Actually, I would be OK with displaying these documents, as long as they're the originals. As long as the Christian fundamentalist "educators" can find the original tablets on which the Ten Commandments were etched, they would certainly make an interesting historical display.

However, NO COPIES ALLOWED.

oooooh, would that include those golden tablets from the mormon historical documents? how about the lyrics to stairway to heaven? (don't tell me that's not a great historical document)

if we're pulling stuff from the bible, we should include anything else that comes from what essentially is just a really crazy book. wouldn't it be fair to include something from dianetics by l. ron hubbard? (sorry, just gave myself the creeps)

Well, some German researchers did find the original tablets back in the late 30s, but they were really grainy. Also all of those researchers melted.

Perhaps not the originals, but certainly the original language. I'm sure that TN would be fine with having the ten commandments in Old Testament Hebrew, right?

The fact that they're calling them "historical documents" is a fig leaf. If the practical application of the law ends up being that religious documents get displayed, it will probably not survive a court challenge. As far as I'm aware, courts have allowed the display of religious documents as long as they were displayed alongside other historical documents. Calling a religious document an historical document will not necessarily get the courts to avoid calling a spade a spade when they see one.

The bible is a historical document and the commandments are part of it. Since when is history unbiased. Other historical religious themes should also be presented. Maybe it depends on where these sites are located.

Funny story, a lot of those stone tablets that the courts are trying to protect, were marketing gimmicks, for Cecil B Demille's The Ten Commandments Movie.

He had them made and put up across the country to promote the movie.

Is there any other movie memorabilia that we are elevating as sacred relics? Shall we have a plaque with the Dune Litany against Fear above the jury box?

I do not indulge in religious arguments but I do not see anything wrong with displaying the ten commandments since I believe that the Old Testament is a history of the Jews, which includes a few fairy tales. Also, the commandments represent laws and morals of today. I do object, however, to not including historical views of other religions. Buddhism comes to mind. The Buddhists also have a set of laws, somewhat similar to the Ten Commandments.

No, this is ridiculous, I'm sorry, all due respect given, but this is ridiculous.

I do not respect the "historical dignity" of the Ten Commandments, it is not a non-partisan artifact that all of humanity can embrace, it is absolutely a representation of religion, and an advocate for it.

I do not believe that other religions will get appropriate deference given to them, they will not be portrayed equally, and even if they did, I do not think that it would promote multiculturalism as much as it will actually encourage divisiveness.

I don't want to persecute believers, but I do not think that public schools or courthouses are the appropriate places to be battlegrounds for the wars between beliefs. These places must be held to be secular in order for us to continue to be free.

This is not nitpicking, this is not making a mountain out of a molehill, this is inappropriate.

There are more than enough private places where these religious symbols can be displayed. There are plenty of churches who enjoy tax-exempt status. Surely they can promote the historical dignity of the ten commandments there.

You have no idea whether a plaque of the Ten Commandments is historical in nature or not. Of course we don't have the original, but we have few original documents, some of which are still being inspected because of some discoveries being fake or just "maybes".

I only agree with about half of the ten commandments. You could argue that allowing the display of the ten commandments as a historical document diminishes them as a religious document. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me?" Come on. How can that stand the test of separation of church and state?

DavidBain is right, there is a diminishing of them to say they are history and not religious beliefs to have no other god, would definitely be making a religion central and saying it is not holy might be dissing God.

People defend the Bible as Holy Scripture, the Word of God. I must say to read them, there is no doubt that God and God's commandments are the topic.

http://10commandments.biz/biz/articles/2005/list_of_ten_commandments.php

I'm willing to bet that there is a legislative body of conservative fundamentalist Republicans in Tennessee who can be relied upon to conclude that only Christian religious documents and Confederate stuff will be considered *historical* enough to merit display, reverence and high honor in public places. The trick is not admitting the real reason behind what you are doing. It's the same tactic religious people, religious organizations, religious PACS, religious Congress people, religious activists, religious lobbyists and churches are using to advance their 100% Bible based assaults on abortion, dirty pictures and now contraception. They've learned that in order to get what they want, all of which has been declared unconstitutional in the courts over and over again, all they have to do is turn the reason why they want it inside out, and suddenly, it's perfectly okay to have government sponsor your religion, display your religion, enforce your religious beliefs and even make laws based on your religious beliefs. But only because they're "moral" and "historical," not because they are your actual religious beliefs. Which they are. But that's just a total coincidence. Honest.

Very nicely put.

Thanks. God told me to write it that way ; )

Your comment is sacrilegious and insulting to those who do believe in biblical history. Your comment should be removed.

That is so true Chris Helms. It is clearly what happened with Prop 8, They are unable to argue based in religious doctrine, so they frame as defining marriage.

It is clear that they knowingly created "work-arounds".

It is not offensive if other religions can display their artifacts or copies.

The erection of such does not impose Christianity on anyone. Not like the politicians in high offices of today who conveniently are all Christians running for the presidency and vice presidency. They are slowly depriving us of the right to vote, women's rights, minority rights and I am sure there will be more coming. Santorum and his buddies want to force their beliefs and family values on the entire country. Now this is what you call crossing the line.

I forgot, most of our legislators have no college degrees, and never attended. The few who did, apparently learned very little. Education is not valued in this state, as we spend less money than even Mississippi and Alabama, apparently. They have also pass a new "monkey/Scopes law", which will "instruct" academics on how to properly teach the subject of evolution and the subject of global warming (both hoaxes, they believe).

Their collective lack of education and intelligence would be desperately funny, if it weren't so desparately backward.

Anyway, hoping to make the best out of a really f**kup situation and become the next John Scopes. Wish me luck, everyone.

Speaking of teaching . . . I also live in Tennessee. My 13 year old daughter came home today with an assignment given by her seventh grade social studies teacher. The objective of this assignment is to write a letter to President Obama explaining why she thinks it is his fault that gas prices are so high.

I am not the confrontational type, and will usually only discuss my political beliefs with conservatives who are willing to remain civil, and not scream me down, or call me an idiot. However, this teacher is going to get a visit from me tomorrow which she is not prepared for.

I love the south. But if politics and religion are going to be taught in schools, then I say cheers to my medical license being valid in all 50 states, because I am going to be moving to another part of the county.

You are lucky that you can move from such an ignorant society. Scientific studies, in spite of conflicting views, should always be taught in schools. Have they even seen pictures of embryos from beginning to birth? Can they prove that global warming does not exist. Even in their stupidity, they have to know that pollution kills.

I forgot to mention this. Whenever, I went to my son's school to complain about curriculum, they always found some way to punish my son in retaliation.

You might add Matthew 6:1 - 6:8

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

I've sort of interpenetrated this as [a] Keep your prayers (and religious beliefs) to yourself, and out of the public arena, and [b] GOD already knows what you need (note that it says 'need', NOT 'want'!), so in many ways, you shouldn't even ask for anything!

These are the words of Jesus Himself, right before He gives them "The Lord's Prayer", so it's not really something a 'True Christian' can/should dispute!

The accuracy or the lack of bias, must always be accounted for in any form of literature. Don't neglect the fact that much of the Bible was passed on verbally before reaching written form. Further, there have been numerous translations. Plus, many Christians believe in "spreading the word", such as missionaries.

They have been saying and playing clips of what they called Romney's flip flopping. It always meant the same thing to me.

sandyc954: (Un)fortunately the people passing the bill does not need to pass the citizenship test :D

In all seriousness, if everybody waving the constitution flag right now have to pass the citizenship test that foreigners have to take to become a citizen, they'll all fail and have to be deported. Christine O'Donnell for a start...she'll lead the group.

So Sandy, you're sayin' the Bible didn't have any influence on western civilization? BTW, the 10 commandments are pretty good moral guidelines, no matter what your religion, don't you think?

No I don't think the 10 Commandments are good moral guidelines (necessarily). Some of them to some extent sure, but not all of them 100%.

For instance I would not say that you have to honor thy father and mother. If you have bad parents or crappy parents or parents who let you down or otherwise that no longer deserve your love and adoration you shouldn't feel any moral or ethical conflict to tell them to go bleep themselves.

You also shouldn't feel it 'immoral' to not rest on the 7th day of the week (if only because many jobs in the world don't allow for this to be practical).

You shouldn't feel that it's wrong to worship idols since what defines 'worship' and 'idol' are both completely subjective. Making it a commandment attempts to make it universal and objective- which means, technically speaking, praying before the cross or before a statue of Vishnu could be considered immoral. Which, of course, I would disagree w/ since not everyone is Christian or believes that the statue they are preying at actually represents a god.

I also would disagree that taking god's name in vain is a bad commandment. What is considered 'vain' is subjective and is dictated by society. Many of the words we use today were considered improper or curse words of yesterday. Beyond this there isn't a whole lot of agreement on how to say god's name or if it can even be pronounced by humans so this commandment seems like it can't be applied realistically.

Coveting what someone else has is also the basic means of capitalism and the basic system by which capitalism exists. I suppose we can certainly argue that capitalism is bad- and to an extent I would agree w/ this- but in American society or our society in today's world? This probably isn't a good idea. Also who gets to decide what is and isn't coveting?

And who gets to decide what is and isn't adultery? To an extent I would agree- if you promise your spouse that you will not sleep w/ someone else and that you will be faithful and loyal it is immoral for you to betray these promises. But these promises are subjective to the couple that is speaking and they don't necessarily apply to another couple. So to some other couple a three way (as an example) wouldn't be considered adultery. Yet according to the Bible it would be. Who is to say which is wrong and which is right?

Even a law like 'thou shalt not steal' has ambiguity. Yes I agree that we shouldn't steal, but who gets to establish what is and isn't considered stealing? Is it stealing to download music that was put on the web w/o paying for it, even if the artist is OK w/ this happening? But the music industry said it's stealing so to whom am I morally bound? The industry or the musician?

And 'thou shalt not kill' is also pretty problematic. We justify killing when it comes to the death penalty or in self defense or as an act of war or as an act of law enforcement. Now certainly there are kinds of murder I disagree w/ and that I find immoral and that I would implore society to find immoral. For instance I don't believe a teenage boy walking home wearing dark clothes should be shot when he posed no threat to the person who shot him and was only carrying a bag of Skittles and ice tea. I would, however, say that it is moral for a Marine in combat to kill a Taliban fighter before said fighter killed him (this is, of course, assuming that we've already condoned that said Marine go into said warzone; I would be more than happy to disagree about our deployments overseas...but so long as they are deployed I believe they have the right to defend themselves).

Capt.. Please do not put words in my mouth. See below for my further thoughts.

Yes, there seems to be a thread in the Bible, to make efforts to NOT make a show of your beliefs. Acting with regard to others is encouraged, but arrogance or show of piety was viewed as trying to impress other people and gain favor, which provoked Jesus to anger.

It was deemed arrogance to make a show of righteousness, if you do alms in public, you have your reward.

I think it is a mistake to conflate making a big show of your faith with the shame of denial or being ashamed of your faith. Letting your light shine does not mean to make sure everyone know you are a follower of Jesus, it means you are encouraged do good to others, but not to make sure it is known. Making a show of praying was discouraged by Jesus. It is personal, not public.

This looks like creating a false persecution, when your faith cannot be taken away by another person. It was said that persecution in the name of Jesus is righteousness, but what is driving this desire to become victims when you are not being told you cannot practice your religion, while others practice or do not practice their religion.

I see no denial of anyone's right to freedom of religion because 10 Commandments are not emblazoned on or teach creation in schools.

No law says you cannot pray in public, but I think Jesus said it was better to pray in your closet and not make a show of it. I am not offended by peoples' religion, unless they use it as a weapon or tool against me or others. I am questioning all this victimhood and anger over such things like 10 Commandments being required public fare. Trying to force this, when the admonition to apostles was to leave that city, not tell everyone else if they don't believe as you do, they must leave. That is not what freedom of religion means.

I'm originally from Tennessee. As a teenager back in the '50's I read the Tennessee state constitution through from beginning to end. (It was much longer than the U.S. constitution, which I also read.) At that time the state constitution specified a religious test for members of the state legislature: no atheists allowed. However, perhaps just to be fair, it also didn't allow preachers to serve in the legislature. (I think one of the original members of the constitutional convention had in mind a particular preacher he wanted to keep out.)

The state constitution has been amended since then, but last time I checked, it still forbade atheists from serving in the legislature. I don't know about preachers. Obviously I am against both restrictions, the one against atheists because they are my people, the one against preachers because I am for separation of church and state (besides, my granddaddy was a preacher.)

There are 99 members of the state house, so if the vote was 93-0, that means six people didn't vote. I wonder how many of those were closet atheists. I wonder how many of the lawmakers who voted for the ten commandments are secretly preaching out of their basements or garages.

The provision you are describing violates the no-religious-test clause of the US Constitution, which overrides the state provision per the supremacy clause. I'm assuming you already knew that, but I'm pointing it out because violations like this need to be.

Great point. I new that the Bible had two versions of the geneology of Jesus, but I wasn't aware that it contained two versions of the ten commandments. I'll have to do a compare and contrast to see which one I would endorse if I were a member of the Tennessee state legislature. But that could never be, even if I moved back. I couldn't pass the religious test.