Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Need help with your computer or device? Want to learn new tech skills? You're in the right place!
Geeks to Go is a friendly community of tech experts who can solve any problem you have. Just create a free account and post your question. Our volunteers will reply quickly and guide you through the steps. Don't let tech troubles stop you. Join Geeks to Go now and get the support you need!

How it Works Create Account
Photo

Ten Commandments, Nativity, and Cross Displays


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked

#1
MasterJ

MasterJ

    Visiting Staff

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts
So I'm a Senior in High School this year and I have to write a big paper on a controversial subject. I decided to write it on displays of the Ten Commandments in public areas. In my paper I'm arguing that the displays should be allowed.

My reasons are:
Freedom of expression (others have the freedom to look away if they don't like it)
It's a basis and foundation of our law

They should be allowed as long as they aren't blatantly an attempt to force religion on others.

Now I'd like to hear your opinions. I'd like to hear a lot from both sides. I need to understand every angle to write a decent paper.

masterj3000

EDIT: With one week left I have changed my topic. For more info go here

Edited by masterj3000, 13 November 2005 - 06:13 PM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#2
dsenette

dsenette

    Je suis Napoléon!

  • Community Leader
  • 26,047 posts
  • MVP
i tend to agree with both sides on this one.....you should be allowed to display anything that you want that is legally accepted as decent....but at the same time....it can be construed as forcing reliigion...also...if you allow people to display the ten commandments openlty....then..you open the door for the KKK and the like to display whatever they llike.....so sometimes you have to scrifice freedom to avoid the idiots
  • 0

#3
Maiestas

Maiestas

    eh...

  • Retired Staff
  • 1,481 posts
I agree that freedom of expression should be allowed by all individuals, though; this is not the case sometimes. What if another kind of ten commandments were displayed in public, obviously I mean by another religion, would this be allowed (or accepted)? I personally have never seen this and I would image if another form of the ten commandment were put up in public or whatever I’m sure it wouldn’t go over some peoples heads really well.
Sometimes, freedom of speech has its down side when it comes to a society which is filled with diverse cultures and religion, and at times consideration should be taken. It really doesn’t matter if individuals are not blatantly attempting to force religion on others, but it is saying something, of course. Lets look at it this way, how’s advertising sound? It doesn’t force individuals to look, but it is there and sometimes it’s hard not to look away.
I personally think to display the ten commandments is opening the doors for others to challenge what can and can not be put up and in a sense opening doors that shouldn’t be opened regarding a sensitive issue like this.

Edited by Leena, 05 November 2005 - 09:51 PM.

  • 0

#4
fleamailman

fleamailman

    Member 2k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,383 posts
I am for it too, but perhaps a little anti-bigotry warning could be placed below like "Most teachers don't believe this", "Bigotry can seriously ruin your ability to get along with others", etc., could be placed below.
  • 0

#5
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Well if you really want to pay to do something like that im sure you could, but i dont think you should, for a start it would be rude to people who arent christian, which wouldnt be as big a problem in countries that are predominantly christian, but even in a supposedly christian country like mined 65% dont believe in a god and they might find it distasteful, no one likes being preached at, i know i would certainly find something like that in bad taste and would probably send an email to advertising standards.
  • 0

#6
Pi rules

Pi rules

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 634 posts
I'm not too sure about this one. I worry about what dsenette said about some other people like the KKK might want to post stuff too. People do have the freedom to look away.

However, the Ten Commandments were revolutionary (at least in my opinion). In a time where there weren't many laws, the Ten Commandments were laying out the basis for many of the laws we have today.

Most teachers don't believe this

I'm not sure about that, all of my teachers believe it (although I do go to a private school) :tazz:
  • 0

#7
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Depends on the teachers, most of the younger ones generally dont, you can look away but that would be an inconvenice especially if its right in front of you. When the ten commandments were thought up there was law, perhaps the people who wrote it didnt have it but most places did, greece, egypt, rome all places which gave us the basis of our laws not the ten commandments at all, it was only later in the time of the religous oppresions and massacres of europe where they became a bigger factor in our laws.
  • 0

#8
Woman

Woman

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
Hi, kid.

Listen, stick to the foundational argument and don't let yourself get sucked into distractionary measures.

In other words, the US was built upon the 10 Cs; ergo, displays ought to be expected and even flagrant - eh - patriotic (same thing).

The 10 Commandments has nothing to do with freedom of expression - mentioning that is just a tactic to distract people from the facts. Some people will not be able to (or not want to) see the difference between healthy expressions and hateful ones. You could get stuck in the muck there. Unless you can clearly make your case that there is a fundamental difference between the content of the 10 Commandments and, as one person mentioned, the hatred voiced by the KKK, you'd do better to skip it altogether (maybe leave it for your college days).

The religious angle has to be negotiated as well. Don't let it distract you. Don't fall into the religion trap. It's not a matter of religion but of the foundations of the (currently) greatest nation on earth. Make your case - don't try to disprove or edge your way around someone else's. Figure out all the counter arguments and then figure out why they are missing the point (they're all missing the point if they aren't based on the reason the founding fathers were so keen on God and His 10 Cs). Then side step them and build your case solidly.

Why were the 10 Cs so important to the founding fathers? What were there views of immigrants? What's that bit about "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? My point being that the 10 Commandments and equality for all - for ALL - are not diametrically opposed.

What can you compare removing the 10 Commandments to? Burning the flag and shredding the Constitution. (There's your tip. Now you have to eloquently explain the connection.)

I've got a noisy kid in the background (he's very good at being a noisy kid, too!), dinner half done, a puppy to walk - I'm a little distracted. OK, rambling. Hope this message makes some sense to you.

Well chosen topic, by the way!

/Amanda
  • 0

#9
Woman

Woman

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
:) :tazz: :)

Please let us know how you did!

/Amanda

Edited by Woman, 06 November 2005 - 12:13 PM.

  • 0

#10
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
There is also the whol point of which set of commandments you use the ones you find in a good old king james bible are quite different from those in say the koran even though the texts are supposed to be identical.

In america the colonists were mostly of the working to middle class groups and the founding fathers were all quite strictly upper middle class people and as such were thoroughly indoctrinated into christianity and for alot of them the depravities of the church were still fairly recent they would have heard tales of the evil domincans and the sacrilage of the faith in rome, so to them the version of the ten commandments was the way to create a blank slate for people of the christian faith to live under and to bring the faith into every home, something the poorer members will not have had religion was for the rich until very recently(this i beleive was the main factor in post war britain of the decline if the chritian faith it was abused and people were extorted from there money only at that time did they realise they didnt have to put up with such abuses). But the founding fathers were well aware of these abuses and sought to capitolise upon the people reveling in a faith that was no longer at a decided premium.

But displaying the ten commandments will mean different things to differnt people to some it will be an insult of the gravest manner others will find it quite pleasing. However religion is something that people dont like to see thses days, public exhibitions of religion are frownded upon and thought distateful, no longer are large extravegent monuments built and when they are the people who have done so are thought to be extremely backwards.

So the question is why would you want to do that in the first place when you know it will cause offence and will cause more harm than good.
  • 0

Advertisements


#11
Woman

Woman

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
Hi again, kid.

Here's a tiddly bit from a website that I think may get your idea sparks flying. The website is Stand to Reason, at www.str.org. You can read the whole article this copied and pasted excerpt is from at:
http://www.str.org/s...Article&id=5097

The article is called, "America's Unchristian Beginnings?" and it's written by an articulate, informed fellow named Gregory Koukl.



"Now, as for Washington, Sam Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. If one looks at the literature of the time--the personal correspondence, the public statements, the biographies--he will find that this literature is replete with quotations by these people contrary to those that Mr. Morris very carefully selected for us. Apparently, he also very carefully ignored other important thinkers: John Witherspoon, for example, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry. All individuals who were significant contributors to the architectural framework of this country and who had political philosophies that were deeply influenced by Christianity, especially Calvinism.

But there is another thing that he completely overlooks in this analysis. Something that makes a mockery out of his analysis, and also answers the question quite simply and directly and in the affirmative for us about the Christian beginnings of our Republic.

This issue is actually very simple. The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. In other words, Founding Fathers refers directly to a very specific group of people (although I think you could be a little bit flexible and include a little wider group of people). Those who intellectually contributed to the Constitutional convention were the Founding Fathers. If we want to know whether our Founding Fathers were Christian or deists, one needs only to look at the individual religious convictions of those 55 delegates of the Constitutional convention.

How would we know that? We look at their church membership primarily, and also at their correspondence. Back then church membership was a big deal. In other words, to be a member of a church back then, it wasn't just a matter of sitting in the pew or attending once in a while. This was a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith, adherence, and acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular church.

Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.

To heap more fuel on the fire of my point, of the 55, the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, and the Dutch Reformed (which make up 45 of the 55) were Calvinists, for goodness sake! In other words, these weren't just Christians, these were among the most extreme and doctrinally strict Christians around. Of the 55 delegates, virtually all of them were deeply committed Christians. Only three were deists. Even Franklin is equivocal because, though not an orthodox Christian, Franklin seems to have abandoned his deism early in life and moved back towards his Puritan roots. Indeed, it was 81 year old Franklin's emotional call to humble prayer on June 28, 1787, that was actually the turning point for a hopelessly stalled Constitutional convention. We have his appeal on record thanks to James Madison who took copious notes of the whole proceeding. His appeal contained no less than four direct quotations from Scripture. This does not sound like a man who was hostile to the Christian religion.

But this assessment doesn' t answer a more fundamental question: Are we a Christian nation? It seems clear that most of the Founders were Christians, not deists. But what about the question "Are we a Christian nation?" I think the answer depends entirely on what is meant by "Christian nation."

Are the theological doctrines of the Bible explicitly woven into the fabric of government? The answer is no. The non-establishment clause of the First Amendment absolutely prohibits such a thing. However, was the Biblical view of the world--the existence of God who active in human history, the authority of the Scripture, the inherent sinfulness of man, the existence of absolute objective morality, and God-given transcendent rights--was that the philosophic foundation of the Constitution? The answer is, without question, yes. The American community presumed a common set of values which were principally biblical. Further, the founding principles of the Republic were clearly informed by biblical truth."
  • 0

#12
MasterJ

MasterJ

    Visiting Staff

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,623 posts

So the question is why would you want to do that in the first place when you know it will cause offence and will cause more harm than good.

And that's the argument. Will it cause more harm than good or more good than harm. This is the case with basically anything in society. I'm arguing that it will cause more good than harm.

Thank you for everyone that has commented so far. It's helped me a ton. :)
Keep the comments coming. :tazz:

masterj3000

EDIT: Thank you especially for that article. That has helped in particular.

Edited by masterj3000, 06 November 2005 - 02:59 PM.

  • 0

#13
Pi rules

Pi rules

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 634 posts
Here's a nice Wikipedia article on the Ten Commandments. I found this interesting:

Some religious Jews oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, as they feel it is wrong for public schools to teach their children Judaism. The argument is that if a Jewish parent wishes to teach their child to be a Jew (as most do), then this education should come from practicing Jews, and not from non-Jews. This position is based on the demographic fact that the vast majority of public school teachers in the United States are not Jews; the same is true for the students. This same reasoning and position is also held by many believers in other religions. Many Christians have some concerns about this as well; for example, can Catholic parents count on Protestant or Orthodox Christian teachers to tell their children their particular understanding of the commandments? Differences in the interpretation and translation of these commandments, as noted above, can sometimes be significant.

I never thought of it that way. The 10 Commandments can be taken several ways, so which version would be posted?
  • 0

#14
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Why do you think it will do more good than harm.
  • 0

#15
LuNa7ic

LuNa7ic

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

I decided to write it on displays of the Ten Commandments in public areas.


Can you define what your paper will count as public areas for us?
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP