I thought I would start a new thread on this. I have an idea, and though it is far-fetched (as in it will never happen), it makes a lot more sense to me than the ten commandments being posted everywhere.

First, why do these groups push to have the 10Cs posted in schools and government buildings? Mostly, I would guess, because they feel that the American public has slipped into an amoral morass of bad ethics, etc. The problem is, the 10Cs, while embodying a good set of ethics, are tied up too closely with Christianity. They should not be used, because they are way too religious. Besides, they are so negative. They give no basis for the ethics they describe, other than one's belief in God.

Here's my proposal, and though it comes from Buddhism, it makes no religious reference, and actively exhorts people to act in positive ways, rather than simply NOT acting in negative ways: post the eight-fold path everywhere. It's much more thought provoking, and it describes a path which, while encompassing the ethics of the 10 commandments, makes no reference to "god" or to religion at all.

In case anyone needs a reminder, here they are:

1. Right View. The right way to think about life is to see the world through the eyes of wisdom and compassion.

2. Right Thought. We are what we think. Clear and kind thoughts build good, strong character.

3. Right Speech. By speaking kind and helpful words, we are respected and trusted by everyone.

4. Right Conduct. No matter what we say, others know us from the way we behave. Before we criticize others, we should first see what we do ourselves.

5. Right Livelihood. This means choosing a job that does not hurt others. The Buddha said, "Do not earn your living by harming others. Do not seek happiness by making others unhappy."

6. Right Effort. A worthwhile life means doing our best at all times and having good will toward others. This also means not wasting effort on things that harm ourselves and others.

7. Right Mindfulness. This means being aware of our thoughts, words, and deeds.

8. Right Concentration. Focus on one thought or object at a time. By doing this, we can be quiet and attain true peace of mind.

Now that's what I would like to see posted! I think these are much more thought-provoking than the ten commandments, and they provide a universal guide towards ethical behavior which is based on action rather than on simply belief. What do you all think? No reference to gods, or to religious morality, just a good, solid basis for benevolent ethics.

I agree with you. I'm not overly religious, but I didn't mind seeing the Ten Commandments posted in various places because they were overall, good rules to live by (minus a couple that were only about God).
So, I see no problem with posting the 8 tenants you listed.

My question is this, there are many small, rural towns, the kind where EVERYONE goes to the one town church. If these homogenous communities want to post the Ten Commandments around town, should they be able to, or does the power of the Federal Government extend to every backwater portion of the US?

I'm not familiar with this topic so please fill me in. When you say they want to "post them around town" do you mean private buildings also? I would think that if a store owner wanted to post the 10 Commandments, it's his right to do so on his property.

quarkhead --

I like your idea. I have a slight issue with No. 5 because it could be interpretted that you shouldn't be in the military. That's the first thing that came to my mind when I read it. I know it's not the entire intention.

I do think there will be people opposed to it because it's based on Budism; however, there are always people opposed to anything! This has more potential of being tollerated though.

I wonder if it's too complicated for a portion of society. Tho Shall No Kill is pretty straightforward. To contradict my statement above about No. 5, I'll admit that this Tho Shall Not Kill could be interpretted as abortion.

I've just worked my way around in a circle.

What about pulling wording from every religion's initial laws. Ones relevent to our society and creating a list that sort of represents the overall morals of the community?

I didn't catch that about #5, and I should have, given my profession.

I have been told that somewhere in the Bible, soldiers are somewhat exempt because of the nature of mankind, and the need to defend oneself, community and nation. Not sure where it is, maybe someone else does.

But does Buddhism address this also, especially in light of the wording of #5?

One day, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and said, ‘I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha teach the doctrine of complete self-surrender? Should I suffer the evil-doer to do with what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause should be forbidden?’

The Buddha replied, ‘He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness’. These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbour hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realise that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, ‘The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy’.

‘Struggle must exist, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But make certain that you do not struggle in the interest of self against truth and justice. He who struggles out of self-interest to make himself great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward. But he who struggles for peace and truth will have great reward; even his defeat will be deemed a victory.

‘If a person goes to battle even for a righteous cause, then Sinha, he must be prepared to be slain by his enemies because death is the destiny of warriors. And should his fate overtake him, he has no reason to complain. But if he is victorious his success may be deemed great, but no matter how great it is, the wheel of fortune may turn again and bring his life down into the dust. However, if he moderates himself and extinguishes all hatred in his heart, if he lifts his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, ‘Come now and make peace and let us be brothers’, then he will gain a victory that is not a transient success; for the fruits of that victory will remain forever.

‘Great is a successful general, but he who conquers self is the greater victor. This teaching of conquest of self, Sinha, is not taught to destroy the lives of others, but to protect them. The person who has conquered himself is more fit to live, to be successful and to gain victories than is the person who is the slave of self. The person whose mind is free from the illusion of self, will stand and not fall in the battle of life. He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with no failure. He will be successful in his enterprise and his success will endure. He who harbours love of truth in his heart will live and not suffer, for he has drunk the water of immortality. So struggle courageously and wisely. Then you can be a soldier of Truth’.

Facinating!

I would agree that these 8 items of philosophical direction are much easier to appreciate in a politically correct and socially fostering kind of way than the 10 commandments. It's as with parenting ... which I can not claim to personally understand having no children, but... I've heard of the importance of not falling into crisis orientation vs applying positive reinforcement.

Here the idea is to encourage what is good... vs point out all that is bad.

Buddha rocks!

For me i dont care about posting such rules because it is about the thought of it. How many Buddist will obey them none, how many christians Some...

I agree that posting such things in no way adresses the real problems. My post was an attempt to say, if you're gonna post something, why not something that exhorts postive values, not negative?

By the way, what exactly do you mean when you say that no Buddhists would obey them, and some Christians would? I'm curious.

I agree that the 8 tenets you propose are very positive, thought provoking and would be an excellent display for promoting a more moral society.
It is unfortunate that it is, as you say, unlikely. While many, if not all, of the lobbyists support their desire to post the 10 commandments on the basis of instilling good morals, they often abhor the thought of introducing the thoughts or beliefs of another religion. After all, it's "through Jesus" that they believe salvation must be found. And while Buddhism is more akin to philosophy than religion, it is still viewed as a religion by the majority and would, therefore, be prohibited by the First Amendment (as I hope the 10 commandments will continue to be).
Rolling with your thought of posting positive examples, however, I wonder why we don't perhaps examine all such philosophies (be they secular or religious) in conjunction with, say, our Bill of Rights and create a suitable set in accordance with the First Amendment. Perhaps we could employ the services of one of the students' most trusted allies: Cliff's Notes.
One more thing I'd like to address is the quality of education already present in schools. It's deteriorating. Even in good classes students are being taught to remember facts, regurgitate them on paper for a grade and simply proceed. Rather than simply teaching a subject -- or even morals for that matter -- I'd urge teachers and parents alike to pursue an approach to education that also teaches a student to understand a subject and it's connections to other subjects.
It's fine and good for a student to know that they are supposed to respect their parents, not kill their friend and what have you... but how good is it to know these things if they don't understand why?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment states only in effect that Congress shall not establish a national religion, and may not prevent anyone from freely exercising their religion. It does not even prohibit states from establishing an official religion if they so choose. So, yes, on a state and local level, they should be able to display whatever religious message they want

I disagree.
States and local governments are funded and supported by the federal government, whose appropriations (I believe) are determined by Congress.
Even "backwater portions" of the United States receive federal money, though it may be in varying amounts. One thing about the original argument for small towns, though, is that the 10 Commandments can be legally posted "around town" just so long as they are not found in a federally supported institution -- such as public schools, courthouses and other government or government related buildings.
I would say, however, that employees be free to have the 10 commandments or crucifixes and the like within their own working space the same way they can have calendars and family photos. The only thing I see being prohibited is the manager or other administrator posting such religious icons prominently in the office in the same fashion as an office memo or likewise.
Let people display them locally, but not at the local government state level in a manner sponsored by the state. As I said above, since government institutions receive federal money essentially allotted by Congress, for these institutions to sponsor or otherwise support one religion over others would be to have Congress mingling in religious matters.
Just my opinion...

Er - yes, it does. You seem to have overlooked the fact that we are a federation of united states and that the Constitution is of those states - each one of them, no exceptions - not even Texas. The Constitution is not optional - that's kinda what the American Civil War was about.

You could just as easily (and wrongfully) argue that the Constitution doesn't prohibit individual states from doing anything they damned well please: let Utah make Mormonism the official religion of the state, sure - and let California make Japanese Golf Religion the only legal faith in their state. And let Ohio ban free speech and outlaw t-shirts with pictures of celebrities on them; and allow New Jersey to start closing down newspapers, censoring local new broadcasts, and burning all copies of Harry Potter books; and let Alaska declare the right to peaceful assembly null and void and allow them to imprison any two people who hold a conversation in public; and let Montana repeal the right to petition - in fact let them make it a capital crime. There would be nothing, by this argument, unconstitutional about any of those decisions - and that's just if we decide to disregard one of the Amendments.

Abs and Wertz,

I guess that's something on which we have and will continue to have a fundamental disagreement. When I see the words "Congress shall..." I read it as "Congress shall...", not as "Neither Congress nor the Several States shall..."

I am aware of the court rulings that support you guys' side and that they currently prevail. I disagree with them.

P.S.: Ok, a bit more on this...

Abs,

You are correct that with federal money comes federal control, thus accepting federal money is a devil's bargain. But I question whether the federal government even has constitutional authority to be disbursing those monies.

Wertz,

Yes, all that would logically follow. I don't have a problem with that. I would of course choose to live in a state that had their own guarantees in the state constitution against doing anything so silly, as I believe nearly all of them do.

Okay... But what was the point of the various states ratifying the US Constitution in the first place if not to subscribe to it? And what has been the point of any state joining the union since, if not to adhere to that union's constitution? I don't see this as a matter of judicial discretion: either states sign on to the US Constitution or they do not. If they don't, they cannot belong to the federation. Period.

Maybe I'm wrong. Any constitutional scholars out there? When a new state joins the union, is acceptance of the US Constitution discretionary? I never got the impression that any state law could supercede constitutional law. Isn't that what ruling a law unconstitutional means? And isn't any law - state, local or federal - subject to conforming to the strictures of the Constitution? Are we talking about the same country?

Yes, we are talking about the same country. And yes, of course, when a state joins, it subscribes to the Constitution.

But the Constitution also means what it says and says what it means, at least according to my school of interpretation, which is the one libertarian constitutional scholars generally subscribe to. It does not use specific terms like "Congress" when it means something broader, i.e. "Congress and the several States." In a number of places it requires the states to do certain things, or prohibits them from doing others, and in those cases it uses terms like "the several States", "each State", etc.

Hmmn. On most Constitutional matters, I tend to go along with the Libertarian line. In this case, though, I can't imagine that the intent of the Founders was to prohibit the federal government from establishing a state religion while enabling the members of the union to do so. I know that it's not the Jeffersonian position and I would think it even applied to the Hamiltonians (though I'm less certain about that). This is not a First Amendment argument I've come across before and I'm intrigued. Do you know of anything in those blarsted Federalist Papers to back up your position or anything?

While all this stuff adds a lot of cogent reasoning dealing with the placing of the eightfold path around town , perhaps it would be better addressed in its own topic? I'd hate to see this thread closed down...

Sorry, Wertz, I'm currently without a copy of the Federalist Papers. When I come across something relevant I'll be sure to share it with you.

Quarkhead, right. I'm used to a less structured forum where we can and do go off on tangents. Yes, I think placing the Eightfold Path is fine, and I'm all for it.

Izdaari: Okay, thanks. It's an interesting slant on Bill of Rights - and would obviously have widespread ramifications if "Congress" without the "several states" were used to interpert at least the amendment under discussion here.