Ohio judge can't post Ten Commandments in courtroom

[§outh§tar]

The ten commandments say thou shalt not kill, but if we followed that, then we could not defend ourselves in time of war. Jesus said to turn the other cheek, but when was the last time we did that as a country? Obviously, our laws have evolved beyond Judeo-Christian principles, and we need to keep moving forward, not back, we need to adapt to changing times, not inhibit progress.

As a point of reference, the ten commandments/Jesus never encouraged war in the first place. War has never profited the country. If you say it has, then it is a reflection of your moral character, sadly enough.

So the laws "evolving" in order not to "inhibit progress", (BY YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE), have bypassed the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in order to war.

Wow, what a reflection of moral character!

In Christ,

 

[Mystech]

War has never profited the country. If you say it has, then it is a reflection of your moral character, sadly enough.

Haha, right, war has never done this country any good! Is that a knock against Texas? Haha, If no one in America was ever benefiting from war then the world would be a much different place, smaller, poorer, and likely less influential in the world. If you think that Christianity (well Catholicism specifically) has benefited from war either then you're just fooling yourself.

Also I think it's worth mentioning that Christian values have very little to do with anything that Jesus ever did. People seem to forget very easily that Jesus was a liberal Jew.

 

[§outh§tar]

Haha, right, war has never done this country any good! Is that a knock against Texas? Haha, If no one in America was ever benefiting from war then the world would be a much different place, smaller, poorer, and likely less influential in the world. If you think that Christianity (well Catholicism specifically) has benefited from war either then you're just fooling yourself.

Wow, you are trying to change what I said. I meant are the people so superficial that any temporal gains would outweigh the loss of life and wanton destruction? Regardless of whether it's Americans or 12th century crusaders. I don't even see what your point is for that matter.

Also I think it's worth mentioning that Christian values have very little to do with anything that Jesus ever did. People seem to forget very easily that Jesus was a liberal Jew.

Wow, you are blaspheming the Man who assured his disciples that He came to establish the law. I suggest you at least do your research.

 

[Raithere]

What your asking is to judge the intentions that the judge had upon posting the Ten Commandments.

Not at all, the judge's intent is pretty much irrelevant. I just find it obvious.

For sake of the point if the judge truly wanted to display items of historical significance he might have posted other documents that have far more significance relating to the Constitution and US Law. He might even have posted a bunch of documents and included the 10 Commandments as one example of many. This would support his claim that his display was historical rather than religious. If he had done so I would even defend the posting of the 10 Commandments (as part of a larger display) in consideration of its historical significance. I have no desire to see religious materials stripped down merely because they are religious. What I take exception to, and what is specifically rejected in the Constitution, is special consideration being given to any particular religion.

That he chose only to post the 10 Commandments and then excuse it by saying it is a Historical display is just... well, stupid and obvious.

Many of these courts have statues of the greek goddess of justice. Hence, we cannot really determine the intentions of what the Judge meant by the posting, some culture may have believed it to have religious value.

You don't honestly expect us to equate Themis as the origin of the symbolic figure of Justice with the posting of religious doctrine; do you?

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

And isn't the Ten Commandments a "figure of justice" as well?

 

[Raithere]

And isn't the Ten Commandments a "figure of justice" as well?

You're ignoring the important part, "symbolic". The image of justice as a blindfolded woman with scales is representative of the idea of justice. It does not embody any religious doctrine regardless of its origin. If the image of the 10 Commandments were similarly reduced to a symbolic representation of law. For instance, stone tablets without any real writing on them I could agree with you. As it is, it is simply religious doctrine.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

The ten commandments are also symbolic of law and order under the old covenant as opposed to the New Testament under Jesus. I was quite aware of this when I wrote that.

 

[philocrazy]

anything to get his/her post count up

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[§outh§tar]

that one got you to number 40. you've almost caught up to me..

 

[spidergoat]

As a point of reference, the ten commandments/Jesus never encouraged war in the first place. War has never profited the country. If you say it has, then it is a reflection of your moral character, sadly enough.
So the laws "evolving" in order not to "inhibit progress", (BY YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE), have bypassed the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in order to war.
Wow, what a reflection of moral character!
In Christ,

War fought for profit alone would indeed be immoral, but some issues are so important for people and negotiation so impossible, that war is the inevitable outcome. Look at the Civil War, for instance. Without it, the country would be divided, the south still employing slaves (for profit motives). It would not be the United States we now know. Look at WWII, if we didn't fight there, you would be saluting the führer today, if you were lucky enough to avoid the slave labor and extermination camps.

You say war has never profited the country, and I would suggest that the ability to wage war is what makes the state possible. So "thou shall not kill" is contrary to the idea of the state. Posting the ten commandments in a courtroom is an inherent contradiction (especially when the death penalty is available).

I'm sure you're aware of all the wars fought for religious reasons at the time when the church was powerful.

So the laws "evolving" in order not to "inhibit progress", (BY YOUR VERY OWN EXAMPLE), have bypassed the "thou shalt not kill" commandment in order to war.

Give me an example of a country which ever prohibited war!

Sorry if I'm repeating this idea, but America is now a more diverse place in terms of religion, we should not be encouraging any particular religion in a courtroom.

 

[§outh§tar]

War fought for profit alone would indeed be immoral, but some issues are so important for people and negotiation so impossible, that war is the inevitable outcome. Look at the Civil War, for instance. Without it, the country would be divided, the south still employing slaves (for profit motives). It would not be the United States we now know. Look at WWII, if we didn't fight there, you would be saluting the führer today, if you were lucky enough to avoid the slave labor and extermination camps.

All evidence from this paragraph points to my interpretation that you are indeed approving WWII and the Civil War, spitting in the faces of the people who lost their lives. And also saying that if the US hadn't entered the War, there would still be a fuhrer today.. That statement alone points to just how much you approve wartime actions of the United States, especially in the conflicts you mentioned.

You say war has never profited the country, and I would suggest that the ability to wage war is what makes the state possible. So "thou shall not kill" is contrary to the idea of the state. Posting the ten commandments in a courtroom is an inherent contradiction (especially when the death penalty is available).

I'm sure you're aware of all the wars fought for religious reasons at the time when the church was powerful.

Give me an example of a country which ever prohibited war!

Sorry if I'm repeating this idea, but America is now a more diverse place in terms of religion, we should not be encouraging any particular religion in a courtroom.

I never said we should encourage any particular religion. That would not even be in the best interests of the religion being upheld, considering uprisings and consequent bitterness (already evident from the tone of response in this thread). That being said, I was only addressing the comments you made about the ten commandments.

I also never declared that any country "prohibited" war. But I do remember a thing called neutrality. I used your very own words, "inhibit progress", to point out a hypocrisy.

 

[spidergoat]

All evidence from this paragraph points to my interpretation that you are indeed approving WWII and the Civil War, spitting in the faces of the people who lost their lives. And also saying that if the US hadn't entered the War, there would still be a fuhrer today.. That statement alone points to just how much you approve wartime actions of the United States, especially in the conflicts you mentioned.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, it is very sad that people died in those wars, but simply avoiding war entirely invites tyranny. The Tibetans avoided war, and were tortured and massacred for it, their culture and nation all but destroyed. I think war should be avoided wherever possible.

I also never declared that any country "prohibited" war. But I do remember a thing called neutrality. I used your very own words, "inhibit progress", to point out a hypocrisy.

Well, war is killing, and the ten commandments prohibit killing, so wouldn't it be hypocracy to post the ten commandments in a government office?...a government that would not even exist if we hadn't been willing to kill a few British soldiers?

Law not evolving will inhibit progress, but the existence of war has nothing to do with our laws, it is what happens when one side doesn't recognize the authority of another's laws.

Inaction, or neutrality doesn't make peace, the threat of war makes peace. Even a series of minor wars can be better than a long peace, and the consequent build up of tensions, which eventually explode.

 

[spidergoat]

Should we do what is right, or do what the law says?

You should do what you feel is right, even if the law disagrees. The operative word here is feel, since, in my opinion, there is no absolute measure of right and wrong.

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, it is very sad that people died in those wars, but simply avoiding war entirely invites tyranny. The Tibetans avoided war, and were tortured and massacred for it, their culture and nation all but destroyed. I think war should be avoided wherever possible.

Well I suspect this is then a matter of personal beliefs. I believe in turning the other cheek, and giving your enemy a coat when he is cold. Not hitting him back just because he hits you first. Let him hit you 70*7 times, after all, we have also been forgiven.

Well, war is killing, and the ten commandments prohibit killing, so wouldn't it be hypocracy to post the ten commandments in a government office?...a government that would not even exist if we hadn't been willing to kill a few British soldiers?

Law not evolving will inhibit progress, but the existence of war has nothing to do with our laws, it is what happens when one side doesn't recognize the authority of another's laws.

Inaction, or neutrality doesn't make peace, the threat of war makes peace. Even a series of minor wars can be better than a long peace, and the consequent build up of tensions, which eventually explode.

As I pointed out above, not reacting does make peace. I see you say "a series of minor wars can be better than a long peace". Assuredly, it is easier to say this when you are not actually in the war, experiencing it for yourself. Gnashing your teeth as you watch the stump where your leg used to be, when that is happening, I am sure you will tell me that it is only a "minor" war.

 

[spidergoat]

You are ignoring a basic fact of war, which is that, for many, it is the most exciting, honorable, thrilling, and rewarding experience there is.

Anyway, I also believe in turning the other cheek. This means that you don't fight for revenge which is only an indulgence of ego. This seems to be a Christian value that not only is unpopular among Christians, but does not exist in this "Judeo-Christian nation" as a national policy.

 

[§outh§tar]

You are ignoring a basic fact of war, which is that, for many, it is the most exciting, honorable, thrilling, and rewarding experience there is.

Like I said, it is a shameful reflection of moral character. I never knew maiming brother's could be "the most exciting, honorable, thrilling, and rewarding experience there is.", or maybe killing someone's father, mother, brother, son. I never knew that this enjoyment is the "basic fact of war"

Anyway, I also believe in turning the other cheek. This means that you don't fight for revenge which is only an indulgence of ego. This seems to be a Christian value that not only is unpopular among Christians, but does not exist in this "Judeo-Christian nation" as a national policy.[/QUOTE]

I assure you, America is far from being considered a Jewish nation. No one expects America to cease her infamous self-prostitution to glorify herself.

But then again we must remember how Americans expected terrorists to turn the other cheek when countrymen were raped by Americans.

 

[laughing weasel]

I think those pacifists are a good sign of a healthy society. I also believe that they are naive like children and am willing to go out of my way to protect both from the fact that in the real world if you are a pacifist then your tribe gets conquered and enslaved until you are able to get mean and irrational enough to win your freedom or America comes along and delivers it to you. I would not count on a rescue though ask the Rwandans about American intervention politics. Freedom comes at a steep price and has to be defended. There can be arguments about weather it is right to interfere in another countries politics but I hope we can all agree that it is better to be free than to be slaves to a dictator. Turning the other cheek sometimes only invites aggression look at what all the giving in to Hitler accomplished.

 

[Watcher]

If it has not and never has been a Christian nation, then what is it? Atheist? Agnostic? (SouthStar)

It is a nation of laws, established to ensure justice for the citizens, of course. I'm sure this has been stated a thousand times in this thread. There's really no argument to support the idea of a Christian nation. It's just a convenient argument of the theocratic fascists, nothing more.

As far as the judge in Cincinnati, I am VERY happy and pleased to read about this ruling in a part of the US that has long been a backwater of bigotry. Wonderful!

Remember, this is a city that has for years allowed the Klu Klux Klan to erect their cross on the city square at Christmas. Because, after all, they are celebrating their Christian tradition. It's about time that a judge had the balls to put a stop to this flagrant perversion of our system of justice.

 

[surenderer]

Well I will be honest I just saw this thread and didint feel like reading through 5 pages of posts so forgive me if this has allready been said but i wonder how people would feel if along with the 10 commandments being posted the goverment would also post the PUNISHMENTS for breaking those commandments(stoning etc.....) kinda hypocritical not to dont you think? ....peace

 

[robtex]

Religion has absolutely no place in American government

Really hard to seperate the two. For most gnostics people religion is a way of life and not seperatable from other aspects of their lives. But it is important to see the dire implications of bringing a higher power into the courtroom as a 2nd judge, which is what you do when you allocate religion a say in law. When thinking out the impact of religion on the judical system it is important to see it through forgein eyes.

Imagine you were going to court, say for something simple like fighting a speeding ticket and instead of the 10 commandments being posted Islamic law was instead posted. Or Wiccian law?

Really the 10 commandments as presented in the Bible are very black and white but the judicial system is not. Also punishments for infractions are not included in the 10 commandments but are intrepreted later in the Bible in various places. This brings up a dilima when evaluating the 10 commands importance in the courtroom. The 10 commandments are an incomplete list. That list alone cannot be used to navigate a legal system due to over simplicity and lack of comprehensive structure.

So than what does the 10 commandments bring to the courtoom that was not already there? I content the answer is nothing. It brings no worth at all none, zilch.

Everything inclusive in the current American ( I can only speak for my own country knowledgably) is comprhensive enough to create a legal system that is workable for our society. Adding the 10 commandments does not add any value what so ever to it.

That being the case and the fact that Christanity is not the only religion in this country it can create an unfavorable atmosphere for a non-christian while adding nothing of value to the judical process. Giving the Christian moral reforcement is not a valid reason or resonalbe trade-off to include the commandments in a courtroom.

God can never be removed from a courtroom in spirt as long as gnosims exists and is tied to morality (just as the legal system is) but keeping non-flexible imcomplete religious moral lists out can make it a more legally impartail enviroment in the courts of America.