A monument to atheism

[husker_99]

The 10 commandments are not Christian but Jewish.

 

Yea? Christianity doesn't follow the 10 commandments?

But they didn't invent the laws.

 

I'm not going to lie.... I'm confused as to your point (assuming you have one).

 

The 10 commandments aren't solely Christian why is that so hard to follow?

[MLB 51]

The 10 commandments are not Christian but Jewish.

 

Yea? Christianity doesn't follow the 10 commandments?

But they didn't invent the laws.

 

I'm not going to lie.... I'm confused as to your point (assuming you have one).

 

The 10 commandments aren't solely Christian why is that so hard to follow?

[sd'sker]

 

so?

meaning that laws came from religion.

how so?

[walksalone]

[tmfr15]

With the inclusion of the ten commandments at public places, Christian groups are trying to not so subtlety notate that the United States government was founded on Judeo-Christian models and, therefor, the direction of public policy should be under taken with special reverence to Christianity. If it becomes the consensus that the Christian religion is favored over other beliefs or secular view points, then it would be easier to pass laws that comport with the beliefs of Christianity, those being anti-gay, pro life, pro death penalty, anti assisted suicide, anti birth control, anti women's rights. The placement of the bench by the non-believing crowd, aka atheists, is an attempt to gain acknowledgement for people of different backgrounds and belief schemes and to break up the idea that Christianity was the primary drive in constructing our democratic republic.

[knapplc]

Putting up the Ten Commandments in courthouses has about 5% to do with respecting the code of law and about 95% to do with promoting Judeo-Christianity.

 

If they didn't want to pimp Judeo-Christianity they could have chosen a stele of The Code of Hammurabi, or a draft copy of the Magna Carta or something. Choosing the Ten Commandments is a direct effort to pimp their religion.

[BigRedBuster]

Neither the ten commandments nor the bench have any affect on me no matter where they are placed. I look at this issue from both groups as them just trying to cause a stir and get attention. If people would just ignore both actions, it would diminish their desire to put them there.

[StPaulHusker]

If it makes an atheist feel better to have a bench, more power to them. Most good people follow the most basic principles of the 10 Commandments in their every day lives whether you believe they came from God or from man.

 

As long as people are good to each other, it shouldn't matter what "monument" is in front of a courthouse.

[Landlord]

this thread should win an award

 

 

 

for dumbest thread ever

[Junior]

The 10 commandments are not Christian but Jewish.

 

Yea? Christianity doesn't follow the 10 commandments?

But they didn't invent the laws.

 

I'm not going to lie.... I'm confused as to your point (assuming you have one).

 

The 10 commandments aren't solely Christian why is that so hard to follow?

 

OK, so it could represent one of two religions. And that's not a violation of the first amendment how?

[C N Red]

As far as the 10 commandments were put on the court house they don't represent what a lot of Christians think. They are there cause they represent law and order not cause of religious aspect. Hard to find laws not based on religion. So now atheism is now benches?

What about 1, 2, 3, and 4?

like i said religion made laws and hard to find laws without any religious meaning to them, for their time.

 

There are hundreds of laws not based on religion. Was that seat belt law I got pulled over for the other day based on Corinthians?

 

Yes, Yes it was.

1 Corinthians 12:12

Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ, buckle up or lose parts of the body.

[JJ Husker]

 

It's not that atheists care if you believe in a higher power, I for one could not care less. But I don't agree with the religious endorsements by the government, which is what a statue of the 10 commandments in public space is. Such things are violations of the first amendment. Now so long as any religion can put their "shrine" in the same space, we have no problems, which is entirely the point of the bench.

 

You're contradicting yourself. Either these monuments are a violation of the first amendment (I do not believe they are) and should not be allowed from any group or religion or, they are not a violation and do not constitute a "religion endorsement" and therefore should be allowed from any group/religion. Near as I can tell, and as evidenced by this news, any group/religion can place their "shrine" in a public space. The simple fact that atheists or other religions have not done this before or more widespread has no bearing on the fact that the Ten Commandments in a public area does not equate to endorsement of a religion by our government. You might want to read those bits in the founding documents a little closer. The problem is when government limits the citizens rights to practice their religion (any religion) they see fit. You would have to show me specific wording that indicates simply being exposed to another's religion in a public space constitutes any type of violation. Don't confuse being exposed to a majority view as somehow infringing on your rights.

 

 

 

The 10 commandments aren't solely Christian why is that so hard to follow?

 

OK, so it could represent one of two religions. And that's not a violation of the first amendment how?

 

The much better and more pertinent question is; How is it a violation of the first amendment? It doesn't matter if the 10 Commandments are representative of 1, 2, or 100 religions. The only time it would be a problem is if some entity decreed that Religion #A can have access to public space but Religion #B cannot. The mere fact that other religions do not place their items in public has no bearing on it. Seems you are a little rankled to be subjected to Christian things in a predominately Christian country so you want to call it some sort of violation. The atheists put their bench/monument in a public space and I am happy for them. They, and any other group/religion can do this all they want and it won't bother me a bit. Why does it bother you when it happens to be the Ten Commandments?

[krill]

like i said religion made laws and hard to find laws without any religious meaning to them, for their time.

 

Your argument is a fairly simple mistake in logic. That is, the lack of a non-religious ancient civilization with laws does not prove that the presence of religion leads to laws. First of all, pagan religions in ancient Mesopotamian, Greek, and Italian civilizations had a much different role in society than the Judeo-Christian religion. Second, even advanced philosophers such as Aristotle had a rudimentary scientific understanding of the world (by our standards of knowledge), so there was no hope of the masses embracing reason over religious and mystic explanations for the daily occurrences of life.

 

A far better explanation is that civilization itself produces laws and understanding of morality, not the presence of region. Virtually of that in western civilization is derived from the Greeks. Christian teachings didn't materialize out of thin air either. Early church figures, such as St. Augustine, were greatly impacted by Neoplatonism as the church cannon and such took shape.

[huzkerbob]

Aww, you guys are so cute...

 

 

 

 

[TGHusker]

I think this is were we can tie the 2 sides together (not literally - no string strong enough for that). The discussion of natural law. Natural Law theory basically states that

nature has in it the 'right and wrong'. What religion does is to 'codify' it into an understandable moral format or code - like the 10 commandments.

The religious person person would say that the Creator God placed the natural law in all of us - that they are known to us - even outside of formal religion being a part of our lives

The apostle Paul notes this in Romans chapter 1 and chapter 2

 

Chapter 1: ¹⁹ since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ²⁰ For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

Chapter 2;

¹² All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. ¹⁴ (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. ¹⁵ They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) ¹⁶ This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

 

This website has a good discussion on natural law.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/ethics_text/chapter_7_deontological_theories_natural_law/Natural_Law_Theory.htm

What Is Consistent with the Natural Law Is Right

In this view humans have reasoning and the Laws of Nature are discernable by human reason. Thus, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them.

Humans have a natural drive to eat, drink, sleep and procreate. These actions are in accord with a natural law for species to survive and procreate. Thus activities in conformity with such a law are morally good. Activities that work against that law are morally wrong. As an example consider that to eat too much or too little and place life in jeopardy is morally wrong.

Two types of Natural Law Theory:

Natural Law Theory can be held and applied to human conduct by both theists and atheists. The atheist uses reason to discover the laws governing natural events and applies them to thinking about human action. Actions in accord with such natural law are morally correct. Those that go against such natural laws are morally wrong.

For the theists there is a deity that created all of nature and created the laws as well and so obedience to those laws and the supplement to those laws provided by the deity is the morally correct thing to do.

For atheists there is still the belief that humans have reasoning ability and with it the laws of nature are discernable. For atheists who accept this approach to act in keeping with the laws of nature is the morally correct thing to do.

What are the laws of nature that provide guidance for human actions? These would include: the law of survival, the natural action for living things to maintain themselves and to reproduce, etc..

ight and What Is not in keeping with the Natural Law Is Wrong .