A Letter to the Editor on the Posting of the Ten Commandments

Someone posted the Ten Commandments in a prominent place on his own property in our area. He was subsequently described as "courageous" in a letter to the editor. This is my brief response:

It doesn’t take courage to post the Ten Commandments on private property, as one person recently commented. That’s a right guaranteed by the first amendment which most people enthusiastically support and defend, including me. I wonder though, if this is the symbol Christian people really want to display to reflect their beliefs? There are three versions of the Ten Commandments, which were based to some degree on the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1795 – 1750 BC), and they don’t all agree with each other (Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 4). Which one do you post?

The only commandments relevant to American law are the ones prohibiting homicide, theft and perjury, which are laws almost everyone wants enforced, for good reasons. Who, for instance, in our day wants to prosecute people for worshipping a different god, making a graven image of him, working on the Saturday Sabbath day, taking the Lord’s name in vain, not honoring their parents, committing adultery, or coveting another person’s property? We all know what happened when such laws were enforced by the church, now don’t we? We live in a democracy, not a theocracy, and for good reasons. The last one about not coveting reflects the ancient barbaric practice of a thought police, something which is still being enforced in some Muslim countries where people can be prosecuted for what they think!

Besides, what about some other commandments that aren’t listed but could be, like: “Thou shalt not buy, beat or own slaves,” “Thou shalt not treat people differently because of the color of their skin,” “"Thou shalt not treat women as inferior persons, nor shall you rape them or force them to marry a man they do not want to marry," “Thou shalt not kill or torture heretics or witches,” “Thou shalt not conduct Holy Wars,” or “Thou shalt not trap or abuse animals but treat them humanely.” I think those additions would’ve been very helpful down through the ages, don’t you?

Even if we regard the Ten Commandments as moral rules, aren’t they too restrictive? Is there any room for mitigating circumstances or exceptions? The history of ethical thinking reveals there are a great many exceptions to straightforward commands such as these. Is religious art a graven image to avoid? Should we always honor or obey our parents in everything, even if one tells us to do wrong or who molests us? One commandment states we should not kill, yet we see plenty of divinely sanctioned killings in the Bible, even genocide. Should we always tell the truth under all circumstances? I think not, and so do many religious people. I just think better symbols are available, that’s all.

31 comments:

John W. Loftus said...

You'll notice I don't blast the Christian faith here, because I live and work in this area.

Edward T. Babinski said...

According to the “First Commandment” in the Bible “ye shall have no other gods before me” under penalty of death.

While our First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion.

Harry McCall said...

Damn you Babinski!

What are you trying to do? Cause trouble?!
(LOL)

Harry McCall said...

Good post John!I approached someone at work the other day and questioned him about enforcing some of the points of you pointed to in your post. He just stood there…Duh!

As it is with most of these religious people, they are driving their religious automobile dogmatically along with their
Christian fanatical pride down the road at over 100 mph before they realize they forgot the stirring wheel of common sense!

Samphire said...

"or commit incest with childrenI think you need to go a bit further with this one. As written it still allows RC priests to get away with child abuse.

Brad Haggard said...

John, Hammurabi, seriously? When you read the content the differences are very apparent.

Logismous Kathairountes said...

Speaking of thought police, hoo boy, you should read the New Testament! Jesus makes the commandments even worse, saying stuff like "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28)

Wow, that's bad! We Christians must be under a divine command to find everybody who looks lustfully at women and stone them to death!

Wait, but now I'm remembering a story where they catch a woman in adultery and bring her to Jesus, and they all want to stone her to death! I guess us Christians are rooting for them, eh? But Jesus says, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)

We must be really confused!

Or is it just possible that Christianity makes a distinction between the moral law that God enforces and the civil law that mankind makes to govern society? And that maybe encouraging people to reflect on the moral law by, I don't know, displaying a symbol of it somewhere, might help them follow the civil law?

No, we already know that Christians are too stupid to make a distinction like that. So many of them voted for Bush, after all. And we all know that Bush can't even read.

ZAROVE said...

Brad, you have to understand the mindset here. The goal of the posters on DC is to discredit Christianity, and while they may not be as bad as the Jesus was a sun god crowd, thy are still susceptable to the use of dubious argumnets that sound sceintific or academic that help them in this end.


That said, John, it is disingenious for you to list "Other commandments", especially those that wpuldn't have made sence or the bulk of Human histpory. Take for example the ides od not judging someone based on skin colour. That may sound great to us in the 21st century, but the idea of skin colour prejudice is relatively new. Those who received the Ten Commandments wouldn't have judged people base don skin colour. Nor would anyone in the next several centuries.

Its also odd that you'd mention no inscest with Children. Settign aside the obvious attakc on Cahtolsiism by an above poster makign a CHeap SHot, you really didn't come up with a good commandment. You said not to commit Incest with Children. THis leaves room for Adult incest. Is that really somehting we shoudl allow, though?

Besides, isn't incest in its enturety already outlawed in Torah?

You also seem to not understand the Ten Comandments as what they wher eintended for. They are a bare minimum basic set of laws, designed to underpin the morality of th epeople, but where never meant to be comprehensive. That'd have been impossible in a short list that was easily memorised. Still, Moses did deliver over 600 laws in addition, so you seem to not relaly pay attention to those.

Its also interestign that you'sd say "No holy wars". Well, this is daft. A such as you'd prefer to think all Holy Wars where wrong, the truth is that a Holy War can be nust as justified as a war fought for enturley Secular reasons. And, the Ancients woudln't have relaly understood the distinctiion anyway as what was Religion and what was dialy life wasn't divided as it is in our modern culture.

Your alternative commandments are themselves just silly.


(By the way, on the Cahtlic thing, why don't we make fun of female school teachers? They've been havign at it latley with young boys, and in some cases girls. I guess that doens't help make CHristianity look bad so...)

Its also disinginious to ask about breakign the commandments base don extrenuating cercumstances since the bible already allows for that elsewhere, and the commandments aren't that strickt.

In facg, the "THou shalt not kill" is acutlaly undertsood as Murder, which is how a lot of Translatins put it.

If you came at me with a knife and I killed you as we struggled ot prevent you from killign me, Id not be in violation of the Ten Commandments.


All this said, your basic premise is that the Ten Commandments woudln't make a good moral code for today. I disagree. I think they shoudl be taken to Hart by all.

Of ocurse you can bewail the Punihsment by death, btu since you isolatd the Ten Commandments form Torah in other regardd, such as the tsrict prohibiton agaisnt Incest, I'll note that there ar eno punishments prescribed int he actual Ten Commandments.


Also, the "Three sets of ten commandments" claim is getting old. Its been answered before.

Edward T. Babinski said...

Hi Brad,

Even conservative Christians admit that the code of laws of Hammurabi preceded the laws of Moses. There is also a stele showing Hammurabi receving his code of laws directly from the sun god, Shamash. Reminded me of the O.T. claim of having rec'd laws directly from the Hebrew tribal god Yahweh. And the similarities are striking as any college course in O.T. laws in their ancient Near Eastern millieu can attest. There are differences as well, but the style in the O.T. is Hammurabi-like and we know Hammurabi's laws preceded Moses'.

Another interesting point is that the "covenant between Yahweh and his people" resembles similar covenants that already existed between the Hittites and their vassal states. Again the stylisms are unmistakable and the Hittite covenants preceded those of the O.T. "in the days of Moses."

I read such things in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts, but there's plenty of other books published since then in which you can study such parallels.

feeno said...

E.T.B.

I should probably know better by now to try to respond to some of these arguments. Especially when the grown-ups are talking, but I just can't help myself.

The reason Christian conservatives agree that your boy Hammurabi was around about 300 years before Moses is because a lot of those conservatives know him by his Biblical name Amraphel. (Gen. 14).

It's a funny thing when archeological discoveries prove yet another name or place in the Bible, how you skeptics seem to use it to further your position.

As far as your theory on the
Hittites goes, it probably is accurate, but that was the whole idea of the 10 plagues. God was always dealing with other "gods". The fact that God used ways that were common practices of the day was for the Israelite's benefit. BTW the sun god was the reason for the 9th plague.(Darkness)

This is not "false flattery" but I'm almost scared of your response, please go easy on me. Thanks. Peace out, feeno

Samphire said...

Logismous Kathairountes said...

"Speaking of thought police, hoo boy, you should read the New Testament! Jesus makes the commandments even worse, saying stuff like "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28)"

I've always wondered about that verse or, at least, since I was about 14.

How would Jesus have known about looking at a woman lustfully if he had not done the same at some time and thereby sinned? I don't see how he could be thought of as having been fully human if he had not been subject to his hormones like the rest of us.

If the Jewish gals were all dogs in those days (contra the Song of Solomon) they have certainly come on a lot since. Woof, woof.

Samphire said...

ZAROVE said...

”Its also odd that you'd mention no inscest with Children. Settign aside the obvious attakc on Cahtolsiism by an above poster makign a CHeap SHot, you really didn't come up with a good commandment.“
A gentle snipe at 4,392 abusive American priests is no cheap shot.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

Harry McCall said...

"I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matt. 5:28)" Like Jesus had any sex drive!

Fact is, Jesus’ life style had more in common with gay men than straight!A. Lets see, he hung out with only men, maybe 12 or more.

B. The only use he had for women was, like in the example of Mary and Martha was as servants.

C. His sarcastic mouth to the Canaanite woman and her child was very harsh.

D. The pericope of the Adulterous Woman brought to Jesus in John is a late addition (Textus Receptus / King James Version) and is left out of all modern English translations.

In fact, Jesus NEVER condemns the homosexual life style!Secondly, how the hell was a man to seek a women if the sex drive that brings a healthy heterosexual man to a relationship is condemned as sinful?!

Finally, my question would be, if Jesus was really fully human and a healthy male, he had to have had wet dreams (unless he often gave himself the Right Hand of Fellowship, but then just what was he think about while he did this?).

Either way, Jesus' attack on heterosexual thinking, his view of women, and his inter circle of men (not to mention the naked man that rum off without his clothes when Jesus was arrested in the Garden: A certain young man, who was wearing nothing but a linen sheet, was following Jesus. When the men grabbed him, he left the linen sheet behind and ran away naked. Mark 14: 51-52...What the hell is this about?!) leaves Jesus in a poor light sexually!

feeno said...

Harry, you're funny, you might be struck down by lightening today, but your funny.

Jesus loved Mary and Martha so much he wept. He raised Lazarus from the dead on their behalf.

The Canaanite women he was so harsh with, I believe he bragged about her faith to his disciples, trying to teach them something, and also granted the Canaanite woman's request of healing her daughter.

I play softball with all guys, I'm in a Men's Bible study, my golfin' buddies, all men. Hell my favorite T.V. show is Will and Grace, but sorry, not gay.

I thank God for eye candy. But looking at a beautiful woman and thinking; whoa, she's fine, is a lot different than lusting after her.

I know you don't believe in God, but tonight before you go to bed, you should ask him to forgive you for thinking of him that way. He will too.

Your still my favorite, Peace out, feeno

ZAROVE said...

Samphire, you just proved my point that this is all about discrediting Christianity. You cite the 4392 figure, but forget that this is only 4% of the total population fo Preists in the United States.

You rely instead on the fact that the number sounds large, and peopel generlaly won't know how many Prietss there ar ein the US, so this sounds like an overwhelmign number. It obscures the facts and resents a false mental picture.

You also overlook my other point. No one makes fun of School teachers or claims they are all sexually abusing Children, yet in recent years we have seen far mroe female school teachers engaged in sex acts with minor students than male Prits with altar boys.

Somehow, all Roman Cahtolic Prietss are tobe viewed with suspicion and the whole of the Cahtolci Churhc shown up for hypocracy and falcity base dupoin this, with the claim that the Cahtolic CHurhc has much to answer for, while the public education institutions are somehow immune from similar critisism for the same things.

The way you present the informaiton, selectinely leavign out important parts of it, and the fact that you then blame the Cahtiolic Church as an institution for the actiosn of a few peopel within it, whilst ignoring how similar accusaitons could be levied agaisnt another, unrelated institution shows that the real intention with you ins't to stand up to the evils of the Cahtolci Church in how they allow rampent pedophilia, but that tou jumpe don the Bandwagon of attakcign all Cahtolics peistss over the Pedophile Prietss csandal because its easier to make fun of the Cahtolci Churhc this way and is a cheap shot thats easy to take.

And by extension you then attack all of Christendom.

But tis nto really a fair assessment.

4% of the population fo Priets is a small amount, overall, and to suggest the Cahtolci Churhc itself somehow condoned the Pedophilia is simply errant.

ZAROVE said...

Edward T. Babinski, No one here disputed that the Code of Hammurabi preceeded the Law of Moses, but the "Similarities" aren't such that we can safely argue that one was direclty base dupon the other. I have studied the matter, and this claim is another oen of those that is pipular on the itnernet but that stems from 19th century scholarhsip thats been long ago abandoned, much like the claim that Easter was a pagan fertility festival, or that Jesus was base don dying and rising gods.

There is overlap between the Law of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi, btu then there ar eoverlaps between the Law of Moses and ANcient CHinese laws from the Hahn DYnasty, and no oen thinks this proves the Law of Moses inspired the Hahns.

The siilarities come mainly from addressing real wprld problems and the typical fahsion in which humanity tends ot view such things and to seek order in their societies.

There is a surprising level of similitude in all cultures on how they organise, and se tup heirarchies,a nd what laws they form. THis is because we are the same Spiecies and typiclaly share the same way of seeing things and th same nature, and face the same problems.

Its not becaus eone automaticllay lead to the other.

Harry McCall said...

Freeno: Harry, you're funny, you might be struck down by lightening today, but your funny.

Re: Why is religion (Christianity always one way. God can abuse us (struck down by lightening today), but we can’t return the favor / abuse? If I’ll to suffer forever in Hell, why not give God Hell here and now?! My position is: No quarters offered. No quarters accepted!Freeno: Jesus loved Mary and Martha so much he wept. He raised Lazarus from the dead on their behalf.

Re: After he stalled several days. Like he really wanted to comfort them!

Freeno: The Canaanite women he was so harsh with, I believe he bragged about her faith to his disciples, trying to teach them something, and also granted the Canaanite woman's request of healing her daughter.

Re: why not abuse a Jewish women and girl? You and I both know that if a pastor called a women requesting prayer for her dying daughter a “Dog” he would be run out of the church! But Jesus can verbally crap on an non-Jewish women and that’s OK.Freeno: I play softball with all guys, I'm in a Men's Bible study, my golfin' buddies, all men. Hell my favorite T.V. show is Will and Grace, but sorry, not gay.

Re: Yes and you are married with children…a big difference!

Freeno:I thank God for eye candy. But looking at a beautiful woman and thinking; whoa, she's fine, is a lot different than lusting after her.

Re: Every single healthy heterosexual males either masturbates or has wet dreams to compensate unused sexuality for the male hormones.

Question is, did Jesus have a set of functioning nuts? Was Jesus fully man or fully gay?

Freeno: I know you don't believe in God, but tonight before you go to bed, you should ask him to forgive you for thinking of him that way. He will too.

Re: Been there, done that. Based on what God did in the Hebrew Bible, God should ask humanity for forgiveness!

Freeno: Your still my favorite, Peace out, feeno

Re: Thanks.

Sister Twister said...

Jesus had Super-Holy-Homo-Hormones so he only checked out the guys.

Brad Haggard said...

Harry,

I'm sorry, but you went off the deep end on this one. You want to quote Secret Mark for us, too? Let's stick to more serious discussion, please.

Harry McCall said...

Brad,

The Jesus of the Gospels is anything but human if he had no sex drive. This half God half man with no sexual outlet who mandates thought patterns as sexual sins is an illusion no man can relate to.
Even the Greek demigods are depicted as chasing women; hell look at Zeus (now there’s a God I can understand!).

Brad Haggard said...

Umm, thanks for that information, Harry...

Harry McCall said...

Unlike the gods of the ancient Near East, especially the Ugaritic pantheon where most gods had wives, the final from of the Judao-Christian tradition leaves the Hebrew God without a wife (though Yahweh probably was married to Asherah as the inscription from Kuntillel ‘Ajrud states).

The whole idea of the Trinity has God, Jesus and the Spirit unassociated with any female consorts, thus these three male members (whether the Holy Spirit is neuter is questionable) are totally absorbed in their relationships with each other does indeed give some credence to their own homo love among themselves.

Carbon Based said...

I've not read thru the whole of the comments but I've a question for our christian brothers.

Why the hebrew ten commandments and not the wholey christian beatitudes? Are not the very words of your lord and master a better display?

a side bar, word verification today was "jizery" :)

ZAROVE said...

cARBON bASED, peopel do display the Beatitudes, but the Ten Commandments where usually displayed in Courts, because they are symbols of law, and if you had not noticed, Christianity emerged from Judaism, and inherited from its Hebraic roots the Ten Commandments, which, while not themselves Christian, are still held as true by Christians.

That said, Traditioanlly they are seen as the basic foundation for Moralit for all Nations for both Jews and Christians, and are even regarded highly amongst Muslims, and even soem others.

The reason they now are displaye dmor eoften though is beause of militant Secularists insisitng on a "Seperation of Church and State" thats really just a cover for removing all Christian infleunce formt he Public Square.

Hawaii recently declared that a day in Septemner will be Islam day, and no one, not the ACLU, not the Association for he Seperation of Church and State, not even the Freedom From Religiin Foundation even batted an eye, but yet they'd sue if a Cross is displaye don a Public property, or if the Ten Commandments show up in Courts.

Of course, their also OK with that Pagan goddess who happens ot wear a blindfold and also just so happens ot be in a lot of courthosues, which also reveals the hypocracy.


The point is mainly to attack Christianity, and he Ten Commandments are part of Christianity.


Christians naturlaly resist this and cling tighter ot them and make htem ore visible. The man who set them up on his lawn, for example, did so to protest the treatment the Ten Commandments tend ot get these days, abd woudln't have displayed htem had others not been so overbearign in their desire o remove them.

That said, I think that, a aa Symbol of Law, the Ten Commandments shoudl be permited ot be displayed, along with other Symbols such as the Scales, or Themis (THe blind goddess, whose statue we mentioned earlier.)

If we insist on removing the Ten Commandments int he name of a Mythic Seperaiton clause that was never intended ot abolish such symbols form the public Square, we should at least be consistant and reve Themis, and any other symbol of law assoicated wiht any spaciifc Traditional Religion.

And if tou like the codes, mien was "pasivart".

Gandolf said...

ZAROVE said..." Samphire, you just proved my point that this is all about discrediting Christianity. You cite the 4392 figure, but forget that this is only 4% of the total population fo Preists in the United States."

What only 4% ???.. 4392 ????.

Hell there is just nothing to be worried about at all then is there Zarove!.

Pffffttt 4392 !! ...mere expected contingency loss level, for the good of faiths progress in general overall.

Hallelujah! .....Oh the great splendor! ..Faith belief breeds such wonderful caring thoughtful folk worldwide! dont it,evidence and proof can quite plainly be seen an experienced in the end product.

Beloved believers, let us all now turn to the Parable of the Good Samaritan Luke, chapter 10, verses 25–37.

But at the same time lets forget the mere 4392 abusers and those they abuse ...Dammit ! we just dont want to hear it :)

Yes beloved "Brad, you have to understand the mindset here. The goal of the posters on DC is simply just to discredit Christianity."

Brad im sure you agree, Christianity does absolutely nothing ever to discredit itself !, does it :)

If only those damm pesky non believers would just simply shut up and piss off,in time this world could be more full of wonderful faithful bible reading folk all with their contingency plans for the mere 4392 that are simply just not worth mentioning or worrying about at all.

Oh the blissful wonder of wonderful evidence thats available time and time again that really proves the obvious great benefit faith people gain from reading these wonderful faith books.

ZAROVE said...

Gandolf, you also prove the point. Your mockery and reperition of the number show what I mean. Lets look at your post.

ZAROVE said..." Samphire, you just proved my point that this is all about discrediting Christianity. You cite the 4392 figure, but forget that this is only 4% of the total population fo Preists in the United States."

What only 4% ???.. 4392 ????.
Look at the link he provided. It says the number is only 4%.

THe fact that the Study was inclusive of the total number of Cahtolic Prietss in all fo the United States (Including its territories) and thus really isn't a largr number. Its actulaly less than the number of school teachers who commit sexual acts with their students in grade school.

But who cares about the real figures? Just thros the larege soudnign numebr arund. That way you can make it soudn worse than it is.

It still wont change the fact that on average only 4 out of every 100 Prietss is guilty of Pedophilic acts, which is about the same as for the general population, and acutlaly less than for school teachers (WHich stands at about 6%).



Hell there is just nothing to be worried about at all then is there Zarove!.This is what I meant by mocking tone. SOmehow you just repeat the 4392 number and beat us up over it,a nd act liek Im just dismissal of this massive figure, when in fact its not a massive figure contrasted to the overall number of Ordained Priets in the US.

I cn throw out to you the Homocide rating for the State of New Yoprk, and it'd be in the thousands too, btu that doens't mean every New Yorker is a Homocidal maniac.



Pffffttt 4392 !! ...mere expected contingency loss level, for the good of faiths progress in general overall.No one said that. What I said was that the overall number of accused Sexual PReditors in the United States who are Cahtolci Clergy is far lower than canbe used ot justify th eocntinual attack on Cahtolisism base don it.

No one said it was OK for them to do this, but its stupid ot think of all Cahtolic Priets as Pedophiles based on what 4% of them do.

Incidentlaly, your attack on "Faith beelifs" is even mroe telling. Since when are all "Faith beelifs" alike? And what fo your own Faith beelifs?



Hallelujah! .....Oh the great splendor! ..Faith belief breeds such wonderful caring thoughtful folk worldwide! dont it,evidence and proof can quite plainly be seen an experienced in the end product.You speak of evidence and proof, and mock me for ignorign the rampent Pedophilia "Faith beleifs" produced, and shut the 4392 number, whilst ignorign the actual point which is base donr eal evidence.

To break thos down again, 4 out of eery 100 peietss have been accused of secual molestation of minors. THis number is approsimatley the same as in the general adult population.

No oen says its Ok for the Prits to molest Children, as it advances the Faith, nor is anyone suggestign that it shudl be overlooked to advance the Faith. What Im actually saying is that 4% of the overall clergy population is not a signifigant number to justify the endless attacks on Cahtolsisism base don Pedophile Prostss.

I'd also note that not all "Faith beelifs" are Catholic. Do you hear much about Methodist Pediphiles? WHat about your local Rabbinical Pedophile?

Coem off it, this is getting old.




Beloved believers, let us all now turn to the Parable of the Good Samaritan Luke, chapter 10, verses 25–37.

But at the same time lets forget the mere 4392 abusers and those they abuse ...Dammit ! we just dont want to hear it :)
This is not a fair statement, Gandolf. No oen said they shoudl bne forgotten about, what I said was that its wrogn to blame all Catholic Prietss on the Pesdophile Priets problem, and its wrong to attack Catholisisim on the basis of the Pedophile Priets sterotype when only 4% of all Prietss are even accused.This is not the same thing as sayign that Prietss who have commited such acts shoudl go unpunished. All Im really saying is that the Cahtolic Churhc as a whole isnt guilty and shoudln't be so charecterised.

Much less other "Faith beleifs".


It sliek me pointign to a few Atheist Pedophiles and shoutign that this proves Athiesm breeds Pedophilia.

There are Atheist Pedophiles,but htat harldy proves anything.


If only those damm pesky non believers would just simply shut up and piss off,in time this world could be more full of wonderful faithful bible reading folk all with their contingency plans for the mere 4392 that are simply just not worth mentioning or worrying about at all.No oen said they arnet wrht mentionign or worryign about. WHat was said was that 4% of he overall population fo Catholic Prietss isnt justificaiton for sayign all Catholic Prietss are pedophalic.

Maybe you can engage int he real point some time?

Harry McCall said...

Zarove: cARBON bASED, peopel do display the Beatitudes, but the Ten Commandments where usually displayed in Courts, because they are symbols of law, and if you had not noticed, Christianity emerged from Judaism, and inherited from its Hebraic roots the Ten Commandments, which, while not themselves Christian, are still held as true by Christians.
RE: That’s just the point! People fled to the New World to escape Europe where the rules were crowned with the blessing ns consent of the Church. An example here is the so called Holy Roman Empire.

There is no threat from pagan symbols nor is there from a single day recognized by one state on Islam.
However, as seen under the George W. Bush administration, laws were enacted to limit abortion, contraception (abstinence was the only policy the US would support wit the UN due to such deathly dogmas as the Catholic Vita Humana!), and we are just now removing 200 year old legal code on the law books were the Judao-Christian faith was written into the sate and federal laws as the law of the land.

Most 17 and 18 century US states had laws mandating who could not run for government office. Unless one was in good standing, not with Christianity, but with say the Congregational Church, New England was out!.

Books such as Salvation at Stake: Christian Martyrdom in Early Modern Europe (Harvard Historical Studies) prove how Catholics and Protestants murdered one another in recent Europe and Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment: Popular Religious Belief in Early New England proves how the Christian faith can be deadly in America such as the time:

Murders and pirates were joined at the scaffold by people condemned for their beliefs. Between 1659 and 1661 the Massachusetts government hanged four Quakers. One was Mary Dyer. All four died because of their insistence on returning to Massachusetts after being banished. Baptist were not executed; but the Massachusetts government sentenced of both groups to “be openly and severely whipt, by the excutioner . . . Not exceeding forty strokes, unless he shall publickly recant before his sentence . . . “

In 1661, with the death penalty suspended, the court described more carefully the punishment for Quakers: “[to] be stripped naked from the Middle upwards, and tyed to Carts tayle, and Whipped though the town . . .” Returnnees would suffer branding on a shoulder, and a second sever whipping. The reason for these punishments was clear to those prescribing them: false doctrine and “Rebellion” threatened the church and the commonwealth. So other governments declared, in justifying extreme treatment of outsiders -- slaughter of the Huguenots, exclusion of the Jews, Burning of Catholic priest in Elizabethan England and of Protestants in Marry Tudor’s
reign. (p.186).

Zavore, here is what happens when your damn Judao-Christian codes are enacted into secular law!

ZAROVE said...

Why woudl Bush, who is a Methodist, subject American laws to Catholisicms Humanae Vite?

That said, Harry, your commiting a logical fallacy. You see, your assumign that because soem bad things happen due to those consernate Christians, this means we shoud;ln't allow Christianity to infleunce public policy. However, the same can be said of Secularism. The Soviet Union, for example, woudl imprison people in Gulags for not towing the party line, and this didn't find itself limited to simply proffessiong Atiesm. The SOviets actually arrested some Athiests if they didn't follow the Ideologiclaly correct form of Atheism as mandated by the State.

The same happens routinely in the Peoples Republic of CHina, and in Cuba.

And considerign that a lot of what you've just said is relaly subjective, such as how Bush limited support for Aboeriton, one has ot wonder hwo well thoguh out your point is. SInce I am pro life and oppose Aboriton, tot he point of wa tign to brign back the good old days when it wa soutlawed, allowing only for absolute medical need ( Not including Rape and incest, only life of mother) then you'd liekly see me s repressive and evil, but nevwertheless your exampels of limiting ABortion won't come off to me as proof that Bush wasevil. Neither will bis Abstenance only education. (WHich dispite the newsmedia claim of it beign a fialutre acutlaly did result in some success, as surveys fund. THe media just loved to slam it.)

So not only do you ignroe the reality of how peopel liek you can be evil and oppressive and just as restirtive on enforcign an ideological viewpoint, you also ignroe the fact that much fo the evils you present to me are things I agree with.

How is that a Rational Argument?

ZAROVE said...

Oh, I forgot to mention, he Soviet Union adherd to Dialetic Materialism.

If you beleive din God, you may fidn yourself in a Mwntal Institution, Prison, or gulag, unless they decided to just shoot you.

Id you where an Atheist, yet did nto adhere to Dialetic Materialism, the same may happen, and ifnto you'd still have faced Censure.

I find this no different from what you describe about the need tobelogn to a spacific form of CHristianity to be accepte din ealry America.

Yet, somehow, those days of oppression in Early America prove that Christianity shoudl not be allowed to interfere with secular law, becaus when those Damned Judeo-Christian codes are enacted into secular law, w have toruble.

Yet, I have to wonder if a turly secular law code which is absolutely free of Judeo-CHristian Ethics is realy better considerign the track record of Ahtistic Regemes.

Yes I know, not all Atheists are SOviets, or even communists, but then, not all Christians ould have agreed with the laws you cited as having existed in the 1600's, and the Soviet Union fell in 1991, and plenty of peopel still remmeber livign under it; I somehow doubt anyone recalls early life in Pennsylvania colony.

This is th trouble with the thinking you present, in that it is inconsistant. Rather htan critisise the oppression, yuo blame Christianity as a whoel on the pppression and act as if Seculrism is a safeguard, when in fact the oppression is the result fo Human nature, and isn't automaticlaly assured if one applies a Judeo-Christian ethos into law.

Harry McCall said...

As far as murdering humanity, atheism is but a small part of the ideology of Communism. Class struggle against the rich Czars and the abuse by Shan Kia-sheck (Himself a Christian) is what was attacked along with the institutions that supported them.

The Church had supported the divine rights of kings just as in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament where both Jesus and God are depicted as Kings who will rule as such in the so-called end times New Jerusalem.

Hitler used the Church in Germany to advance a new divine leadership of the 3rd Reich (The sizable Evangelische Jugend, a Lutheran youth organization of 600,000 members, was integrated on February 18, 1934).

The Bible explicitly demands killing of all none Israelites and the Book of Joshua clearly depicts this killing in the taking of Canaan.

The end time slaughters of all non believers is first set out in Matthew 24 and with the slaughter is finalized in the Book of Revelation just as the slaughter of the entire earth is depicted in Noah’s flood based simply the so-called true faith in the right god.

This is projected to reality in the Crusades and the Inquisition as well as the Protestant's murderous attack on Catholics.

The murdering brutality of the settlers of the New World who saw the Atlantic Ocean as the Jordan River and the native Indians in America as the Canaanites is history of a shameful past in which white saw their Manifest Distantly ordained by God.

The use of this theology in the Bible is the bases of the KKK and the reason why large white churches in the South, particularly in the Bible based or Bible as Creed Only Southern Baptist Convention, either openly attacked the Civil Rights movement or, as Dr. Martian Luther King so vividly pointed out in his I Have a Dream speech in 1963, white church members and their pastors sat complacent behind their stain glass window hoping for the secure days of the past often knowing whites were God's chosen people.

So, it is little wonder, that while atheism is itself non- violent (especially when combined with Secular Humanism), the established Christian church is closely associated with the governments that are in power and promotes this same ruling authority as the key to a secure future based on the past; or put another way, the Czar government protected the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church protected the ruling Czars based directly on the Hebrew Bible and Paul’s theology in Romans 13.

Hate mongers such as Father Charles Coughlin derived much of his anti-Jewish attacks directly form the Gospels themselves.

As for as your conclusion that atheism caused the mass killing of Stalin and Mao, that is like claiming the red hair of a mass murder was the reason he killed.

Your view of the history of Communism is really narrow and short sighted.

As an example, in all the post here at DC (over a thousand), can you name one post that an atheist agreed with and protected Stalin or Mao ??

However, I can and have done so, post a short article condemning the murdering Hebrews / Israelites in the Old Testament and the murdering of God in the Great Flood of Noah along with the slaughter in the Book of Revelation and Christian apologists will, will swarm to the Bible's defense!

Harry McCall said...

Oh, and by the way Zaroe, while most all communisms are dead and gone plus have been condemned by any atheist I know, your Holy Bible and its murderous God are still honored and loved by all you Christians! That’s a big difference!