Originally Posted by Skerlnik

I have read of no circumstance where these desired monuments would be in that context. Typically, I hear about some fundy advocacy group or rural judge, desiring the promotion of Christianity as a "new" basis for our society.

Originally Posted by Chan

What would put them in a historical context of legal codes is to include them alongside monuments of other legal codes like the ones I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Historical context is fine. Just like mentioning that I.D. is a controversial theory, differing from the prevailing theory of evolution, or noting that some cultures thought of cosmology as a giant turtle or egg, or that astrology and alchemy were cutting-edge sciences, long ago.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Ok, back on topic.

I submit that, as with most religions, the Ten Commandments retain only marginal relevancy with today's society, certainly when viewed as an enforceable system of law.

1. No Gods before me. This implies an outlawing or supression of other religion, in complete defiance of the First Amendment. This is clearly a specific endorsement of a specific religious p.o.v., no matter how you parse it. From a practical standpoint, while you can;'t actually control thought, you CAN destroy mosques, temples or anything else that doesn;t conform to this narrow command.

2. No idols. Just how relevant is this, today? This goes hand-in-hand with No. 1, and frankly, seems rather insecure, to me. Again, how would this translate into modern law? What do we define as idolatry, anyway? Would a big stone monumnent to the Commandments count? Vague.

3. Wrongful use of God's name/in vain. Big freakin' deal. Who among us hasn't? Again, this is thought policing, and possibly a free speech issue. Unenforceable, anyway.

4. Keeping the Sabbath holy. What, by law? How would this be enforced? Wouldn't this be rather counterproductive to the economy to simply shut the nation down? No football? Vague and unenforceable, again.

5. Honor thy mother and father. Okay...how? What's the criteria, here? I am getting a real pattern of unenforceability, here, which is just plain bad lawmaking. Halfway through, and we're 0 for 5.

6. Shalt not murder/kill. Finally, something relevant. Almost doesn't have to be said, but sure, society doesn't last too long, valuing murder. Plenty of laws on the books already, so, fine and dandy.

7. No adultery. Whoa. Talk about unenforceable. It's already pretty easy to get divorces these days. This one, while okay morally, just doesn't have the oomph required to make an actual law over it.

8. Shalt not steal. No-brainer, like #6. Lots already on the books, everyone seems to agree, as well.

9. False witness/lying. Other than perjury or libel/slander, this seems rather unenforceable, too. Besides, for the government to tell us not to lie is the very defintion of hypocrisy. Half-point.

10. Don't covet neighbor's house/wife. More thought policing and unenforceability. I can't think my neighbor's wife is hawt? And, wasn't this kind of covered in the no adultery part?

By my count, the Commandments are 2.5 out of 10 in terms of relevancy. Not a particularly robust set of rules. Interesting to note what was apparently of paramount importance 4,000 years ago, though, but really, if false idols and adultery were the biggest problems then, they got off lucky. Most of these Commandments seem to rely on people tattling on each other...a poor basis for society, in my opinion.

As a historical artifact, it's mildly interesting. However, to those groups dedicated to "returning" America to the 10 Commandments as the basis for law, it just doesn't really cut it in 2008. If it isn't the law of the land, it really has no business in any public space, which assumes universal appliciability.

P.S. Interesting that there are no Commandments prohibiting slavery, rape, incest, bestiality or cannibalism. I'll assume everybody's okay with that, then.

Originally Posted by Chan

What would put them in a historical context of legal codes is to include them alongside monuments of other legal codes like the ones I mentioned.

Originally Posted by Chan

So, some violations of the establishment clause are okay but others aren't?

Originally Posted by Chan

So, some violations of the establishment clause are okay but others aren't?

Originally Posted by Robert Ingersoll

That was an awesome run-down of each. I completely agree with you that only 2.5 of them matter. Maybe we can post up the 2.5 Commandments!

Originally Posted by Robert Ingersoll

I have a problem with your adherence to idiotic myths & fables. I have a problem with your feelings that I should have to tolerate this nonsense in taxpayer-funded arenas. I have a problem with the moderators allowing you to call me a liar & not edit your post----it seems you have immunity too. If you have a problem with me & my posts, you have two choices. Put me on ignore or abandon the forum. Because now that I know I have your attention, I'm going to dedicate myself to bashing revealed religion full-time on this board henceforth. And everything I've said to this point is mild compared to what's coming next. First, I'll pick apart so-called "holy books" in the spirit of Tom Paine. Next, I'll post all of the murder, incest, rape, pillage, theft, etc. in these books & show how the god represented in these books is vengeful, murderous, & insane. Finally, I'll move on to demolish intelligent design, the notion of a "Christian nation," & whatever else strikes my fancy. How does that suit you?

Originally Posted by Robert Ingersoll

I love my Baptist brother. My mom, who I also love dearly, is a Baptist. My sister is a convert to Mormonsim. I love her too. I think their religions are whack, but they're all good people.