Ten Commandments stunner: Ten Commandments stunner: Feds lying at Supreme Court

worldnetdaily.com ^ | November 14, 2006 | Bob Unruh

[linda_22003]

Well, dang! I went to the pictures for no reason! Thanks for the false advertising. ;)

[ModelBreaker]

Recent election results have broken me of the notion that politics is any substitute for the salvation of society. Indeed, the worse government becomes the stronger people of The Way of Jesus become. Bring it on, Pelosi. Government must be experienced for the evil that it is.

I want it clear that my previous post was NOT a call to refrain from politics. Christians are called to steward God's creation; part of that is our form of government. I just get annoyed at all the time my Christian brothers spend worrying about stuff like the Ten Commandments in public places.

In other words, I'm perfectly happy with just, secular rulers. They cannot affect my relationship with my Savior or shut me up about the good news. It's not their job to make it easy on me and it's not the place of the schools or the supreme court to instruct my children about religion.

Of course, that's why we homeschool--I regard the government schools as actively hostile.

[TigersEye]

You're confused. Nobody's claiming that Moses's tablet contains the Bill of Rights.

I see.

From the article:

There, he said, his tour guide was describing the marble frieze directly above the justices' bench.

"Between the images of the people depicting the Majesty of the Law and Power of Government, there is a tablet with ten Roman numerals, the first five down the left side and the last five down the right. This tablet represents the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights," she said.

(snip)

One official Supreme Court document, he found, cited a letter from sculptor Adolph A. Weinman that said the "pylon" carved with Roman numerals I to X "symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution." But the letter was anomalous; it didn't have a number of certifying marks that were typical of others.

(snip)

Further research produced information that in 1987 the building was designated a National Historic Landmark, and came under control of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and under the new management the handbook was rewritten in 1988. The Ten Commandments reference was left out of that edition, and nothing replaced it.

The next reference found said only the frieze "symbolizes early written laws" and then in 1999, the reference first appeared to that depiction being the "Ten Amendments to the Bill of Rights."

(snip)

When he asked, his recent tour guide denied there were any Ten Commandments representations in the Supreme Court building, he said...

(snip)

DuBord said he knew of other representations, such as the lower part of the inside of each of the oak doors where people enter the inner Court Chamber, where two tablets carry Roman numerals I-V and VI-X.

But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.

(and it continues)

He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"

"Her response shocked me as much as the guide inside the Court chamber. 'There is no depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments like that on the U.S. Supreme Court,'" DuBord said he was told.

(snip)

Although there are six depictions of Moses and-or the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court, the tour guides had been trained to admit to only the one on Moses, he said.

(snip) (And here we finally we come to the point the author made that I have taken up here as well...)

One doesn't have to be Christian, or endorse Christianity, to recognize its influence in history, he said.

You were saying?

[TigersEye]

In other words, I'm perfectly happy with just, secular rulers. ...

Is that what we have when history is revised into something completely false?

... They cannot affect my relationship with my Savior or shut me up about the good news.

True. As has been pointed out Christianity is 'flourishing' in China.

... It's not their job to make it easy on me ...

What then is the job of government in your view?

(For some this was once the view of it.)

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Of course, that's why we homeschool--I regard the government schools as actively hostile.

It is wonderful that you have your family on the road you want them on. Obviously the example of China shows that even a harsh communist tyranny cannot prevent the people from following their conscience in religious matters. So that begs the question of what is actually being attacked and altered here and for what reason.

JasonC said: "What is happening in the actions described in the article is a Stalinist attempt to erase known friendly attitudes of all our legal traditions toward the basic judeo-christian heritage of the nation, by directly lying about the actual history of the country and its institutions."

IMO JasonC has hit the nail on the head. The attack here is not on the religious conscience of any man since no one can reach into a man's heart and force it to change against his will. What they can change by altering and erasing the historical basis of our nation's founding is the knowledge of what and why our original form of government was conceived for and how it worked.

Of course you can keep that knowledge pure within your own compound but since the vast majority of American children are taught in government schools a majority will be formed who believe the new history. Lacking any significant resistance to that effort it will eventually prevail over the old history and overthrow it.

If you see no value in the constitutional republican form of gov. our founders gave us or simply don't care whether you live under its imperfections or the blessings of a communist dictate then you will obviously have no dog in this fight.

Having secured your own solace through your personal convictions of conscience, and caring for nothing else, it will be hard to incite you to stand up for the temporary and imperfect securing of blessings the Constitution stands for. Having found your great blessing beyond the frailties of mortal institutions you have the luxury of disdaining those lesser means of securing liberty. It also affords you the freedom to disdain all those who still grope for peace of mind through and beyond material pursuits under the imperfect umbrella of Constitutional justice.

You are blessed indeed to stand above them in their delusional faith in that form of justice. Secure in any situation your are blessed to stand apart from those lesser beings and concern yourself not with their struggles to find a greater truth or a better way of living among men. Having realized that bliss is not dependent upon circumstances you can feel content that they will do just as well under the whip as they would with the false pretenses of liberty and justice for all dispensed by fellow sinners.

Empathy for the ignorant is so highly overrated anyway.

[ModelBreaker]

If you see no value in the constitutional republican form of gov. our founders gave us or simply don't care whether you live under its imperfections or the blessings of a communist dictate then you will obviously have no dog in this fight.

Huh? If you would go back thru my posts of the last month, you would see I'm obsessive about our consitutional republic, what remains of it.

The point in my earlier post was that I wish Christians didn't worry so much about church/state issues like the one mentioned in the article because we don't need help from the state. We only have so much time and political capital. I would prefer to spend it on national existential issues like the war on islamic fascism, supreme court judges, school-choice, and immigration.

Of course you can keep that knowledge pure within your own compound but since the vast majority of American children are taught in government schools a majority will be formed who believe the new history. Lacking any significant resistance to that effort it will eventually prevail over the old history and overthrow it.

Well, this is a big problem and I agree with you. But IMHO, the government schools are broken beyond repair and it's pointless to spend time and political capital there--trying to make government schools better is tilting at windmills. Our energy should be focused on building alternative educational institutions (school choice for everyone, not just limousine liberals), which will be enough of a fight in and of itself.

Better that we spend less time on FR :) and more time schooling our kids in the truth. We only have control over so much. But we do have control over the upbringing of our kids, if we homeschool.

[TigersEye]

Huh? If you would go back thru my posts of the last month, you would see I'm obsessive about our consitutional republic, what remains of it.

I didn't want to do an in depth study of you in particular so I just responded to what you said on this thread in order to make some greater points. Those points were intended to go beyond my reaction to your posts alone.

The point in my earlier post was that I wish Christians didn't worry so much about church/state issues like the one mentioned in the article because we don't need help from the state.

I know you were making that point but I was trying to direct you (and the rest) back to what I see as the real issue; the attack on America in general. There have been a few posts that fit your characterization but most of those came after you put forth your POV.

I don't understand why you feel compelled to dismiss this aspect of the leftist attack on American culture and treat it as isolated and unimportant to the threat as a whole. I also see no substantial basis for your observation that anyone here has made this a church/state issue. It is a state/state issue (ie republic vs. communist dictate) and that is what I see as the focus of most of the posts here. With the exception of you and others who have chosen to take it off focus to challenge this phantom church/state lobby that you see.

Some Christians do want to defend the history of Christian influence on American law and culture. I don't blame them for taking it personally and I support them whole heartedly for trying to preserve the truth of American genesis. I don't see it as wasting resources. Every unit of artillery is supported by foot soldiers. Everyone in the field is supported by numerous non-combatant positions behind them. Every position is required to achieve objectives. I don't see a need for everyone to carry the same pack to the same spot on the field. I do see a need to support everyone in their individual endeavors towards the one mutual goal. Victory over the enemy.

I could make the same argument about wasting capital on any aspect of education at all. The left is busy destroying us economically through entitlement programs, minimum wage laws and open borders. If they succeed in that then it won't matter if everyone is versed in factual history. They win we lose communism becomes de facto. We'll all be educated slaves.

I agree with you about gov. schools and the need to create alternatives. As you say that is quite a fight in itself. Do you really think that can be accomplished in a significant enough proportion in time to offset the complete redaction of American history for a majority of the upcoming generations? Talk about tilting at windmills. I see it (the redaction of history) as more than halfway accomplished. I see all fronts of the enemy assault as worthy of defense.

[RobbyS]

And you are ignoring that the incorporation of these themes in the archtecture shows what everyone should know, that the whole common law tradition is rooted in Christianity. Canon law was one of the models for the court system established by Henry II. I add also that the chancery courts which were established to provide equity in the system, were originally headed by the Lord Chancellor who, until Thomas More, was an archbishop. That we had secular as well as church courts shows the peculiar contribution of Christianity to civlization: the separation of Church and State , with each
recognized as being separately empowered by God.

[Sandy]

I'm replying specifically to your comment which I italicized above. Here's that comment again (my bold added):

if all the figures in the SC friezes are equal in import why are the rest still recognized for what they are yet Moses has been reduced to a non-entities and his tablets have been morphed into the Bill of Rights?

Are you not talking about Moses's depiction on the frieze in that comment? That's how it reads to me and that's what I was replying to.

[Brad’s Gramma]

BTTT and thanks for the ping!!!

[TigersEye]

It is obvious from that quote that I referred to all SC friezes by the fact that I used the plural form of the word 'friezes.'

You also said...Nobody's claiming that Moses's tablet contains the Bill of Rights.

I think that I demonstrated several places in the article that do claim that about several displays of artwork at the SC building.

You also said...Moses with the 10 Commandments is depicted on the *South* Frieze, but the author's conspiracy theory concerns the East Frieze.

Again, I showed you where the author referred to several other displays and in fact specifically centered his point on the South frieze in counter-point with the East frieze.

You also said...Moses is not on the East Frieze at all.

East Side

Tourists don't often see the back, east side, of the Supreme Court building. On this side, the words "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" are carved in the architrave above the columns. The sculptures in the pediment, carved by Herman A. McNeil, represent three great lawmakers: Moses, Confucius, and Solon. These figures are flanked by figures that symbolize Means of Enforcing the Law, Tempering Justice with Mercy, Carrying on Civilization, and Settlement of Disputes Between States.

Rear (eastern) side of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.

Moses is depicted on the East side.

I'm replying specifically to your comment which I italicized above.

That is fine and dandy but you made several false statements in replying to it which I felt like correcting.

[Nancee]

Hi "Gunslingr3"!!

I just thought you might be interested in one of the many things one of this nation's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had to say on this subject:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."*

Nancee

*(October 11, 1798, President John Adams stated in his address to the military.)

[evangmlw]

God has chosen to allow man to draw his own course and has actually told us what course he will choose. The masses have drawn their map and are intent upon arriving. Sadly, once they arrive, it will be to late to turn back. They have chosen the lie rather than the truth. They have chosen the dark path, rather than the follow the Light. There end will be swift, speedy, just, and horrifying.

[Nancee]

Hi Again, "Gunslingr3"!

For your reading pleasure, I thought you might be interested in yet another quote from the honorable John Adams:

"Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue?...And without virtue, there can be no political liberty...Will you tell me how to prevent riches from becoming the effects of temperance and industry?

Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?...I believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost..."*

Nancee

*(In a letter to Thomas Jefferson)

[Nancee]

You might want to share this quotation with your friend:

"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society."*

Nancee

*John Adams (August 28, 1811)

[B4Ranch]

Thank you

[Nancee]

You're so very welcome, "B4Ranch", and I assure you that there are thousands more and from all of our Founding Fathers' wonderful minds and mouths and pens. Here's another one I love:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."*

Nancee

*Patrick Henry; "The Pulpit of the American Revolution" P.XXIX

[Sandy]

Me: Nobody's claiming that Moses's tablet contains the Bill of Rights.
You: I think that I demonstrated several places in the article that do claim that about several displays of artwork at the SC building.

Actually you didn't. Most of the quotes in your "demonstration" to me dealt with the East Wall Frieze, which doesn't even depict Moses (as I explained in my initial post to you). You also posted a quote regarding how the tour guide didn't know about the Ten Commandments on the courtroom door--Gee, no Moses there either. Finally you posted a quote concerning the information desk lady who didn't know about the East Pediment, but she did *not* deny it depicted Moses with the Commandments.

Look, there's two depictions of Moses with the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court. One is on the South Wall Frieze inside the courtroom; the other is on the East Pediment at the rear of the building. *Nobody* in the article claimed that those 2 depictions are anything other than Moses with the Ten Commandments. The article *does* talk about some woman at the information desk who didn't know about the East Pediment. But so what? She certainly didn't deny that it was Moses with the Commandments once she saw the photo of it. Get it? Also, the inside tour guide (the one who didn't know about the Ten Commandments on the courtroom door) did *not* claim that the depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the South Wall Frieze was anything other than Moses holding the Ten Commandments. Plus, she didn't even discuss the East Pediment (which *does* depict Moses with the Commandments), much less claim that Moses with the Commandments isn't depicted on it.

Let's recap. You made the assertion that "Moses [on some frieze] has been reduced to a non-entity and his tablets have been morphed into the Bill of Rights". Except, there's nobody claiming that Moses isn't Moses. Nor is there anyone claiming that the tablets held by Moses are the Bill of Rights. Reread the article--it says no such thing.

Moses is depicted on the East side.

Aha! I now see the source of your confusion. Moses is depicted on the East Pediment, sure. But he's *not* depicted on the East Wall Frieze, which is what the author was so concerned about and which is the main focus of the article. If you're under the impression that the tour guide was claiming that's not Moses or that's not the Ten Commandments on the East Pediment, you're way wrong. The East Pediment wasn't part of the tour and wasn't even discussed by the tour guide.

Me: I'm replying specifically to your comment which I italicized above.
You: That is fine and dandy but you made several false statements in replying to it which I felt like correcting.

Actually, now that it's clear that you were confusing the East Pediment (which wasn't a part of the tour and which was hardly mentioned in the article and which no one is denying is Moses with the Commandments) with the East Wall Frieze (which *was* a part of the tour and which doesn't depict Moses and which is what the article is mainly about), it should be equally clear that my initial post didn't need correcting.

[TigersEye]

He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"

Notice the word 'on' and what it refers to.

But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the author talked to "a woman at the information desk." The only SC representatives mentioned are both 'tour guides.' One would think the tour guides would have accurate information. But the one you refer to as an info-babe said...

"Her response shocked me as much as the guide inside the Court chamber. 'There is no depiction of Moses and the Ten Commandments like that on the U.S. Supreme Court,'" DuBord said he was told.

Once again note the use of the word 'on' and the all inclusive language "There is no..." It makes the author's point that disinformation is being disseminated at and about the SC artwork.

Except, there's nobody claiming that Moses isn't Moses.

And no one claimed that anyone said that.

Nor is there anyone claiming that the tablets held by Moses are the Bill of Rights.

But it does say that.

The current information office at the Supreme Court declined to talk on the record with WND when asked about Ten Commandments representations on the building, referring questioners to the website.

There, a document does indicate "Moses" is one of various lawgivers portrayed in the friezes, but the site doesn't mention "Ten Commandments." It does mention the "Ten Amendments."

[TigersEye]

Nor is there anyone claiming that the tablets held by Moses are the Bill of Rights.

He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"

But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.

One other place it was said.

[Sandy]

"He then asked, "If there are no other depictions of Moses or the Ten Commandments on the building except on the South Wall Frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court, then what about on the east side of the building where Moses is the central figure among others, holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm?"

Right. That paragraph is about DuBord's conversation with the lady at the information desk. She's the one I mentioned who didn't know about the East Pediment until she looked at a picture of it. She did not deny it was Moses with the Commandments once she saw it. The article only says she was surprised when she saw the photo.

But DuBord's tour guide said those – too – were the Ten Amendments.

And that's the tour guide I mentioned who didn't know about the Commandment's on the courtroom door. That's what that sentence is about.

Nowhere in the article does it say that the author talked to "a woman at the information desk."

That's because it's a poorly written article. If you follow the link in the article and read Dubord's piece, it makes more sense.

Me: Except, there's nobody claiming that Moses isn't Moses.
You: And no one claimed that anyone said that.

I thought you were making that claim when you said, "Moses has been reduced to a non-entit[y]."

Me: Nor is there anyone claiming that the tablets held by Moses are the Bill of Rights.
You: But it does say that.

The current information office at the Supreme Court declined to talk on the record with WND when asked about Ten Commandments representations on the building, referring questioners to the website.

There, a document does indicate "Moses" is one of various lawgivers portrayed in the friezes, but the site doesn't mention "Ten Commandments." It does mention the "Ten Amendments."

I don't know what website the author is talking about there. The Supreme Court has information on its website, here. The document about the South Wall Frieze (that's the frieze with Moses as one of various lawgivers) says the following about Moses:

Moses (c. 1300s B.C.) Prophet, lawgiver, and judge of the Israelites. Mosaic Law is based on the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Moses is depicted in the frieze holding two overlapping tablets, written in Hebrew, representing the Ten Commandments. Partially visible from behind Moses’ beard are Commandments six through ten.

The document doesn't mention the Ten Amendments.