But he omits any argument linking the display of the Ten Commandments with "significant problems" of any kind

i made the argument; you chose to ignore it or perhaps you didn't read it at all.

there are several versions of the 10 commandments, each of which is believed by its proponents to be more valid than the others. unless you're planning to display all of them, you're asking the state to endorse one over the rest (as well as endorsing judasim/christianity over other faiths).

he fails to address my central question: Are there any of the Ten Commandments we wouldn't want to display and promote? Any particular reason why we'd want a commandment that protects the wife, but not a commandment that protects the house? Or vice-versa? Wouldn't either one be a positive message to the community?

there are an untold number of positive messages available to be expressed by the state which don't carry with them the appearance of government favoring one religious belief over another--which is exactly the reason not to display or promote any proprietary sectarian tenet.  

I know what that means too! What's funny is that I have sources for what I claim. Ever since we started this debate, you have not provided one single source that suggests that Annuit Coeptis or the all-seeing eye means otherwise. Why is that?

you believe you know what it means.  in fact what you know--since like those you presumptively dismiss because 'they don't know any Latin' , you've agreed you don't know any latin yourself--is what someone else with some knowledge of latin has led you to think it means.  whenever two or more words are involved--one of which has more than a single absolute definition--you can forget about any exact translation (or, for that matter, two people who both are native speakers of a single language agreeing as to the meaning of those two words when combined and left untranslated).

what's much more aggravating than funny is this: if you're able to locate the thread in which you claimed there could only be one exact interpretaion of annuit coeptis and novus ordo seclorum, you'll find my reluctance to agree with you was based not on 'my encyclopedia is more valid than yours' nonsense but on what i still retain of my continually fading vestigial memories of first and second year latin. 

you believe you know what it means.

And you have given me no reason to believe otherwise. All you have given me is:
1) Not one source to back up one claim you have made since this whole debate began, whether it was about the all-seeing eye or "Annuit coeptis."

2) A common Latin saying that even the most illiterate person could find on the Internet. I haven't taken French for awhile, but even I could still write things in French that aren't just common sayings, such as: "J'aime baisser les femmes, mais pas de grosses femmes." Try to Google that!

in fact what you know--since like those you presumptively dismiss because 'they don't know any Latin' , you've agreed you don't know any latin yourself--is what someone else with some knowledge of latin has led you to think it means.

Something tells me to have more faith in what they say than what you say, since I doubt they would be so reluctant to share the "real" translation of things as well as something to back up what they say.

what's much more aggravating than funny is this: if you're able to locate the thread in which you claimed there could only be one exact interpretaion of annuit coeptis and novus ordo seclorum, you'll find my reluctance to agree with you was based not on 'my encyclopedia is more valid than yours' nonsense but on what i still retain of my continually fading vestigial memories of first and second year latin.

I never did say "My encyclopedia is more valid than yours" because you never provided an outside source to back up your claim. Anybody can say things. In fact, I'll do so now: God in the Ten Commandments in government buildings refers to George Washington. I have nothing to back this up, except conspiracy theories about Freemasons, so therefore, it's on the same level as everything you've said.

It's funny (and aggravating) just how resistant you are to backing up even your most insignificant claim. And yet, I have a feeling that when somebody uses circular logic or hearsay against you, you won't be as lenient as you are on yourself. Intellectual laziness?

furthermore, doesnt the sorta massive sculpture commissioned and installed outside the alabama state supreme court building by one of its former justices violate the very emphatic prohibition expressed in the king james version of the decalogue: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the Earth below, or that is in the water under the Earth."

NOT in the slightest! How would a copy of the commandments be considered a graven "image" of any one person or god?

Hmm...you're absolutely right, what kind of monster would be offended by their government endorsing that they worship "the one and only true god"? You're lucky I'm liberal though, that makes me tolerant of your beliefs. You should reciprocate my good will by equally endorsing the ten commandments of my religion: Thou shalt endorse abortion at every opportunity, hang around family planning clinics and harras people who aren't there for an abortion. Thou shalt drink beer on the sixth day. Thou shalt be open minded, and not try to tyranize over things that don't affect you, such as gay marriage (that is unless you're gay, then it does affect you). Thou shalt steal when nobody's looking (it's ok). Thou shalt become a user of the heroin, it's the blood of god. Thou shalt keep an ace up thine sleeve, especially at poker games. Thou shalt listen to death metal and sacrifice babies to satan at every opportunity. Thou shalt send AJ all thy money. Thou shalt be a pimp. Thou shalt not go around trying to push thy stupid superstitions on intelligent people. I can't enforce that you do by law of course, just as you can't enforce that I don't worship other gods or commit adultery, but that's life. The one about sending me your money though, if you're a real christian, you have to do it now, otherwise Jesus will send you to hell to be subjected to mind bending agony for all eternity. Don't believe me? Try reading your bible. Email me and I'll give you an address to send the money to, then if there's enough, I can use it to buy a plane ticket, come down there and bitchslap you twice, once when I see you, and then when you turn the other cheek as well as your god demands you do (you don't want to go to hell now, do you?), I'll bitchslap you again. I love christianity, it has such ridiculous rules, and if you don't follow them, then your own holy book says that you're going to hell.

What's the matter you can't ignore a statue? Just because a statue is erected does NOT mean that you are being forced to worship *any* god. Fer Christ's sake just walk around the damn thing. Nobody is forcing you to stop and read it.

Please, try reading the bible, it's one of the stupidest and most evil books ever written,

I do not make fun of you beliefs, and BY GOD I will not tolerate you making a mockery of mine!

Intellectual laziness?

aaaaaaaaahahahaha youre the one too lazy to go back and find the original thread in which i explained why your favorite phrase can easily be understood to mean the equivalent of 'fortune smiles on us' and suggested you check one of the many online latin resources for confirmation. there's no direct implication or involvement of the divine (unless you happen to worship the good of good luck as well as the other you advocate.)

it's an overly vague phrase, not the national motto or even close and provides no clarification nor proof of anything.

I never did say "My encyclopedia is more valid than yours"

yeah you're right. it wasnt an encyclopedia (despite your earlier allusion to one of them). you based your argument on the august wisdom to be found at dictionary.com

aaaaaaaaahahahaha youre the one too lazy to go back and find the original thread in which i explained why your favorite phrase can easily be understood to mean the equivalent of 'fortune smiles on us' and suggested you check one of the many online latin resources for confirmation. there's no direct implication or involvement of the divine (unless you happen to worship the good of good luck as well as the other you advocate.)

If you find a Latin source that suggests that it means "Fortune smiles on us" rather than "Providence/God/He/etc..." then feel free to provide it. Why are you so resistant to provide just one thing that backs up anything you say?
It's funny. You keep making the claim, but don't care to provide anything to support it, but expect me to support it based on your word alone (and I've checked but I haven't found a source that suggests annuit coeptis means "Fortune smiles on us.). Sounds like intellectual laziness to me. Or trolling.

yeah you're right. it wasnt an encyclopedia (despite your earlier allusion to one of them). you based your argument on the august wisdom to be found at dictionary.com

And, yet your sources (yourself), are somehow more valid?

How would a copy of the commandments be considered a graven "image" of any one person or god?

a huge stone carved to represent anything--especially anything that can only be imagined but is also considered sacred--is a graven image by definition.

Why are you so resistant to provide just one thing that backs up anything you say?

go here: Link

the head words you'll need are coepto and annuo (although as you'll see the preferred form is adnuo). since you've taken french, you're familiar with similar grammatical conventions (case, tense, person, number, etc.) and constructs as well as their importance in both connotive and denotive translation.

knock yourself out

Thanks! I checked that site, I'm guessing it could mean something along the lines of "It (fortune) smiles on our undertakings." However, that third person could be anything from fortune, to Britain, to France, to Christianity, to God, etc. Clearly it has to refer to something though, and I guess that's where context comes into play. Looking right below the motto on the dollar bill...

How would a copy of the commandments be considered a graven "image" of any one person or god? a huge stone carved to represent anything--especially anything that can only be imagined but is also considered sacred--is a graven image by definition.

I think your full of it:

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: / Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, / The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, / The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth: / And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

I think your full of it:

i might agree with you if i didnt have a clue as to what constitutes a graven (shaped,carved,sculpted,etc.) image (likeness, representation).

but i do...and therefore i dont.

I think your full of it: i might agree with you if i didnt have a clue as to what constitutes a graven (shaped,carved,sculpted,etc.) image (likeness, representation). but i do...and therefore i dont.

Just an FYI the quote came directly out of the bible. Notice no where in there does it say ANYTHING that even comes close to a copy of the 10 commandments. Also in theological circles generaly conforms to what is quoted. So I and others still think your full of it

Notice no where in there does it say ANYTHING that even comes close to a copy of the 10 commandments. Also in theological circles generaly conforms to what is quoted

also doesnt say anything about logos, letters, circles (theological or otherwise) or pentagons much less modern media.

so in other words, one can fabricate a lucite pentagon inside which there are letters spelling out: 'i am the real god' as well as the olympics logo...and worship it to see whether it answers prayers quicker than the competition?

which drive-thru divinity college ordained you again?

So I and others still think your full of it

sticks n stones doc

I don't think any of us should debate what "graven images" means, since it could be a mistranslation. Unless any of us can fluently speak the original language in which the passages in question were written, and unless we have the original documents, all we have is what other people have said it meant. For all we know, it could be "sacrilegious images."

I don't think any of us should debate what "graven images" means,

if there was a question as to whether there's a proscription against graven images you'd have a point. nobody is debating that (or the translation of the other commandments) tho. nor is there really any question as to the nature of a graven image. the issue of whether it's hypocritical to make a graven image of the tablets may not be quite as cut-n-dry but im not gonna advocate doin it for fear of someone goin to hell cuz of my stupidity.

so in other words, one can fabricate a lucite pentagon inside which there are letters spelling out: 'i am the real god' as well as the olympics logo...and worship it to see whether it answers prayers quicker than the competition? which drive-thru divinity college ordained you again?

No you can't because then you would have an "image" of a false god.

if there was a question as to whether there's a proscription against graven images you'd have a point. nobody is debating that (or the translation of the other commandments) tho. nor is there really any question as to the nature of a graven image. the issue of whether it's hypocritical to make a graven image of the tablets may not be quite as cut-n-dry but im not gonna advocate doin it for fear of someone goin to hell cuz of my stupidity.

Well, I am debating the correct translation of that passage. Sure, everybody else might accept it to be "graven images," but does everybody else actually know the true translation, or do they only think they know it from what others have said? If the latter, then one can hardly accept it as the valid translation.

Also, people won't go to hell for a "graven image" if they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Hell, I could probably commit suicide and still go to Heaven if I do that!

Well, I am debating the correct translation of that passage. Sure, everybody else might accept it to be "graven images," but does everybody else actually know the true translation, or do they only think they know it from what others have said?

glad to know you've joined those of us who have serious reservations about the scriptures for that very same reason.

glad to know you've joined those of us who have serious reservations about the scriptures for that very same reason.

Therefore, what's the point of debating over it referring to "graven images" since it could possibly mean "silver images" or "golden images" or "sacrilegious images?"

First, the ten commandments would specifically endorse one religion, because many religions have different versions of the 10 Commandments. Second, some of the ten commandments are not things the government can regulate. Sloth? Adultery? These are not the areas the government is allowed to command.

First, the ten commandments would specifically endorse one religion, because many religions have different versions of the 10 Commandments. Second, some of the ten commandments are not things the government can regulate. Sloth? Adultery? These are not the areas the government is allowed to command.

First the commandments specifically endorse NO particular religion. Show me wher it says that these are Christian values only? Secondly what do the commandments have to do with what the government can or can not regulate? Just because a statue is displayed on our property (state that is. And who is the state if not us?" does not mean that the state can regulate *anything* in the commandments.