Kingbee said:

those who call for displaying the 10 commandments on publicly owned property or on the walls of publicly owned facilities are too quick to dismiss the significant problems resulting from ignoring the wisdom of separating church from state.

But he omits any argument linking the display of the Ten Commandments with "significant problems" of any kind.

Instead, he presents a very well-formatted table showing how different readers have chosen to break up the original text into "verses". Never mind that the verse breaks are totally irrelevant to the content of the text, which is what we're discussing here.

Kingbee finally gets interesting when he brings up different versions of the content itself. But even then, he fails to address my central question: Are there any of the Ten Commandments we wouldn't want to display and promote? Any particular reason why we'd want a commandment that protects the wife, but not a commandment that protects the house? Or vice-versa? Wouldn't either one be a positive message to the community?

He does raise the problem posed by the King James Version's strictures against "graven images", which is kind of interesting. I don't know the full details and context of that passage in the KJV, but couldn't it be read as a command to not worship false idols, but rather true gods (which would link it directly with the other Commandments on the same theme of knowing what you believe, and being true to it)?

Anyway, all the Constitution says is that Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion. It seems to me that if a Judge decides to erect the Decalogue in his courthouse, or a local community elects to use their public land for a religious symbol, it's their liberty and prerogative to do so. But that's just me.

Does anybody happen to know which version of the Decalogue is most common in courthouses these days?

latour999 is trolling, but brings up an interesting point.

As it turns out, the two of us agree that the Commandments themselves are good, but that humanity's flawed application of them (and often rejection of them) has led to immense suffering.

But why do I get the strong impression that latour would try to solve this problem by removing the true wisdom of the Commandments from our public life altogether? Isn't that a bit like saying that since murderers don't obey our laws against murder, we should strike down those laws to solve the murder problem? After all, both are cases of collective hypocrisy: we know as a community what is right and what is wrong, and yet we have members of our community who do wrong anyway.

Humanity cannot perfectly obey the perfect rules that guide us to our highest ideals. But that doesn't mean we should reject those rules, or pretend they don't exist.

Hmm...you're absolutely right, what kind of monster would be offended by their government endorsing that they worship "the one and only true god"?

You're lucky I'm liberal though, that makes me tolerant of your beliefs. You should reciprocate my good will by equally endorsing the ten commandments of my religion:

Thou shalt endorse abortion at every opportunity, hang around family planning clinics and harras people who aren't there for an abortion.
Thou shalt drink beer on the sixth day.
Thou shalt be open minded, and not try to tyranize over things that don't affect you, such as gay marriage (that is unless you're gay, then it does affect you).
Thou shalt steal when nobody's looking (it's ok).
Thou shalt become a user of the heroin, it's the blood of god.
Thou shalt keep an ace up thine sleeve, especially at poker games.
Thou shalt listen to death metal and sacrifice babies to satan at every opportunity.
Thou shalt send AJ all thy money.
Thou shalt be a pimp.
Thou shalt not go around trying to push thy stupid superstitions on intelligent people.

I can't enforce that you do by law of course, just as you can't enforce that I don't worship other gods or commit adultery, but that's life. The one about sending me your money though, if you're a real christian, you have to do it now, otherwise Jesus will send you to hell to be subjected to mind bending agony for all eternity. Don't believe me? Try reading your bible. Email me and I'll give you an address to send the money to, then if there's enough, I can use it to buy a plane ticket, come down there and bitchslap you twice, once when I see you, and then when you turn the other cheek as well as your god demands you do (you don't want to go to hell now, do you?), I'll bitchslap you again. I love christianity, it has such ridiculous rules, and if you don't follow them, then your own holy book says that you're going to hell.

AJCrowley makes some interesting points:

Hmm...you're absolutely right, what kind of monster would be offended by their government endorsing that they worship "the one and only true god"?

AJ, the Judeo-Christian God commands Judeo-Christian believers to be true to the God they claim to believe in. It's a commandment against hypocrisy and towards a more honest and committed relationship to one's highest ideals.

Surely your own ideals require the same steadfast dedication from you, neh? Read the Commandment in that spirit, and stop pretending everybody who disagrees with you is out to hate and oppress you.

Also, I find it very interesting (and not a little bit hilarious) that you can't come up with any reason why the actual Decalogue(s) would be offensive to civilized society. Instead, you must make up totally ludicrous and obviously stupid commandments, so you can make fun of those, instead.

You're right, I myself could not possibly be offended by the ten commandments of christianity, unless my government made a point of pimping them, breaking the secularity of government that most of us truly value. I'm not out to make fun of those who believe in the rules of christianity, ridiculous as they are to most level headed people. Please, try reading the bible, it's one of the stupidest and most evil books ever written, along with many other religious texts. I'm not a christian, but most of the christians that I know (all one of them ) dismiss the bible as outdated drivel, and don't feel they need a book put together by men to be true to their faith. I may, however be out to poke fun at those that would imply that anyone that doesn't want to worship their god are "monsters", hilarious.

AJ,

I know hundreds of Christians, and none of them dismiss the Bible as outdated drivel. Does that mean I win the argument?

In other news, I'm not calling you a monster for not being true to the Christian God. I'm calling you a monster for not seeing the value being true to your own God (or Fundamental Principle, or whatever your highest ideal happens to be). Unless, of course, you do see the value of being true to your beliefs, in which case I'm not calling you a monster at all.

So which is it? Do you take your values seriously, and urge the same commitment in your neighbors, or do you consider all values, even your own, more or less irrelevant, and not worth pursuing?

Or are you just cranky because the God of the Israelites told them to worship Him, instead of worshipping you?

Of course I take my values seriously, it's just that my values don't always coincide with those of the increasingly right wing American Christian mainstream. I don't like their pushiness, I don't like their exclusiveness, and I don't like them getting their beliefs (often beliefs that contradict the bible) made into legislation that others have to follow. I believe in allowing people to do whatever they please, as long as it is not harmful or hurtful to anybody else (within reason, no walking down the street naked please).

I'm not a religious person in the sense of the word that you probably are, but I think that there's very few people in this world who truly have evil intentions and values. Also, just on the issue of Christians and the bible, I'd wager that's because none of those Christians have bothered to read the bible, or they believe that someone should be stoned to death for wearing cotton-polyester blend fabric, or trying to grow more than one crop in the same field, which I would find more than a little scary, you thought the Islamic extermists were intolerant....

Wow, dude.

The Christians you know (all one of them) have it all figured out, but the Christians I know (hundreds of them) are all stupid and wrong?

That every thoughtful analysis of Christianity from Paul to Augustine to Chesterton to Lewis to Schaeffer to Guinness to Stott was produced by someone who didn't actually read the Bible?

That (you imply) clever atheists have figured out all the problems with Christianity, but in two thousand years no one Christian has ever been clever enough to address and refute the atheist's claims and interpetations?

That Christian extremists are more intolerant than Islamic extremists? You go with that, dude. Wake me up when those right-wing fundamentalists make the leap from "isolated nutjob kills an abortion doctor" to "suicide bombing".

But you have tired me out, man. I need a break. Feel free to have the last word on this thread. I think you've probably earned it.

You're lucky I'm liberal though, that makes me tolerant of your beliefs.

I don't know. Calling oneself liberal doesn't automatically make one tolerant. I've seen plenty of liberals who are pretty intolerant of other people's beliefs. Tolerance is not exclusive to conservatives or liberals!

I don't like their exclusiveness,

All religions are exclusive, of course....you have to believe in that particular deity or mode of worship to join.

AJC, does it really bother you to walk into a place and see a cross, or a copy of the Ten Commandements? Do you attend weddings and funerals?
Do you sit there, utterly secure in your total intellectual superiority, and roll your eyes as the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, drooling village idiot who somehow made it through years of intense seminary training in science, writing, psychology, literature, theology and Greek, Latin and Hebrew reels off the same old schtick? If so, why?

You hate religious people? Your intolerance is showing, lefty; ought to be ashamed.

But he omits any argument linking the display of the Ten Commandments with "significant problems" of any kind

i made the argument; you chose to ignore it or perhaps you didn't read it at all.

there are several versions of the 10 commandments, each of which is believed by its proponents to be more valid than the others. unless you're planning to display all of them, you're asking the state to endorse one over the rest (as well as endorsing judasim/christianity over other faiths).

he fails to address my central question: Are there any of the Ten Commandments we wouldn't want to display and promote? Any particular reason why we'd want a commandment that protects the wife, but not a commandment that protects the house? Or vice-versa? Wouldn't either one be a positive message to the community?

there are an untold number of positive messages available to be expressed by the state which don't carry with them the appearance of government favoring one religious belief over another--which is exactly the reason not to display or promote any proprietary sectarian tenet.  

I know what that means too! What's funny is that I have sources for what I claim. Ever since we started this debate, you have not provided one single source that suggests that Annuit Coeptis or the all-seeing eye means otherwise. Why is that?

you believe you know what it means.  in fact what you know--since like those you presumptively dismiss because 'they don't know any Latin' , you've agreed you don't know any latin yourself--is what someone else with some knowledge of latin has led you to think it means.  whenever two or more words are involved--one of which has more than a single absolute definition--you can forget about any exact translation (or, for that matter, two people who both are native speakers of a single language agreeing as to the meaning of those two words when combined and left untranslated).

what's much more aggravating than funny is this: if you're able to locate the thread in which you claimed there could only be one exact interpretaion of annuit coeptis and novus ordo seclorum, you'll find my reluctance to agree with you was based not on 'my encyclopedia is more valid than yours' nonsense but on what i still retain of my continually fading vestigial memories of first and second year latin. 

you believe you know what it means.

And you have given me no reason to believe otherwise. All you have given me is:
1) Not one source to back up one claim you have made since this whole debate began, whether it was about the all-seeing eye or "Annuit coeptis."

2) A common Latin saying that even the most illiterate person could find on the Internet. I haven't taken French for awhile, but even I could still write things in French that aren't just common sayings, such as: "J'aime baisser les femmes, mais pas de grosses femmes." Try to Google that!

in fact what you know--since like those you presumptively dismiss because 'they don't know any Latin' , you've agreed you don't know any latin yourself--is what someone else with some knowledge of latin has led you to think it means.

Something tells me to have more faith in what they say than what you say, since I doubt they would be so reluctant to share the "real" translation of things as well as something to back up what they say.

what's much more aggravating than funny is this: if you're able to locate the thread in which you claimed there could only be one exact interpretaion of annuit coeptis and novus ordo seclorum, you'll find my reluctance to agree with you was based not on 'my encyclopedia is more valid than yours' nonsense but on what i still retain of my continually fading vestigial memories of first and second year latin.

I never did say "My encyclopedia is more valid than yours" because you never provided an outside source to back up your claim. Anybody can say things. In fact, I'll do so now: God in the Ten Commandments in government buildings refers to George Washington. I have nothing to back this up, except conspiracy theories about Freemasons, so therefore, it's on the same level as everything you've said.

It's funny (and aggravating) just how resistant you are to backing up even your most insignificant claim. And yet, I have a feeling that when somebody uses circular logic or hearsay against you, you won't be as lenient as you are on yourself. Intellectual laziness?

furthermore, doesnt the sorta massive sculpture commissioned and installed outside the alabama state supreme court building by one of its former justices violate the very emphatic prohibition expressed in the king james version of the decalogue: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth below, or that is in the water under the Earth."

NOT in the slightest! How would a copy of the commandments be considered a graven "image" of any one person or god?

Hmm...you're absolutely right, what kind of monster would be offended by their government endorsing that they worship "the one and only true god"? You're lucky I'm liberal though, that makes me tolerant of your beliefs. You should reciprocate my good will by equally endorsing the ten commandments of my religion: Thou shalt endorse abortion at every opportunity, hang around family planning clinics and harras people who aren't there for an abortion. Thou shalt drink beer on the sixth day. Thou shalt be open minded, and not try to tyranize over things that don't affect you, such as gay marriage (that is unless you're gay, then it does affect you). Thou shalt steal when nobody's looking (it's ok). Thou shalt become a user of the heroin, it's the blood of god. Thou shalt keep an ace up thine sleeve, especially at poker games. Thou shalt listen to death metal and sacrifice babies to satan at every opportunity. Thou shalt send AJ all thy money. Thou shalt be a pimp. Thou shalt not go around trying to push thy stupid superstitions on intelligent people. I can't enforce that you do by law of course, just as you can't enforce that I don't worship other gods or commit adultery, but that's life. The one about sending me your money though, if you're a real christian, you have to do it now, otherwise Jesus will send you to hell to be subjected to mind bending agony for all eternity. Don't believe me? Try reading your bible. Email me and I'll give you an address to send the money to, then if there's enough, I can use it to buy a plane ticket, come down there and bitchslap you twice, once when I see you, and then when you turn the other cheek as well as your god demands you do (you don't want to go to hell now, do you?), I'll bitchslap you again. I love christianity, it has such ridiculous rules, and if you don't follow them, then your own holy book says that you're going to hell.

What's the matter you can't ignore a statue? Just because a statue is erected does NOT mean that you are being forced to worship *any* god. Fer Christ's sake just walk around the damn thing. Nobody is forcing you to stop and read it.