10 Commandments controversy

[sarahmichigan]

(Am I the only one that'd like to see Frank the Goat back on the LJ main page instead of this Brad dude?)

I'm against having 10 Commandments displayed on public property. An opinion piece at salon.com today put it much better than I have managed to when I've talked to others about this issue. Here are some excerpts:

In gods we trust
Evangelicals insist that the U.S. is a Christian country. An increasing number of Americans beg to differ. (So does the Constitution.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

By Juan Cole

April 1, 2005 | It isn't just Michael Schiavo -- even George W. Bush has drawn the wrath of American evangelicals. In February 2002, the president and Laura Bush visited a Shinto shrine in Japan, to which they showed respect with a bow. They were immediately denounced by evangelical organizations for having "worshipped the idol." To listen to the anguished cries of disbelief from Bush's Christian base, you would have thought he had met the same fate as Harrison Ford in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," where Indie was hypnotized by the evil rajah into worshipping the pernicious Hindu idol of the thugees.

The reason for the evangelicals' frenzy is the first two commandments of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), said to have been given to Moses on Mount Sinai by God. The first says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." The second says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." George and Laura's respectful nod to the spirits in the Meiji Shrine violated those precepts in the eyes of true believers.


Both the reelection of George Bush and the Schiavo travesty have heightened the sense that the religious right in the United States is all-powerful. This isn't true. . . The United States is still a predominantly Christian country, but it is no longer an overwhelmingly Christian one. And more and more Americans are either non-religious, unchurched or subscribe to non-Christian religions.

. . .

In 2001, Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama had a massive two-ton granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments wheeled into the state Supreme Court building. The Southern Poverty Law Center and other organizations sued to have it removed, on the grounds that its installation in this public building constituted a state endorsement of a particular religion.

. . .

The courts ruled against Moore, but he refused to obey them, declining to mothball the monument to the Ten Commandments. A special judicial court removed Moore from his position as chief justice late in 2003. Moore complained to CNN, "Without acknowledgement of God, we have no justice system, according to the Constitution. And that, I'm sworn to uphold."

. . .

The Moore case has been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among the groups that filed a "friend of the court" brief against the Ten Commandments monument was the Hindu American Foundation, along with Buddhists and Jains.

. . .

Despite all the thundering by the Revs. Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell about the evils of secular humanism, then, it is making rapid inroads in American society. Worse for them, the percentage of Americans who say they are "Christian" fell from 86 in 1990 to only 77 in 2001.

. . .

Asian and other non-Christian religions (Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and so forth) still do not make up more than about 4 percent of the American population, but their adherents grew from about 5 million to over 7 million between 1990 and 2001 in the SUNY poll (which probably undercounts the smaller groups). As the Asian population grows in the United States, the number of Buddhists and Muslims will increase significantly. The United States adds a million immigrants a year, many of them from Asia.

. . .

The friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Hindus and others notes, "To members of non-Judeo-Christian religions, the Ten Commandments do not merely recite non-controversial ethical maxims; several Commandments (e.g., the first, second and third) address the forms and objects of religious worship." Underlining that there are nearly a million Hindus in the United States, and some 700 Hindu temples, the brief says, "Nor can Hindus accept the First Commandment's prohibition against 'graven images.' The use of murtis (sacred representations of God in any of God's various forms) is central to the practice of the religion for virtually all Hindus." The government-sponsored posting of the Ten Commandments implies a U.S. government preference for a theology that Hindus cannot accept. As for the country's 3 million Buddhists, the brief is even more blunt: "The conception of God, or the notion of worshipping creator gods, is considered an obstacle to the enlightenment sought by Buddhists."

Government endorsement of any particular religion's conception of God is also an obstacle to the American dream, of a society where the state is neutral with regard to theology. The founding fathers signed into law a 1797 treaty with Tripoli (now Libya), which declares that "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and adds that "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]."

. . .

More than 200 years later, all the progress achieved in the realm of religious tolerance by the first generation of Americans is in danger of being wiped out by ignorant fanatics who are not good enough to shine their shoes. That danger arises even as the number of non-Christians has risen to record highs. The irony is that the true iconoclasts throughout Christian history would have recognized Judge Moore's two-ton behemoth for what it is: a graven idol.

Comments

Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

Think about today's date.

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

One glaring thing that sticks out about the Salon article is the reference to the Treaty of Tripoli in terms of the Ten Commandments. Yes, it points out that the United States (in the opinion of the President who signed the treaty), isn't a Christian nation, but it's a treaty between Christians and Muslims, both of whom (with Jews) ostensibly observe the Ten Commandments. So that detail doesn't actually strengthen the article much.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I think I cut out the part of the opinion piece where the author addressed that. He said that while Muslims believe in the tenets of the 10 commandments, they still joined in the legal brief.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

d'oh!

silly me

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

It fooled many other people too.

Thanks for posting the interesting information about Judge Moore and the 10 commandments fracas.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

"...or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above..."

I had never consciously realized that was part of the Commandments. Doesn't that make those (IMO) creepy Jesus-up-on-the-cross representations that Catholics have lying around a violation of the Ten Commandments?

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

What exactly is everyone responding to, here?

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

The Catholic Church changed a lot of thing on nothing but their own authority. As far as I know, Seventh Day Adventists are the only protestant group that consistently reject those changes.

They set the canon, anyway, so if you accept their authority there, you should accept it elsewhere.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

http://www.livejournal.com/

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

I used the Catholics as an example because my grandmother is Roman Catholic, so I used to walk through her house with her saviour looking down at me rather dolefully from his cross. I was raised Episcopalian, and we had representations of Jesus, but since Episcopalians=diet Catholics, that might explain that. Presbyterians and Methodists, I dunno about; I was just to funerals in those churches.

So I understand doctrine manipulation, but for me the question remains: if that's what the Commandment SAYS, shouldn't the thumpers have no images of Jesus in their homes?

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

Depends on your interpretation. Here is Exodus 20:4 from the New International Version (courtesy of http://www.biblegateway.com): "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below." Many religious faithful (and this is, by my understanding, particularly adhered-to by Muslims) interpret this to mean that no icons of actual things should be used for religious purposes. Others interpret this to mean exclusively false gods -- if you worship anything as if it were God that's not actually God, you're in violation. Since Jesus is a form of God (according to Christian belief), it's ok to make icons in his image.

But the Catholic Church goes farther than this by allowing altars with saints on them, which Fundamentalist Protestants generally condemn as graven images. Certainly Saints Francis, Christopher, Nicholas (Santa!), and so on are not manifestations of god, and as such their images are idols. The Catholic defense, I believe, is that they're not being worshipped as if they were God and therefore the Commandment doesn't apply.

The intent of the Commandment is clear from "for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God" -- the intent is to prevent people from treating any other entity as if it were a god. So that's where the theological nut comes in: Are people who pray to Saint Christopher for guidance treating him like a god? I think so, but the Roman Catholic Church's position is that they aren't.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't you get in trouble for praying to Christopher anyhow, since they booted him out years ago? Boy, was my grandmother ticked when they did that. *heh*

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

If you're following King James, or any other version which bans all images of "natural things," yes. But a literal interpretation of KJV (which is what Salon is using) says you shouldn't have pictures of ANYTHING that exists in the natural world. A painting of a bird violates the literalist reading of KJV.

Also, not all Protestants follow KJV. I don't know what the standard is right now. As I pointed out, NIV (which is fairly common, if not the standard) permits depiction of Jesus so long as they're not idols.

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

I was just using him as an example. :) I have no idea who the "correct" saints are these days.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

What I recall of the KJV was that, when I took my Old Testament class, the instructor told us that the KJV was one of the most inaccurate verisons you could possibly use. Which would explain its wide usage.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

I'm just being cheeky. =)

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Most of American Christians are Protestants, and the majority of Protestant religions use the naked cross, which represents the resurrection, rather than the crucifix, which (of course) represents the crucifixion.

Then the question becomes whether the cross itself is an idol.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

I'm only going off of my experiences. I presumed most churches went with bare crosses, but I've run into plenty of evangelicals who are wearing Jesus around their necks, too, which now seems not only gruesome, but hypocritical to me.

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

:O

Actually, though, I hadn't heard about Christopher. I know they "reassessed" Bridgit and tried to declassify her, but decided to let the Irish continue to worship, er, whatever-it-is-they-do-that-isn't-worship-but-involves-lighting-candles-and-praying-but-dammit-worships-illegal! her.

But Bridgit was reassessed because the Pope got tired of Wiccans telling him about how she was an Irish Goddess and all... Lack of solid historical documents and glaring similarities to pre-existing pagan deities in both feast day and story tends to be a bit embarrassing.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I had caught from some of the comments that it might be related to something on the front page, and looked before I asked. I just double-checked, and I still don't see anything beyond "God Bless" in the signature.

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

I think whether a cross is an idol depends on the intention of the wearer, frankly. IF the cross is being worn as a marker, so that other Christians can identify the wearer and non-Christians will be encouraged to ask about the faith ("I will make you fishers of men"), then it's not an idol, IMO. IF the cross is being worn as a deliberate portion of the wearer's religious practice -- they MUST wear the cross -- then it is.

And, regardless of what one thinks about Jesus being a portion of God (and therefore exempt from the NIV interpretation of "it's only bad if it's not really God), the cross is a natural object that isn't God. So the part that fails the First Commandment isn't Jesus, it's the cross that's holding him up. :O

I think all of this forms a part of why I'm no longer Christian.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

How would the cross represent resurrection? A big rock, I could see...

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

They like to talk about "the blood of Jesus washing the sins away", too, which just reminds me of Elizabeth Bathory

[mogwar.livejournal.com]

So what's it mean when I wear the cross my parents gave me for my 17th birthday with my Catholic school girl outfit, because it's large and clunky and silver so also vaguely gothy and I think it's cool and amusingly sacrilegious? Especially if I'm going to a strip club or something like that? (This all assumes I ever find the damn thing again, of course.) :)

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

"During the past months I have worked to provide subordinates with the resources to attain results, we have developed a cohesive department effort and have kept alert to strategic opportunities. By displaying the strong mental flexibility and by using sound fact-finding approaches, we have used our common sense to reach workable conclusions."

You don't find this silly?

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

It means you're going to Hell, with the rest of your friends.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I thought I had to put "porn" or "strippers" in a post title to get this many comments.

Thanks for amusing me today, all.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble reading it without my eyes unfocusing at the corporatese. I don't see anything about the ten commandments, though.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Don't you have to be wearing panties to be sent to Hell for that?

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

sorry, Bill. Now I understand your conclusion. I made a parenthetical remark at the beginning of this 10 commandments post about the front page.

And, it's pretty clear from the comments in response to "Brad's Corner" that it's an April Fools' joke.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

er, "confusion" not "conclusion."

lol

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[aedifica]

I wondered for a moment too, and came to the conclusion that it's because the cross is now bare (i.e. Jesus is resurrected). There are logical problems with that (e.g. the time in the tomb when he was neither on the cross nor resurrected), but since when does symbolism need logic?

There could also be some other reason - like I said, I made that one up!

[mogwar.livejournal.com]

Dude! I still managed to mention strippers. :)

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

But the bible IS porn for the thumpers. It's all they're allowed to get off on anyhow!

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

You're welcome. There's something about the 10 commandments fracas in practically every issue of my "Church and State" and "Freethought Today" subscriptions.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

That would be because there is nothing about the 10 commandments. The lj goat thing and the 10 commandments are separate subjects - not connected to each other in the post. Notice the lj comment is in parens?

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

This whole sub-thread of comments is making me snort-laugh. I didn't mean to confuse poor Bill.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I was never talking about the Frank the Goat & Brad thing in the first place. I was wondering why I had three posts in a row from different people on my friends list about the 10 commandments.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

Look at the subject line of your comments. If you were not talking about the goat, etc., you should have changed the subject line. Probably would have caused much less confusion.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I never even noticed there was one, sorry.

[anisoptera.livejournal.com]

No worries. It all makes sense now. ;) I've seen your comments around before so I knew you could read and write well and I was mystified as to what was the disconnect in the conversation.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Jenx mentioned something about the 10 commandments last week in a post and I was debating with her about it. Then, I saw the opinion piece on salon.com today, which inspired my post. I suspect my post inspired Brighn to post about it, too. I'm not sure about the third person on your friends' list.

Re: Re Frank the Goat & Brad.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

No one any of you know (20ish college student in Kentucky), but I suppose she could've seen the same Salon article.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

No, you're right.

It's just symbolism. It doesn't have to make total sense.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Welcome to my LJ, by the way. Did you find me via mogwar?

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

pstscrpt, actually. His friends' page is easier on the eyes than mogwar's. =) Sorry if I creeped you out.