We need Ten Commandments as guide

  • Follow Letters

Let me see if I have this right: The Ten Commandments are being legally cast out from virtually all government sites.

If the Sixth Commandment is gone, may we kill? I guess so -- to a total of more than 1 million abortions a year, and with the threat of the elderly being targets of Obamacare.

If the Seventh Commandment goes, anything sexual is OK. I guess so. More than 50 percent of marriages are said to end in divorce, increasing illicit sexuality everywhere.

If the Eighth Commandment goes, no one owns anything -- everyone else has a right to it. I guess so -- with a rapacity of petty theft, corporate embezzlement and government redistribution and confiscation.

If the Ninth Commandment goes, "honesty is the best policy" goes. I guess so. If a politician's lips are moving -- well, you know the lawyer joke.

If the 10th Commandment -- well, you get the picture.

I am waiting for what rules, ethics, values and virtues the leftists, secularists, humanists and other non-Bible- believers can substitute in the place of the Ten Commandments.

I am still waiting.

I only ask this: How can any society socially or legally run orderly without the Ten Commandments? It cannot. Need I say more about the absolute chaos that our country is facing? Thank you, secularists in power, for what you have given us and how you are destroying our country.

I am still waiting for your superior moral and legal code.

Ed Payne, M.D.

Augusta

Comments (75) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Carleton Duvall
6305
Points
Carleton Duvall 04/04/11 - 07:36 am
0
0
Don't hold your breath, Dr.

Don't hold your breath, Dr. Payne, because you will never hear from them. They, the secularists, feel too superior to answer a God fearing man such as yourself.

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 04/04/11 - 07:45 am
0
0
Does anyone really need the

Does anyone really need the ten commandments? Do you seriously need to go over it a few times to know killing someone is not how to live in society? Am I too assume that Dr. Payne molests children and rapes adults; because none of those are mentioned in the ten commandments!! Or maybe Dr. Payne and others learned what is right and wrong through a different forum, and so the ten commandments are obsolete.

Rhetor
1007
Points
Rhetor 04/04/11 - 08:00 am
0
0
Is your faith so weak that

Is your faith so weak that you need to use the awesome power of government to force it on other people?

soldout
1280
Points
soldout 04/04/11 - 09:11 am
0
0
great letter and an upsetting

great letter and an upsetting truth. Of course you cover them all when you love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. The ten commandments are like a yardstick. If two people are in quicksand and both sinking while looking at each other they will think they are fine. When you put a yardstick in the quicksand they will realize they are sinking. Without the ten commandments this country won't realize how fast it is sinking.

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 04/04/11 - 10:18 am
0
0
"Without the ten commandments

"Without the ten commandments this country won't realize how fast it is sinking."

Yeah- because if only America had one day where we can't do any work, only then we wouldn't sink. A yard stick? The first 5 rules are about knowing who to worship. As silly as the commandments are- people can follow them privately. Let's try not to become a theocracy and force your religion onto the public.

dani
12
Points
dani 04/04/11 - 10:57 am
0
0
Good grief, what people will

Good grief, what people will complain about. I guess they like the direction society is heading.
If you don't like the word religion then leave it off and use The Ten Commandments as you would any other rules to live by.

The Board of Education should have as their word of the month "dignity",
what a difference that could make.

dani
12
Points
dani 04/04/11 - 11:02 am
0
0
oops duplicate

oops duplicate

bluey
0
Points
bluey 04/04/11 - 11:37 am
0
0
"I am waiting for what rules,

"I am waiting for what rules, ethics, values and virtues the leftists, secularists, humanists and other non-Bible- believers can substitute in the place of the Ten Commandments."

Have you actually bothered to ask a lefty secular humanist? Were you to do so here in the US, I'd guess their answer would include things like the Bill of Rights, the United States Constitution, the federal laws and local city and state laws for where we live. It's really not that hard to determine that killing someone is usually wrong. The Decalogue is not the sole source or morality (nor is religion, for that matter). Buddhists live without following the Ten Commandments and they're not running around murdering and pillaging.

In churches where the Ten Commandments are supposed to be lived day-to-day, we still see things like embezzlement, child rape, and fraud. The issue isn't that the Ten Commandments aren't being displayed, the issue is that there are bad people out there (religious and non-religious alike) who do not obey the law and do not live for the betterment of man. The issues you describe as some American decline in morality is not a religious issue at all.

faithson
5157
Points
faithson 04/04/11 - 11:57 am
0
0
Just what does the good

Just what does the good doctor think 'Sharia Law' IS ! A great letter in support of codifying one's religious beliefs. ps. I think someone said the New commandment to supersede all others was 'Love your neighbor as yourself'.. hummm now there is a commandment I would like to see 'codified'

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 12:50 pm
0
0
It's not that people disagree

It's not that people disagree with the 10 Commandments; it's that they cannot stand the fact that this document came from the Judeo-Christian faith. Anything that smacks of "God" must be negated at all costs.

Without a standard of behavior, society plunges into anarchy. Problem is, from where does this standard come? From popular vote? That would be a disaster. From the gov't? We see how that has worked out.

A secular humanist says that everyone knows killing is wrong. But why? If we're all just humming along in some Darwinian "survival of the fittest", then what's wrong with you doing anything and everything to come out on top? Isn't that your evolutionary right? Wouldn't mankind benefit from the strongest and smartest ruling the weaker and less influential, and eventually killing them off so the gene pool would become stronger? Why take care of the poor and disabled if all they do is take from society and give nothing back? Wouldn't it be better for humanity if these "undesirables" would be weeded out so the strong and elite could thrive and have more children to better populate the species? That's just natural selection at work, isn't it? Why fight it?

ammaled
0
Points
ammaled 04/04/11 - 12:51 pm
0
0
Here's something I post when

Here's something I post when the Martyrs for Truth post their Lamentations:
"I am not participating in the victim hood of modern day Christians. Who God frees is free indeed. No state sanctions my prayers, nor do I need them to so. So no state can remove them. Or has removed them.
I neither need to create an exhibition of public prayer to be known by God or ask others to do the same to be His servant.
I serve God best by knowing that in America none have suffered privations by the government for being Christian that have not been vain exhibitions professing faith and piety."
Like this Letter to the Editor.

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 04/04/11 - 12:55 pm
0
0
"The second set of five

"The second set of five commandments are civil commandments, you know, for civilized or citizens of a civilized country."

Civil commandments that are lacking some serious civilized ideas. I've already mentioned the rape and child abuse, however those don't make the top ten. What does make the top ten are knowing who is god, and reiterating that a few more times; followed by don't long for your neighbors wife.

God says don't kill- and yet there is nothing but acts and instructions of killing by god. God says don't commit adultery, unless your wife is barren. God gives instructions on how to treat your slaves....

Yeah- the ten commandments are silly. All the spiritual ones are goofy, and the others are obvious. There's no need to force the commandments onto everyone- it's safe to say people know it's wrong to murder another person. There's no need to pretend that society will fall apart if the commandments are legally cast out from government sites.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 01:01 pm
0
0
Ammaled, nice sounding words

Ammaled, nice sounding words -- but with a hollow meaning. How do you serve God best? Obviously, by doing what God says. That's where the freedom of God is found. Your attempt at poetically-sounding censorship is noted.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 12:59 pm
0
0
The Ten Commandments are in

The Ten Commandments are in no way silly. But, they have been summarized and completed for Christians in 2 simple directives: 1) Love God (i.e., obey him), and 2) Love others. If you do that, you won't have any problems. If only society could be that "silly", we'd certainly all live in a better nation.

By they way, the original 10 did not prohibit "killing". The Hebrew there is actually "murder". The 10 Commandments did not prohibit national or personal defense. Premeditated murder is the problem.

bluey
0
Points
bluey 04/04/11 - 01:02 pm
0
0
howcanweknow, evolution by

howcanweknow, evolution by natural selection does not posit "survival of the fittest" in the sense of "kill or be killed". It simply states that those traits (what we now know come from genetic mutations) which give an organism the best chance of reproducing the most before dying are the ones that are most likely to survive. There's no such thing as "evolutionary right" because evolution is not a means of developing morals, it's simply a method by which life evolves through genetic mutation.

In fact, we've found that forming a society and working together has vastly increased our odds of survival and allowed us to spend our energy flourishing and popping out baby humans very rapidly. This society-building and the manner in which we work together rather than "every man for himself" is exactly the sort of thing that can be used to define morals. It may be better for the surviving humans if the less desirable ones were weeded out, but we have the capacity to realize that we don't need to do that to survive and that we value the right to life more than the need for pure supremacy in our bloodline.

And your first point last, is someone attempting to remove the Ten Commandments from your churches, homes, and bibles? This letter is about the Ten Commandments being removed from government institutions, a place where religious dogma doesn't belong in the first place, as our laws demand. If someone tries to tell you that you aren't allowed to have the Decalogue posted in your private dwelling, then Christians, Jews, and Atheists alike should rally to your defense as it's not a religious issue but a constitutional freedom issue that affects any and all Americans.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 01:08 pm
0
0
If we indeed value the "right

If we indeed value the "right to life", then why are thousands of human babies aborted each year? We sure seem to bestow the "right to life" on whom we chose and deny it from others at will, don't we?

"Evolution is not a means of developing morals." Absolutely correct on that one. If so, then from where do morals originate?

"It may be better for the surviving humans if the less desirable ones were weeded out." You make my point my admitting this fact. Who makes the call on who is more desirable than others? Who gets the "right to life" vs. who is denied this basic of all human rights?

bluey
0
Points
bluey 04/04/11 - 01:22 pm
0
0
Because as a society, we've

Because as a society, we've decided that life begins at birth for legal purposes. Some say life begins onces the fetus is viable outside the mother's body, hence the "third trimester" compromise rule.

My morals and values originate from my desire to treat others compassionately and as I wish to be treated, my empathy toward others, my desire to fit into society and not be thrown in jail, etc. There are numerous essays on Objective Morality available online that make the case for how morality can and does exist without an absolute authority like a god to enforce it.

As for who makes the call on who is more desirable than others, we as a society would make that call and here we choose not to value an able-bodied person more than a quadriplegic, for example. I'm not sure how that made your point though. We, as a society, tend to deplore such eugenics and do not use such practices.

LauraE
0
Points
LauraE 04/04/11 - 01:49 pm
0
0
I don't adhere to religion

I don't adhere to religion because I have studied it extensively and I find fault and inconsistancies with the theories. I am agnostic, and I don't go to church. I've also never been to jail, never been arrested, never killed anyone or molested children. I don't drink or do drugs. I pay my taxes and I volunteer in my community. I vote and have served on jury duty. For someone to say that secularists are causing the moral decline of society is offensive.
I try to be tolerant of those who believe in religion, but when I come across this type of arrogance spewed by the religious, I refuse to remain silent. Religion serves as a convenient shield for people to hide behind. A politician who is running for public office merely has to invoke "God Bless You" and no matter what he or she has done, they are the golden child of those who profess to christianity. Look at "Christian" philanderers John Edwards,John McCain,Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford,David Vitter, Elliot Spitzer,Larry Craig,Ted Haggard,Jesse Jackson and Eddie Long. Look at the hate spewed by those at the Westboro Baptist Church. Look at the violent Spanish Inquisition. The molestation cases in the Roman Catholic Church. If you want local examples of christian misconduct, take Scott Dean and Charles Walker.

What is my moral compass? My love for humanity and life on earth. The realization that this is probably the only life I will ever have a chance to live, and I desire a free, productive, harmonious and happy life with other people in my community.

I expect more from an educated man like Dr.Payne. Shame on him for writing such a pompous and contemptuous OPED.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 02:00 pm
0
0
Sounds good. You wish to

Sounds good. You wish to treat others compassionately (i.e., love them) and as you wish to be treated (i.e., do unto others as you would have them do unto you). I certainly have no argument with that at all, as your views mirror those taught by Christ (and others).

Some still say the sun revolves around the earth, but that does not make it true. Legal opinions cannot usurp biological fact, if so then we are a very immoral society indeed. Life of a human fetus does not originate from judicial fiat, but cellular biology. If the wisest scientists and physicians cannot determine when a "fetus" becomes a "child", then certainly a judge with minimal biological training cannot say -- yet they do. In this specific case, my "morality and values" conflict with yours. Therefore, which of us is "right" and which is "wrong". I do not believe such values should be determined by popular vote, do you?

If your morals and values are determined by your desires, as you say, then fine. But, if my morals and values are somewhat at odds with you, because I have different desires, then which morals and values should become the standard? Again, it seems you're insisting that morality and values be designated by popular opinion alone.

We deplore eugenics? If you read the history of Margaret Sanger, you'll find she was a champion of eugenics. Modern day Planned Parenthood is her "child". Attempts at eugenics are alive and well today, and allowed to be given federal support. I wish you were correct, but sadly, eugenic practices are not at all discarded in our modern "society".

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 02:12 pm
0
0
LauraE, please forget about

LauraE, please forget about imperfect people and the bad things they do. Anyone can claim to follow God; the proof is in the actions. Here's the real issue: What are the faults and inconsistencies you find with Jesus Christ? That is the only issue that matters.

follower
59
Points
follower 04/04/11 - 02:13 pm
0
0
bluey said, "Because as a

bluey said, "Because as a society, we've decided that life begins at birth for legal purposes. Some say life begins onces the fetus is viable outside the mother's body, hence the "third trimester" compromise rule."

The moral objectives you hold to were decided by whom? Society as a majority? Didn't society as a majority [or at least half] until 150 years ago, hold that slavery was acceptable? Was that not a large part of the reason for a civil war that divided a nation? Brother killing brother?

Do the whims of a majority in society become "outdated" as we become more and more "civil"? Does that mean that we continue to "modify" our beliefs? It sure seems so.

Objective morality is an ever moving target, changing with the next appointment to a Supreme Court should it tip the balance of ideology. As is the case, it leads to a great deal of confusion for "we, as a society".

Would it be safe to say that the denial of a "First Cause" allows man to determine his own fate, making that same man his own god? I do believe that desire to be one's own god was pointed out as a pretty big problem in some narrative book that so many disdain for it's content.

bluey, you seem like a very intelligent individual. Well written. Well thought out responses. But, when you state "we, as a society", you are in fact speaking for ALL. Please omit me from such inclusion.

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 04/04/11 - 02:14 pm
0
0
"But, if my morals and values

"But, if my morals and values are somewhat at odds with you, because I have different desires, then which morals and values should become the standard?"

They are for the most part standardized right now... people disagree with what is legal and what is illegal, and that is why there are activists today. Zero of your arguments or comments have zero relevance to the commandments being forced onto public via government establishments.

I'm curious to hear more about your thoughts of eugenics being alive and well today in America. I'll assume you're not on the same page as another person who comments here- who thinks poor people should be sterilized; but you might be in favor of the federal government outlawing family inbreeding.

bluey
0
Points
bluey 04/04/11 - 02:20 pm
0
0
Legal opinion should be

Legal opinion should be grounded in physical evidence, reason, and facts, not someone's belief. The Establishment Clause is a specific prohibition against a particular type of this lawmaking. The inability for judges, biologists, etc. to come to a consensus on when life begins is exactly why the trimester framework was eventually discarded in abortion law and instead allow the states to only regulate abortion as it relates to their own interests trumping those of the mother.

If my desires and your desires are at odds (for example, my morals tell me that I should kill you and take your home as my own), than the laws of our land are the standard. Those laws are definitely dictated by popular opinion, which established the legal framework of our country. We may see different things as right and wrong. Our laws are the compromise that give us the stable society to live in when those morals are in conflict.

And tying Planned Parenthood to eugenics is distasteful and inaccurate. They do not selectively abort fetuses to attempt to improve the gene pool. They do not selectively sterilize those with undesirable traits to prevent them from further tainting the gene pool. They do not perform eugenics. Rather, they offer health care, birth control, and abortions to women who need or desire them and often are unable to afford it.

follower
59
Points
follower 04/04/11 - 02:23 pm
0
0
LauraE, I'm sorry that the

LauraE, I'm sorry that the people you listed, as well as Westboro, have invoked the Christian label. What you say is true. All that claim to follow Christ but live a life that is totally contrary to His teaching makes it extremely difficult for the true Christian.

But to group all people of any group, religious or secular, with one broad stroke is somewhat short-sided. Sorta like demonizing all men as unfaithful because some don't hold marriage vows as sacred.

There is no doubt that of all the people that call themselves Christian, those that are true followers of Christ are a scant minority. It makes me sad. The standard is Jesus Christ alone. All the rest of us fall short.

howcanweknow
2306
Points
howcanweknow 04/04/11 - 02:28 pm
0
0
I'm a bit confused. If zero

I'm a bit confused. If zero of my arguments have zero relevance, are you saying that all of my arguments are relevant?

I'm not saying we can force any one religious teaching on any person. That's against the spirit of religious freedom. And, I do not see the LTE from Dr. Payne saying that either. He is lamenting the fact that the ideals expressed in the Ten Commandments are being downplayed and done away with. I agree with Ten Commandments, and believe that society would be a much better place if we all respected and obeyed those principles -- regardless of where they came from. (of course, the fact that they are in the Bible makes them all the more precious to Christians) That's all. You are indeed correct. We cannot force any belief on another person. No one would want that.

My point is that Planned Parenthood was born (pun intended) from the eugenics movement supported by Margaret Sanger (founder of PP). She was very open in her idea that, in her opinion, "inferior races" should not be allowed to procreate. Her writings are very clear, and very frightening. Her work is being continued by agencies like PP.

follower
59
Points
follower 04/04/11 - 02:31 pm
0
0
bluey, the third trimester

bluey, the third trimester issue poses an issue. It proposes that a fetus cannot survive in the first and second trimester outside the mothers womb, but could in the third trimester. Do you think a baby could survive after being born without assistance?

As I posted earlier, you seem to be an intelligent person. Have you not read that a heartbeat is detectable in the first few weeks? Should we not assist life to survive in that circumstance? Is that a moral decision? Where does morality come in?

Starts to get confusing, does it not?

bluey
0
Points
bluey 04/04/11 - 02:43 pm
0
0
follower, that is one of the

follower, that is one of the reasons the trimester framework was discarded. In the Roe v. Wade opinion:

"Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Beck Tears
0
Points
Beck Tears 04/04/11 - 02:50 pm
0
0
HCWK- You got me- I meant

HCWK- You got me- I meant 'none of your points are relevant'. Poor word choice on my part. I also have to admit I never heard of Ms. Sanger, so I did a little google search. She wrote "Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes."

I'm willing to bet that a lot of the right wing christian folks believe that too... Full disclosure: I would not date a woman who falls into any of those categories- so I'm curious if you'd label me with the same negative classification as Ms. Sanger.

Anyways- you "agree with Ten Commandments, and believe that society would be a much better place if we all respected and obeyed those principles" and I think differently. And so long as no one tries to take that belief from you, you and others can celebrate and practice privately, without harassment. But let's keep it out of government.

follower
59
Points
follower 04/04/11 - 03:08 pm
0
0
bluey, thanks for the kind

bluey, thanks for the kind reply.

My point was that man is unable to arrive at a consensus on so many issues. What then do we do?

It seems that man is constantly changing his view of morality. Will we ever get it right? By presenting our view of a moral framework, are we not assuming the role of God, or at least, a god?

Whenever we begin with ourselves and reason upward, are we not manufacturing a god of some sort? Of our own imagination? Is that not some sort of idolatry? Do we not construct a mental idea of a diety, thereby giving respectability to our own opinions of God, or a god, which are formed after our OWN likeness? Will those opinions not be according to our own inclinations and preferences? In other words, aren't we merely shaping God down to our own managable proportions? Or do we posit that man himself is the determination of all things?

It would seem that we need some sort of moral compass to live consistently. One that is unchanging. One that is sound. Where can that be found? Man has obviously not been able to "reason in morality" to this point. Of all the nations throughout history, where is the longevity? Who has survived? Which one is still viable?

Society continues to create a god of some fashion, even if it's to make man his own god. Removing God in any sense of the idea from society creates a vacuum. Over the centuries, man has contunually rushed to fill that vacuum with another "religion" of their own making. You know how much nature abhors a vacuum. But again, how much religious debris can a society clean up before acknowledging what has been there through the ages?

IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG
76
Points
IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG 04/04/11 - 03:20 pm
0
0
The United States

The United States Constitution and its subsequent amendments (the first ten of which are known as the Bill of Right) serve as the premier governing document for this nation. Dr. Payne, “the Ten Commandments are being legally cast out from virtually all government sites,” because they legally should not have been there in the first place. It is an egregious error, as well as a logical fallacy, on your part to assume that without the Ten Commandments society will digress to the point in which it ceases to function. Ironically, the document in which you speak so highly of, does not afford you the rights given to you in United States Constitution. However, I respect your opinion as you are entitled to it. But, might I suggest you offer stronger evidence to support your claims if you would seriously like to see changes made in this nation’s governing practices. Your emotional rhetoric only makes you appear foolish and uneducated. Furthermore, your sophomoric argument speaks to the real problem of decisions and arguments being made based on emotions rather than them being made based on facts.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Former commissioner's case remains under review

While former Augusta commissioner Donnie Smith's statements to Georgia State Patrol investigators likely can't be used against him, the state Office of the Inspector General continues to conduct ...
Search Augusta jobs