American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments

[Troubleshooter]

Whole article here.

American Wahabbis and the Ten Commandments
By William Thatcher Dowell, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on March 8, 2005, Printed on March 9, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/21441/

For anyone who actually reads the Bible, there is a certain irony in the current debate over installing the Ten Commandments in public buildings. As everyone knows, the second commandment in the King James edition of the Bible states quite clearly: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth." It is doubtful that the prohibition on "graven images" was really concerned with images like the engraving of George Washington on the dollar bill. Rather it cautions against endowing a physical object, be it a "golden calf" or a two-ton slab of granite, with spiritual power.

In short, it is the spirit of the commandments, not their physical representation in stone or even on a parchment behind a glass frame, which is important. In trying to publicize the commandments, the self-styled Christian right has essentially forgotten what they are really about. It has also overlooked the fact that there are several different versions of them. The King James Bible lists three: Exodus 20:2-17, Exodus 34: 12-26, and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Catholic Bibles and the Jewish Torah also offer variants.

If the commandments are indeed to be green-lighted for our official landscape, however, let's at least remember that Christianity did not exist when the commandments were given. It might then seem more consistent to go with the Hebrew version rather than any modified Christian version adopted thousands of years after Moses lived. Since the Catholic Church predates the Protestant Reformation, it would again make more sense to go with the Catholic version than later revisions.

It is just this kind of theological debate which has been responsible for massacres carried out in the name of religion over thousands of years. It was, in fact, the mindless slaughter resulting from King Charles' efforts to impose the Church of England's prayer book on Calvinist Scots in the 17th century which played an important role in convincing the founding fathers to choose a secular form of government clearly separating church and state. They were not the first to recognize the wisdom in that approach. Jesus Christ, after all, advised his followers to render unto Caesar what was Caesar's due and unto God that which was due God.

The current debate, of course, has little to do with genuine religion. What it is really about is an effort to assert a cultural point of view. It is part of a reaction against social change, an American counter-reformation of sorts against the way our society has been evolving, and ultimately against the negative fallout that is inevitable when change comes too rapidly. The people pushing to blur the boundaries between church and state are many of the same who so fervently back the National Rifle Association and want to crack down on immigration. They feel that they are the ones losing out, much as, in the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalists fear they are losing out – and their reactions are remarkably similar. In the Arab Middle East and Iran, the response is an insistence on the establishment of Islamic law as the basis for political life; while in Israel, an increasingly reactionary interpretation of Jewish law which, taken to orthodox extremes, rejects marriages by reform Jewish rabbis in America, has settled over public life.

In a strange way, George Bush may now find himself in the same kind of trap that ensnared Saudi Arabia's founder, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud. To gain political support, Saud mobilized the fanatical, ultra-religious Wahabbi movement – the same movement which is spiritually at the core of al Qaeda. Once the bargain was done, the Saudi Royal Family repeatedly found itself held political hostage to an extremist, barely controllable movement populated by radical ideologues. Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has found himself in a similar situation, drawing political power from the swing votes of the ultra-orthodox right-wing religious and fanatical settler's movement, and then finding his options limited by their obstinacy to change. President Bush has spent the last several months cajoling evangelicals and trying to pay off the political bill for their support.

In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabbis consider themselves ultra-religious, but what really drives their passions is a deep sense of grievance and an underlying conviction that a return to spiritual purity will restore the lost power they believe once belonged to their forefathers. The extremism that delights in stoning a woman to death for adultery or severing the hand of a vagrant accused of stealing depends on extreme interpretations of texts that are at best ambiguous. What is at stake is not so much service to God, as convincing oneself that it is still possible to enforce draconian discipline in a world that seems increasingly chaotic. We joke about a hassled husband kicking his dog to show he still has power. In the Middle East, it is often women who bear the brunt of the impotence of men. Nothing in the Koran calls for the mistreatment of women or even asks that a woman wear a veil. What is at stake here is not religion, but power, and who has a right to it.

The rest of the article here.

[OnyxCougar]

convincing the founding fathers to choose a secular form of government clearly separating church and state
.........
blur the boundaries between church and state

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure 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.

(Typed entirely from memory, thank you schoolhouse rock.)

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

(On every coin in the country) In God We Trust

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: One Nation Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.


Separation of church and state my ass. This country was founded on a belief in a creator god and is is ALL of our major documents and mottos.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their* Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

You missed with your emphasis there, thought I'd tighten in up for you a little bit.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: One Nation Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Published in 1891, the original states, 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

'To' was added in 1892.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

This country was founded on a belief in a creator god and is is ALL of our major documents and mottos.

Which in no way takes away from the idea that others should be able to worship, or not, as their beliefs dictate. The governmental imprimatur, as alluded to in your above statement is what is used as a hammer on people of alternative, or no, religion.

*to possibly include Vishnu, Odin, Marduk, etc., etc....

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

You missed with your emphasis there, thought I'd tighten in up for you a little bit.

No, the emphasis was exactly where I wanted it, thanks. Namely, in the word CREATOR, meaning the founding fathers believed in a Creator God.

Published in 1891, the original states, 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

'To' was added in 1892.

So? It's still in there, isn't it?

Which in no way takes away from the idea that others should be able to worship, or not, as their beliefs dictate.

I absolutely agree. That's what this country was founded on.

The governmental imprimatur, as alluded to in your above statement is what is used as a hammer on people of alternative, or no, religion.

I don't care who you worship or IF you worship. That was not the point of my post. Since this is one of those cases I was obtuse, let me try to clarify my point:

The founding documents of this country have not one thing to do with separation of church and state, or else they would not be worded as they are. (No one has mentioned the fact that God is on all our money yet....)

I have a problem with the author (of the quoted first post)s repeated use of the separation of church and state, as if it was a mandate from the founding of this country that there will be no mix of the two, when obviously that's not the case.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

(No one has mentioned the fact that God is on all our money yet....)

I did. That (and the pledge) was added later, so it says nothing about how the country was founded, just that there was a period of self-righteousness later on.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Published in 1891, the original states, 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here are two more that were added later on - hardly evidence one way or the other for "This country was founded on a belief in a creator god ".

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I did. That (and the pledge) was added later, so it says nothing about how the country was founded, just that there was a period of self-righteousness later on.

And then

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

And what then, do you make of the repeated inclusion of the idea of a creator in nearly all of the big US documents and coins?

If they really wanted complete and utter separation of religion and government, why put it in all those documents? The pledge? The coins?

Hopefully she won't bring up the pledge and coins anymore with regard to the founding of the country...

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Hopefully...

*tip of my hat*

Thank you sir.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

(On every coin in the country) In God We Trust

I pledge allegience to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands: One Nation Under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Here are two more that were added later on - hardly evidence one way or the other for "This country was founded on a belief in a creator god ".

And the term "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", given the attitude of the time, is remarkably ambivalent on the subject of God. Little more than lip service, really.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

Nature's God...that's Cerrunos, right?

[jaguar]

'secure the blessings of liberty' has nothing to do with god, too much bible study is warping your mind.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by jaguar

'secure the blessings of liberty' has nothing to do with god, too much bible study is warping your mind.

Oh, I'm sorry. ONE of the examples I gave has only a passing reference to blessings, a word used almost exclusively in conjunction with religion. Come on, Jag. You can do way better than that, can't you??

[iamthewalrus109]

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams

The founding fathers and the genesis of America is the protection of inealieble rights given by the creator, plain and simple. For human secularists to interpret or misuse the provision for the seperation of church and state to question the effect of cannon on law is presumptious and short sighted. A representation of the ten commandments sit in the highest court in this land, the supreme court. Why people would want to strictly limit the law to what Adams called, "human laws" is unclear. No matter what you think of the Universe, no man can say with complete assuredness what someone else deserves or doesn't deserve. There has been a general, almost ignorant resitance by evangelicals in this country to thwart this trend, but there are those that do understand what a major shift this represents, not only culturally, but to the country overall. The justice system, laws, and the sanctity of human rights will be assaulted by efforts to minimize the concept of the creator in our legal system and society. The Creator can be defined as creation itself, even an atheist has to see that. Fate, nature, or just plain coincidence far exceeds any human's comprehension, that in and of itself has to be respected.

In the end to rest the entirety of law on "human law" is dangerous and weak. There needs to be a recognition of a higher power, otherwise what is to keep the justice system in check? magistrates? yeah right. The details of whatever God, or existence is, really is irrelevant, it's truly the fact that we are here, and we didn't ask to be here, and men are flawed and weak. To allow secular thought pervade every aspect of public life is a mistake.

-Walrus

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by iamthewalrus109

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." - John Adams

I too can play Quote The Old Dead White Guy(tm) game...

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," Thomas Jefferson

[Beestie]

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth below, or that is in the water under the earth.

Iconoclasm, the heresy of creating images of human form is thought to be a Muslim influence on the Catholic church as persecutions related to it began to appear around the ninth century. Islam forbids the creation of human likenesses. The above passage has been understood to include animal forms as well.

However, there is no such thing as an "image" of the ten commandments, imo. They are but words and I think the author is making a hell of a stretch to imply that carvings of the ten commandments fall under the iconoclasm heresy. Basically, I think he's dead wrong and is fabricating an irony to piggyback some substance on an otherwise empty argument.

An image of a cow refers to a cow. An "image" of the ten commandments refers to the ten commandments - the word of God. So, to "worship" the image of a cow is to worship a cow - heresy. However, to "worship" an image of the ten commandments is to worship that to which they refer: the word of God - not a heresy. In Christianity, God and the word of God are indistinguishable.

Whether they appear in the text of the Bible, spraypainted on the side of a building or etched in granite is, imho, an utterly meaningless distinction.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Beestie

However, there is no such thing as an "image" of the ten commandments, imo.

If there isn't an iconic image of the ten commandments, why do all the carvings of them look the same?