U.S. Answers To Higher Law

USA Today ^ | Rev. Rob Schenck

[webber]

It could be argued that the Ten Commandments should be publicly displayed for no other reason than that these precepts informed our Founders. Our system of law is based on English Common Law, which had its moral foundation in the Ten Commandments.

[50sDad]

Bravo, Sir!

[WestPacSailor]

I like this Schenck fellow.

[RightWhale]

We are not the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong.

Can't let that screamer slide by.

We are indeed the judges of right and wrong.

[R. Scott]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says the Commandments can't be displayed publicly because they reference God. Yet the Declaration of Independence refers to "Nature's God." Our president swears in his oath of office "so help me God." Congress begins its day with a prayer to God. The Supreme Court itself announces every sitting with "God save the United States and this honorable court."

The above references don’t specify any particular God.

[USAF_TSgt]

Thank you!

[LiteKeeper]

We are indeed the judges of right and wrong

Based on what standard?

[Schnucki]

U.S. Answers To Higher Law

I figured this article was going to be about our Supreme Court asking the Europeans for instructions again.

[Imal]

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says the Commandments can't be displayed publicly because they reference God.

The issue isn't God, but law. There is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for the edicts of the federal judges trying to remove religious symbols from public property.

It is nothing more than judicial fiat, and judicial fiat is nothing more than judicial tyranny. Those federal judges issuing orders to remove religious symbols and words from public property are doing so without basis in law, and are therefore acting illegally.

They should be arrested and tried for malfeasance of office.

[steve50]

We are indeed the judges of right and wrong

Based on what standard?

The standard of eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

[RightWhale]

Plato's old question. Did the gods decree right and wrong, or did the gods judge right and wrong? There may be fewer gods now than during Plato's time, but the question still stands.

[LiteKeeper]

Plato's old question. Did the gods decree right and wrong, or did the gods judge right and wrong? There may be fewer gods now than during Plato's time, but the question still stands.

Plato was wrong. There is only One God, not many. The God who created the universe, and now sustains it, is the One that sets the standard. And the Declaration of Independence confirms that. You can deny that His lives, but that is your problem, not mine.

[MineralMan]

"Plato's old question. Did the gods decree right and wrong, or did the gods judge right and wrong? There may be fewer gods now than during Plato's time, but the question still stands."

Well, I consider Plato's deities to be just as valid as Christianity's deity/deities. Which is to say not at all. In my own opinion, human societies create the deities they need to fill whatever gaps exist.

Now, I have no brief whatever with folks worshipping whatever deities they wish. The numerous houses of worship in every city and hamlet give evidence of our nation's dedication to the freedom of worship.

However, that is not the question here. To plant a monument to a particular deity smack in the middle of a courthouse _is_, in my opinion establishment. Now, I'd have no problem at all if that courthouse asked the various religious organizations in that state to provide some symbolic monument to their religion, which would be installed side-by-side with this Ten Commandments monument.

However, I doubt that would be well-received. A statue of Mohammed would probably not be welcome in that courthouse, despite the fact that the State of Alabama has mosques and citizens of the Muslim faith. It, no doubt, also has followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, who might wish to place a monument depicting the handing down of the golden tablets.

Who else? Well, I'm sure there is a Hindu population, as well in the state. Perhaps they could erect a statue of Vishnu, complete with copies of some Hindu scriptures. Wiccans, Jains, etc. All have followers in that state. Where are their monuments?

And then there are atheists, like me. Now, I don't have a religious belief at all, so what would I put in the courthouse? Maybe a statue of Darwin holding a copy of Origin of Species. I dunno.

Bottom line here is that every courthouse is the property of _ALL_ citizens, not just some. The moment this judge publishes a call for displays of the religious artifacts of whoever wishes to make a display, then my objection will disappear.

Do I think that likely? I do not. Therefore, if the only religious monument in that courthouse is of the Ten Commandments, it applies to only Jews and Christians in that state, and promotes the idea that the Ten Commandments somehow have something to do with our nation, officially.

Of course, they do not. Of the 10, only two or three are encoded in our statutes. Our very Constitution forbids the encoding of the first four Commandments. Others are simply not applicable to this nation. Not coveting? Silliness. Our entire economic system is based on covetousness.

So, if you want a religious monument in the courthouse, then you are going to have to let every religion represented among citizens place a monument of their choice there as well. Otherwise, it is establishment.

[MEGoody]

". . .that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . ."

Interesting that atheists still claim these rights.

[RightWhale]

Plato was wrong.

I have come to doubt there ever was an actual person called Plato. But in any case, asking a question in a dialog is not in itself right or wrong. The arguments following the question are also neither right or wrong, but may be valid or invalid. Right and wrong are value judgements where God has no opinion but his churches sure do.

[MEGoody]

"We are indeed the judges of right and wrong."

But we judge based on a standard. Some say this standard is set by mankind. I say it is set by God. And if man determines that something is right that God has said is wrong, man is in trouble.

[MineralMan]

"". . .that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. . ."

Interesting that atheists still claim these rights."

Why does that seem strange to you? My creators were my parents. By my birth here in the United States of America, I am guaranteed those rights by our Constitution. Incidentally, the Declaration of Independence has no legal authority in this country. It is merely a historical document. Our Constitution is the document which establishes our nation.

[freeeee]

In many countries, murder serves a state purpose. Not so here; we believe moral absolutes control governments as much as individuals.

I stopped reading right there.

Is this article supposed to describe the US?

I guess the author has a short memory.

[RightWhale]

A statue of Mohammed would probably not be welcome

Least of all by orthodox Muslims. Do you know why they stopped publishing videos of OBL, aside from the fact that he is dead? Audio tapes only, no images. They got caught up in Madison Ave marketing in the beginning and forgot their religious practices, so they showed OBL. That was wrong, in their system, so they stopped as soon as this was pointed out, by non-Muslims BTW, and that goes double for the Palestinian suicide bombers who take a picture of themselves just before going off to collect their just reward. All those are less than devout Muslims.

[MEGoody]

"Why does that seem strange to you? My creators were my parents."

So your parents endowed you with rights? No, they didn't. Very clearly, the phrase 'endowed by their Creator' refers to diety. You are being disingenuous in your argument.