No Swearing Allowed
No, I'm not talking about profaning the courts. Or then again...
What I am talking about is the Supreme Court's decision today that says the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed inside courthouses because they violate the doctrine of separation of church and state.
The decision was split so closely that even the supreme court itself doesn't really know what to do with this conundrum.
Time and again the courts have made clear they have an aversion to anything that smacks of 'religion'. So I'm a-thinkin' maybe we should get rid of the swearing of oaths as well.
Indeed, what is the point if there are no 'absolutes' to swear by? On your mommas' grave perhaps? And what does the judge think of all that cussin' going on. I say let's be rid of it once and for all!
I mean, really... the western world's legal system 'was' based on certain moral precepts (theft, murder, etc.) from the ten commandments (notice that I used 'was' instead of 'is').
Trying to separate law from religion is like separating the... well, church from the state. Make sense? I'm glad it does to you because the whole notion is contradictory to my sensibilities.
Questions:
On the whims of a partisan judge perhaps?
This article also appeared here
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
I mean, really... the western world's legal system 'was' based on moral precepts from the ten commandments
Do you have proof of that?
2 - BB
Umm, yer jokin' - right?
3 - Silas Kain
Before any credit is given to the Creator for the establishment of Western Rule of Law, let's be a little real here. Our system of laws come from a dispute between a Pope and a King. That dispute resulted in the signing of the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Click on Magna Carta to read the English translation.
4 - Bennett
Regardless of whether our society's moral values mirror various religious moral values, the two are NOT necessarily connected.
We don't need "ten commandments" to establish what we, as a society, feel is right, wrong, just, and unjust.
As we evolve, our notions of what role and responsibilities we want our government to play in our lives change, we tweak the rules to reflect a new consensus. We expand liberties, we give more aid and shelter to those in need.
The different cultures in the world are changing, evolving into clearer and fairer places for individuals to live better and happier lives. We don't need some mythic "divinity" to show us how to conduct our affairs.
5 - BB
#3... yes, it is true the Magna Carta is the precursor for liberties of "freemen" and civil procedure, but when it comes to matters of moral conduct - i.e. theft, murder, etc., certain elements of the "Creators" Ten Commandments do predate it substantially.
6 - gonzo marx
you got some Questions, eh?..ok..here goes..
Question - *Is this just another example of a social trend that can't see the end beyond the means?*
as i have said before, the Ends NEVER justify the Means, what so many seem to forget is that this was the final Lesson of Jesus...
oh?..you doubt?..think about the Passion for a moment...remember the 50,000 followers and the fact that even some Disciples advocated rising up against the Romans rather than submitting to arrest? that would have been the Ends justifying the means...instead the Means were more important ("render unto Ceasar")and Jesus followed the Law all the way to his Death...that's conviction of your Faith right there, to set yoru life on the line to support your Ethics
this whole bit is the same..the separation of church and state is to protect both the church (any church) as well as the minority, from the tyranny of the majority and/or the government
Question - *Is it a decision trying to strike a fair balance, or is it just another anti-religion decision?*
careful, your bias is showing...it still bloggles my mind when anyone in the majority(christians) try and sell me that they are being discriminated against...an attempt at fair balance..see my answer to the first Question, and think about it a moment
Question - *Or, how can you find balance and justice in a world with no absolutes to judge it by?*
it's called the Rule of Law, based on the social covenant embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...no absolutes there, just a Code set up via representative democracy (a Republic) in a manner Lincoln described as "a Government of the People, by the People, and for the People"
hope that helps...
just my one sixth billionths of the world's Opinion...
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
7 - BB
#4... I was referring to our legal system (especially criminal law) being "based on moral precepts from the Ten Commandments". Not civil liberties.
8 - gonzo marx
and which commandments were those?
last time someone go tlocked up for first degree graven images perhaps?
or second degree not honoring the parents?
here's the tricksy one...
how many hindu's have been arrested in the US for placing Vishnu before Jehovah?
and is it a felony or a misdemeanor for coveting my neighbor's goat? it is a very pretty goat...
you get 3 out of 10..and they are NOT exclusive to the "commandments" same exact 3 are in Confucian law as well
so spare me..they can be thought of as an historical, or a religious text
but they have NO place in a secular government
i can understand some folks wanting their holy scriptures to be made a Law, notice how well it worked for the Taliban...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
9 - BB
#6 & 8... the principle of separation of church and state was to protect the Church FROM the State, but it would appear the reverse is now in order.
It would also appear that you agree with the notion "or is it just another anti-religion decision?"
Thanks for the input.
Cheers.
10 - gonzo marx
i think that it is not "anti-religious" , merely that it is working to maintain the separation between church and state
big difference
and it is my Opinion, based on reading Jefferson, Franklin and others of the Founders that it was for BOTH
the idea was a religiously pluralist society, unhampered by the government...to accomplish this the government was intentionally made as secular as possible, hance the wording of the First Amendment
but i understand we will more than likely disagree on this one
luckily we are able to, thanks to the "separation"
otherwise i would have been burnt as a heretic long ago
Excelsior!
11 - BB
Is burning heretics illegal???
Since when?
12 - wahoo
As any fool knows, the real basis for our country is:
I. Thou shalt have many other gods -- such as Hollywood actors and baseball players…
.
II. Thou shalt make unto thee any graven image such as your Rolls Royce, Corvette, your Harley…
III. Thou shalt take the name of the LORD thy God in vain with such words as goddamit and chrissakes..
IV. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy by using it to work off your hangovers…
V. Dishonour thy father and thy mother by rotten behavior such as pushing drugs and committing other felonies...
VI. Thou shalt kill by abortion, drive-by shootings, and high school massacres…
VII. Thou shalt commit adultery at every opportunity…
VIII. Thou shalt steal whenever no one is looking…
IX. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbour in your business dealings and wherever else possible…
X. Thou shalt covet any thing that is thy neighbor’s especially when he is away…
13 - gonzo marx
since Salem...
and no, i'm not that knid of heretic
but i digress...
Excelsior!
14 - Matthew T. Sussman
The underlying argument always has two passionate sides. One loves Christianity and doesn't want people bashing it. The other bashes it, either blatantly or subtlely.
For fear of repeating myself for the severalth time, there needs to be a recognition of religion in general in a public setting that doesn't favor, or perhaps even call out a specific, walk of faith, but provide an outlet for the spiritual citizen to pray/meditate/wish upon a star.
And on the social scale, people need to talk about different religions with a more open mind -- wait, no, open heart.
And at this point, as usual, I direct further reading to my column earlier this year:
"Church, state are nation's odd couple" (2/1/2005)
Your homework is to read it and write a 500-word report on what you thought about it. Have it on my desk by tomorrow or you won't go out to recess.
15 - Steve S
there needs to be a recognition of religion in general in a public setting .....but provide[s] an outlet for the spiritual citizen to pray/meditate/wish upon a star.
Why does there need to be something in the public setting for you to pray? Can you elaborate? You mean it's not enough for you to pray to your God yourself, you need some public structure, endorsement or 'outlet' bolstering your faith? Why? Is it too weak to stand on it's own?
The spiritual citizen needs to pray upon a star, I don't see why they can't do that in their backyard, on a hilltop or even in the park down the street. It's possible to pray in all those places right now. Actually, you can even go to your mall and sit in the food court and have a discussion with the Lord if it makes you feel better. Would that public setting work for you and make your faith stronger?
16 - Matthew T. Sussman
Steve, religion and faith transcends interpersonal peace. It's communal.
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
read: intrapersonal.
You get the point.
18 - Steve S
so go to a church. where exactly do you need to pray?
19 - Matthew T. Sussman
Church is a great place for that. But life extends beyond church.
And it happens so often in so many ways.
20 - beadtot
'Separation of church and state' is about the widening channel between Martha's Vineyard and the mainland state. As acknowledgement of the possible impending loss of Martha's Vineyard, women in California have invested their own time and labor to initiate 'commemorative' vineyards -- no argument could be made to oppose the efforts.
21 - andy marsh
I say we all burn Gonzo now! Just for fun!
22 - MDE
Matt - not 500 words, but:
Your Feb post is based on the proposition that religion doesn't harm people even when combined with politics. This is contrary to historical fact. See the inquisition, the crusades, etc etc etc etc..., the KKK, 9-11. Fanaticism kills, and organized religions, like nations, lend themselves to fanaticism.
Perhaps you mean that the harm is not necessary. But then you beg the question: what conditions must be met to avoid it?
Mark
23 - Matthew T. Sussman
MDE - for even listening to be you get 9 marks out of 10. And you're right - they're dangerous.
But you'll have extremists with any belief/ideological structure: extreme liberals, extreme conservatives. It's difficult for mainstream society to accept a lot of their ideas.
What can be done to avoid fanatics? Nothing that I can think of.
But rest assured the Inquisition and the Crusades both happened about 1,000 years ago, so we're probably a bit smarter since then. Groups like the KKK put their faith to shame. Same with those involved in toppling the WTC.
So if there is a way to avoid tragedies like this, keeping religion a private matter is probably the worst thing you can do! Imagine the dangerous ideas you can come to believe if nobody's around to questeion it!
Our religions need to be shared and discussed in an intellectual setting. I know some cynics might say "religion" and "intellect" are mutually exlusive, but they probably know nothing of either themselves.
24 - Nancy
Matthew, anyone at a football game who wants to pray is able to do so. Ditto in any of the other situations. Ditto even in school. Many and many a time, before I became an apostate, I said many a fervent prayer (to myself) before an exam. No one is preventing anyone from praying, on their own and to themselves. What IS banned and SHOULD be banned is the obvious desire of the religious to make everybody else pray with them, including those who may not want to or don't share their faith.
You wanna pray in public? By all means, bow your head and murmur a quickie to yourself. Just don't insist that everybody else either pray with you, or keep silent while you carry out your praying. Otherwise, that's what homes and churches are for. I would also remind the religiously afflicted that the bible is quite explicit about people NOT praying in public, which is always conveniently forgotten. You're supposed to go into your 'closet' and pray IN SECRET, NOT out in public where you can be seen being so pious by all...unless you want your reward (such as it is) here on earth, that is.
25 - Silas Kain
Chris "Hardballs" Matthews had a special last night before the Bush Propaganda Address called 'One Nation Under God.' What struck me was the fact that fundamentalist Christians are now claiming that they are the victims of discrimination and they are not allowed to practice their faith the way they choose.
I'm all for people practicing their faith as long as it does not encroach on the rights of another. I'm also all for churches paying their fair share for public services like police, fire, rescue and infrastructure.