The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that ordered a Utah city to allow a non-traditional religion to erect its seven tenets beside the Ten Commandments or to take down all such monuments.
Summum, which believes its Seven Aphormisms were also brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses, is arguing its first amendment rights are being violated.
I’ve got to side with the Summums on this one. Not that I believe their blend of New Age and Scientology, but if this group loses it’s first amendment rights, Christianity can easily lose its rights as well! In a free, democratic society, the majority must to allow the minority its expressions of beliefs—regardless how strange or offensive—or it too may one day be in the minority. (And Christianity is quickly becoming a minority!)
Loading ...
November 22, 2007 at 15:49
The commandments deal with sins. The world doesn’t want to deal honestly with sin. Churches have become weak on sin, and I think many Christians lack a proper perspective on where the commandments fit into Christian life. I would hope, foolishly, that putting pagan principles beside them might inspire Christians to learn to earnestly contend for The Faith. But I fear that it would merely elevate the pagan principles to the level of God’s truth in the mind of unbelievers and pretenders. The churches are becoming weak on sin, and so sin will be elevated.
November 22, 2007 at 18:53
I think a good compromise would be for the state legislature to make a deision now and then say “this is the stuff we want in the courthouse and there’s an end to it. If you want to change it lobby your representative or become a representative yourself because it’s stupid tying up the courts in pointless exercises like whether the 10 commandments is allowed in a public building”. They could even put a disclaimer up saying ‘other legal bases available’ like the BBC used to when it owned the Radio Times magazine. It used to have to say ‘other listings magazines available’ when it was advertised on BBC TV.
November 23, 2007 at 13:36
In today’s culture I feel the 10 Commandments have been stepped on,broken and cursed at; As a Christian, My heart believes that the Holy commandments of God stand alone, and should be adhered to. Our Nation is blaspheming God, in the removal of/and (not) teaching them!
November 23, 2007 at 13:52
I more or less agree with James.
On the one hand, I don’t think anybody and their brother should be able erect whatever they want, expressing whatever ideas they want, at the site of a public building just because somebody else got there first. You might as well tell the gangbangers it’s OK to come plant their philosophy up on the public walls, as well. that’s free speech, too, isn’t it?
On the other hand…why NOT a public area set aside for such expressions, a sort of park where TASTEFULLY designed monuments could be erected to express the tenets or core beliefs of ALL the primary world religions. A place where the different faiths could also set up temporary special displays during meaningful holidays.
There would have to be some criteria, or standards set, but I, for one, would love to wander such a park and learn about the belief systems and core values of the other faiths. I would enjoy a non-prosylatizing (sp?) environment in which to explore both the differences and similarities between the faiths.
The Apostle Paul was not offended by a similar display in Roman times, but took the opportunity to introduce the citizens of Rome to “the Unknown God.” I think what Christianity has to offer is strong enough to stand up beside whatever the other world religions have to say. In fact, I’d like to see such a park in every major city, publically maintained as a place for the free exchange of ideas.
November 23, 2007 at 17:21
There’s a critical difference between these “Seven Aphorisms” and the Ten Commandments, namely that the Ten Commandments are moral imperatives, instructions for right living that are the foundation of laws and basic codes of conduct. Therefore, they serve an integral purpose not just to Western society at large, but more specifically to the legal system and principles which we follow in the USA.
The Seven Aphorisms, on the other hand, are not moral imperatives, but (really shoddy) statements of epistemological faith. They happen to believe that “the universe is a mental creation.” Well, okay, what, then, does that say about our proper moral conduct? Nothing. It’s not an imperative. Carried to its logical ends, actually, it devolves into base solipsism; the universe is what we think of it, ergo it is only our thought, ergo we can do whatever we want to our own thought-creation.
“As above, so below”—like, I dunno “on Earth as it is in Heaven,” which isn’t even one of the commandments. This second aphorism might be the closest they have to a true moral imperative. Taken as a command, it dictates one to live here as one does “above,” but that’s not even what the aphorism itself means.
If a state had erected a stone tablet of the Apostles’ Creed, the Seven Aphorisms might go along side it. But they do not go along side the Ten Commandments. They’re not the same thing.
A good lawyer would recognize the philosophical underpinnings of these Seven Aphorisms and could actually put the religion itself on trial as nonsense incompatible with the American way.
November 23, 2007 at 22:42
I think the Christians should not fight for other religious beliefs. We Christians should speak out for only the cause of Christ.
November 24, 2007 at 13:39
Freedom doesn’t belong only to Christians (with perhaps a nod to our Jewish heritage since the 10 Commandments originate with THEM). If freedom isn’t for all, and if ALL don’t protect it, it will soon be for none.
What makes Christianity the Truth isn’t based on whether or not it is legislated as such. You can’t legislate faith, but without a political environment that supports religious freedom, society quickly becomes the pawn of the powerful, not the faithful.
We should not be so afraid of what other faiths teach. As some of you have so aptly pointed out, the tenets of the other religions often lead to nothingness and despair, or worse, to violence and murder. A heart that is free to explore may eventually see those conclusions and turn to seek Truth. A heart that is coerced, will rebel and resist.
If we truly seek to reach others for Christ, we must first LOVE them as he does, and then demonstrate that love for all to see; pointing always to our Savior, not to the “superiority” of our text, however valuable it will be to the person once they have found Him.
I agree with Rosie, though, that our nation has left the path of wisdom in many respects and that we are paying for the decline in moral and ethical teachings and practices in our homes, schools, and public offices. It is a grief to read the paper and see the inhumanity that is perpetuated throughout our society. It is also a grief that “Christian” voices are adding to the animosity, hostility and intolerance by using inappropriate methods to bring about change. WE should stand up for ourselves, certainly, but not with bitterness, hatred, self-righteosness, or despite. Those are not the tools Jesus gave us.
November 24, 2007 at 15:46
“On the other hand…why NOT a public area set aside for such expressions, a sort of park where TASTEFULLY designed monuments could be erected to express the tenets or core beliefs of ALL the primary world religions. A place where the different faiths could also set up temporary special displays during meaningful holidays.”
I think that’s a terrible idea for a few reasons, not the least of which is that it negates the claims to truth of ‘major world religions’ in favor of lumping them all together in some kind of lovey-happy smorgasboard of life-affirming ‘moral principals’ – which is counter to Christianity as well as other faiths…
It also grotesquely emphasizes the modern materialist readings of religion as things that MAN has created – feats of organization or ‘mystical contemplation’ that some of us in the distant past did for all the others, and that we now somehow all ‘benefit’ by. Jesus Christ is not an event like Iwo Jima was an event – religious iconography has to be understood as DIFFERENT for the nature of the claims about reality that they make. A little garden of ‘the worlds faiths’ degrades the thinkers and especially the martyrs of all of them – Buddhist monks don’t immolate themselves in Tibet so we Americans can celebrate their ‘insight’ in a menagerie next to Mao and Confucius…
Third, this is a dumb idea because who gets to decide which religions are major? The ‘majority’? Somehow that idea is gross to me.
It’s also endemic to what’s wrong with how we think about democracy and religion though – that our idea of representative government has degraded to the point that we might, to make such a public work, vote about how ‘important’ Jainism or Wicca or Satanism or Scientology is, and establish that they ‘matter’ in some stone monument, is degrading to the core of all religious beliefs in that it imagines that religions just exist apart from their claims to be true. Religions aren’t just Special Interest Groups – the more we allow our culture to turn religion into a merely a topic or a commodity, the easier it is to forget that.
As Christians, I think our business, both in civic life and personally, is to remind everybody that there IS no ‘Unknown God’ – that there is one God, and that he had a son, and we killed him, etc. etc.
It makes no sense to me to think that my faith is supposed to ‘respect’ for other people’s religions – Jesus and His followers didn’t ‘respect’ paganism, Judaism, Persian religions.. They preached to convert them. These religions preach to convert us. That’s GOOD!
I think the Ten Commandments played a big part in our history as a nation – why remove them? The Koran and the Sura played (and play) a big part in Islamic cultures – why remove them?
Lets live in the world we’ve made, instead of trying to prove how inclusive we are, as if the struggles of the past and the conflicts of the present only need a properly-funded, nicely manicured piece of ‘conflict transformation’ to give us permission to forget them forever.
November 24, 2007 at 20:15
We spend too much time in this country arguing over the posting of Christian symbolism in public places, and less energy on personal evangelism to get that message engraved on hearts. It matters not if the Ten Commandments are posted in D.C. the size of the Lincoln Memorial if no one in the nation is being challenged by friends and family close to them to understand the meaning of that code—and to get to know the One who ordained it in the first place. Sometimes I think the fights like the one the judge in Alabama went through end up amounting to little more than throwing “pearls before swine.”
November 25, 2007 at 00:56
If you want to lead someone to Christ, you have to start from where they are, not where you want them to be.
If you want to have a friend, you have to be a friend, and if you want to receive respect, you have to give it. Jesus did not teach us that only his followers are entitled to respect. If anything, his entire message is that we are ALL sinners, unworthy of any respect at all, and it is only by his grace and shed blood that we are to be found acceptable in God’s sight.
Our actions are not supposed to mirror what other religions do or teach, only what Jesus taught. His instructions were pretty clear. LOVE GOD, LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR. (Think lowly & unclean Samaritan.) Check out Matthew 5:43-48 “If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that.”
If you call yourself a Christian you are mandated to LOVE your enemy and do good to those who dispitefully use you. There is no Biblical basis for being rude, disrepectful, exclusionary, or judgmental of anyone, never mind those who do not know Jesus. The disciples preached to save people, not to condemn them and they were not hateful to those who refused to listen.
When Jesus saved the woman caught in adultery he was not condoning fornication. When He was kind to the woman at the well, he was not endorsing serial marriage. He was, however, showing kindness and respect to persons that the society of his day was all too eager to condemn and punish. By doing so, he reached into the heart of the person and brought them to grace.
When missionaries go to foreign countries to share the gospel, their first job is to learn the language and about the culture they are living in. By doing this they are able to empathize with the people and show them God’s love in a relevant way. If they approached their mission seeking to overturn the existing culture, dispise the people and their customs, and ridicule or demean their belief systems, I’m guessing they’d obtain very few converts—if they survived.
Our country is not as it was 200 years ago. The mission field has come to us. If we want to reach the citizenry for Christ, we are going to have to adapt. By being willing to learn about other faiths, and by honoring at least the attempt [however misguided] to find God, we can hope to find within our common humanity a way to lead the lost to redemption.
I believe that any person who sincerely explored the scripture and compared it to the teachings of other faiths would sooner or later discover how each one fails to fill the deepest needs of the human heart EXCEPT as they are met by the person of Jesus.
I am not afraid to explore other faiths or to learn from them. In fact, since God has promised that we will never be tempted beyond what we can endure—that there will always be provided a way of escape—I believe that within every so-called religion [wherein we are tempted away from God] there is some truth which, if followed, will lead the person toward the one true God. Too bad so few of us are willing to act as guides.
November 25, 2007 at 03:05
This discussion illustrates why the state should avoid any direct or implied sponsorship of any religion. There are plenty of avenues to display and talk about the Ten Commandments.
No one is debating the specifics of the Ten Commandments. I don’t believe you find too many people that believe its a good idea to steal, lie, kill, or commit adultery. These have been a part of moral codes long before the 10 commandments and are almost universal.
I hardly think that civil law should be concerned with which god someone worships, banning sculpture, swearing, and whether or not someone desires to have something. In fact, if we legislated a ban on coveting in this country capitalism would be in big trouble.
So, I really don’t buy the so called great influence of the 10 commandments over a simple rational basis for civil order. I would think the banning of slavery would be a better commandment than banning sculpture, the so called 2nd most important moral insight.
November 26, 2007 at 07:33
I don’t think it is necessarily impeding on their religious freedoms to tell them “No.”
The majority is not required nor should it be expected to express the views of the minority. That is, inheritantly, the minority’s responsibility.
We have a Congress in the United States. It is composed not only of two major parties but also contains independents and representatives of other, smaller, lesser known parties.
Each Congressmen gets one vote. Whether it is in the Senate or the House. Regardless of their party. As an individual congressmen they are given no less of a voice than any other individual congressmen.
However, when it comes to voting on a piece of legislation, a Federal Judge, or any other of the many things our congress votes unless that individual congressmen sides with the majority vote that congressmen will not have his own personal decision made into law.
It would be like saying that although the senate voted 60/40 in favor of a bill that the country was still expected to equally favor the minorities counter bill.
There are more Christians (whether actual or simply by name) in the United States than any other religion. The United States was founded upon Christian principles by professing Christians (Yes, most of our founding fathers were professing CHRISTIANS by their own admission).
We are the majority and I do not believe that every time someone comes along with another belief, with another false religion, with another Lord we should be expected or required to give them equal visibility in our country. That misrepresents the majority of our country.
If they want to display monuments of their religions as openly as Christians in government institutions then they better start converting and electing people to their faith.
We’re not saying they can’t believe what they want. We’re not saying they can’t pray as they want in school. We’re not saying they have to worship whatever god or lack of god they desire. We’re not saying they can’t freely express what they believe.
What we are saying, however, is that the majority of this country associates themselves with Christianity and as such our government institutions and legal and moral code were based upon those beliefs…not theirs.
What next…swastikas, upside down crucifix, and pentagrams displayed out front of our government buildings?
November 26, 2007 at 11:39
Mr. Harty,
I get the feeling that you’re responding to me. Perhaps there is a rational basis for civilization—C. S. Lewis points out as much regarding the moral codes of other regions being remarkably similar to the Biblical mandates on right living. However, the critical difference between moral imperatives and creedal statements is an essential element to recognize when considering the merits of such a monument. There is no possible way that someone trained in analytical thinking could conclude that the Ten Commandments and the Seven Aphorisms are the same, especially in regard to law, which is something that deals with the issuing, enforcement and interpretation of such moral imperatives.
Also, if you really do not buy into such an idea as Ten Commandments being the foundation for Western law, surely you can buy into the underlying philosophic principles of Christianity upon which Western civilization stands. Whereas I am ambivalent about erecting monuments, I think it is clear that there is a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the Seven Aphorisms to be made in the realm of law.
November 27, 2007 at 02:40
Michael posted “There is no possible way that someone trained in analytical thinking could conclude that the Ten Commandments and the Seven Aphorisms are the same”
I didn’t say that. I think I communicated that no monument would be better.
Michael posted “Also, if you really do not buy into such an idea as Ten Commandments being the foundation for Western law, surely you can buy into the underlying philosophic principles of Christianity upon which Western civilization stands.”
I would say that Roman and Greek concepts of law and justice have had a far greater influence. When Rome became the center for power for Christianity, Christianity simply took the Roman system of law and military expansion and used it to conquer and destroy any who stood against them.
I think one can make a good argument that Jesus had a great influence on moral thinking and ethical treatment of fellow human beings, but I don’t really read him talking about any forms of civil law.
In terms of our own country I would say that the French revolution and the enlightenment thinkers steered the course that included some contributions by Jesus, but certainly not reflected in the 10 commandments or most of the authoritarian eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, types of Old Testament law.
I would say that the Biblical influence on law was at it highest during the dark ages where death penalties were carried out against witches and heretics as outlined by many of the Old Testament practices of theocratic justice. It was against these Biblical ideas of justice that motivated many of our founding fathers to eliminate the church’s influence and the reliance of Biblical authority on what constituted justice and law.
Thomas Paine, a Deist and rationalist, was probably one of the greatest influences on how we have organized our government. He wrote the Age of Reason and was a great influence on Thomas Jefferson. His ideas have been found in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. He was very influential in the French Revolution and this attracted attention from Jefferson and others because of his ideas of freedom. He condemned Washington for having slaves and was one of the most animate voices that stated true principles of freedom included the freeing of all slaves. There is no where in the Bible where slavery is condemned.
So, when talking about the 10 commandments I see no evidence, what so ever, that they held any major influence over the formation of our American system of law and government. When they do speak of civil law they only mention principles that simple reason would discover in almost any society.
November 27, 2007 at 05:50
I would like to point out that an image of the ten commandments appear above the Justices’ seats in the Supreme Court….not the Seven Aphorisms.
The entire legal and moral code of our country was based around the Ten Commandments. They are the very foundation of law and justice in America. Although many are ignorant of this fact, it is still fact regardless. We can not rewrite history. It is what it is.
November 27, 2007 at 05:56
In addition, ( apology for yet another post ). The posting of the Ten Commandments isn’t a matter of affecting the morality of the country but of principle.
The presence of a ten commandments monument is debatable in the overall morality of a nation. However, what we display outside our government buildings in principle reflects the heart of our nation.
If a nation displayed pentagrams on the lawns in front of its court buildings would that not relay a message to us about their beliefs and their justice system? Regardless of the overall state of that country the mere presence of that pentagram would tell us everything we needed to know about them.
As an American citizen I have every right to fight to defend monuments that represent our country’s roots and history. I’m not doing this to preach the gospel or even change people’s hearts. I’m doing it to stand up for what is right and proper.
If I have to fight tooth and nail to defend every symbol of my religious heritage in this country I will. From ten commandments in front of our court houses to the words “In God We Trust” on our currency. It is my right and duty as an American citizen to make sure that the record and monuments that represent our foundation as a nation remain intact. Lest we forget…
November 27, 2007 at 07:54
Teach, Karen!!!! God Bless you!
November 27, 2007 at 13:23
It seems to me that most, if not all, of us agree that our courthouses, capitol buildings, and other established centers of government should not be susceptible to invasion from minority faiths or philosophies. Matthew makes a good argument against this, if common sense is not enough.
The main point of dispute seems to be whether the minority viewpoints should be given any address at all and it seems that we also agree here, that private groups may sponsor such displays on their OWN turf.
The biggest bone of contension seems to be my idea that maybe there could be a public arena where all faiths could have an equal voice (a sort of Religious Senate, if you will). I still like the idea because education, understanding, and assimilation are also goals of good government. Since Government should not be endorsing or promoting any ONE religion, providing for all major religions equally in some venue might put an end to some of the ongoing [and expensive] haggling in our courts about religious favoritism. It might also provide a way for people to overcome their fears of people of different faiths and open up avenues of communication between them.
It is important for Christians to make their voices heard in civil government, but it is also important to remember that our own civil liberties are dependent on protecting those liberties for all, not just for ourselves.
November 27, 2007 at 23:07
Others’ religious ideas are not a threat because the truth of Christianity will stand in the marketplace of ideas. God has written eternity in the hearts of every person so when just about anyone sees “respect your parents” or “do not kill” they recognize it as truth. Most of the Seven Aphormisms will probably make most people scratch their heads and say “I get the ten commandments” but I’m not exactly relating to this one. I say take all the tenets of faith, line ‘em up. God has equipped everyone to recognize the truth and embrace it should each choose to do so.
November 28, 2007 at 10:16
Why don’t we just put this issue to the vote. If they win, then they put their’s up and we take ours down.
November 28, 2007 at 20:01
This calls for a little common sense. First, it would be better to have NO religious monuments on public land than allow every little joke society to demand equal time.
Second, ANY church has a constitutional right to put a public display of the Ten Commandments on its own property, in plain sight, where everyone can read them, about as impressive as having them in a public park. Summum, which is more or less a deliberate parody created to demand equal time by people who could care less about spiritual matters, could do the same, on its own property.
Third, it would be reasonable to have a small number of religious displays in public parks (NOT at the front door of government buildings), based on such objective criteria as, did they have some significance in the history of this community, over a sustained period of time (e.g. 100 years or more) by a substantial portion of people who lived here (e.g. more than 10% of the population). That could be tinkered with, but it is not an endorsement of the religious content of the display. And if there are only a few spaces available for tasteful displays, then it is reasonable to limit displays to the two or three faiths most prevalent in the area. NEVER two displays right next to each other—competing displays is not the point.
One hundred years from now, some of those displays might be Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu. Hang around a while, you’ll get your turn. And meantime, by all means share with us on the property of your own house of worship whatever you want us to know of you. I bet Summum doesn’t last two generations.
December 14, 2007 at 22:06
The reason the ten commandments even exist is because they are born out of cause and effect. When one understands the subtler levels of cause and effect, one pays closer attention to their actions and the consequences. That’s why I find Summum’s aphorism of cause and effect intriguing.
In The Federalist, one of this country’s founding fathers, James Madison, writes:
“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
The claim that the United States was founded on the Ten Commandments and Christianity is questionable. No reference to the Ten Commandments or the God of Christianity may be found in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. An examination of history shows that ideals and principles of Deism and Freemasonry influenced the birth of our country more than anything else.
The United States government publically declared that our country was not founded on the Christian religion. In 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli was passed and Article 11 of the treaty states:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; ...”
The treaty was approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and was ratified by the US Senate.
But this is all really beside the point. The issue here is free speech and it appears that some seek censorship and discrimination. They’ve adopted the attitude of “FREE SPEECH FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE,” contrary to the concern expressed by Madison. This is the reason our founding fathers left England and this is what they hoped to avoid in establishing this great country of ours.