The Ten Commandmants in Schools

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Those of you who have been listening to Rush Limbaugh today may have already heard something to this effect:

What if, instead of calling them the Ten Commandments, they were called "The Ten Rules of School". Take the concepts and rephrase them so that they are not based on a reilgion. For instance, Thou Shall not kill would read something like; "You may not Kill another human". And Thou shall not commit adultery read; "You may not have an affair with someone who is married". And "Thou Shall not take the Lord's name in vain" would be; "You may not use profanity in this school".

If these 'commandments' were worded differently and not based on religion would anyone in the world have a problem with these Rules being posted in school? Would Liberals feel "threatened" by the introduction of church into state? I think not, and you probably don't either. So why does this issue get so much attention and opposition from everyone? I don't know a single person, religious or not who could condone killing, stealing, adultery, etc. etc.

And on a side not, this issue of gun control. In MHO, once they begin to regulate and scale down the rights of lawful gun owners then it's just one step away from having those rights taken away entirely. I AM NOT paranoid!! I know how the history of governments have usurped power from the people in this fashion a million times. Little by little our "inalieable" rights are taken away. Sen Ted Kennedy said that the GOP and the NRA are running the governemtn and should be stopped. BUT!, he failed to mention that 40% of the Democrats voted against the gun control laws as well. We have to think about the future generations when we debate these issues. My father once said to me that the Second Amendment was the most important of all the Ten Amendments, because without the second then the other ten could not be enfored by citizens and would cease to exist sooner or later.

Anyone want to share their feelings/thoughts?

-- (oldyeller@sanfran.com), June 18, 1999

Answers

Ted Kennedy should be very worried about the state of public education in his fiefdom. Last night on the MASS news I nearly dropped over to hear a high school student blabbing on vs. the big 10 being in school. She said (and I wonder if Moses is laughing or crying?): blah, blah, blah, tolerance, etc..."if they are going to have these on the walls, they should have something from the Jewish Bible too!!!!" Earth to Heaven, we have a problem......

-- walter skold (wsvnsk2@juno.com), June 18, 1999.

Yes, I'll share my thoughts, but you probably won't like most of them. First, I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state. People go to church for spiritual guidance, a social connection, a quiet time and all kinds of reasons. And in church, the ten commandments are ever present, they are a given, that is what church is for, a place to display what beliefs stand for, and the other trappings of a religious meeting place, along with music, a place to worship, be with like minded people and other typical reasons I probably haven't thought of.

But school is not church, nor should it be. School is for obtaining an education, to learn as much as possible in a certain amount of time.. And IMHO as much as there is that we need to learn, we need every minute spent on education, not religion. As far as displaying the ten commandments, those who go to church don't need the ten commandments in school. Those who don't go to church, or at least a Christian church, would no doubt think it unfair to impose the Christian religion on them. And there are dozens and dozens of students that would never even notice them. So why stir up this hornet's nest by insisting we bring the ten commandments to school.

Putting up the ten commandments is just another tactic of the religious to impose their beliefs on everyone, which has the opposite effect, and more often turns people away.

My other thought is that Rush Limbaugh is a shit-stirring idiot. He lumps everyone into Liberal or his ditto heads. That is like saying, I like granola bars and anybody that doesn't is wrong and a jerk. Why do we need to post commandments in school, secular or religious? By the time a person goes to school they should already have learned at home that killing and stealing is wrong and some of the others are irrelevant to kids at that time in their life. Quit shoving religion into every phase of life on this planet.

I personally think freedom of speech is the most important amendment, because if you're silenced, it's too late for guns. But I do agree with your dad that it is very important. I also feel that as many enemies as we have abroad, and that have infiltrated the country, and our own homegrown crop of crazies, thieves, murderers and rapists walkintg around with guns, we need our own protection. But of course the second amendment was to protect us from a despot, or government run amok. I'm all for gun ownership.

I wonder exactly what does His Idiocy, Rush, call Democrats who voted with the good guys?

I still believe the pen is mightier than the sword and if we lose the power to speak out, we're done for. So everytime one of you ask for something to be deleted or censored, think what will be next on the list.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 18, 1999.


Oldyeller,

I'm also old and have been known at times to yell. Are we related?

The reason there is a problem with the ten commandments is not do to religion. It is because they represent absolutes. Thou shalt/thou shalt not. Humanists and modern man want moral relativism. If there is a rule that says "no, this is wrong", they must either continue and be chastised, continue and feel guilty, or stop that particular behavior. Thus we are where we are today, - you do what is good for you and I'll do what is good for me, and if by chance we are good to each other, whooppeeee! Otherwise, screw you. I am the center of all things.

Also, it would be a mistake to separate the 10 commandments from the word of God. It would change the author of the commandments. The next step would be to change the commandments to fit pc.

Bottom line, we are the clay and He is the potter. We can argue until His return and we probably will. That does not change the facts. The tail does not wag the dog.

-- Daryl (rushmore@dailypost.com), June 18, 1999.


To the original poster:

1. How are you going to rewrite the first and second commandments to be religiously neutral? (If you don't remember, it's something about I am the Lord Thy God etc. Not every good moral person believes in God. Not every religion has a god, or only one god.)

2. Are you not aware that there are 2 or 3 different versions of the 10 commandments? The Catholics and the Protestants view them differently. The Government has no business deciding whose version is correct.

-- xxx (secular@humanist.com), June 18, 1999.


1) What Rush and others advocating this want is to put religion onto the school walls without calling it religion so as to try to sneak around the rules. That's dishonest, sorta like "false witness". Shame on them.

2) "WHOSE Ten Commandments? Which version?" Hey, Russ, let's have a good old-fashioned interfaith war!

3) So I just did an Internet search on "Ten Commandments". The first version listed starts out, "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." How does Russ propose to rephrase that one so that it is not based on religion ... without having it sound like a comic parody? "This is your Principal speaking. I am your only Principal. You will not listen to any other Principal's morning announcements." Hunh?

4) "2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." => "No more art classes. No effigies at football rallies. No portrait in the main hall of the famous person for whom this school is named." Right? We're not going to have any silly dissention about what constitutes a "graven image", are we?

5) "3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." So Russ took care of this one with "You may not use profanity in this school" ... did he? And the way the teachers are to enforce this one equitably is ... how? (We all agree on the precise definition of "profanity", don't we? We better, 'cause when the civics class covers the First Amendment, there's going to be some discussion. And the gym coaches never, ever, speak profanely, do they?)

6) "4. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy." Is that Sunday or Saturday or Friday? Wanta water it down to "Have a good weekend"?

7) "5. Honor thy father and thy mother." Well, I guess this one is okay once we update the pronouns. (Maybe once in a while we'll need some further definition of "honor" ... for example, in those unfortunate cases of child abuse by parents.)

8) "6. Thou shalt not kill." Okay, Russ took care of that one. But exactly _how_ does posting "You may not Kill another human" deter stuff like ... well, any murder, in school or elsewhere? And how does that pronouncement go down in states with capital punishment? And how does this _not_ incite passions about the issue of abortion?

9) "7. Thou shalt not commit adultery." Russ wants "You may not have an affair with someone who is married" posted in schools?? Gee, if I recall correctly, when I was in junior and senior high school such a pronouncement would have given us all ideas that (a) we wouldn't have had otherwise, and (b) would've completely demolished whatever beneficial effect Russ imagines it could have. It would've become a glaring permanent target of student ridicule.

10) "8. Thou shalt not steal." Just _how_ is posting this in school going to prevent thefts? The principle is pretty well known already.

Notice that if someone insists on including the "kill" and "steal" lines despite their being pretty darn obvious to 99% of all schoolkids already, that soneome is apparently more intent on preserving the format of the Ten Commandments than on effectively communicating to kids, thus revealing their underlying religious intent despite any protests to the contrary. Why not the Eight Commandments?

11) "9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Show me how posting some version of this one on the wall will make any significant impact on the behavior of schoolchildren.

12) "10. Thou shalt not covet. . .anything that is thy neighbor's." [Yes, folks, the ellipsis is in the source text I found from my Internet search. Apparently the sponsors of this site were squeamish about writing out certain details.] Here we HAVE to start by defining "covet". Did Russ go into any detail about this one?

>What if, instead of calling them the Ten Commandments, they were called "The Ten Rules of School".

As noted above, this is a shamefully deceptive attempt to slip religious views onto school walls. Why not "The Eleven Rules of School" or "The Five Rules of School"?

>Take the concepts and rephrase them so that they are not based on a reilgion.

Oh. Just _rephrase_ them. So no one will notice the parallels.

>If these 'commandments' were worded differently and not based on religion

Ummm ... is your intent to slip the Ten Commandments into schools or not? If not, what's the point of all this proposal? If so, can you see how dishonest (see Commandment number 9) it is?

>would anyone in the world have a problem with these Rules being posted in school?

We already have rules posted in schools. What's your beef?

Oh! You want YOUR rules posted. Your TEN rules posted.

But of course they're not RELIGIOUS. They're just "rephrasings" of the Ten Commandments [YOUR version thereof]. No, not at all religious.

>Would Liberals feel "threatened" by the introduction of church into state?

Some Conservatives would. Take a look at the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Take a look at the history of religious liberty in nations with a state religion.

>I think not, and you probably don't either.

Are you naive, disingenuous, or downright deceptive?

>So why does this issue get so much attention and opposition from everyone?

Because they're neither naive nor disingenuous, and they're confronting the issue head-on.

>I don't know a single person, religious or not who could condone killing, stealing, adultery, etc. etc.

THEN WHY DO YOU NEED TO POST THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN SCHOOLS??????

BTW, this thread is off-topic for this forum.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.



Shall we post the Eightfold Way?

How does Russ secularly rephrase:

Right acts Right speech Right outlook Right resolves Right endeavour Right livelihood Right mindfulness Right rapture of concentration

... and would he have any objection to these?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.


Hmm, all very interesting answers, and I AM sorry I didn't OT this thread like I had planned to. I just plain forgot... sorry guys. But anyway, I agree with what your all saying. The Ten Commandments have no place in school and I don't really have much of a case. But there could very well be a Ten Rules of Conduct that they could post on the walls for the heck of it.... as the old jewish guys say..."can't hoyt!". I really just wanted to see how people feel about it. As far as I'm concerned there ought to be SOME enforcment of the general rules of morality in school. I mean, they teach us how to begin to socialize and therefore it would probably be a good time to teach us how to behave properly too. Or am I way off base?

-- (oldyeller@sanfran.com), June 18, 1999.

Oops, forgot about the forum software.

  Right acts
  Right speech
  Right outlook
  Right resolves
  Right endeavour
  Right livelihood
  Right mindfulness
  Right rapture of concentration


-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.

oldyeller,

>As far as I'm concerned there ought to be SOME enforcment of the general rules of morality in school.

Which general rules of morality in school are not being SOMEwhat enforced, whose enforcement properly belongs in the realm of the school?

And why is such lack of enforcement not properly addressed by communication with school authorities rather than a blanket posting of a thinly-disguised religious text?

>I mean, they teach us how to begin to socialize and therefore it would probably be a good time to teach us how to behave properly too.

Are you contending that there is some lack of such teaching that could be better remedied by posting a secular version of the Ten Commandments rather than by some more direct method?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.


Posting rules on a school wall is cheap, fast, easy to define, and requires little personal involvement by parents.

Going to parent-teacher meetings is a drag. Ditto for school board meetings.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.



No Spam,

I'm beginning to not like you, because A.) your so combatative and B.) you keep putting words in my mouth. Yes, putting up signs might help. I'd put fucking post-it notes on the foreheads of high schoolers if I thought it would help them remember to act respectfully. I don't see how it will hurt anyone to have reminders of what we ALL KNOW is correct. Even jungle tribes in the amazon have simple rules to keep people from getting out of hand. More noteably, don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't rape, and treat your Mom and dad with dignity they are the only ones you have. Forget the rest of the Ten Commandments, hell I was never that reilgious. But start with those five and it would go along way to making this world a better place. I'm not arguing about this anymore, it's totally pointless. In fact I was never taking a position that the BIG TEN should be posted, I was merly asking if there would be any real opposition if the 'rules' hadn't been taken out of the bible.

sheesh, you try to start a topic and some people think it's an invitation to trash the poster. Your right it was OT, my mistake, won't happen again... I apologize. Happy now?

-- (oldyeller@sanfran.com), June 18, 1999.


I agree with Gilda. As an aside, the next time you listen to Rush Limbaugh, keep in mind that he works for Phil Donahue, a rabid Clinton supporter.

-- kofe (your@town.USA), June 18, 1999.

(1) A more proper interpretation of the commandment is "Thou shalt not do murder." There is a subtle but significant difference between that and "thou shalt not kill."

(2) The argument stated above that the opposition is as much to absolutes as to religion was probably right on. Certainly, it seems to be ok to kill civilian population (with collateral damage)...as long as you are "doing good."

(3) Gun ownership (and the rights and responsibilities appurtenant thereto) are deeply entrenched in the USA...and are not the province of a single political party or organization.

(4) I AM FOR GUN CONTROL. But I define gun control as hitting what you aim at! I am thinking of turning my bunker into an indoor range...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), June 18, 1999.


oldyeller,

What words did I put in your mouth?

Note that my first posting in this thread is not addressed to "oldyeller". In your top posting, I presumed that the two paragraphs beginning "What if," and "If these" were what Rush presented, not what you were presenting. All my comments on those were addressed to Rush (which sometimes I misspelled as "Russ") and "others advocating this". I did not presume that you, oldyeller, were necessarily advocating the proposal yourself. My use of the second person pronoun was directed to the author of the statements in those paragraphs.

My second posting _was_ addressed to you, oldyeller, because it was in response to your second posting which was pretty obviously _your own wording_ tather than a paraphrase or quoting of someone else such as Rush. Do you disown the words in your second posting? If so, I'll retract my responses to them.

>I'm beginning to not like you, because A.) your so combatative

Barry Goldwater said that extremism in the defense of liberty was no vice.

>I don't see how it will hurt anyone to have reminders of what we ALL KNOW is correct.

You mean, everyone has the same religious and moral views and there's no disagreement? If not, then maybe "what we all know is correct" is not all that universal?

Some people might vigorously protest against Commandment number one, for instance. Who is correct? Who is incorrect? How does one decide without biased judgement or religious war?

How about Commandment number six? Note what I suggested about capital punishment and abortion? Exactly what, here, do we "all know is correct"?

>Even jungle tribes in the amazon have simple rules to keep people from getting out of hand. More noteably, don't kill,

Do they have capital punishment, which some people consider to be killing?

>don't steal,

Do they have income taxes, which some people consider to be stealing?

>In fact I was never taking a position that the BIG TEN should be posted,

And I was never responding as though you were, other than bringing up the idea for discussion. I am sad that you interpreted some of my response so personally. That's one of the hazards of discussions about religion.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.


oldyeller,

BTW, I might begin to not like _you_ if you fail to answer my question about what words you accuse me of putting in your mouth.

It might be a good start to draw the line between Rush's words and yours, and make it clear to us which are which.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 18, 1999.



Old yeller, I think the individual states will have the option so it will be up to the citizens of each state. We all know that some states will have an inclination to do so as well as others states who will not. In my state, Oklahoma, the State Senate(maybe it was the State House, not sure which specific state body) just made an amendment to the child abuse statute which clarified the fact that parents had the right to spank their children for disciplinary reasons and it was signed by the Gov.Frank Keating. So this Commandment thing will most likely vary from state to state in my opinion according to cultural/religious climate locally. Personally, I think that it just ought to be left out. My job as a parent is to teach my children the morals of a virtuous life, within a religious framework if I so desire. It's not the school/govenment's responsibility nor their priviledge. That is mine alone.

-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), June 18, 1999.

oldyeller,

What words did I put in your mouth?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), June 19, 1999.


Might I suggest that whatever(commandments/rules)is to be posted, be posted and FOLLOWED in the White House first.

-- (cujo@baddog.com), June 19, 1999.

Might I suggest that cujo learn not to 'steal' a domain address when posting to these forums? I'm sick of getting all your spam.

-- (postmaster@baddog.com), June 19, 1999.

My appoligies to Postmaster@baddog.com. When I went incognito last year I did a domain search for "baddog" and nothing showed up.

-- (cujo@baddog.byte), June 20, 1999.

Sheesh it's getting late... Make that "apologies"!

-- (cujo@baddog.byte), June 20, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ