Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jon Rowe has an interesting post at Positive Liberty about the Summum case that will be heard by the Supreme Court in this term. That's the case where a fringe religious group wants to put up a monument to their Seven Aphorisms in a public park next to a Ten Commandments display in two cities in Utah; the cities rejected their application to do so and the 10th circuit ruled in favor of the Summum organization.
Jon points out that John Adams argued that the Ten Commandments in the Bible were not the real Ten Commandments, just as Summum does today. He suggests that Ten Commandments monuments should include the text of Adams' letter to Jefferson in this regard. I like that idea.
Politics
Comments
I hadn't hard about Summum, so I had to check them up Wiki. This explanation stopped me in my tracks:
Posted by: Bob O'H | October 19, 2008 10:25 AM
That article is fantastic. I wish we could get every fundy to respond to that. Our founding fathers were unorthodox heretics--LOL. I've always suspected that the best way to counter these Ten Commandment posters would be to just let them, and then watch them self-destruct over which set of commandments. Go, Summum!
Posted by: Uzza | October 19, 2008 12:42 PM
There is so much to comment on here. But I will limit my comment to one conceptual argument: A system of government that was designed to be inclusive through one simple but fundemental concept that all voices needed to be heard in government. This was enforced in our Constitution by the principle of the rights of the minority not be outweighed by the will of the majority. Rights are inalienable according to the Declaration of Independence. This means that our rights do not change as political circumstances change. With that said, I agree with Rowe's post and Ed's comments here. ALL views on religion and spirituality should be heard or none. If all groups do not have access to the government property then none should. If I have to limit your rights to proclaim mine the ideas that culminated in America have become null and void.
Side note: All should be wary of any religion that raises importance of the letter of the law above the spirit behind the law. As I have stated many times, Christianity as I see it is more about a sacrifice that fulfills the law and points toward a relationship with God that transcends the law.
Posted by: King of Ireland | October 19, 2008 12:53 PM
There is so much to comment on here. But I will limit my comment to one conceptual argument: A system of government that was designed to be inclusive through one simple but fundemental concept that all voices needed to be heard in government. This was enforced in our Constitution by the principle of the rights of the minority not be outweighed by the will of the majority. Rights are inalienable according to the Declaration of Independence. This means that our rights do not change as political circumstances change. With that said, I agree with Rowe's post and Ed's comments here. ALL views on religion and spirituality should be heard or none. If all groups do not have access to the government property then none should. If I have to limit your rights to proclaim mine the ideas that culminated in America have become null and void.
Side note: All should be wary of any religion that raises importance of the letter of the law above the spirit behind the law. As I have stated many times, Christianity as I see it is more about a sacrifice that fulfills the law and points toward a relationship with God that transcends the law.
Posted by: King of Ireland | October 19, 2008 12:55 PM
Which version in the Bible? There are differing versions in Exodus chap 20 and Exodus chap 34.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 19, 2008 1:17 PM
Side note: All should be wary of any religion that raises importance of the letter of the law above the spirit behind the law. As I have stated many times, Christianity as I see it is more about a sacrifice that fulfills the law and points toward a relationship with God that transcends the law.
Yeah, like that one time when Jesus came back to life and floated up into the sky like a birdie. Some sacrifice that was. Where did he go? Did he go into orbit or something? Tweet tweet!
Posted by: 386sx | October 19, 2008 1:19 PM
As I have stated many times, Christianity as I see it is more about a sacrifice that fulfills the law and points toward a relationship with God that transcends the law.
I'm glad some of the laws got "fulfilled", because some of those laws were really freakin stupid. But now... they are "fulfilled". Woooooooo.....
Posted by: 386sx | October 19, 2008 1:31 PM
Hey King of Ireland, I'm going up for a speeding ticket in a couple days. Is there any way that somebody might be able to "fulfill" the speed limit so's I don't have to pay my ticket? Thanks...
Posted by: 386sx | October 19, 2008 1:36 PM
Uzza: Adam's version is essentially the same as the list given in Leviticus 34. As noted, there are no less than three versions of the more standard version, one in Deuteronomy and two in Exodus.
KoI: I Haven't seen you for a while, Good to see you back. Yes, leagalism is a problem in many organized religions, and not always confined to fundamentalism. It's human nature, I'm afraid.
Kurt
Posted by: kehrsam | October 19, 2008 2:32 PM
King of Ireland:
Matthew 5:18
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | October 19, 2008 4:01 PM
Ratnasabapathy, so what you're saying is that King of Ireland is right. Christianity is more about a sacrifice that "fulfills" the law.
But, the law hasn't been "fulfilled" yet. Oh great...
Or maybe it has. Who knows! Flip a coin or somethin.
Posted by: 386sx | October 19, 2008 4:18 PM
Side note: All should be wary of any religion that raises importance of the letter of the law above the spirit behind the law. As I have stated many times, Christianity as I see it is more about a sacrifice that fulfills the law and points toward a relationship with God that transcends the law.
How come if the law is "fulfilled", then all of a sudden the letter of the law doesn't matter any more? I don't see how "fulfilling" law means that it suddenly turns from the "letter" of the law into the "spirit" of the law. I don't see how that works. Sorry, but it don't make any sense.
Posted by: 386sx | October 19, 2008 4:25 PM
Kehrsam,
I have been pedal to the metal teaching and coaching. I go to work at 7 and get back at 8 most days.
386,
The best way I can explain this is that salvation in Christianity it legal and relational. I had a kid who was in the mission organization with me and has come to many of the same conclusions call me and tell me that someone told him that God looks at Christians as perfect. If the Bible is true and I am interpreting it right then that is true legally if Jesus paid the price for our sins. Then legally God sees those who accept this sacrifice as perfect under the law. But it takes some kind of mental gymnastics to have a God that cannot lie look at flawed humanity and see us as perfect.
As I told him I think God looked at the shit and jumped in. Most of Christianity avoids the shit thinking it is too clean to jump in. What most do not realize is that their shit smells just as bad in the "purity". The assholes that parade around this country trying to talk everyone into obeying some set of laws that the Bible clearly says has been fulfilled have missed the point. Trues friends accept our shit and stick with us even when it stinks bad. I think God is the same way. As far as the letter of the law vs the spirit Galatians has a lot to say about the and so does Romans.
You can read what I wrote on my blog that discusses some of this in more detail at kingofireland12.blogspot.com
Posted by: King of Ireland | October 19, 2008 9:05 PM
The assholes that parade around this country trying to talk everyone into obeying some set of laws that the Bible clearly says has been fulfilled have missed the point.
King of Ireland, I don't see what "fulfilling" laws is supposed to do. I don't see how a "fulfilled" law is different from one that isn't. It doesn't make sense.
I can understand what a "fulfilled" prophecy might mean. But a "fulfilled" law doesn't make any sense. It's like talking about a "fulfilled" peanut butter sandwich. One day it's a sandwich, and the next day it's "fulfilled". It doesn't mean anything.
Yes, the people who try to talk people into obeying "fulfilled" laws have missed the point. The point they are missing is that it's superstition and mythology. Look how silly you guys sound with all of this "fulfilled" malarkey, for crying out loud.
The assholes that parade around this country trying to talk everyone into obeying some set of laws that the Bible clearly says has been fulfilled have missed the point.
Here, look what else the Bible "clearly says":
"Jesus answered them, 'I tell you with certainty, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you be able to do what has been done to the fig tree, but you will also say to this mountain, "Be removed and thrown into the sea," and it will happen.'"
The Bible "clearly says" a lot of stuff. What you really mean when you say the "Bible clearly says", is "Bible clearly says, and plus I agree with it." You are the one who decides what the "Bible clearly says".
Posted by: 386sx | October 19, 2008 11:45 PM
386sx, "fulfilled" in fundamentalish means "nullified". Even though Jesus, when he says "fulfilled", says that he comes "not to abolish the law", and that the Law will endure as long as heaven and earth.
This is a curious variant of English where words don't mean what they normally mean. For example they say "science is always changing" as if that is a bad thing. They call people "gay" and "lesbian" and apparently that is an insult.
Weird huh.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | October 20, 2008 1:43 AM
386sx, "fulfilled" in fundamentalish means "nullified". Even though Jesus, when he says "fulfilled", says that he comes "not to abolish the law", and that the Law will endure as long as heaven and earth.
Let's see what Jesus says:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Like Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Looks to me like when Jesus says "fulfilled", he means the complete opposite of destroy. He wants the laws to be even stronger!
Posted by: 386sx | October 20, 2008 2:36 AM
Like Inigo Montoya says, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
I was of course referring to the people who think that "fulfilled" means that the laws are nullified. I do not think "fulfilled" means what they think it means! Not according to Jesus anyway.
Posted by: 386sx | October 20, 2008 2:45 AM
386sx, this confuses me too. There are are parts of the New Testament which say that the Law died with Jesus --
Romans 7:4
Romans 8:3
But instead of quoting these bits, fundamentalists pick the verse where Jesus clearly says that the law should not be abolished, and say that he meant it to be abolished!
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | October 20, 2008 2:19 PM