be called historical documents, they must exist in and of themselves and not be part of a greater story. You don't consider the 4th chapter of a book a document, you consider the whole book as the document. That's what I'm getting at.

I agree that it is a historical document, but what I'm saying (and this is a repeat of some of the stuff going on in the other thread) is that the only thing that privileges the Commandments over the Magna Carta or the Code of Hammurabi is that it purports to be the word of God. It has less to do with human law than the other two examples, and a big part of what it does legislate is that thou shalt be Christian. Therefore, yes it is important, yes it is historical, but no, it has less place on a court than either of the other documents.

You don't consider the 4th chapter of a book a document, you consider the whole book as the document.

Sorry, but I think you do. I mean, by this logic, if the National Archives were to burn down and the only copies of the Constitution remaining were reprints in high school history books, it would cease to be a document.

The passage of time is not gentle and a buncha buncha documents that we have exist only as Xeroxes of excerpts of translations of mimeographed fragments of monastic copywork.

It's sort of irrelevant if there is a God or a Hammurabi or a Supreme Court. Wherever these laws came from, a lot of people abide by them and that makes them part of the historical record.

That's where I'm at. I don't care if they're real or not, whether they were handed down on the mountain or found in a box of crackerjacks. They're an important (I'd say historical) document because so many people follow them. But without the religious baggage, there's no reason why they should be on a court or public monument while the Manga Carta should not.


Even more people follow the the five pillars of Islam. Your children should be forced to pray to Mecca every day; after all, if a lot of people think something is true, than it must be, hu? Dont worry though, we will claim that they are learning geography and it has nothing to do with religion.

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??

No - it wasn't.

It was founded, largely, on principles of ESCAPING from state religion(s) back in the mother countries.

Take it easy, homie. Way to pluck out one sentence and react inappropriately. My saying that the Ten Commandments are historically important is not the same as saying they represent the one true faith or that they belong on a courthouse. I'm not saying that a lot of followers makes a text true, just that it makes it historically relevant. Religion launched the Crusades. You don't have to believe in any faith to recognize that religion affects history and therefore religious documents are historically significant.

And this nonsense about compelling kids to pray to Mecca . . . They should no more be compelled to pray to Mecca than they should be compelled to say "under God" in their pledge of alliegance. But if they choose to pray to Allah or Vishnu or Christ or whoever, what business is it of the government to shove "Thou shall accept no gods before me" down their throats?

Even if you believe they were derived from the Code of Hammurabi, which I do not, they are still a historical document as would be the Code of Hammurabi. How, where and when they should be displayed in the context of the First Ammendment are clearly a matter of debate. But anyone arguing that they aren't a historic document is on a fools errend.

It's one of those too coincidental things.

We see archeological evidence that shows Mesopotamian people existing in the fertile crescent for thousands of years before the Hebrews arrived on the scene.

One of a chain of peoples to hold a large balance of the power, was the Babylonian 'empire'...

One of the KEY artifacts of the Babylonian empire that still exists today, is a Code of Laws, which was already extant when the Hebrew nomads began their 'sojourn' in Babylon. Hammurabi's Code of Laws is, coincidentally, actually LITERALLY carved in stone.

The Hebrews arrived in Babylon with no written religious tradition, and left with a written 'history', and accounts of a mythical set of laws, which had been carved in stone.

You can even go through Hammurabi's Laws, and the Mosaic Laws, and spot where most of the laws seem to have been taken directly from the earlier 'text'.

To me - since Hammurabi's Laws form the BASIS of the Hebrew laws, if ONE set is going to be displayed - it SHOULD be the Babylonian Laws.

Sorry, but I think you do. I mean, by this logic, if the National Archives were to burn down and the only copies of the Constitution remaining were reprints in high school history books, it would cease to be a document.
No because we know that it existed. We know it was written and a piece of document. What I'm asking is: do we know that to be true with the 10 commandments?

Before considering them a document, we should know if they were one at one point in history. I'm not asking for definitive scientific proof, just a reference in something other than the story of Moses on the Mount Sinai (sp?).

Take it easy, homie. Way to pluck out one sentence and react inappropriately. My saying that the Ten Commandments are historically important is not the same as saying they represent the one true faith or that they belong on a courthouse. I'm not saying that a lot of followers makes a text true, just that it makes it historically relevant. Religion launched the Crusades. You don't have to believe in any faith to recognize that religion affects history and therefore religious documents are historically significant.

And this nonsense about compelling kids to pray to Mecca . . . They should no more be compelled to pray to Mecca than they should be compelled to say "under God" in their pledge of alliegance. But if they choose to pray to Allah or Vishnu or Christ or whoever, what business is it of the government to shove "Thou shall accept no gods before me" down their throats?

I understand you now, but I dont really think that belief or followers make anything more historical.

To me - since Hammurabi's Laws form the BASIS of the Hebrew laws, if ONE set is going to be displayed - it SHOULD be the Babylonian Laws.

I would disagree. While the ten commandments, as they are in that form, have had a big direct influence on American law, Hammurabi's laws have only had an indirect influence through the commandments. The commandmenst are therefore more important to America, I would say.

It's a little like saying that you shouldn't display the constitution, but instead display the works of the original theorists on whose ideas it was based. But no one would seriously suggest that just because the constitution is a derivative document that it shouldn't be displayed as it is, because it has direct relevance.

I beg to differ. Hammurabi's code has a much more direct bearing on modern law than the Ten Commandments. Here's the link: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm.

It's really something. Hammurabi covers a lot more than "Don't kill, don't steal." We've got malpractice law in here, perjury, kidnapping, resale of stolen goods, management of debt. We've got sentencing guidelines set out. And oh yeah, innocent till proven guilty was first put forth in Hammurabi's code.

And there's none of that static about graven images to clutter things up.

I would disagree. While the ten commandments, as they are in that form, have had a big direct influence on American law, Hammurabi's laws have only had an indirect influence through the commandments. The commandmenst are therefore more important to America, I would say.

It's a little like saying that you shouldn't display the constitution, but instead display the works of the original theorists on whose ideas it was based. But no one would seriously suggest that just because the constitution is a derivative document that it shouldn't be displayed as it is, because it has direct relevance.

But there are documents since the ten Commandments were "published" that have had even more direct influence over American law. The Magna Carta springs to mind. Why not display the Magna Carta in lieu of the ten Commandments? The Magna Carta has had a much more direct effect on the laws of the United States than the ten Commandments has.

sorry got in on this rather late but didn't the ten commandments start getting displayed sometime around the 50's?

anyway, I say either take down teh ten commandments or put up all the other documents of our past that have had a bearing on the way civilization has evolved.

It's irritating to see people trying to make us a theocracy! STOP IT!

Did the 10 commandments have an effect on a budding America? Yes, because much of America as it was being settled had communities that were literal theocracies. You can't have a biblically based theocracy and not have the 10 commandments make an impact.

Were the 10 commandments literally real outside of the bible? I don't know. I've not ever heard of any evidence for it.

Should the 10 commandments be displayed on public property? Absolutely not. That's a group of theists trying to sneak their god into government and claim that they are integral to each other, but they are not. Their seperation is integral and The Constitution says that, TWICE. Isn't it interesting that the ONLY time religion is mentioned in The Constitution, it is refered to in an exclusionary manner?

The battle between the supporters of secularism and the Christians in the USA has produced an odd concept. Or at least odd to me.

The solicitor general, Ted Cruz, is quoted by the BBC as follows:


Now you can dispute the right of the government in a secular state to place religious value statements on public statues if you wish, but my question is another one. Are the ten commandments really a historical document? If so, in what sense?
Only in the proper context are they a historical document, which they never are

Did the 10 commandments have an effect on a budding America? Yes, because much of America as it was being settled had communities that were literal theocracies. You can't have a biblically based theocracy and not have the 10 commandments make an impact.


Well we really didn't follow them.

"Thou shall not kill"

Unless it is the savage red man.....

But let's not go tangent on this interesting discussion.....

Even if you believe they were derived from the Code of Hammurabi, which I do not, they are still a historical document as would be the Code of Hammurabi. How, where and when they should be displayed in the context of the First Ammendment are clearly a matter of debate. But anyone arguing that they aren't a historic document is on a fools errend.


But the truth is they have nothing to do with our legal code.

1)Thou shalt have no other gods before me. -- We can be any religion we want.

Thou shalt not make unto 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 water under the earth:-- We have TV, museums full of graven images, statues all over every major city in the country etc.

2)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.-- No one even knows what this one means. It does not mean saying "oh for Christ's sake!" it does not mean saying "God damn it!" it means that you're not supposed to say "Yaweh," (or Jahovah for the anglacized) in everyday conversation, only in prayer, that's why we call him God, it's not his name it's a euphamism. We have no laws against that.

3)Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.-- The Sabbath day is saturday, not Sunday.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:-- We generally do five, unless poverty compels us to do otherwise.

4) Honor thy mother and thy father.-- Every society since the dawn of time has had such a rule. It's how any pre-industrial government manages individuals, by using the family as the basic unit of population counting.

5)Thou shalt not kill-- Again, nothing uniquely Christian about it. Every state maintains an absolute monopoly on violence whatever its religion. And you know, I'm pretty sure we don't have a Federal law against murder.

6)Thou shalt not commit adultery-- All patrilineal societies, over 90% of all societies to ever have existed forbid adultery. This has nothing to do with religion, it's just men wanting to make sure that children who claim ownership of their patrimony are really entitled to it.

7)Thou Shalt not steal-- Again, one of those behaviors that every state maintains a monopoly on. Nothing to do with religion or Christianity in particular.

8)Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor-- Any society with a code of law does not want people lying to it. It's been a rule long before Christianity ever came around.

9)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife-- A key feature of patrilineal societies, just a rehashing of the adultery one, but it's one we pay no attention to. If we did then the movie industry would collapse as any married woman would be obliged to end her career and movies staring single women would have to be recalled when their starlets married.

10)Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods-- this would be the end of the American way of life if we paid it any heed. Coveting thy neighbor's goods is what drives our economy. Bob get's a BMW I have to get a Bentley. Bob get's another floor built onto his house, I have to move.

The 10 commandments HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR LEGAL CODE. NOTHING AT ALL.

That's a group of theists trying to sneak their god into government...

like a greased wienie.

anyway, I say either take down teh ten commandments or put up all the other documents of our past that have had a bearing on the way civilization has evolved.


OK, I am neither Christian nor American, but I think that this is a really silly way of looking at things. You can't possibly put up all the things that have influenced civilisation. Therefore by your logic you couldn't put up any.

I'm all for people putting up Magna Carta if that's what they want to put up. I'd personally do that over the 10 Commandments. However, I'd defend anyone's right to put up the 10 Commandments on a building, even if it's a public one, if that's what most of the people of that community want. It infringes on no one's freedoms that I can see. It is not an establishment of a religion by the state either. It's just a carving. Get over it.

OK, I am neither Christian nor American, but I think that this is a really silly way of looking at things. You can't possibly put up all the things that have influenced civilisation. Therefore by your logic you couldn't put up any.

I'm all for people putting up Magna Carta if that's what they want to put up. I'd personally do that over the 10 Commandments. However, I'd defend anyone's right to put up the 10 Commandments on a building, even if it's a public one, if that's what most of the people of that community want. It infringes on no one's freedoms that I can see. It is not an establishment of a religion by the state either. It's just a carving. Get over it.
The Constitution and this nation are not a "its jsut a whatever get over it" law system

OK, I am neither Christian nor American, but I think that this is a really silly way of looking at things. You can't possibly put up all the things that have influenced civilisation. Therefore by your logic you couldn't put up any.

I'm all for people putting up Magna Carta if that's what they want to put up. I'd personally do that over the 10 Commandments. However, I'd defend anyone's right to put up the 10 Commandments on a building, even if it's a public one, if that's what most of the people of that community want. It infringes on no one's freedoms that I can see. It is not an establishment of a religion by the state either. It's just a carving. Get over it.

You took his point to the extreame. His point was that if you do one you should be able to do any. In many cases that is the situation. We want the Christian symbols and nobodies elses.

A judge is supposed to evaluate the law; not apply his own code of morality against it.

How would a Hindu or a Buddist feel in a court room where in big bold letters,
"I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, YOU SHALL HAVE no other gods BEFORE ME."

Even now we are seeing situations were people refuse to do their job because their Religion forbids it(ie Druggists that will not dispense birth control to women).

There are judges that are already making false statements about the establishment clause. Scalia himself is on record saying that no Founding Father ever said seperation of church and state. Yet both Madison and Jefferson have said it.....

You can't possibly put up all the things that have influenced civilisation.


exactly

You took his point to the extreame. His point was that if you do one you should be able to do any. In many cases that is the situation. We want the Christian symbols and nobodies elses.

I agree that you should be able to do any. Including a Christian symbol if that's what people want. Again, I'm not a Christian myself but I do feel that people should be allowed to express it.

A judge is supposed to evaluate the law; not apply his own code of morality against it.

I entirely agree. I don't think that a judge would change his decision on the basis of something up on the wall. Judges don't do that much, outside of the political ferment of the Supreme Courts. If a judge is keen on the idea of the carvings then he holds those Christian values in any case and, if values are applied, he will apply them irrespective of carvings.

How would a Hindu or a Buddist feel in a court room where in big bold letters,
"I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, YOU SHALL HAVE no other gods BEFORE ME."

So long as the court is following the law then it shouldn't matter in the slightest bit.

Even now we are seeing situations were people refuse to do their job because their Religion forbids it(ie Druggists that will not dispense birth control to women).

I see that as an entirely seperate issue. This is something practical and real, whereas a carving is a mere symbol.

There are judges that are already making false statements about the establishment clause. Scalia himself is on record saying that no Founding Father ever said seperation of church and state. Yet both Madison and Jefferson have said it.....

Ditto - a separate issue. Also, the level of seperation of church and state should be that defined in the constitution, or other law if such laws were passed. What founding fathers may have said at some point shouldn't really have any bearing on the issue.

So long as the court is following the law then it shouldn't matter in the slightest bit.

How is a non-christian supposed to believe they are recieving a fair hearing (as promised in The Constitution) if they are staring at a stone monument that says "I the lord they god, thou shalt have no strange gods before me"?

When Michael Newdow had his first "under god" case in California, it was dismissed. Why? Because EVERYONE in the courtroom (the judge, baliff, the state defense attorney, and every member of the jury) had a spot of ash on their forehead. If it wasn't Ash Wednesday, he wouldn't have known that the trial would have been biased and gotten a move to have the case moved to another court.

Why should non-christians be put into the position of being treated as second class citizens in the legal system? If they want to put up the 10 commandments, fine, but they HAVE to allow other religious and legal displays. They have to allow a Wiccan Rede monument, a Sharia monument, 11 Satanic Points monument, etc. Yet they will not allow it, because they want ONLY judeo-christian displays and no other. It is a thinly veiled attempt to insert god into government and make America a truly christian nation.

Separation was designed to prevent the state from enacting an offical religion and out lawing the rest. That isnt occuring with the posting of the ten commandments and besides there are only four that are religion specific anyway and they cover the big 3. no better disspute these other 6.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's

as for the first 4:

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Who's me? It isnt stated. Could be no one if you wanna be an atheiest.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Again whats graven to you? It's all gravy to me.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
If you have none... your all set... forget this one

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Ok... um... just ignore this one if you want. most religious ppl do...

1. The commandments you are leaving in are all secular in nature.
2. Why allow the 10 commandments and not other religious monuments? Yet, other religious/legal monuments are not allowed to be displayed. Seems a bit one sided to me.
3. Read the Treaty of Tripoli. It specifically states that "Since the American government is in no way founded upon the christian religion ..." This document was written in 1796 and ratified in 1797 unanimously. That means that ALL the founding fathers agreed on the treaty and the points it makes.
4. The 10 commandments aren't really the 10 commandments if you have to leave out almost half of them.

If you go to this little field, just to the East of Windsor next to the river Thames, in the county of Royal Berkshire in England. You will find what looks like a bandstand from the park. In this is a small monument with a copy of the Magna Carta.
OK. It is Runnymeade, it is the historical location of the signing of a real, physical historical document, which still exists today.

There would be no question or legal challenge to a copy of the Magna Carta being erected as a public statue as it is secular. The dispute about the ten commandments is to do with it being religious in nature, but that is being discussed in two other threads. I was just trying to establish if it made sense to describe the ten commandments as a document.

To me, personally... creating a 'monument' to the commandments, actually BREAKS one of them - since it creates a graven image for people to marvel at.

But, I think the important thing here is, the Commandments MIGHT be an historic document... should they ever turn up.

ALL we have, is a second hand account... someone telling us a story ABOUT the commandments... which makes them only as 'real' and 'historic' as one of the bunnies from "Watership Down"...

I would disagree. While the ten commandments, as they are in that form, have had a big direct influence on American law, Hammurabi's laws have only had an indirect influence through the commandments. The commandmenst are therefore more important to America, I would say.

It's a little like saying that you shouldn't display the constitution, but instead display the works of the original theorists on whose ideas it was based. But no one would seriously suggest that just because the constitution is a derivative document that it shouldn't be displayed as it is, because it has direct relevance.

In what way have the 10 commandments had 'direct influence' on American Law?

As I see it, only in the minds of the Christian...

Most of US law comes from European Law, specifically... most of it comes from English Law.

So - where are the statues of the Magna Carta?

But, let's keep tracing that religion thing... you know what... it becomes irrelevent, since there were ALREADY 'ownership' laws, and 'murder' laws, etc. in England BEFORE the advent of Christianity, or the spread of Judaism. In fact, it could be argued that the Greek and Roman models form the basis of that aspect of western culture - as they do for MOST aspects of western culture.

Yet, nobody is talking about monuments to the great institutions of Roman Law, from which our entire legal system descends... and why not?

To my mind... the whole 10 commandments thing is ALL ABOUT religious propoganda. And, THAT is why it should be guarded against.

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??


<pulls out his copy of the Consitution of the United States of America> Nope, no reference to Christianity or to any god. Try again.

well all of yall make good points. but what i dont get is this nation was founded on a christian bases so why are we trying to for get that??

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, ARTICLE 11.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, ..."