America Was Not Founded on the Ten Commandments

I agree. This was a fantastic article clearly showing that the 10 commandments are not the basis of our legal system.

I have to disagree with that last statement. But war is simply that, death. Acceptable.. no, inevitable.. more then likely.

One thing to note (though it could support either argument) is that god authorized and supported murder in the old testament. So, like our society, there were exceptions.

War is simply murder licensed by a government or governments. Killing unarmed civilians is a fairly recent twist to war. Used to be, those who wanted to fight a war got on their horses and went out
and fought each other. Now they try killing off everybody's old folks and kids, in the hope that the
other guy will call uncle before they have to put their own bodies on the line. And, of course, most
wars are voted for by older folks in legislatures, after being proposed by well-past-fighting-age leaders. Most rational people do not want to commit murder, whoever licensed it. But "patriotism" makes them feel guilty if they don't go along with it.

Killing unarmed civilians is a fairly recent twist to war

Sorry, but that is an extremely naive statement Cassandra. In ancient days, war was extremely hazardous to non-combatants. Women were raped, slaughtered and sold into slavery with the men. The old were killed. If the Iliad is accurate (and recent historical finds show that it could be), babies were thrown from the walls of Troy. When your side lost, your populace became little more than cattle for the victors. War is never pretty, never has been.

Not to mention the Catholic Church itself killed many people during the Crusades and Inquisition.

DBS -- If the 10 commandments were displayed in a public building as a component of a tribute to early law I doubt anyone would have a problem. Show them along side Hamurabbi's code, some depiction of the legal system of Urukagina, and perhaps the Hittite Laws and the 10 Commandments have a real and relevant place inside any legislative or judicial building as a testament to the long and rich history of legal codes in human society.

But if you separate them out and depict just the 10 commandments, you are effectively endorsing the Judeo-Christian and Islamic creeds above all others.

Government can not censor itself because Government does not have the right to free speech or freedom of religion. In a public building, religious speech is on shaky ground. Period

Killfile: Government has no place dabbling in religion. On that we agree, but this should in no way be interpreted to mean that the religious expressions of this country's citizens have no place within the public domain. There is a proper time and place in public for harmless, neutral religious expressions which are supportive of this separation and do nothing at all to endanger our differing beliefs. Whether it be the simple words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments represented in a court house rotunda, there should be no harm perceived by such innocuous expressions. We are talking about words that hold no power beyond the meanings that you or I assign to them.

Here in the United States we seem to be plagued by people who are so weak in their own beliefs that they are completely intolerant of anything contradictory. It is time that we Americans grew up and got over ourselves. There is a lot to be learned from other people and religions. Shutting them all out (especially singling out Christianity) in such extreme efforts to keep religion separate from government comes at an expense that true religious freedom can not afford.

There is a proper time and place in public for harmless, neutral religious expressions which are supportive of this separation and do nothing at all to endanger our differing beliefs. Whether it be the simple words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments represented in a court house rotunda, there should be no harm perceived by such innocuous expressions.

Why shouldn't there be? A kid being taught the pledge of allegiance in school that says "under God" when his parents are athiests or perhaps believe in a Goddess or many gods isn't harmful? Someone walking into the courthouse where he is about to be tried and seeing the Ten Commandments in a 2-ton granite monument sitting in the center of the rotunda of the courthouse isn't going to think that the government is endorsing Christianity or Judaism?

Also, no one is singling out Christianity. If someone placed a 2-ton statue of Buddha in the middle of the courthouse everyone would think they were crazy. The only reason there is any debate on this issue is that it's Christianity that's being debated. No one would even think of putting any other religion in the place Christianity holds in these controversies.

DBS:

Government has no place dabbling in religion. On that we agree, but this should in no way be interpreted to mean that the religious expressions of this country's citizens have no place within the public domain.

No disagreement here. You, as a private citizen, have every right to stand on a street corner, in a public park, or any other publicly available space and express your beliefs (so long as they don't unduly inconvenience everyone else -- if your beliefs involve setting the park on fire the fire marshall may want to have a talk with you).

That said -- when the state erects a several ton monument to the ten commandments in a public building, that is a very different undertaking than the private musings of an individual. It is an undertaking that is not protected by the 1st Amendment and not considered protected speech because the State itself is limited, not protected, by the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, unless the state is prepared to allow anyone who wants feels so compelled to erect monuments in its public buildings, it has no business allowing private citizens to put up monuments of any sort therein.

If the government shouldn't be putting up religious monuments in public buildings and the private citizens is prevented from doing so for practical reasons -- why are those monuments there?

DBS -

Whether it be the simple words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or the Ten Commandments represented in a court house rotunda, there should be no harm perceived by such innocuous expressions.

The words "under God" are a contradiction to the separation of church and state. What about atheists or polytheistic religions? The public expression of recognition of a single deity, or any type of deity, has absolutely no place in government. These words that are often defended so adamantly should be seen for what they truly are, a 50 year old addition made out of a mass paranoia perpetrated by a book-toting lunatic who ranted about communist incursion into the society of the United States. McCarthy is not someone who should be lauded or praised, instead we should shun the products of his ridiculous actions.

noktulo: I probably should not have brought the Pledge of Allegiance into this discussion, but it relates perfectly to what I was saying about the Ten Commandments and "under God" just being words. Again, what power do these words have (even over our children) but what we give them by the meanings which we have assigned to them or sometimes, in our children's cases, taught them?

If an atheist or Goddess worshipper (your example) is so concerned about imposing their views on their children that exposure to other words, teachings, religions, cultures and beliefs will somehow be perceived as a threat to their child's upbringing, perhaps they could find some remote, undeveloped land or another country where they might be able to carve out some safety for themselves in isolation. America's public schools are not the place for your child if you do not want them to be exposed to lifestyles or beliefs which differ from your own. Home schooling is the only viable alternative to people concerned about this and it is growing in popularity.

As for a person walking into a court house rotunda and viewing the Ten Commandments, I still do not see what the harm would be in that. I do not consider myself a Christian, but Christian beliefs are no threat to me or mine. If I were unable to associate with beliefs that did not jive with my own, I would not be a very well adjusted American. In fact, I would be a basket case. This sounds more like a personal problem that requires therapy than a justifiable offense at some intrusion.

The only reason there is any debate on this issue is that it's Christianity that's being debated.

We are discussing Christianity, because it is a popular religion that has been increasingly pushed out of people's public lives. It seems to be the one religion that the most vocal and active protesters are offended by viewing any hint of in the public eye.

If an atheist or Goddess worshipper (your example) is so concerned about imposing their views on their children that exposure to other words, teachings, religions, cultures and beliefs will somehow be perceived as a threat to their child's upbringing, perhaps they could find some remote, undeveloped land or another country where they might be able to carve out some safety for themselves in isolation. America's public schools are not the place for your child if you do not want them to be exposed to lifestyles or beliefs which differ from your own.

Even if you don't want to shelter your children from monotheistic beliefs, it doesn't matter- it's still a violation of the First Amendment. So is putting - just- the Ten Commandments in a judicial building. As Killfile said, it wouldn't be a problem if it were part of a display showing the history of the legal system, but having the Ten Commandments by themselves is doing nothing except putting Christianity on a pedestal.

Dom Pody: Were my rights (or my parent's) violated when I was taught Jewish traditions in elementary school? How about when I was taught God Bless America or other patriotic American songs? What of some of the African or Native American traditions that we learned? Should they have been eliminated from the curriculum because they might have gone contrary to our beliefs?

Honoring the many traditions (religious or otherwise) of our citizens and their ancestors should be considered a worthwhile expression of the respect we have for all of the countries and creeds who make up this great nation. Stifling these expressions is not progress, it is a step backward into intolerance.

If an atheist or Goddess worshipper (your example) is so concerned about imposing their views on their children that exposure to other words, teachings, religions, cultures and beliefs will somehow be perceived as a threat to their child's upbringing, perhaps they could find some remote, undeveloped land or another country where they might be able to carve out some safety for themselves in isolation.

That's pretty much what our ancestors were told when they came to this country in search of a place where they could practice their faith in peace. They thought they'd found that safe haven when they reached the shores of America. Pity they were wrong.

Liberty and Justice for all..... Christians.

If an atheist or Goddess worshipper (your example) is so concerned about imposing their views on their children that exposure to other words, teachings, religions, cultures and beliefs will somehow be perceived as a threat to their child's upbringing, perhaps they could find some remote, undeveloped land or another country where they might be able to carve out some safety for themselves in isolation.

It's not just hearing other people's beliefs. It's a person of authority (a teacher) teaching them the words to something they'll hear every other child in that class recite each morning. So it is mush more than hearing other people's beliefs, and that doesn't even matter. The point is, it's the government choosing a certain religious belief to reflect in the pledge to the exclusion of others. That's not allowed.

America's public schools are not the place for your child if you do not want them to be exposed to lifestyles or beliefs which differ from your own

I'm not implying anything by this, but it's ironic hearing this about having "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because the same people fighting so hard to keep this in the pledge are so virulently against any mention of homosexuality for their children.

Honoring the many traditions (religious or otherwise) of our citizens and their ancestors should be considered a worthwhile expression of the respect we have for all of the countries and creeds who make up this great nation. Stifling these expressions is not progress, it is a step backward into intolerance.

That's exactly what Dom is saying. Honoring the many traditions is fine. It's when you only honor one and don't mention the others that it becomes a problem.

noktuloActually, what people seem to be saying is that honoring the many traditions except some of the most prominent Christian ones is fine. So, the answer to my question above should have been that, no, I should not have been taught about Jewish traditions in elementary school-- unless I was also going to be taught Christian and Muslim traditions. I actually have a distinct recollection of learning about Mohammed in elementary school (fifth grade Social Studies?) in addition to learning about Jewsish traditions (third or fourth grade Social Studies?). Funny... I don't recall ever learning much about Christian teachings aside from in my Unitarian Sunday School and later church attendance. Why is it that everything seems to have earned its rightful place in the public realm... except Christianity?

Why is it that everything seems to have earned its rightful place in the public realm... except Christianity?

I hear people make this argument all the time about February and Black history month.

Dumb jerk: "They get their month, when is white history month."
Me: "Every other month out of the year. Actually, whites get large parts of February too."

Also, the major fault I find in your pledge of allegiance statements above is that it is a PLEDGE of ALLEGIANCE. The first words of it are "I pledge allegiance to..."
If you teach your children to say those words when they do no believe in a nation under God, then you are teaching them to be liars. Or teaching them that lying when convenient is OK. I, for one, would prefer not to force anyone to pledge loyalty to anything they do not believe in, or anything I wouldn't believe is right.

Actually there has been at least 1 prominent judge who believed that the 10 commandments were the foundation of our legal system.

His name is Roy Moore, he recently was defeated when running for the Republican Primary nomination for Alabama Governor.

So, yeah, there are people who believe that the 10 Commandments are the basis of our judicial system, that not only Christianity, but their interpretation of it is the basis of our country. All you have to do is look at the American Family Association and the Parents Television Council and their communications.

It seems to me that this is a question of wanting to have it both ways. The following statements reflect my impression of arguments put forward by some advocates for Right-wing Christianity

On the one hand -- (paraphrase follows) -- This country was founded on Christian values darn-it. Everything good we have is derived from Christianity.

On the other hand -- Christianity is discriminated against.

My position has always been that the dominant viewpoint (Christianity in this case) is so enmeshed into our culture that it does not need special attention. The assumption is that most kids in school know about Christmas and Easter (whether they are Christian or not). However, without any special attention paid to it, there are a lot of children that wouldn't be aware of Ramadan, Kwanzaa, Yom Kippur, or the summer solstice.

In the interest of educating children to be able to function in a multi-cultural, multi-faith world -- we have to pay special attention to the minority viewpoints.

I would fully support an attempt to move the heavy Christian overlay from our culture and relegate it to a minority position and then give it equal treatment with the rest of our diverse beliefs and backgrounds.

@DBS.

. However, we should all be concerned that we have crossed the line from this simple concept of separation into an entirely different realm: state sanctioned persecution, censorship and denying people the free expression of their religions in their public lives.

I agree with you whole-heatedly. I suppose you are talking about things like not allowing homosexuals to have marriages sanctioned by their churches, for instance?

Cassandra: That was not my point, although it is clearly a similar argument. Quite simply, we are losing the battle for our Constitutional freedoms and turning our backs on its original intent. The Constitution was written to insure the public's freedom, peace and welfare. The very basis of our Constitution, our laws and our Bill of Rights was that of the free expression of religious beliefs. How does a granite monument (for example) that depicts the heart of our laws find itself suspect to the laws it represents? Our forefathers' religions are part of our nation's heritage. To deny these religions their free expression (in public prayer, the pledge of allegiance, a granite monument, a preamble in a legal document, etc.) is to deny our heritage and the sweat and blood of our forefathers who founded this great country that people of all religions call home.

This venomous battle over the separation of church and state may eventually result in the crumbling of the foundation on which our nation stands. Our country was born of virtues and values that were spawned by religious beliefs. These beliefs are the glue that hold our government and laws together. The deeper we dig to remove the examples of these religious connections from the public domain, the deeper our country sinks into the abyss of moral decay. The path we now travel is surely not what the signers of the Declaration of Independence had intended for us. I wonder what it is that we will be celebrating this fourth of July?

Actually, I did not use the very argument that you debunked Adam Kemp. Unless I am mistaken, your argument was that our laws were not based on the Ten Commandments. I have never and would never dispute that. However, to suggest that religious principles (which the Ten Commandments obviously represent) are not critical to this nation's underpinnings, and have not been since the beginning, is ridiculous. I said that the Ten Commandments were at the heart of our laws... as are many other religious doctrines and principles that mirror our laws. I did not choose to make this a "which came first?" argument. If that were the debate, then the Ten Commandments would clearly be the correct answer.

You asked what evidence I have to support my claim that the campaign to bar any religious connections from the public domain is sinking this country deeper into moral decay. My evidence is from personal experience. In my short thirty-seven years I have seen a marked difference in personal conduct that seems to mirror the progress (if that is how you see it) of this unfortunate trend. How many of us have experienced the remarkable difference between public schools (without prayer) and private schools (with prayer)? The evidence to support my claim is right there in our faces every time that we navigate to the top page of Newsvine, and each time that we turn on our televisions. Just look around, the evidence surrounds us. I have to lock my car and house doors at night.. do you? There was a time when you didn't have to worry about personal protection or securing your property if you were not a city dweller. I am not sure why my claim offends you, but what should be offensive is this downward spiral that our society appears to be in. It is unfortunate that we can't all agree on the causes and work together toward solutions.

My reference to the Fourth of July was explicit and had nothing at all to to do with Patriotism. If those who signed the Declaration of Independence could see the path that we are travelling now, I am not sure that they would feel cause for celebration. I wonder what it is we are celebrating when the Ten Commandments become something to be debated as offensive.

Adam Kemp: Once again, you are addressing me as though I were contesting the premise of your article. I have explained what I mean by the Ten Commandments being an example of religious principles at the heart of our laws, but apparently something in my explanation irks you. The values apparent in the teachings of virtually every major religion in history can also be found in the heart of the laws of every society in history. Are you saying that there is no connection whatsoever between the two? If so, you might as well write another article attempting to correct history. Most of our nations founders were very religious. If you are trying to suggest that religion played no part in the formation of this country and our laws, you are most definitely going to be in for some debate.

Actually, if one wanted to do the research, they would find that the founding fathers were not unanimously Christian to begin with. Most of them were deists. Read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason for a good start of the religious mentality of the founding fathers.

Adam Kemp: Again, our country and its laws were built upon virtues and values that can be directly tied to our founder's religious beliefs. It is fact that our laws are not overtly representative of the Ten Commandments. However, religion (including Christianity) played a huge roll in our founder's lives and our country's beginnings. It is ridiculous to say that such an important aspect of their lives (as can be represented by the Ten Commandments or any other religious doctrines they followed) played no part in forging the heart of our laws.

Religion is every bit a part of our nation's history as war, for example. We erect many monuments to honor our military victories and memorialize our defeats. Why shouldn't religious aspects of our history be represented as well? Because we don't all have the same beliefs? I don't think we are all a bunch of warmongers either, but we wouldn't be having the same debate over a monument to our fallen war heroes.

Embracing each other's varied religions and beliefs is part of this country's strength. Such intolerance that would deny people their right to public prayer, that would remove "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, that would remove a granite monument depicting the Ten Commandments, or would delete the word "God" from a preamble in a legal document simply has no place in a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. Religious intolerance has no place here, and that is exactly what such moves are an example of.

Again, our country and its laws were built upon virtues and values that can be directly tied to our founder's religious beliefs.

No, it is the freedom from theirs and others religious beliefs on which they based our country.

Embracing each other's varied religions and beliefs is part of this country's strength. Such intolerance that would deny people their right to public prayer, that would remove "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, that would remove a granite monument depicting the Ten Commandments, or would delete the word "God" from a preamble in a legal document simply has no place in a country that was founded on the idea of freedom.

Ok, then I also want "In the Easter Bunny I Trust" and "In Santa Claus I Trust" added to our currency as well. Also, I would like references to the Flying Spaghetti Monster added to the Pledge of Allegiance. They are all just as meaningful and believable to me as a spirit in the sky who plays with us like a child with an ant farm.

Also, as Adam points out, the first commandment says it all: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". Millions were slayed over that one in the middle ages during the Inquisition, and is still very much believed by Muslims. If you do not follow their faith, the Koran says they should kill you or otherwise subjugate you (for instance with a tax on your infidel head, because we all know money trumps religion).

Many believe the world would be chaotic without religion, I believe exactly the opposite.

And what about the President? Is he supposed to be neutral? I have seen him speaking of God many times.

Most Christians don't even realize that it wasn't until the 1950's that the "under God" phrase was inserted into the Pledge. I used to hear my family say that the founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew some people today wanted to remove under God from the pledge. I have to remind them that no they wouldnt because they never put it there to begin with. They fully understood the concept of separation of church and state.

I've never understood the complaint about public prayer.

You can prayer anywhere, anytime that you wish. Asking that others join you in a government building would, imo, be crossing the line.

No one can stop you from praying.

I see where you are coming from, Steve, but by that logic, you are also using a strawman. How would justifying the display of racist material in public places be any different? After all, our country was founded on the principles of slavery.

We must never forsake rationalism for the sake of tradition.

Steve, I am going to assume you have never been to DC. I live quite close and visit about forty to fifty times a year (for work). There are few Christian things found there. Mostly there is Roman and Greek style archways and columns attached to the Gothic (American) architecture. The library of Congress... does not have any Christian looks about it. It actually looks more like a Greek/Roman palace... Interior Photo. Most of DC is almost completely religion neutral, I mean this by the fact that there are nearly no religious monuments. There are no massive Crosses erected, or huge statues of Jesus, or monuments remembering moments in the bible. The slightest connection, however, is that there is a pillar (obelisk) similar to the one found in the Vatican square, DC, Washington Monument and the one in the Vatican. But that doesn't mean much, as obelisks are everywhere...

If you do go to these "monuments" you will see the following, at Lincoln's, the most famous speeches Lincoln gave are engraved on the walls (no religious texts!). At Jefferson and Washington's, same thing, no religious texts. The WWII memorial, the Vietnam memorial you might find religious things soldiers have left for the fallen, or quotes but no directly religious artifacts. The Supreme Court building has a copy of the US Constitution on display, but no religious texts. I don't see why anyone would want any Christian imagery at these places (because there isn't any). We are not a Christian nation, we are an American nation... Christianity is just ONE part of our country.

I don't know what I'm more amazed with, eSantiago. The audacity of your assumption or the fact that it got votes with, apparently, so little research. For the record, I have been to DC on several occasions, and hold an art degree. I'm no slouch.

Most of DC is almost completely religion neutral, I mean this by the fact that there are nearly no religious monuments.

Nor did I say there were. I said many historical landmarks include "Christian imagery or even scripture." Pay close attention to those words.

at Lincoln's, the most famous speeches Lincoln gave are engraved on the walls (no religious texts!)

Remember, I said "Christian imagery or even scripture." This does not necessitate scripture, and points out that religious imagery is more common. And yes, it is at the Lincoln Memorial. As Wikipedia puts it, in a description of the interior: "Above the text of these speeches are a series of murals by Jules Guerin showing an angel, representing truth, freeing a slave."

At Jefferson and Washington's, same thing, no religious texts.

Again, you are correct. And again, I did not claim there were religious texts. But at Jefferson's, "Most prominent are the words which are inscribed around the monument near the roof: 'I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'"

You yourself pointed out Washington's obelisk and its similarity to the Vatican's. While it's true that they are everywhere, to say that it was wasn't motivated by that particular obelisk shows a pretty poor understanding of historical context.

The WWII memorial, the Vietnam memorial you might find religious things soldiers have left for the fallen, or quotes but no directly religious artifacts.

And that would mean a lot against my argument, eSantiago, if I had ever said "directly religious artifacts." I didn't. "Christian imagery, or even scripture" is there.

The Supreme Court building has a copy of the US Constitution on display, but no religious texts.

So that wasn't a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the frieze?

I will concede the Library of Congress. Though one could easily argue that the style and depictions of the paintings that line the walls and archways are at the very least inspired by religious paintings, if not overtly religious themselves, I can't recall specifically which religious depictions are presented, so I will let that one go.

I don't mind disagreement, eSantiago, but the kind of bravado and arrogance you displayed seemed a bit misplaced, especially considering how wrong you were about what I was saying, not to mention the simple fact that most examples you cited do in fact have religious imagery, or in some cases, text.

We are not a Christian nation, we are an American nation... Christianity is just ONE part of our country.

Finally, something we agree on. However, I differ in that I don't think we should mask our history to fit our current mode of thought. If only Greece and Rome would tear down all of those antiquated statues of Zeus/Jupiter, eh? It's giving people the impression that they still believe that. ;-)

After all, our country was founded on the principles of slavery.

Not to pick nits, Scooter, but our nation wasn't. Some states were. Even in the founding days of our nation, there was sharp division as to the legality of slavery. In the end, the debate came to a standstill, and in the interests of moving the nation forward, the nation made no specific law forbidding or advocating it. It was left up to the individual states. That's why years later, when the abolitionists pushed the issue, southern states resisted on the grounds that it was their decision to make. "States' rights" is a much more apt description of the cause of the Civil War than "slavery," when you get right down to it.

But I do see what you're saying. Note that I'm not arguing that we should show religion in any way that depicts it as the correct course; that would be prosthelitizing. I'm saying that it is a part of our history, and we should be free to continue to show that part of our history. Slavery is a part of our history too, and we still display that as well in various places (granted through current eyes, which see it as despicable).

But at Jefferson's, "Most prominent are the words which are inscribed around the monument near the roof: 'I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal enmity against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'"

Do your research. Jefferson was a Deist. There's no Christianity in that quote.

You yourself pointed out Washington's obelisk and its similarity to the Vatican's. While it's true that they are everywhere, to say that it was wasn't motivated by that particular obelisk shows a pretty poor understanding of historical context.

Why was the Washington Monument motivated by the Obelisco Vaticano? It was brought to Rome by Caligula, so it has no specific religious meaning, and even if it did, Washington was a deist, and most of the founding fathers were either Deist or Protestant. Why would they use a Catholic monument (if one can even construe it as such) for inspiration?

So that wasn't a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the frieze?

Hermon A. McNeil, who designed "Justice the Guardian of Liberty," on the Supreme Court Building described his work as....

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.

So, even though Moses is depicted on the building, it was never intended as a Christian (or even religious) symbol. It is intended to depict the origins of eastern law. You can choose to interpret as religious if you please, but it was never intended that way. I choose to see it as intended and state; "the Supreme Court has no religious symbols on it."

You all raise good points. However, keep in mind what I was countering.

If you do go to these "monuments" you will see the following

I pointed out what one would see. "God" in capital letters and Moses carrying tablets. eSantiago made an arrogant assumption that I "have never been to DC," and made incorrect statements that there is "no religious" items at those locations. The context in which those religious items exist is fair game, but the fact remains that each of them do exist.

Steve, not to get too bogged down in details, would you say that your assertion that there is religious imagery present in various places in the nation's capital goes to disprove Adam's assertion that the United States was not founded on the Ten Commandments? I know that you took issue with eSantiago's characterization of the D.C. "religious imagery" scene, but unless that imagery somehow proves that the United States was founded on The Ten Commandments, it is not all that relevant.

You started out way up there differentiating the "principles" in the Ten Commandments from the "text" of the Ten Commandments. I understand that you took that term (principles) out of Adam's first paragraph, but I think when you read the article it is clear that Adam isn't making the argument that you are refuting. Rather, Adam made it pretty clear throughout the rest of the piece that he's not really talking about the "principles" embodied in the Ten Commandments, indeed he states outright that he feels that there are a couple of points of coincidence between commandments and law. Aside from semantics, and whether or not Adam should have used the word "principles" in his first paragraph, are you arguing that the United States was founded on The Ten Commandments?

See, Brad, there's the major difference. I do think the nation was founded on the principles of the Ten Commandments, but only that: the principles. I don't see this as a semantic argument, because the difference is an important one. If you get too legalistic and literal, of course it would be foolish to argue a relation. But Adam gave no indication that the side he's countering is being legalistic and literal, but gave a legal, literal counter regardless.

As for the "religious imagery" argument, that one doesn't relate directly to the Ten Commandments. That was more a commentary that it is a part of our history. Similar to how I pointed out that Rome and Greece still display the "pagan" gods, it is an important part of where we are and how we got here. For that reason, I see no more reason to demand taking it down than I do for Romans to demand their statues of Jupiter and Mercury go down. Heck, DC has plenty of Roman gods in it as well, also an important part of our history. I see no one demanding we take those down.

And going back a bit, let me make one comment I missed earlier from Jim Dent, which ties into this nicely.

So, even though Moses is depicted on the building, it was never intended as a Christian (or even religious) symbol. It is intended to depict the origins of eastern law

So it's a guideline? Perhaps it could be called... a principle? If a designer can use that to justify the decision to display it on a building, what precisely differentiates that from displaying it in a building?

Do your research. Jefferson was a Deist. There's no Christianity in that quote.

noktulo: So now we must glean the original intent and beliefs of the artisan or speaker who created the art or spoke the words before we can condemn it for its Christian origin? I prefer this line of reasoning to simply condemning anything just because it references God. We certainly agree on the harmlessness of such words when spoken by a Deist. Why should the same words as spoken by a Christian be taken any differently?

See, Brad, there's the major difference. I do think the nation was founded on the principles of the Ten Commandments, but only that: the principles.

I see, Steve. That's reasonable, but I think that what Adam is asserting (and definitely what I believe) is that one could make the exact same argument, only substituting pretty much any other moral code for "The Ten Commandments." One could say that America was "founded on" the principles of Hammurabi. Or on Koranic principles. Or on any of a number of other codes which include references to moral principles that are coincident with American law, or rather, with the principles embodied in our Constitution and other founding documents. If any of those other codes have as strong a coincidence with American principles as the Ten Commandments (about 20% - 30% correspondence, according to Adam's assessment), their claim to have been the defining principles on which America was founded is probably stronger than that of the Ten Commandments, given the absence of any specific reference within those documents to the a particular code.

So it's a guideline? Perhaps it could be called... a principle? If a designer can use that to justify the decision to display it on a building, what precisely differentiates that from displaying it in a building?

It's neither a guidline nor a principle, it's a historical representation of lawgivers. I think calling stone figures on a wall, depicting history, a principle is a bit of a stretch....

The two representations of Moses which adorn the Supreme Court building both present him in a context in which he is depicted as merely one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers, not as a religious figure. (This is why, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected appeals to overturn a decision ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse — the monument did not present the Ten Commandments in a context other than as quotations of Biblical verse and was therefore deemed an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.) Link.

According to the Office of the Curator of the Supreme Court of the United States, these figures were selected as a representation of secular law. Also, the writing on the tablet carried by Moses in this frieze includes portions of commandments 6 through 10 (in Hebrew), specifically chosen because they are not inherently religious. (Commandments 6 through 10 proscribe murder, adultery, theft, perjury, and covetousness.)

And what "differentiates that from displaying it in a building"? The context I suppose..... If something inside is displayed as a reference to law (as in comandments 6-10), and not as a religious symbol or statement (1-5), there would probably be no (rational) argument against it.

"Christian imagery or even scripture."

No Steve, there is no way you can get away with this one. There are no engravings anywhere in DC where a SCRIPTURE has been quoted. There are no MONUMENTS that specifically describe an EVENT from the bible (Christian Imagery). YES, there is the word GOD inscribed in certain places and there are religious figures depicted, who are also (more importantly) historical figures.

As far as Jefferson, to hear "God" from the lips of a Deist is not a Christian word, it is a Deistic word. Maybe you should read up on Deism, unless you covered that in college?

Instead of calling me arrogant and them flamboyantly waving around your Art Degree, point out some actual things in DC that can back you up. Because as far as I can tell, the items you have provided have been refuted. Going there once or twice is great, but I go there every other week, its free and its national heritage, why waste it?

We certainly agree on the harmlessness of such words when spoken by a Deist. Why should the same words as spoken by a Christian be taken any differently?

I was simply correcting you. You used several examples to disprove someone else's statement that DC is devoid of Christian imagery. I simply pointed out that one of your examples was wrong.

Take ten deep breaths before reading my post, Santi. I think you might be getting a tad too upset. ;-) We seem to be having a miscommunication here. You seem to think I'm arguing for religion in DC, but I am arguing for history. People have commented on the context of things, but I never cited context; merely the presence of religious imagery and scripture itself. It exists, as does the occasional imagery of other religions. But because you insist on battle lines, and because I have more free time now than I did at work...

There are no engravings anywhere in DC where a SCRIPTURE has been quoted.

Do you mean other than Proverbs 22:28 quoted at the Daughters of the American Revolution building? Or the various Bible verses carved into the plaques surrounding the Washington Monument? Or the quote of Psalm 16 on a stained glass window of George Washington in the Capitol Building? Or maybe the Latin phrase "Laus Deo" (Praise Be to God) inside the tip of the Washington Monument? Surely you aren't counting the various tribute blocks that line the staircase leading up the Washington Monument, which make reference to Luke 18:16, John 5:39, Acts 17:11, Exodus 28:36, and Zachariah 14:20.

There are no MONUMENTS that specifically describe an EVENT from the bible

Of course, a well-versed DC-visitor like you must mean that statement besides the statue of Daniel behind the Organization of American States building. Or the Solomon inside the Library of Congress. Or the Moses statues/facades located (with the Ten Commandments, hence showing a specific event) in the Library of Congress rotunda and interior, the U.S. Supreme Court facade, the U.S. Supreme Court courtroom, and various other locations.

Other interesting points of note:

Bibles: Inside the walls of the Department of Interior, on the walls of the Library of Congress,

Crosses: On statues of General Jose Artigas, on the Korean Veterans Memorial, and on the facade of the U.S. District Court Building

Ten Commandments (sans Moses): Behind the Liberty statue outside the Ronald Reagan building, in the National Archives, on the facade of the U.S. District Court building (right next to the cross), and on the courtroom benches inside the U.S. Supreme Court.

Religious acts: The Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol Building shows two prayers, a Bible study, and a baptism. George Washington is seen praying on the aforementioned stained-glass window. Various other religious acts can be seen in various paintings.

Miscellaneous references to God: Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, National Archives, Senate and House buildings, U.S. Supreme Court, Jefferson Memorial, and the Library of Congress. In the Library of Congress, there are quotes in the wall that claim "The heavens declare the glory of God." Jefferson's memorial houses several uses of the name God, including "God who gave us life, gave us liberty." Lincoln's Memorial includes the words "Nation under God" and "prayer" in numerous places. The Senate and House office buildings claim "In God We Trust."

And here's my ridiculously biased source material. Though they may not be even-handed, they are correct, and have the pictures to prove it.

As far as Jefferson, to hear "God" from the lips of a Deist is not a Christian word, it is a Deistic word. Maybe you should read up on Deism, unless you covered that in college?

We did, thanks. And a true understanding of deism would come with the proper understanding that it and the Christian God are not mutually exclusive. Deism is an interpretation of God's current status, not his historical presence or past actions. It is perfectly acceptable, though admittedly untraditional (in our current day), to believe in the God of scripture but to also believe he does not interfere with human affairs, and to believe that we should base our knowledge of God on reason.

Avery Cardinal Dulles, a Roman Catholic theologian at the time commented that Jefferson was "a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher." To say that he was not a Christian because he was a deist shows a lack of understanding of Christianity, Deism, Jefferson, or all three.

Going there once or twice is great, but I go there every other week, its free and its national heritage, why waste it?

I agree whole-heartedly once again! This time around, print out my post and have a look around. You may notice some things that you did not before.

Fair enough, Adam. I did nitpick a bit at one word, since your phrasing of it seemed to be the way I would put it. I'm with you all the way when people phrase it the other way. ;-)

As Brad pointed out, once you start talking about generic moral principles (and excluding these four commandments) then you may as well make the same claim about Hammurabi, or the 12 Tables, etc. At that point it no longer makes sense to give the Ten Commandments any special precedence.

That is very true. These generic moral principles are inherent to most religions, but our particular founding fathers (from all evidence we've obtained so far) drew those generic principles from the scripture specifically. Hence, our principles are based there. The fact that they could be based in other places is irrelevant.

Let's say it's forty miles to arrive in Washington D.C. from Baltimore, Maryland, and forty miles to arrive in Washington D.C. from Fredericksburg, Virginia. The person doing the traveling started from one, or the other: not both. Let's say the driver's starting point was Fredericksburg. Therefore, though it is perfectly accurate to say the fictitious driver could have arrived in D.C. from Baltimore, in the precise same way, the fact remains that he started from Fredericksburg. A specific geographical position, just like a specific religious one.

This [god] is emphasized in the form of four of the ten commandments.

Not to pick nits, but god is only mentioned in three of the 10 commandments, the last seven are entirely concerned with human actions.

Steve -- I disagree with everything you're trying to demonstrate. I believe strongly in the separation of Church and State. I think our government's most sacred responsibility is to protect the principals of religious tolerance in our nation.

That said, I've got a new list of things to go have a look at next time I'm in the District. Well done.

Killfile: I wouldn't say you disagree with everything I'm trying to demonstrate. ;-) I believe in separation of Church and State too, and I agree that our government's responsibility (one of the highest, if not the highest) is to protect religious tolerance. I just don't, personally, see how acknowledging that our country comes from a certain religious background threatens that. Anyway, thanks for the kind words.

Killfile: I wouldn't say you disagree with everything I'm trying to demonstrate. ;-) I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm preaching for some kind of government-enforced religion. I agree completely with your assertions, and think that it is undoubtedly the government's responsibility to protect religious tolerance. I just, personally, don't see acknowledging our historical backgrounds as particularly threatening to that. Thanks for the kind words.

Whoops, double-post. You lied to me when you said "Bad response from server," Newsvine! Curse you!

OK, Steve point conceded. I'll take a much closer look, and I agree on the "history" part. There are some references to the bible, I am appalled that I did not notice them. My apologies for the hostile tone, however I still feel the bible has no place in government, what-so-ever. It is one religion of our nation and to make rules based on its "principles" will limit the freedoms of those who do not believe its principles are "correct".

God is not going to give you an extra pat on the back for defending a statue of his Commandments.

I just get such a huge kick out of this. A statue of the Ten Commandments..... it's like irony incarnate.

Commandment 2: Thou shalt not make any graven images.

What the hell do you think a giant sodding statue of the Ten Commandments is? Honestly....

Ah, yes! I meant to include that. Revised:

"God is not going to give you an extra pat on the back for defending a statue of his Commandments (graven images, anyone?)"

That's not quite what graven image means. You're not worshipping it or treating it like a god

I'd say the pledge is worse than public statues, since you are able not to look at the statue, but in public schools and many other places, the pledge is recited before proceedings begin. A person has to sit and listen to the pledge, and in many cases may be pressured into saying it themselves, since others will look down on them if they don't.

Christianity is not necessary for capitalism, and nor did it have anything at all to do with the idea of personal property.

Eh -- that's difficult to defend historically. Christianity is not necessary for the rudiments of a market economy, but Capitalism is another beast entirely. Capitalism in the strictest sense of the phrase is unique to Protestant Europe and can't be adequately tied to any other socio-political-religious system.

Back to your regularly scheduled political discussion.

I feel that Killfile has already responded quite well to most of your comment, and citing Thomas Jefferson as a secondary source in a research field that he is not exactly known for is not academically honest or effect. It would be as if I had cited a theory of electricity from 1730. You should use modern research in such an instance.

I dispute your claim that there were societies in which sacrifice was illegal.

I am quite sure that our own society has made human sacrifice illegal, so I am not sure as to your point. Slavery was allowed because people misused science to rationalize their actions by incorrectly considering slaves as below human, and thus their exploitation or killings were not murder for they were not human. Thankfully a group of devout Christians in England decided that this was a completely improper situation and worked considerably to first outlaw slavery in the British Empire, then use the Royal Navy to police the seas to stop slave trading and eventually their cause carried to America and the rest is as you say history.

Just because religion is misused does not mean that religion is bad, in the same way just as science was misused to categorize slaves as sub-human does not effect science when practiced properly.

Re: your side note, I am extremely pro-capitalism and individual responsibility, without Christianity

I am neither Christian, and I am very capitalistic and such, practically Objectivist. However, you nor I did not become this way in a vacuum, your parents, your school and your society shaped your views and many if not all of those sources are steeped in Judeo-Christian tradition. Individually Christianity is not required to be capitalistic or personally responsible, but it is a key foundation in our society functioning this way. Perhaps future societies will also not require Christianity for capitalistic ideals, but those societies will more than likely come from our current society which is very much based on Judeo-Christian traditions.

Side note: This is also why I personally believe that some (not many, not most, not a lot, but some) on the far left are anti-Christianity, because of Christianity's strong Capitalistic and Individualistic streaks.

Christianity has strong Capitalistic and individualistic streaks? I thought Christrianity was all about fellowship and helping each other out. Early Christian communities were completely communistic, with everyone putting their money and goods into the community and peoople only taking what they needed. Somehow, apparently, it's become the opposite.

More accurately Protestantism has strong Capitalistic and individualistic streaks. The ideas that virtue is rewarded on earth, that a personal relationship is possible with God, and the overthrow of the Feudalistic religious order that the Catholic Church is built about all contributed to the rise of Modern Capitalism.

Early Christian communities were completely communistic, with everyone putting their money and goods into the community

I would say "everyone putting their money and goods into building larger churches and buying more gold to the Vatican".

I actually got that idea from a friend at an atheists, agnostics and freethinkers meeting I go to. He basically said that was why he was against Christianity in far more words. I did say only some. One is some. I think there are a few more than one, but probably not a significant percentage. I am not claiming that this is a conspiracy against Christianity or something similar.

And who you have met has no bearing on who I have met and their beliefs.

I was not attempting to generalize.

1. No other gods allowed. No exceptions. You play you pay.

No matter the translation of this commandment, there always seems to be the subtext of "there are other Gods out there -- you're just not allowed to worship them."

I've always found this very very odd. Anyone enough of a biblical scholar to offer any insight into this little puzzle?

I always thought the same thing Killfile. Sitting in Baptist church growing up, I used to sit there, even as a young kid of 8 or 9 and think how ludicrous some of this stuff sounded. My favorite sermons were always those where the preacher railed against Rock music for a whole hour. I was always internally laughing, because it was all so stupid and naive. Sorry I went off on a tangent, just wanted to say that I thought the same thing about having no other Gods. Who are these other Gods? I think I have heard a preacher try to explain that the other Gods are actually Demons and Satan himself, that they set themselves up as Gods and what other religions think they are worshipping as Gods are actually Demons of hell. Interesting that every other religion's Gods are always the ones that are Demons.By the way, my sister's husband is a Baptist preacher, so I get into these types of discussions with him all the time. It is very hard to use logic with someone like that though. Logic doesn't apply to their way of thinking. Whenever you have a question, they will always show you a bible passage. My complaint that that is circular reasoning, the bible is true cuz look right here the bible says it is true, always falls on deaf ears.

I'm enough i think... this was said (written) probably to prohibit polytheism. Most of the world, at the time, was polytheistic (egyptian/greek/romans). Read the original way it was "supposedly" written (bold portions for emphasis):

The following is the text of the commonly accepted (by Christian and Jewish authorities) commandments as found in the book of Exodus 20:1-17, New Revised Standard Version of the Christian Bible. Because Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic traditions divide the commandments in different fashions, they are presented below without itemization.

Then God spoke all these words: saying: (2)"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage:

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; (3) you shall have no other gods before me. (4) You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (5) You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, (6) but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (7) You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. (8) Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. (9) For six days you shall labour and do all your work. (10) But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. (11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. (12) Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. (13) You shall not murder. (14) You shall not commit adultery. (15) You shall not steal. (16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (17) You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
Exodus 20:1-17

Link to Page

So...There are other Gods (how pesky)... God's jealous, so don't worship anybody but him!... say God-da-mint instead cause you aren't going to be forgiven... let your slaves/aliens rest on the sabbath (what slaves? aliens!?!)...

I dunno, I would be kinda dumb to follow this stuff, I could work my wife and kids (and slaves [ J / K ]) six days a week with no rest...rest one day, and back to work!!!

Ten Commandments: 2nd Edition (see New Testament, book of Acts)

[ j/k ] don't bash me.

Myth is what we call other peoples religion.

Actually what they think is very important, in that they are the ones that wrote the Constitution, the legal document by which all of government must abide. Asking what they would have thought is very pertinent. Especially if you believe in the ideal of this country resting on the ideals that the country was founded on. The part that I take exception to is when people say this country was founded on Christian ideals. That is patently false as can be learned by doing a little reading and research oneself. Read some Thomas Paine, read some of the anti-Christian things that Thomas Jefferson, George Washgington and Ben Franklin actually said. This country, if anything, was founded on Deistic principles, but most importantly it was founded on the firm bedrock of separation of church and state. They saw first hand from their former lives in Europe, what can happen when the state and church become one.

I've always wondered if perhaps people get the founding fathers confused with the pilgrims and original colonists.

I've always wondered if perhaps people get the founding fathers confused with the pilgrims and original colonists.

So do I, Vincent. It is not uncommon to hear people claim that the "Founding Fathers" came here to escape religious intolerance and to practice their religion without fear of oppression. While there certainly were people who did so (e.g. the pilgrims in the early 1600's), those people are not the same as the people who rebelled against the British and established this nation.

I've always wondered if perhaps people get the founding fathers confused with the pilgrims and original colonists.

One need not be confused to believe that this nation's beginnings were the continuance of a natural progression begun by the pilgrims and original colonists. While the pilgrims obviously did not write our Constitution, their ideals and influence were surely still felt, just as many people today still respect and build upon the positive influences of generations that have come before us. As much as people would like to rewrite history and take religion out of the mix, it is undeniable that religion has played an important role in this nation's path from the very beginning. Reminders of its influences are apparent throughout. It is just recently that people have become so vehement about removing any examples of this proud history from the public eye.

Adam Kemp: My most recent comment was in direct response to a completely different contention-- that people seem to have the "founding fathers" confused with the Pilgrims. Neither my opinion nor my argument have changed.

Adam Kemp: Nowhere did I say that the men who created the Constitution harbored any sort of Puritanical beliefs. I clearly offerd my opinion that this country's beginnings were a natural progression forward from what the pilgrims had begun. Aside from that misrepresentation of my comments, I agree completely with yours.

unknown-205640:
*claps*

Insightful.

Now if only you could take that entire blob of words and string them together into something resembling a valid argument we would be getting somewhere. I highly suggest the use of these things called facts, they're very trendy now days.

I don't know man -- I've got a two dollar bill here and God is conspicuously absent from the art on the back.

..if you think that Christopher Columbus founded America...your WRONG!...b/c GOD did...

Stunning. Simply Stunning.

Not a member of College Republicans by any chance, are you?