Something I was thinking about today and wanted to pose to the group.
Every few years there is a national debate about the place of the Ten Commandments in U.S. government building or state houses. For example various federal or state judges have gone to court over the placing of copies of the Ten Commandments in the court in which they preside.
My question is why the Ten Commandments, as it is no longer applicable and had been fulfilled and why not the admonition of Christ when he said that "Whoever sues (takes you to law) for your coat, give him your cloak also"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I'm not sure the Ten Commandments is no longer applicable - I suspect you're referring to Christ claiming to fulfill the law, right? 'Fulfill,' I think, does not mean invalidate; rather, it means as Paul describes in Romans, that the old law is reinterpreted and subsumed in a new covenant.
You have a great point in that is it no longer applicable but it is not the higher law that was given by Christ.
The reason I bring it up is that it puzzles me as to why the Ten Commandments is always the center of the fight to be in the court room and not the admonition that "if a man sues you for your coat, give him your cloak also", even though the latter is the higher law that we should live by.
There have been a variety of reasons as to why judges and other leaders have wanted them placed in the court room, but all these reasons come back to the idea of the U.S. as a Christian nation.
Seperation of state issues aside, which is more "christian", the ten commandments or the admonition from the sermon on the mount?
Obviously the admonition from the sermon on the mount takes precedence as it is the higher law, but then why is it that the new commandment of "giving a person who takes you to the law for your coat, your cloak as well" not put in the court or state house instead of the ten commandments? Obviously the law of the land can not justly carry out Christ's commandment since it would be unjust to impose it on those who do not beleive or even those who beleive but choose not to follow it.
Just the same the President, any President, can not justly make a collective decision for all U.S. citizens that when our enemies strike us, that we has a country will turn the other cheek, love our enemies, bless them that curse us, etc.
But at the same time, if we display the Ten Commandments in the court room, it would be unjust to make some one honor their mother and father under threat of punishment from the state. So we come back to the question, why the preference for the Ten Commandments and not something else from the higher law?
The posting of the Ten Commandments in the court room is an obvious political statement that America is a Christian nation. The main reason, i beleive, that something like admonition on giving your suer yoru own cloak as well, is not presented int he court room is that it erodes the legitamacy of the government as being operated according to Christian principles.
It puzzles me that so many want a Christian govrnment, or one guided by Christian morality, but do no stop to think what this actually entails. As a nation we woudl have to make radical changes to truly have a Christian govt., much less a Christian citizenry.
Having "Thou Shalt not Kill" on a courtroom wall legitimizes a govt like ours since the commandment can be taken in the context of its time and the state can find ample moral authority to have its own executions, wars and other things like slavery and genocide.
But when the moral dictum of "if a man sues you for your coat, give him your cloak also", "or turn the other cheek, or "love your enemies" is placed on the wall of the courtroom or state house, the government has a much more difficult, if not impossible, time finding moral authority to carry out many of its actions.
Post a Comment