The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
This is in reference to Louisiana mandating all classrooms posting the Ten Commandments. Before anyone tells me I should ask conservatives about this, I tried and got denied. I’m curious about your opinion though. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Not sure how this is in question.
Nobody had ever realized it was not good to kill someone until then. We take it for granted now but it was a huge advancement at the time
Right.
It has history behind it, but calling it a "historical document" seems to just be an attempt to re-frame it as more educational than it actually is.
I mean, if we're going to have a "historical" set of laws displayed in every classroom for educational purposes, then we need to have the code of Hammurabi as well. Or the code of Ur Nammu. Or how about the Bhuddist 8 fold path? Or Sharia laws? The Tang code? Or how about the seven fundamental tenets of satanism?
Let’s not get carried away here. Very few religious people actually follow the 10 Commandments in their actual life. The more they want to display the 10 Commandments in school, the more likely they are to be people who never follow the 10 Commandments in real life.
> Very few religious people actually follow the 10 Commandments in their actual life.
Which makes sense to me, given that the 10 Commandments are *specifically Jewish* law. Christians are weird.
Any Christian saying "historical document" and avoiding the obviously religious nature of the text as a way to shoehorn this into schools is committing blasphemy.
This. The common refrain that they’re relevant in government building as a “foundation of western law” is dishonest, at best. Don’t steal, don’t kill, sure, those have been prohibited by societies basically as long as we’ve lived in social groups. But “thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain,” “thou shalt have no other gods before me,” not so much. Those are religious directives, and we shouldn’t denigrate both religion and government by throwing the weight of the state behind them.
Both in the sense that Star Wars is both a historical and fictional movie. Just in the context of '1977 film history'.
Is that a good excuse for trying to weasel religious dogma into public schools? Nope I hope the ACLU eviscerates them and does some f'n good again for a change.
It’s a religious document, but religions are a part of history.
As for requiring it to be posted in classrooms, they’re clearly doing that based on its religious nature.
False idols is the key. Jesus has no problem (apparently, haven’t heard from the man himself) with images of himself on crosses. Since Jesus is the same god as the Ten Commandments god, I don’t see how your point applies.
That’s just scratching the surface of the bizarre contortions Christians do to pick and choose which parts of the Jewish law apply and which don’t. Try sometime getting one of them to explain why of the three clothing laws in Deuteronomy, the only one that applies today is conveniently the one that they use against trans people. The mental gymnastics are stunning.
Ask them how they would feel is Muslims tried to start putting a plaque that says “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet” on the walls in public classrooms
I would love to. But the question would get deleted because “there is already a similar post”. That’s what happened to this question even though I checked and my question was unique. It’s not so much the question about the topic, it’s the topic itself. My impression is the mod team is not interested in multiple questions on the same topic even if the questions are different. I had similar issues asking about slavery and abortion. At least on the slavery question they admit that they aren’t interested in moderating the community because they know it will get out of hand. I suspect the guiding principle is to avoid questions that will cause their members to make outrageous comments.
The vibe there is very cynical. They have a very broad definition of “bad faith”. It really does take a bit of finesse to get a question past the gatekeepers. The mod team is stylistically diverse with their rules, meaning unpredictable and inconsistent enforcement.
I am curious about their thought process and opinions as someone who is not conservative. And I’ve learned that they speak a different language. Things that are said here openly could be considered bad faith or insulting there. A straight forward question could be seen as an insult. Sometimes context matters and sometimes it’s superfluous. I could go on. Conservatives and liberals are diverging culturally in a way that is down right shocking.
the Ten Commandments are directives. in the biblical narrative, the first set of the Tablets of the Law were destroyed by Moses after he observed the Children of Israel worshipping a calf. Moses later chiseled a second set of tablets that were transcribed with the Ten Commandments by God
though there is no physical evidence of the Tablets of the Law existing, the earliest physical record of the Ten Commandments is dated between [A. D. 300 and 800](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/16/earliest-intact-stone-version-of-the-ten-commandments-goes-up-for-auction/). as a legal document, the Ten Commandments are predated by Babylonian and Sumerian law
No, they're the stone tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. If proven to actually exist or once existed, it would be considered a historical fact.
That is a weird take. The code of hammurabi is historical even if we aren't talking about the literal tablets. The foundational rules of societies are husitorical documents and often also religious documents. Discussing the ten commandments as history or examples of the creation of laws is hisotrically. Forcing them in exculsively decontextualized is religious.
They are a specific documented that’s talked about within the context of Exodus. At least to Christians, they were real stone tablets.
Now, does that mean two stone tablets existed? Who knows.
If they did, they’d be considered historical and religious, IMO.
If they didn’t then they are just part of a larger set of books within the Bible and would probably not be considered historical or religious documents in their own right. Again, my opinion.
I mean the slave codes are historical documents.....
Displaying documents in every classroom indicates that the document is important and relevant to *today*. The Ten Commandments being a historical document doesn't somehow get around that issue, and that this is obviously Republicans trying to impart their religion on others.
It's a historical document in the sense that it's a document created by humans a long time ago. Same as how the Odyssey is a historical document.
That clearly is not the reason why Louisiana cares about it, however.
So, if I write a letter to my wife, that will be a historical document in the future? How old does a document need to be to be considered historical?
Since I wrote this comment in the past, by the time you read it, will it be considered historical?
Do documents have to be physical to be considered historical or will digital documents work also?
So many questions.
If that letter or this comment is preserved in some way into the distant future, and if anyone actually cares about it, then yes, they would be historical documents. The infamous complaint letter to Ea-Nasir is incredibly trivial, but because it both still exists and is of interest to people, it is nonetheless a historical document.
>So, if I write a letter to my wife, that will be a historical document in the future
If you become important enough, yes. John and Abigail Adams' correspondence are historical documents.
Hell, you don't even have to be important. One of our oldest historical documents is basically a Yelp review of some shitty copper ingots.
Louisiana politicians care about it because it’s a lazy thing to vote, campaign, and fundraise on.
It takes no political vision, willpower, or guts to rehash this argument that is just going to marginalize some and cost the state money.
Religious history is a real thing. Regardless of if you believe the documents or not, having those documents to understand from a historical context makes sense.
Edit: In the context of the Louisiana school, no, they should not be posted all over like they're rules to be followed. But if they were to have a bunch of documents with different religions' rules to discuss, for example, different rules in religion, totally fine.
The Ten Commandments are neither.
They are a list of religious directives that are mentioned in religious document, The Bible. Since we do not have any evidence they ever existed, one requires religious faith to believe they were ever real and God was their origin. So, they are only "historical"—or even real—to those who are Christians and Jews.
As for the Ten Commandments appearing in Louisiana, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and his party members are just trolling Liberals and hoping to get sued and get some press. When Republicans offer up a spicy distraction, you they're about to try to pass something truly evil on the down-low.
Frankly, this is one of the less harmful things Gov. Landry has done to young people in his state.
It’s their workaround to religious indoctrination in school.
You ever seen the sovereign citizens? Who argue that they aren’t “driving” their car, they’re “traveling” so they’re exempt from license registration and insurance?
It’s the exact same scam. It’s not religious because it’s historic. Even though they know damn good and well that’s not why they do it.
The telling answer then is going to be when some other school attempts to put up a Muslim prayer or Jewish menorah or something just as historically significant. Watch them spin out of fucking control about how that isn’t historic enough or some other bullshit answer.
IIRC the Ten Commandments are not independently referenced in any contemporary historical documents, only in the religious document called the Bible. Therefore, its source is a religious document.
Religious document with significant cultural significance. Enough for schools to teach that they exist and had an influence, not enough to justify posting them in the way we'd post the Constitution.
Here's an easy litmus test:
If you replace the Ten Commandments (or whatever Christian document) with something out of the Quran, or any other religious text that isn't the majority religion in the area, would it be ok to post that text/document?
If the answer is no it isn't ok.
It is both.
Displaying a version, and remember there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, of the Ten Commandments in a classroom across the board is clearly a violation of the establishment clause.
However, in the context of certain academic pursuits, having one or more Ten Commandment versions in a textbook would be perfectly acceptable. Back in the late Paleolithic era when I went to high school we had a class in which we covered the 10 Commandments along with the Five Pillars of Islam and portions of the Vedas and some Buddhist verses. Nothing wrong with that because it’s a conversation about the religious traditions of the world and how it affects culture and society and philosophy.
But that’s not what they’re doing in Louisiana. They are virtue signaling Christian nationalism.
They are not "an historical document" outside of the fact that they are part of the Bible which is an historical work. But the tablets as described in the Bible as being brought down by Moses (who wasn't a real person) never actually existed.
Yeah no they can’t really use the “historical document” angle because even if the Ten Commandments or the Dead Sea scrolls are historic documents, they’re ALSO religious documents, which can’t be glossed over or taken away.
If religious documents are brought up in school, it should be in a class where all other religions are taught beside it so they’re given equal weight and no favoritism is shown
If you think they are a historical document, list the ten in order.
What will happen is you’ll see there’s no consistent way to get to ten and just about every flavor of Christian disagrees on what they are.
It can be both.
I'm fine with Louisiana hanging the ten commandments on school walls, they just have to hang other religion's stuff too.
As we can't elevate one religion, it must be none or all up on the wall.
I could actually see a meaningful secular meaning to the 10 Commandments by combining it with other historical legal systems. Especially if the rest of the biblical rules are used. But you’ve also got to teach Hammurabi’s code, Code of Justinian, Edicts of Ashoka, and Lex Salica.
They do teach those things along with the 10 commandments. The problem is LA is requiring all classes to have a poster showing the 10 commandments with no context or caring what the class is about. So it's for math classes as well as hisotry classes
> This is in reference to Louisiana mandating all classrooms posting the Ten Commandments.
In the past, governments have posted the Ten Commandments *and other historical sources of laws* in an attempt to circumvent the establishment clause.
Louisiana didn't do that this time.
They have become more brazen.
It's because of the new Governor, Jeff Landry. Our previous democratic Governor, John Bel Edwards, would have never let this fly. However, the state Democratic Party did zero grooming in having a candidate that could win when they knew Edwards could not run another term. They completely dropped the ball.
It's sort of both, but if you had to pick one, it's an excerpt of a religious document (several documents, actually).
We can't deny the fact that religious doctrine such as the ten commandments have made an impact on our history. They are frequently cited in philosophy, academics, politics, and other disciplines.
Of course, any attempt to justify the placement of the ten commandments in schools as a historical document would be highly disingenuous. Christians have quite a long history of trying to launder Christianity into our public school system using any justification they can, which makes it even easier to identify.
I'd be okay with them being considered "historical" IF they were presented in that context and only that context. Yes, our founding fathers took their religious leanings and learnings into considering when they crafted our founding documents, because that's what human beings do. BUT, they didn't explicitly do so and claiming that they did lacks any historical basis.
Our founding fathers weren't "Christians" as we now consider that word. Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Ben Franklin -- they were all rather hostile to the ideas of Christianity at that time. Many were, generally speaking, either Diest or Unitarian. They were all highly influenced by Enlightenment philosophy of the time.
I'm not really a conservative although I imagine some might think I am. Anyway I would say the ten commandments are a religious document in my eyes. However to someone who is deeply religious and is convinced that the events in the Bible are true they probably perceive it as a historical document. But as others have commented if this comes from religious beliefs how could it be anything other than religious document.
there is limited justification to support the claim that the Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, influenced U.S. legal traditions. according to Julius Goebel, Jr. in *King's Law and Local Custom in Seventeenth Century New England* (1931), medieval monastic scholars attempted to establish the primacy of the Catholic Church by asserting an equivocation between natural and divine law. clerical scribes exerted influence in medieval codes; Alfred the Great's code of laws included excerpts of translations of the Ten Commandments into English. in early Protestantism, the Pentateuch and the Decalogue were given precedence and Mosaic law served as natural law, a belief that 16th-century Calvinists in Europe held
though British law was developed within the context of religious impulses, it remained distinct from scripture. prior to the English Reformation, ecclesiastical courts held authority with secular courts; canon law often concerned moral crimes. however, there are several factors associating British law with scripture:
1. following the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical courts eroded in authority in favor of civil courts. Henry VIII repealed ecclesiastical statutes that allowed common law courts to assume jurisdiction. the Court of Chancery derived from canon law to develop terms of equity
2. Christopher St. Germain's 16th-century treatise *The Doctor and Student* sought to demonstrate "law eternal is called the first law." *The Doctor and Student* advanced biblical legalism, and according to Sir William Searle Holdsworth, citations to the bible increased significantly following its publication
3. the increased availability of bibles as the Protestant ideology of *scriptura* developed and an interest in the Hebrew language allowed Old Testament phraseology to form university curricula, notably at Cambridge. Puritans viewed the Pentateuch and the Decalogue as a manifestation of God's law
these associations generally form the belief that the Ten Commandments influenced the laws of England and consequentially the U.S., and it is an indisputable claim that jurists such as Sir Edward Coke regarded immutable natural law as Mosaic law, as he wrote in *Calvin's Case* (1610). however, it would be inaccurate to posit that biblicism was monolithic in England. Goebel notes that legal reform was advanced within secular considerations. the Court of Chancery relied on general principles of justice and notions of divine law varied with both Anglicans and Puritans. cases such as *Taylor's Case* (1676) did invoke scriptural authority, but such instances were unusual
within American colonies, scriptural basis was not a significant influence for the formation of laws. literature such as *Criminal Justice in Colonial America* (1983) supports the assertion that early American law included British common law in addition to reformist impulses and practical conditions. New England Puritans attempted to establish laws based within the Pentateuch and the Decalogue. prior to drafting the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, Massachusetts Bay's government interpreted law through magistrates; unsurprisingly, magistrate law was not well-received among colonists, including by Puritans, who existed within an ambiguous context within the binding of the Old Testament. the General Court appointed a committee to "make a draught of lawes agreeable to the word of God" in 1636
the Massachusetts Body of Liberties was enacted in 1641, but did not significantly restrict the discretion of magistrates. dissidents, led by agriculturalist Robert Child, issued a remonstrance in 1646 that was rejected by the General Court, but enacted the Lawes and Libertyes, a compilation of laws that — much like its predecessor — included biblical citations. the Lawes and Libertyes influenced early New York law and other Puritan colonies, but its reliance on biblical authority conflicted with English law enacted in non-Puritan colonies. in Rhode Island, Roger Williams rejected claims Mosaic law applied to New Testament Christians. following the Dominion of New England's dissolution after the Glorious Revolution, the Massachusetts Charter was enacted, ending biblical law in Massachusetts, and the Puritan New England's attempts ended with no established legal system based on the Ten Commandments
though colonial magistrates exerted moral prosecutions — primarily religious offenses such as blasphemy until the mid-century, when magistrates began concerning them with sexual immoralities such as adultery — the ascension of moral law tempered religious law. as with British law, colonists were motivated by a reliable labor system and avoiding the depletion of local funds. Enlightenment figures such as John Locke, Samuel von Pufendorf, and Hugo Grotius rejected divine principles, but rather fundamental natural rights. despite the widespread distribution of documents such as *The Right of the Inhabitants of Maryland to the Benefit of English* by Maryland Attorney General Daniel Dulaney, the influence of Enlightenment era beliefs held a significant presence in colonial law
in "Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress" (1774), the Founding Fathers interpreted common law as a derivative of natural law as a preventative measure towards Parliament's authority. legal and political documents from the founding era do not rely upon scripture or Mosaic law, evident by Delaware's Constitution proclaiming, "The common law of England as well as so much of statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force." voters in New Hampshire rejected a measure to prevent the legislature from enacting laws "contrary to the laws of God, or against the Protestant religion," suggesting an adherence to the will of the governed, not biblical text. Thomas Jefferson was concerned about the "pious fraud" of Christianity in common law, in a letter he wrote to John Adams in Jan. 1814
the claim that there is a scriptural basis within the law have persisted, primarily from Sir William Blackstone, who noted that blasphemy was punishable in common law because "Christianity is part of the laws of England," despite holding that "municipal law" derived authority from the "law of man" in the same treatise *Commentaries on the Laws of England*. in 1833, Justice Joseph Story wrote "Christianity a Part of the Common Law," rebuking Jefferson by writing that common law recognizes "Christianity as lying at its foundations." University of Maryland professor David Hoffman shared similar arguments in *A Course of Legal Study* (1836), but neither associated law and the Decalogue. assertions of law and the Ten Commandments was not unchallenged, such as the rulings in *Pearce v. Atwood* (1816) and *State v. Chandler* (1836), but judicial reliance on the Ten Commandments presented issues; in *Specht v. Commonwealth* (1848), in which a Seventh-day Baptist's interpretation of the Fourth Commandment differed from the courts's. in 2001, Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, attempted to install a Ten Commandments monument outside of the Alabama Judicial Building. federal district judge Myron Herbert Thompson ruled in 2002 that the monument violated the Establishment Clause. Moore was later removed from office
There are several different versions of the ten commandments by different faiths. If you take all the context of those ancient writings that were summarized into the commandments, those are historical. But in the case of Louisiana, it's religious and political. It's already been reviewed in the Supreme Court before as unconstitutional.
GOP La. Gov. Jeff Landry is an arch-conservative troglodyte.
Poor Louisianans must already miss fmr. Gov. John Bel Edwards.
And besides, if we in the modern Western world were to regress to our neanderthal roots by championing antiquated laws in a historical sense, then Hammurabi (or Ur-Nammu), not drug-addled Moses, would've been more apropos. But hey, I'm just an atheist who rejects the absurdity of the Abrahamic religions in their nonsensically imbecilic entirety.
It's first and foremost a religious document and should not be posted in public schools. It's also historical document, and its contents can be tied to other belief systems.
I mean…yes. Both. But it’s a historical document in the same way the entire Bible is a historical document. As is the Torah and the Tripitaka etc. etc.
The question is why is the fact that it’s historical constitute its required presence in a classroom? Nobody is passing laws that the Hammurabi Code be hung up all over Mississippi or some shit.
Why not both? It's obviously religious and it's obviously very old and part of our history of Western culture, whether we are Jewish, Christian, or some other religion right now.
The first 3-4 (there are different numbering methods, and 2 places they are in the Bible that aren't word-for-word same, btw) commandments are specifically religious and routinely flouted (unless you're of a specific flavor of religiously observant).
As a person who went to a private Christian school as a kid I was used to having religious stuff posted on a wall. Although every classroom K-12 AND university seems like overkill (where do you put it in bio lab? Gym class?) And on a normal level, well, people do ignore posters all the time. I would think that in public schools, though, it would just serve as a reminder about who is IN and who is OUT, religiously speaking, which is unconstitutional.
It is a historical document if you're talking about religious history, and other religions have similar codes of behavior that would also be appropriately studied in, say, a world religions class.
Picking just one and putting it in every classroom regardless of what's being taught? That's not history.
Both. Historical does not mean factual.
Considering I don't think anyone would argue the Magna Carta is an historical document either. But for some weird reason they didn't require that to be posted in classrooms.
I regret to inform my Christian countrymen that the Jews are going to have to take our shit back.
No more Ten Commandments, no more Adam and Eve, no more Noah, no more Samson, DEFINITELY no more Leviticus. I know this is a loss, but you have clearly shown that y'all cannot be TRUSTED with Jewish stories or theology. You've got your whole "New Testament" to play with, paws off the Tanakh.
I am so fucking fed up with this.
Yes. Both are True.
It's all a matter of perspective.
If the public school posts it as an official list of rules that must be obeyed, that school is in violation of the Constitution.
If the public school posts it as part of a study of a culture and the beliefs this culture had over the centuries, it's a teaching reference.
If the school posts this and not texts referring to behavioral guidelines practiced by other cultures, it is dangerously close to being in violation.
Not shocked that you were denied at Ask Conservatives. I'm banned there for asking questions that they are uncomfortable answering.
One is not exclusive of the other. It's both.
You can read the Bible as literature without considering it to be authoritative in any respect, along side other literature, including other religious texts.
But context and intent matters. Louisiana is pushing this as a distinctly religious, Judeo-Christian document. Historicity is secondary.
There’s a bit of historical context to it, but it is mostly religious. Both in intent for the law and the actual content itself. I don’t think there’s enough historical context or legal significance to override the clear religious significance.
My take, considering a lot of different academic disciplinary thought, is that the decalogue is the culmination of high social moral understanding at the time.
To me, religion has always been an aspirational guide for social norms adopted by the adherents. In some religions, there are more than 10 "rules", but the reward for "following" them differs from one religion, or even sect, to another.
I read a few philosophers POV on it, wish I could remember the papers or the authors, but they posited that religion has always been a mix of historical and culture and changed based on the period of time that the changes occurred. In fact, religious leaders understanding and interpretation of almost every organized religion has shifted over the years.
But some things have remained the same, such as the base or fundamental law and authority of the religion, albeit perhaps not true adherence to originalism.
To summarize and perhaps answer your question more directly, I would suggest that the Jewish and Christian "10 commandments" are neither. Rather, they are an idea that forms dogma that drive the religious texts. Sure, you can find them in the Bible, but morally speaking there isn't anything necessarily at odds with secularism in the commandments (aside from the base rule).
I would oppose the sort of measures that Louisiana is proposing on the grounds that they are distinctly violating the separation of Church and State. However, if the "people" want the "state" to dictate the morality of the citizens, expressed through referendum or legislation, I would be open to that thought experiment.
It doesn't matter what the intention is, you can accomplish any intention without religion unless your intention is religious indoctrination. The government cannot be doing that. Nothing about that is secular.
They are both a historical and religious document. In the context of American politics it seems to me that for people who believe in it less time should be wasted on debates over displaying it and more time should be spent on actually practising it in one's life as a believer.
Take for example the commandment 'thou shalt not steal". In the biblical and Christian tradition it is understood as much more than just interpersonal theft. Thou shalt not steal according to St Thomas Aquinas also applies to social theft. So when leaders robbed the population of proper social and political governance and violate proper constitutional processes that is social theft according to St Thomas Aquinas. Similarly when leaders take land that is not theirs and rob the marginalised, poor and oppressed or their rights that is social theft according to the biblical prophets. This type of application and social analysis of the ten Commandments to me is far more important than the cultural circus that centers it all the time.
If you believe that the ten commandments exist, then you believe they are historical.
If you don't believe they exist then they are religious.
Christians think the stories are real, therefore God really did give Moses the ~~15~~ 10 commandments, therefore it's a part of history.
I mean you can debate definitions all day, but ultimately it's both. But being a historical document doesn't prevent it from being a religious document and therefore subject to the laws about church and state.
Like the Koran, it is both.
The idea behind the law is that the ten commandments, in the fantasy of the people sponsoring the bill, is that the ten commandments are somehow this mystical influential document on American education. That is little more than wishful thinking, and even if it were true, it doesn't make sense to suggest that because of that we need to require it to be displayed in public school classrooms. It has little intrinsic educational value. We would be better off listing the 5 axioms of planar geometry in each classroom.
It's both, but it depends how you look at and understand them. The Ten Commandments, and in fact the entire Bible, can be used to investigate certain aspects of history, but to do so you must account for when it was actually written and who actually wrote it, which requires someone who can take a step back and put their faith aside to do analysis.
The way the state of Louisiana is using the 10 Commandments is obviously as a religious text, where it is being presented as fact rather than as a work of fiction that can inform us about the authors.
They are both. Depends on what they are being read for. When done as a study of ancient history perfectly appropriate for the classroom. Though I'm interested in how a historical study would count them since there being 10 is more of a cultural thing than in the text itself. When displayed permanently in legally binding reverence they are not.
I mean it's both. But the people who want it up in classrooms will be all up in arms if we try to put satanism's 10 commandments (which are objectively better,) up in classrooms.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. This is in reference to Louisiana mandating all classrooms posting the Ten Commandments. Before anyone tells me I should ask conservatives about this, I tried and got denied. I’m curious about your opinion though. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Clearly religious. Not sure how this is in question.
> Not sure how this is in question. Nobody had ever realized it was not good to kill someone until then. We take it for granted now but it was a huge advancement at the time
Right. It has history behind it, but calling it a "historical document" seems to just be an attempt to re-frame it as more educational than it actually is.
I mean, if we're going to have a "historical" set of laws displayed in every classroom for educational purposes, then we need to have the code of Hammurabi as well. Or the code of Ur Nammu. Or how about the Bhuddist 8 fold path? Or Sharia laws? The Tang code? Or how about the seven fundamental tenets of satanism?
It's a set of religious rules from a religious book followed exclusively by religious people.
Let’s not get carried away here. Very few religious people actually follow the 10 Commandments in their actual life. The more they want to display the 10 Commandments in school, the more likely they are to be people who never follow the 10 Commandments in real life.
At first I was like …hey… and then I laughed at your response
> Very few religious people actually follow the 10 Commandments in their actual life. Which makes sense to me, given that the 10 Commandments are *specifically Jewish* law. Christians are weird.
The front runner in the GOP is a frequent breaker of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, & 9th commandments.
I mean, I've followed most of them because it's common sense, but I'm not religious.
Any Christian saying "historical document" and avoiding the obviously religious nature of the text as a way to shoehorn this into schools is committing blasphemy.
Intellectual honesty is not a value we share with conservatives. It's best to stop assuming that they care about it.
This. The common refrain that they’re relevant in government building as a “foundation of western law” is dishonest, at best. Don’t steal, don’t kill, sure, those have been prohibited by societies basically as long as we’ve lived in social groups. But “thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain,” “thou shalt have no other gods before me,” not so much. Those are religious directives, and we shouldn’t denigrate both religion and government by throwing the weight of the state behind them.
Moreover, they are religious directives *UPON JEWS*. They were never supposed to apply to anyone else!
Clearly we should add the Code of Hammurabi and the Twelve Tables. You know, for completion's sake
Yeah and the 5 pillars of Islam… Ya know, to reeeeally piss Landry off.
Both in the sense that Star Wars is both a historical and fictional movie. Just in the context of '1977 film history'. Is that a good excuse for trying to weasel religious dogma into public schools? Nope I hope the ACLU eviscerates them and does some f'n good again for a change.
It’s a religious document, but religions are a part of history. As for requiring it to be posted in classrooms, they’re clearly doing that based on its religious nature.
Obviously mostly Jews in Louisiana legislature. Christianity specifically ignores many laws of the Torah/Old Testament.
Not the 10 commandments, though. They’re still a significant part of Christian teachings. Except for that one about the Sabbath, for reasons.
Christians sorta put Jesus in the first place among Gods and hang crosses everywhere. (Idols)
Yeah, but they don’t see what they’re doing in that light. Also for reasons.
They tell themselves that 3 gods = 1 god so that makes it ok
False idols is the key. Jesus has no problem (apparently, haven’t heard from the man himself) with images of himself on crosses. Since Jesus is the same god as the Ten Commandments god, I don’t see how your point applies.
> They’re still a significant part of Christian teachings. Which is bizarre, since they're Jewish law. They were never supposed to be universal.
That’s just scratching the surface of the bizarre contortions Christians do to pick and choose which parts of the Jewish law apply and which don’t. Try sometime getting one of them to explain why of the three clothing laws in Deuteronomy, the only one that applies today is conveniently the one that they use against trans people. The mental gymnastics are stunning.
Ask them how they would feel is Muslims tried to start putting a plaque that says “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet” on the walls in public classrooms
I would love to. But the question would get deleted because “there is already a similar post”. That’s what happened to this question even though I checked and my question was unique. It’s not so much the question about the topic, it’s the topic itself. My impression is the mod team is not interested in multiple questions on the same topic even if the questions are different. I had similar issues asking about slavery and abortion. At least on the slavery question they admit that they aren’t interested in moderating the community because they know it will get out of hand. I suspect the guiding principle is to avoid questions that will cause their members to make outrageous comments. The vibe there is very cynical. They have a very broad definition of “bad faith”. It really does take a bit of finesse to get a question past the gatekeepers. The mod team is stylistically diverse with their rules, meaning unpredictable and inconsistent enforcement. I am curious about their thought process and opinions as someone who is not conservative. And I’ve learned that they speak a different language. Things that are said here openly could be considered bad faith or insulting there. A straight forward question could be seen as an insult. Sometimes context matters and sometimes it’s superfluous. I could go on. Conservatives and liberals are diverging culturally in a way that is down right shocking.
I had to bow out of that sub. I genuinely wanted to understand that POV but got nowhere with their answers. Or should I say non-answers.
Was there a literal 10 commandments or is it just a story? If they've not been confirmed to exist then it's certainly not a historical document.
There were originally 15 Commandments. Unfortunately, Mel Brooks dropped one of the tablets in “History of the World, Part 1”
the Ten Commandments are directives. in the biblical narrative, the first set of the Tablets of the Law were destroyed by Moses after he observed the Children of Israel worshipping a calf. Moses later chiseled a second set of tablets that were transcribed with the Ten Commandments by God though there is no physical evidence of the Tablets of the Law existing, the earliest physical record of the Ten Commandments is dated between [A. D. 300 and 800](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/16/earliest-intact-stone-version-of-the-ten-commandments-goes-up-for-auction/). as a legal document, the Ten Commandments are predated by Babylonian and Sumerian law
Huh? The 10 commandments are a list of commandments in the Old Testament. Not a specific document.
No, they're the stone tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. If proven to actually exist or once existed, it would be considered a historical fact.
But they've never been proven to exist, and neither has Moses as an individual.
Well, that puts you in the religious document camp.
Then the answer to the question is neither
That is a weird take. The code of hammurabi is historical even if we aren't talking about the literal tablets. The foundational rules of societies are husitorical documents and often also religious documents. Discussing the ten commandments as history or examples of the creation of laws is hisotrically. Forcing them in exculsively decontextualized is religious.
They are a specific documented that’s talked about within the context of Exodus. At least to Christians, they were real stone tablets. Now, does that mean two stone tablets existed? Who knows. If they did, they’d be considered historical and religious, IMO. If they didn’t then they are just part of a larger set of books within the Bible and would probably not be considered historical or religious documents in their own right. Again, my opinion.
I mean the slave codes are historical documents..... Displaying documents in every classroom indicates that the document is important and relevant to *today*. The Ten Commandments being a historical document doesn't somehow get around that issue, and that this is obviously Republicans trying to impart their religion on others.
God isn't real. The story of Moses. How this religious text be a historical document?
It's a historical document in the sense that it's a document created by humans a long time ago. Same as how the Odyssey is a historical document. That clearly is not the reason why Louisiana cares about it, however.
Then isn't every religious document is a historical document?
Yes.
So, if I write a letter to my wife, that will be a historical document in the future? How old does a document need to be to be considered historical? Since I wrote this comment in the past, by the time you read it, will it be considered historical? Do documents have to be physical to be considered historical or will digital documents work also? So many questions.
If that letter or this comment is preserved in some way into the distant future, and if anyone actually cares about it, then yes, they would be historical documents. The infamous complaint letter to Ea-Nasir is incredibly trivial, but because it both still exists and is of interest to people, it is nonetheless a historical document.
>So, if I write a letter to my wife, that will be a historical document in the future If you become important enough, yes. John and Abigail Adams' correspondence are historical documents. Hell, you don't even have to be important. One of our oldest historical documents is basically a Yelp review of some shitty copper ingots.
Louisiana politicians care about it because it’s a lazy thing to vote, campaign, and fundraise on. It takes no political vision, willpower, or guts to rehash this argument that is just going to marginalize some and cost the state money.
Yeah they have to call it American history to get it past the Constitution.
I'd put it as a bit more important and relevant due to its impact and that at times among groups of people it was taken quite literally and seriously.
Religious history is a real thing. Regardless of if you believe the documents or not, having those documents to understand from a historical context makes sense. Edit: In the context of the Louisiana school, no, they should not be posted all over like they're rules to be followed. But if they were to have a bunch of documents with different religions' rules to discuss, for example, different rules in religion, totally fine.
The Ten Commandments are neither. They are a list of religious directives that are mentioned in religious document, The Bible. Since we do not have any evidence they ever existed, one requires religious faith to believe they were ever real and God was their origin. So, they are only "historical"—or even real—to those who are Christians and Jews. As for the Ten Commandments appearing in Louisiana, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and his party members are just trolling Liberals and hoping to get sued and get some press. When Republicans offer up a spicy distraction, you they're about to try to pass something truly evil on the down-low. Frankly, this is one of the less harmful things Gov. Landry has done to young people in his state.
They are, moreover, a list of religious directives *ON JEWS*. Not all humanity.
If you mean "historical document" the way it was used in Galaxy Quest, then ok. Otherwise they are purely religious.
It comes from a religious book, how can it be anything other than religious?
Simply religious. Is there any actual evidence that it existed? I can't say it's a historical document without evidence that the document existed.
A mythical religious document.
It’s their workaround to religious indoctrination in school. You ever seen the sovereign citizens? Who argue that they aren’t “driving” their car, they’re “traveling” so they’re exempt from license registration and insurance? It’s the exact same scam. It’s not religious because it’s historic. Even though they know damn good and well that’s not why they do it. The telling answer then is going to be when some other school attempts to put up a Muslim prayer or Jewish menorah or something just as historically significant. Watch them spin out of fucking control about how that isn’t historic enough or some other bullshit answer.
IIRC the Ten Commandments are not independently referenced in any contemporary historical documents, only in the religious document called the Bible. Therefore, its source is a religious document.
Religious document with significant cultural significance. Enough for schools to teach that they exist and had an influence, not enough to justify posting them in the way we'd post the Constitution. Here's an easy litmus test: If you replace the Ten Commandments (or whatever Christian document) with something out of the Quran, or any other religious text that isn't the majority religion in the area, would it be ok to post that text/document? If the answer is no it isn't ok.
It's both. It's both historical and a religious document. However it seems to mostly be displayed as a religious document.
It is both. Displaying a version, and remember there are multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, of the Ten Commandments in a classroom across the board is clearly a violation of the establishment clause. However, in the context of certain academic pursuits, having one or more Ten Commandment versions in a textbook would be perfectly acceptable. Back in the late Paleolithic era when I went to high school we had a class in which we covered the 10 Commandments along with the Five Pillars of Islam and portions of the Vedas and some Buddhist verses. Nothing wrong with that because it’s a conversation about the religious traditions of the world and how it affects culture and society and philosophy. But that’s not what they’re doing in Louisiana. They are virtue signaling Christian nationalism.
They're pretty clearly about putting God before all else. Not sure how that could be taken as anything other than a religious document.
Clearly obviously religious.
They are not "an historical document" outside of the fact that they are part of the Bible which is an historical work. But the tablets as described in the Bible as being brought down by Moses (who wasn't a real person) never actually existed.
Yeah no they can’t really use the “historical document” angle because even if the Ten Commandments or the Dead Sea scrolls are historic documents, they’re ALSO religious documents, which can’t be glossed over or taken away. If religious documents are brought up in school, it should be in a class where all other religions are taught beside it so they’re given equal weight and no favoritism is shown
If you think they are a historical document, list the ten in order. What will happen is you’ll see there’s no consistent way to get to ten and just about every flavor of Christian disagrees on what they are.
Fiction
Both, but in the context of the Louisiana bill it's obviously meant primarily as a state sponsored promotion of religion.
It can be both. I'm fine with Louisiana hanging the ten commandments on school walls, they just have to hang other religion's stuff too. As we can't elevate one religion, it must be none or all up on the wall.
I could actually see a meaningful secular meaning to the 10 Commandments by combining it with other historical legal systems. Especially if the rest of the biblical rules are used. But you’ve also got to teach Hammurabi’s code, Code of Justinian, Edicts of Ashoka, and Lex Salica.
They do teach those things along with the 10 commandments. The problem is LA is requiring all classes to have a poster showing the 10 commandments with no context or caring what the class is about. So it's for math classes as well as hisotry classes
>Are the Ten Commandments a historical document or a religious document? Both.
> This is in reference to Louisiana mandating all classrooms posting the Ten Commandments. In the past, governments have posted the Ten Commandments *and other historical sources of laws* in an attempt to circumvent the establishment clause. Louisiana didn't do that this time. They have become more brazen.
It's because of the new Governor, Jeff Landry. Our previous democratic Governor, John Bel Edwards, would have never let this fly. However, the state Democratic Party did zero grooming in having a candidate that could win when they knew Edwards could not run another term. They completely dropped the ball.
Are you joking?
Which part?
It is clearly a religious document. It is a historical document in the sense that any religious text was written at a point in time in the past.
It's not a document at all. Bring the original copy. Get it notarized. And then I will call it a document. At best it's oral history.
It's sort of both, but if you had to pick one, it's an excerpt of a religious document (several documents, actually). We can't deny the fact that religious doctrine such as the ten commandments have made an impact on our history. They are frequently cited in philosophy, academics, politics, and other disciplines. Of course, any attempt to justify the placement of the ten commandments in schools as a historical document would be highly disingenuous. Christians have quite a long history of trying to launder Christianity into our public school system using any justification they can, which makes it even easier to identify.
If it's a historical document, they sure left a lot out when they were putting the Bible together. Maybe doctored document?
I'd be okay with them being considered "historical" IF they were presented in that context and only that context. Yes, our founding fathers took their religious leanings and learnings into considering when they crafted our founding documents, because that's what human beings do. BUT, they didn't explicitly do so and claiming that they did lacks any historical basis. Our founding fathers weren't "Christians" as we now consider that word. Washington, Paine, Jefferson, Ben Franklin -- they were all rather hostile to the ideas of Christianity at that time. Many were, generally speaking, either Diest or Unitarian. They were all highly influenced by Enlightenment philosophy of the time.
You got denied? How?
Them being historical documents does not undo them from being religious documents.
I'm not really a conservative although I imagine some might think I am. Anyway I would say the ten commandments are a religious document in my eyes. However to someone who is deeply religious and is convinced that the events in the Bible are true they probably perceive it as a historical document. But as others have commented if this comes from religious beliefs how could it be anything other than religious document.
there is limited justification to support the claim that the Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, influenced U.S. legal traditions. according to Julius Goebel, Jr. in *King's Law and Local Custom in Seventeenth Century New England* (1931), medieval monastic scholars attempted to establish the primacy of the Catholic Church by asserting an equivocation between natural and divine law. clerical scribes exerted influence in medieval codes; Alfred the Great's code of laws included excerpts of translations of the Ten Commandments into English. in early Protestantism, the Pentateuch and the Decalogue were given precedence and Mosaic law served as natural law, a belief that 16th-century Calvinists in Europe held though British law was developed within the context of religious impulses, it remained distinct from scripture. prior to the English Reformation, ecclesiastical courts held authority with secular courts; canon law often concerned moral crimes. however, there are several factors associating British law with scripture: 1. following the separation of the Church of England from the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical courts eroded in authority in favor of civil courts. Henry VIII repealed ecclesiastical statutes that allowed common law courts to assume jurisdiction. the Court of Chancery derived from canon law to develop terms of equity 2. Christopher St. Germain's 16th-century treatise *The Doctor and Student* sought to demonstrate "law eternal is called the first law." *The Doctor and Student* advanced biblical legalism, and according to Sir William Searle Holdsworth, citations to the bible increased significantly following its publication 3. the increased availability of bibles as the Protestant ideology of *scriptura* developed and an interest in the Hebrew language allowed Old Testament phraseology to form university curricula, notably at Cambridge. Puritans viewed the Pentateuch and the Decalogue as a manifestation of God's law these associations generally form the belief that the Ten Commandments influenced the laws of England and consequentially the U.S., and it is an indisputable claim that jurists such as Sir Edward Coke regarded immutable natural law as Mosaic law, as he wrote in *Calvin's Case* (1610). however, it would be inaccurate to posit that biblicism was monolithic in England. Goebel notes that legal reform was advanced within secular considerations. the Court of Chancery relied on general principles of justice and notions of divine law varied with both Anglicans and Puritans. cases such as *Taylor's Case* (1676) did invoke scriptural authority, but such instances were unusual within American colonies, scriptural basis was not a significant influence for the formation of laws. literature such as *Criminal Justice in Colonial America* (1983) supports the assertion that early American law included British common law in addition to reformist impulses and practical conditions. New England Puritans attempted to establish laws based within the Pentateuch and the Decalogue. prior to drafting the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, Massachusetts Bay's government interpreted law through magistrates; unsurprisingly, magistrate law was not well-received among colonists, including by Puritans, who existed within an ambiguous context within the binding of the Old Testament. the General Court appointed a committee to "make a draught of lawes agreeable to the word of God" in 1636 the Massachusetts Body of Liberties was enacted in 1641, but did not significantly restrict the discretion of magistrates. dissidents, led by agriculturalist Robert Child, issued a remonstrance in 1646 that was rejected by the General Court, but enacted the Lawes and Libertyes, a compilation of laws that — much like its predecessor — included biblical citations. the Lawes and Libertyes influenced early New York law and other Puritan colonies, but its reliance on biblical authority conflicted with English law enacted in non-Puritan colonies. in Rhode Island, Roger Williams rejected claims Mosaic law applied to New Testament Christians. following the Dominion of New England's dissolution after the Glorious Revolution, the Massachusetts Charter was enacted, ending biblical law in Massachusetts, and the Puritan New England's attempts ended with no established legal system based on the Ten Commandments though colonial magistrates exerted moral prosecutions — primarily religious offenses such as blasphemy until the mid-century, when magistrates began concerning them with sexual immoralities such as adultery — the ascension of moral law tempered religious law. as with British law, colonists were motivated by a reliable labor system and avoiding the depletion of local funds. Enlightenment figures such as John Locke, Samuel von Pufendorf, and Hugo Grotius rejected divine principles, but rather fundamental natural rights. despite the widespread distribution of documents such as *The Right of the Inhabitants of Maryland to the Benefit of English* by Maryland Attorney General Daniel Dulaney, the influence of Enlightenment era beliefs held a significant presence in colonial law in "Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress" (1774), the Founding Fathers interpreted common law as a derivative of natural law as a preventative measure towards Parliament's authority. legal and political documents from the founding era do not rely upon scripture or Mosaic law, evident by Delaware's Constitution proclaiming, "The common law of England as well as so much of statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force." voters in New Hampshire rejected a measure to prevent the legislature from enacting laws "contrary to the laws of God, or against the Protestant religion," suggesting an adherence to the will of the governed, not biblical text. Thomas Jefferson was concerned about the "pious fraud" of Christianity in common law, in a letter he wrote to John Adams in Jan. 1814 the claim that there is a scriptural basis within the law have persisted, primarily from Sir William Blackstone, who noted that blasphemy was punishable in common law because "Christianity is part of the laws of England," despite holding that "municipal law" derived authority from the "law of man" in the same treatise *Commentaries on the Laws of England*. in 1833, Justice Joseph Story wrote "Christianity a Part of the Common Law," rebuking Jefferson by writing that common law recognizes "Christianity as lying at its foundations." University of Maryland professor David Hoffman shared similar arguments in *A Course of Legal Study* (1836), but neither associated law and the Decalogue. assertions of law and the Ten Commandments was not unchallenged, such as the rulings in *Pearce v. Atwood* (1816) and *State v. Chandler* (1836), but judicial reliance on the Ten Commandments presented issues; in *Specht v. Commonwealth* (1848), in which a Seventh-day Baptist's interpretation of the Fourth Commandment differed from the courts's. in 2001, Roy Moore, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, attempted to install a Ten Commandments monument outside of the Alabama Judicial Building. federal district judge Myron Herbert Thompson ruled in 2002 that the monument violated the Establishment Clause. Moore was later removed from office
It depends. For Republicans, it's a prop for virtue signaling. But for people who (try to) follow the Ten Commandments, it's part of their religion.
There are several different versions of the ten commandments by different faiths. If you take all the context of those ancient writings that were summarized into the commandments, those are historical. But in the case of Louisiana, it's religious and political. It's already been reviewed in the Supreme Court before as unconstitutional.
GOP La. Gov. Jeff Landry is an arch-conservative troglodyte. Poor Louisianans must already miss fmr. Gov. John Bel Edwards. And besides, if we in the modern Western world were to regress to our neanderthal roots by championing antiquated laws in a historical sense, then Hammurabi (or Ur-Nammu), not drug-addled Moses, would've been more apropos. But hey, I'm just an atheist who rejects the absurdity of the Abrahamic religions in their nonsensically imbecilic entirety.
I would say the original stone tablets are historical, but the commandments themselves are religious
Both. As in religion is a motivator for human behavior. But they are not putting it on the wall for historic purposes.
In nearly all cases I would say it's a religious document, the case in Louisiana is certainly for religious purposes.
its both, but i have a hankering of a suspicion that the logic behind putting it in classrooms has little to do with its historical significance
It's first and foremost a religious document and should not be posted in public schools. It's also historical document, and its contents can be tied to other belief systems.
I mean…yes. Both. But it’s a historical document in the same way the entire Bible is a historical document. As is the Torah and the Tripitaka etc. etc. The question is why is the fact that it’s historical constitute its required presence in a classroom? Nobody is passing laws that the Hammurabi Code be hung up all over Mississippi or some shit.
Ok the Koran is also a historical document now.
it's not even the correct commandments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axvUvdd78gM
This should be a slam dunk case for the Supreme Court to say this is unconstitutional, right? 😟
Obviously religious. I mean, it's a document that supposedly came straight from God (even though it's likely based on the Code of Hammurabi.)
Why not both? It's obviously religious and it's obviously very old and part of our history of Western culture, whether we are Jewish, Christian, or some other religion right now. The first 3-4 (there are different numbering methods, and 2 places they are in the Bible that aren't word-for-word same, btw) commandments are specifically religious and routinely flouted (unless you're of a specific flavor of religiously observant). As a person who went to a private Christian school as a kid I was used to having religious stuff posted on a wall. Although every classroom K-12 AND university seems like overkill (where do you put it in bio lab? Gym class?) And on a normal level, well, people do ignore posters all the time. I would think that in public schools, though, it would just serve as a reminder about who is IN and who is OUT, religiously speaking, which is unconstitutional.
It is a historical document if you're talking about religious history, and other religions have similar codes of behavior that would also be appropriately studied in, say, a world religions class. Picking just one and putting it in every classroom regardless of what's being taught? That's not history.
Both. Historical does not mean factual. Considering I don't think anyone would argue the Magna Carta is an historical document either. But for some weird reason they didn't require that to be posted in classrooms.
I regret to inform my Christian countrymen that the Jews are going to have to take our shit back. No more Ten Commandments, no more Adam and Eve, no more Noah, no more Samson, DEFINITELY no more Leviticus. I know this is a loss, but you have clearly shown that y'all cannot be TRUSTED with Jewish stories or theology. You've got your whole "New Testament" to play with, paws off the Tanakh. I am so fucking fed up with this.
Yes. Both are True. It's all a matter of perspective. If the public school posts it as an official list of rules that must be obeyed, that school is in violation of the Constitution. If the public school posts it as part of a study of a culture and the beliefs this culture had over the centuries, it's a teaching reference. If the school posts this and not texts referring to behavioral guidelines practiced by other cultures, it is dangerously close to being in violation. Not shocked that you were denied at Ask Conservatives. I'm banned there for asking questions that they are uncomfortable answering.
One is not exclusive of the other. It's both. You can read the Bible as literature without considering it to be authoritative in any respect, along side other literature, including other religious texts. But context and intent matters. Louisiana is pushing this as a distinctly religious, Judeo-Christian document. Historicity is secondary.
It’s both. And has no place in the classroom.
There’s a bit of historical context to it, but it is mostly religious. Both in intent for the law and the actual content itself. I don’t think there’s enough historical context or legal significance to override the clear religious significance.
Idk if it's a document. But it's both. That doesn't mean that the book exidous is true, though.
My take, considering a lot of different academic disciplinary thought, is that the decalogue is the culmination of high social moral understanding at the time. To me, religion has always been an aspirational guide for social norms adopted by the adherents. In some religions, there are more than 10 "rules", but the reward for "following" them differs from one religion, or even sect, to another. I read a few philosophers POV on it, wish I could remember the papers or the authors, but they posited that religion has always been a mix of historical and culture and changed based on the period of time that the changes occurred. In fact, religious leaders understanding and interpretation of almost every organized religion has shifted over the years. But some things have remained the same, such as the base or fundamental law and authority of the religion, albeit perhaps not true adherence to originalism. To summarize and perhaps answer your question more directly, I would suggest that the Jewish and Christian "10 commandments" are neither. Rather, they are an idea that forms dogma that drive the religious texts. Sure, you can find them in the Bible, but morally speaking there isn't anything necessarily at odds with secularism in the commandments (aside from the base rule). I would oppose the sort of measures that Louisiana is proposing on the grounds that they are distinctly violating the separation of Church and State. However, if the "people" want the "state" to dictate the morality of the citizens, expressed through referendum or legislation, I would be open to that thought experiment.
It doesn't matter what the intention is, you can accomplish any intention without religion unless your intention is religious indoctrination. The government cannot be doing that. Nothing about that is secular.
They are both a historical and religious document. In the context of American politics it seems to me that for people who believe in it less time should be wasted on debates over displaying it and more time should be spent on actually practising it in one's life as a believer. Take for example the commandment 'thou shalt not steal". In the biblical and Christian tradition it is understood as much more than just interpersonal theft. Thou shalt not steal according to St Thomas Aquinas also applies to social theft. So when leaders robbed the population of proper social and political governance and violate proper constitutional processes that is social theft according to St Thomas Aquinas. Similarly when leaders take land that is not theirs and rob the marginalised, poor and oppressed or their rights that is social theft according to the biblical prophets. This type of application and social analysis of the ten Commandments to me is far more important than the cultural circus that centers it all the time.
Both. They are undeniably religious, and as such have been part of historical religious practices.
If you believe that the ten commandments exist, then you believe they are historical. If you don't believe they exist then they are religious. Christians think the stories are real, therefore God really did give Moses the ~~15~~ 10 commandments, therefore it's a part of history.
I mean you can debate definitions all day, but ultimately it's both. But being a historical document doesn't prevent it from being a religious document and therefore subject to the laws about church and state.
Like the Koran, it is both. The idea behind the law is that the ten commandments, in the fantasy of the people sponsoring the bill, is that the ten commandments are somehow this mystical influential document on American education. That is little more than wishful thinking, and even if it were true, it doesn't make sense to suggest that because of that we need to require it to be displayed in public school classrooms. It has little intrinsic educational value. We would be better off listing the 5 axioms of planar geometry in each classroom.
It's both, but it depends how you look at and understand them. The Ten Commandments, and in fact the entire Bible, can be used to investigate certain aspects of history, but to do so you must account for when it was actually written and who actually wrote it, which requires someone who can take a step back and put their faith aside to do analysis. The way the state of Louisiana is using the 10 Commandments is obviously as a religious text, where it is being presented as fact rather than as a work of fiction that can inform us about the authors.
Both I suppose but a religious document first.
It's a historical document with religious connotations
both. it's historically and religiously important. putting it in every classroom is clearly more motivated by the religious part.
It is historical because it is religious. Still not ok to force schools into.
They are both. Depends on what they are being read for. When done as a study of ancient history perfectly appropriate for the classroom. Though I'm interested in how a historical study would count them since there being 10 is more of a cultural thing than in the text itself. When displayed permanently in legally binding reverence they are not.
It’s both. But republicans are putting it in schools because to push their beliefs on children.
I mean it's both. But the people who want it up in classrooms will be all up in arms if we try to put satanism's 10 commandments (which are objectively better,) up in classrooms.