Judgment Day looms for US Supreme Court on Ten Commandments cases

Yahoo (AFP) ^ | 22 June 2005

[fr_freak]

To be honest, I'd rather know that someone doesn't kill their neighbor because they realize it is WRONG... because they have no right to deprive another of life...not because they're worried about what God will do.

On what basis would an atheist believe that murder is wrong? In fact, on what basis would an atheist follow any moral code? An atheist can teach his children that murder is wrong and stealing is wrong, but all he will have to back that up is the law, which, in our society, is flouted everyday by even the most average people (given all of the trivial things that are illegal these days). So, eventually, any thinking children will one day happen upon the concept that, as long as the law doesn't find out, there are no consequences for illegal (and immoral) behavior. At that point, what would a preson have to prevent them from falling into temptation should a situation arise where committing an act of murder or theft would greatly benefit him, and there was little chance of getting caught?

Furthermore, not all immoral behaviors are illegal, especially these days. For instance, adultery is no longer illegal in many states, and often won't even affect the divorce conditions. What is to stop a wife from cheating on her husband, or a husband on his wife, or a third person from sleeping with someone else's spouse, if there is no higher moral code? While so-called secular moral values can be taught to these people, if there is no belief in a higher authority, these people can easily talk themselves out of any guilt or feeling of responsibility using any of the common contemporary rationalizations. For instance, wives often justify cheating on and leaving their husbands these days by saying that the husband wasn't meeting her needs. In the Oprah Winfrey school of thinking, this makes the wife the victim and absolves her from responsibility for her actions. However, in the Biblical way of thinking, her act would be a grave sin regardless of whether the husband was keeping the marriage exciting or not. Quite a difference.

[jess35]

Good grief. Do you really believe that only Christian societies have legitimate prohibitions against murder, theft, etc?

I'd rather NOT live next door to someone who believes murder is wrong ONLY because "God" said so. What if they wake up tomorrow and find they've received a special message from God telling them it's okay to kill and it's okay to steal? What is to stop them at that point? They've received permission from on high.

[fr_freak]

Good grief. Do you really believe that only Christian societies have legitimate prohibitions against murder, theft, etc?

I'd rather NOT live next door to someone who believes murder is wrong ONLY because "God" said so.

No, I believe that most societies have laws against murder, but I would rather live next to someone who refrains from murder through fear of God than fear of the law, because the law can always be circumvented, misapplied, ignored or fooled, but a believer knows that God never can. That is a far better motivator than someone saying that murder is wrong because it just is, or that it's wrong because "the judge said so".

I also think you are looking at Judeo-Christian morality from the wrong angle. Christians, for instance, do not refrain from murder just because God says so, but otherwise would slaughter everyone they saw. Christians are raised with a moral code that is derived from a belief in God, so it is an ingrained code of behavior, just as a "moral" atheist would instill in his children. The difference is that when the Christian child begins to question things, he ultimately has belief in God to fall back on as justification, whereas an atheist has nothing to justify his code of morality. It seems that would make it much harder for an atheist to stick to his moral code in a moment of temptation than it would be for a Christian.

As far as other non-Christian societies go, most of them throughout history have based their moral codes on directions from one deity or another, or some other higher truth than man's law.

[rwfromkansas]

I am quite worried about how the court will rule after today's case.

We need BOTH Kennedy and O'Conner to win, and that seems to be very hard to get.

I also am worried they will rule next week to overturn the Betamax decision, ending your right to use VCR's etc. to tape tv etc. when they announce their file sharing ruling.

[Jeremiah Jr]

Don’t you mean the ‘Five Commandments?’

[Thinkin' Gal]

I am quite worried about how the court will rule after today's case.

Those who abuse and uphold the abuse of eminent domain likely would not be keen on the public display of Commandment X, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house..."

Jezebel is alive and well and dancing on Naboth's grave (and vineyard).

[COEXERJ145]

My prediction is 5-4 against the Ten Commandments with the 5 being Souter, Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and probably Kennedy.

[COEXERJ145]

I also am worried they will rule next week to overturn the Betamax decision, ending your right to use VCR's etc. to tape tv etc. when they announce their file sharing ruling.

Not likely as making a copy for private use has been ruled legal on numerous occasions. If you start giving it out or selling it then you run afoul of the law.

[Jeremiah Jr]

I have an old NIV version of the Bible with a great chapter heading.

Jezebel seizes the vineyard (to which I add) Again!

[judgeandjury]

The US Constitution's first amendment establishes the principle of separation of church and state, but how this should be interpreted remains unclear following numerous contradictory decisions by lower courts.

How should the First Amendment be interpreted? I say let's interpret it exactly as it was written over 200 years ago:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[SoCal Pubbie]

Are the Supremes going to hang a sheet over this in their courtroom?

[shellshocked]

I don't expect a favorable ruling by the Black Kings.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Were those ten points a quote of Pastor Evans? Been looking for the source. FRegards....

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Outstanding artwork there! Sure beats the NEA. FRegards....

[TASMANIANRED]

"Civil liberties advocates however fear a tide of evangelical Christianity is eroding the politically sacred separation of church and state, and endangering the principle that all Americans, whatever their religion, are created equal."

Nothing but liberal double speak.

How can you erode something that never existed.

This is no different than a budget increase of 3% when you wanted 10% being called a cut.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"If they do away with - Thou shalt not kill - isn't that grounds for overturning ever murder conviction in the country? What will law be based on, what feels good now?"

If you are destroying a threat to innocent life, you are saving lives. Keeping that threat around is just plain foolish. There's always the chance of escape, and even more likely, a chance the looney leftist judges will find an excuse to let a murderer or a bunch of murderers free.

Ironically, most of those who oppose the death penalty for murderers support killing innocent babies.