Posting God's laws on government property

""Why does the Constitution's prohibition of "establishment of religion" so often seem to conflict with its mandate of "free exercise of religion.""

Is it *really that hard to figure out, in this case?* It's one thing to say, "There's a lot of Christians here," ...it's another thing for Christians to use government facilities to put up, and *only* put up, *Big stone words which begin by *COMMANDING WHAT GOD TO WORSHIP AND NO OTHERS.*

My *Goddess.*

What's a grey area about that?

It's *religious commandments.*

I mean, hey. I rarely hold down the shift key, but on the below. And the column.

Really?

Really?

Some kind of line is hard to draw, here?

Clearly, Thou shall not!

If you don't think the Ten Commandments are religious, just ask anyone who follows them.

Duh.

"Three Democrats who govern the secular and pluralistic part of Arizona voted against it."

It just reinforces the validity of the Biblical prophecy that most democrat states will be nuked. Not only they are vulnerable by virtue of their location but they also have the attributes of stupidity like that of Sodom.

The same kind of people who are in favor of gay marriages and gays in the military. Truly a society of perverts and a disgrace to God thus it will be DOOMED.

?

If it wasn't a phony maybe could be funny! However there's nothing funny about weird and strange beliefs; or is it?

This whole thing about the 10 Commandments. Issued by God thru Moses, then given to and accepted by the people of Israel (who within hours were braking them in its entirety), is a phony given the context. Here we have an issue who branched out of the strange belief, that God has replaced Israel with somebody else.

Known as "Replacement Theology" or Supersessionism. Is the belief that the Church replaced Israel, in spite of all the Scriptural evidence against it. On top of the Scriptural evidence there is the daily reminders all over the world. That there is still a Nation called Israel, in the same place it was the last time Jesus visited the place.

Out of that belief, came as a branch another one, even more absurd to say the least. One that is not mentioned by name, but clearly implied in the efforts put forward to erect these monuments. That some other people or Nation may have replaced Israel.

There is for example the fantabulous theory of the Anglo-Israelism crowd. Out of which in the XIX c. came Adventism among others. Proponents of Sabbath keeping.

What is Not told by the 10 Commandments monuments crowd speaks louder than what they say a prima facie. Do they really think they're the ones who solely inherited the tablets of the Law? Do they really think they can make everybody believe, that we are under that Law? Who do they think they are fooling?

God, according to the narrative of the OT did for Israel things that He has Not done for anyone else. The things that were done for Israel were Not repeated ever. Not for any other People or Nation, not even for the Church. What God did for Israel and what God gave to Israel [the Law] was not done or given to anyone else. Not even the Church.

Now, if anyone in this Country thinks so, then; Where is the evidence? Where is the place, where God opened the waters of any Sea or river for any people to go across? Like He did for Israel! If someone, anyone, in this Country thinks or believe they can replace Israel then: Show us when and where, did God opened the Mississippi river for them to go across? show us please so we may believe you. If not then do everybody the favor of your hushing up. Thank you very much!

.

Definitely in violation of the "establishment" clause.

Offense is in the eye of the beholder. I remember when Idaho Mormons made a Lutheran Bible Camp remove a whitewashed cross on leased government land because they found it offensive.

These same Huckabee theocrats would scream like hell if someone tried to post verses from The Tripitaka on government property. More do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do.

Why would anyone who wants to post God's laws on government property not have "substantially religious objectives?"

Good point, but it needs clarification. They're not "God's laws" but "laws that some people believe were dictated by a god." There are many god-believers in the world who reject the claims of Judaism and Christianity regarding those laws.

Republican state Sen. Sylvia Allen replied: "People need to be tolerant of the majority's beliefs."

Religion isn't decided by majority rule. The point of the First Amendment is to project the religious freedom of minorities and individuals FROM the majority, to carve out a neutral zone where government endorses no particular religions. I wonder if Allen would feel the same way if a new religion arose and most Christians converted to it, leaving Christianity as a minority religion.

It's *religious commandments.*

That's the whole problem. Half of them deal with interpersonal conduct and people of any religion can agree with them. But the other half are purely sectarian.

BABBLE-ON!

"Republican state Sen. Sylvia Allen replied: 'People need to be tolerant of the majority's beliefs.'"

Amazing the hypocrisy here as the GOP argues that 41 votes in the Senate should have the right to block the majority's 59 votes.

I'm assuming that the version of the commandments that is being proposed is the Protestant version, which differs from the Catholic version, and maybe some others. If that's true, then isn't the governing body endorsing a particular set of denominations? Even Christians who argue that the founders intended this to be a Christian nation concede that the doctrine of separation was only intended not to promote any one Christian denomination over others. The posting of a Protestant, or Catholic, version violates even that twisted application of the doctrine.

(I'm nearing despair that this is still an issue.)

Pardon my intrusion in this particular forum, but some issues are so important, in my opinion, as to justify cross-posting. Post editor Jo-Ann Armao's article today in PostPartisan is so revolting in its revelations about the warped sense of values that has come to suffuse the Post, it justifies wide notice. Here is my letter to the editor submitted today:

The most incredible, but not surprising, thing about Jo-Ann Armao’s PostPartisan article on February 18 about how she invited Marion Barry to the White House correspondents’ dinner is the admission by a high-level Washington Post doyen that the Post panders to politicians, no matter how incompetent, corrupt, and totally lacking in morality that they may be. The wide-eyed innocence with which Ms. Armao discusses inviting this despicable reprobate to a White House dinner is breathtaking.

Imagine if a Washington Post editor around 1960 recounted, with not one iota of shame or remorse, inviting a Southern race-baiting politician to a White House dinner. Imagine a WaPo editor telling us how he had invited a religious figure like the Reverend Jim Jones or David Koresh to a White House dinner.

There is something so pathetically sick here, it defies human imagination.

Are these rules/laws of god(s) dependent on religion or do religions simply present commonsense expressions of how to properly behave? Such expressions have been going on since humankind began to express itself.

From Hummurabi's Code (~1700 BC)

"When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. "

Before Hammurabi, there was the Egyptian Book of the Dead (origin ~2000 BCE):

"Hail to thee, great God, Lord of the Two Truths. I have come unto thee, my Lord, that thou mayest bring me to see thy beauty. I know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the 42 Gods who are with thee in this broad hall of the Two Truths . . . Behold, I am come unto thee.
I have brought thee truth; I have done away with sin for thee. I have not sinned against anyone. I have not mistreated people. I have not done evil instead of righteousness . . .

I have not reviled the God.
I have not laid violent hands on an orphan.
I have not done what the God abominates . . .
I have not killed; I have not turned anyone over to a killer.
I have not caused anyone's suffering . . .
I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.
I have not increased nor diminished the measure, I have not diminished the palm; I have not encroached upon the fields.
I have not added to the balance weights; I have not tempered with the plumb bob of the balance.
I have not taken milk from a child's mouth; I have not driven small cattle from their herbage...
I have not stopped (the flow of) water in its seasons; I have not built a dam against flowing water.
I have not quenched a fire in its time . . .
I have not kept cattle away from the God's property.
I have not blocked the God at his processions."

Then there is this bit of blog wisdom:
"There are many commonsense rules for good behaviour but be cognizant of the embellishments, falsehoods, and fiction surrounding the formulators and "rocks" of said rules of life."

For those of us who have never visited the US Supreme Court building:

"In the Supreme Court's white marble courtroom, the nine sitting justices are not the only presiding presence. At the center of the nation's legal system, high above the justices' mahogany bench, the great lawgivers of history are depicted in marble friezes.

From Hammurabi to Moses to John Marshall, the stone sculptures commemorate written law as a force for stability in human affairs. The larger-than-life artworks, designed by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman as the courthouse was being built in the early 1930s, convey the idea that, while the law begins with individuals, its principles never die.

The 18 lawgivers looking down on the justices are divided into two friezes of ivory-colored, Spanish marble. On the south wall, to the right of incoming visitors, are figures from the pre-Christian era -- Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius and Octavian (Caesar Augustus). On the north wall to the left are lawmakers of the Christian era -- Napoleon Bonaparte, Marshall, William Blackstone, Hugo Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and Justinian."

Why are only ten of the commandments getting play? There are 603 more. And what about the one that prohibits cannibalism, eh?
Oh... right. Cannibalism didn't make the cut.

Jeopardy question from just last week:

Answer: Includes statues of Moses, Hammurabi, and Confucius.

Question: What is the US Supreme Court building?

Anyone care to calculate the odds that the current configuration of the Court will bar the depiction the law created by Moses, when the tribute to the law giver graces the interior of the central institution of United States law?

Cornbread_R2 wrote "I'm assuming that the version of the commandments that is being proposed is the Protestant version, which differs from the Catholic version, and maybe some others."

Please, please, please tell me your trying to be ironic, sarcastic, witty, or anything but serious. There is no formulation of the Ten Commandments for Protestants, and another for Catholics. (You totally ignored the Eastern Orthodox and the LDS,) Both versions are included in the Law of Moses. The more common is included in the historical narrative of Exodus, and the other is found in the legal codification of Leviticus.

To Paganwitch and her cronies: The first amendment requires that the government and the Judeo-Christian majority to TOLERATE minority faiths and pseudo-religions, and not to impose any political or legal liability on those minorities. We are not required to keep our faith out of the public square or go around hiding our religious practice for fear we will make someone uncomfortable. If I happen to secondarily offend you or make you consider that you have based your life on utter BS, I have complied with a requirement of my faith's practice, and I really don't care how long you want to extend your menstrual period in protest!

The Supreme Court sculpture meets the "secular purpose" test, because it doesn't actually list the Commandments and because the theme is law in general, as Yeal9 described. The Arizona capital display and Roy Moore's monument have sectarian purposes.

Ross, how are you defining the "public square"? The First Amendment is about keeping government neutral among the various religions, regardless of which religion is in the majority. The issue here is not religion but sectarianism. Arguing for laws based solely on any sect's dogma, as Mike Huckabee and Bishop Harry Jackson do, goes against the principle of nonsectarian government. If they wish to respect that principle, they would translate their arguments into nonsectarian ones that people of any faith could appreciate. By not doing that, they imply that Christianity is the default religion or that it should be.

@ROSSACPA:
You said: "The first amendment requires that the government and the Judeo-Christian majority to TOLERATE minority faiths and pseudo-religions, and not to impose any political or legal liability on those minorities."

I'm not sure which is more disturbing, that you are this capable of misunderstanding a pretty simple amendment or that you are arrogant enough to declare certain beliefs "pseudo-religions".

And you don't seem very "tolerant" to me.

I find it funny that people are defending posting the Commandments by pointing out that Moses is in the Supreme Court. I can only assume you'd be okay with offering up equal space to all the other law makers also in the Court.

Let's throw up the wisdom of Muhammed, Napoleon, etc. After all, the Supreme Court admires their wisdom apparently.

I missed the "pseudo-religions" comment the first time. Not only is it arrogant from someone of any faith to label other faiths that way, it shows why it's necessarily to keep government from playing favorites among the various faiths. From the standpoint of government, there is no such thing as "one true faith."

In my city with over 100 churches, I cannot think of one that has put the Commandments on the lawn. If this issue is real, then why haven't we Christians put impressive displays outside our own buildings? The fact that we haven't, tells me this is a divisive tactic used as part of the culture wars. This is a timeworn manufactured controversy.

Jesus INVITED people to follow His way with amazing examples of love and compassion. He did not command us to browbeat people into following Him, and he did not attempt to get goverhment sanction for his beliefs. In fact, he went directly against both the civil and religious government of his day.

Since only three of the 10 Guidelines are codified into secular law (thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit perjury), and since those prohibitions existed in other cultures long before Moses went up the on the mountain, I fail to see how the Judeo-Christian Big 10 can be called the basis for our legal system.

@ROSSACPA
The first amendement does not "require that the government and the Judeo-Christian majority to TOLERATE minority faiths and pseudo-religions." It requires the government to view and treat all religions and beliefs equally.

The government posting the 10 commandments is clearly an endorsement of one religion over every other.

This is not about people keeping their religion private. No one is saying you can't go on the street corner and preach to whoever walks by. This is about people using the government to promote their religion.

The First Amendment is all well and good, but as soon as one religious symbol gets put on government property, it violates the separation of church and state. How is it that someone who isn't a constitutional scholar can figure that out and we're still debating it?

I always wonder why "Christians" spend so much time in the OLD Testament and with the OLD Testament's Ten Commandments?
Christ said his coming replaced the ten with two: Love God above all else and love thy neighbor as thyself. Why aren't these two commandments fought for as the alleged christians fight for the jewish ten?
In fact, it is against Christianity to be taking guidance from the Old Testament and the OLD Ten Commandments. Unless of course you are a person of jewish religion.
This is all very clear if you read Christ's words, yet all kind of bible-thumpers would have you believe otherwise. Are they inspired by the devil to cause our eyes to look and love at that which Christ said was past?
Love thy neighbor as thyself is very difficult, is that why we spend so much time on the rules of the jewish religion?
If you raise the Ten above the two, you are not a Christian, nor should any true Christian be reading the OLD Testament for guidance, that's why it is called the OLD Testament, Christ brought us the New Testament to replace the Old.

These people are all for show. They want to show how righteous they are and how evil the other people are. These are the same people who will lie in a heartbeat and forget the part of the commandment that says we should not bear false witness.They also hate people because they are different from them. Even if they imprint those 10 commandments on their forehead and they still go around lying and hating they will end up in the same place with the sinners who they so despise and hate.
In Luke 18: 10-14 Jesus told the story about the Pharisee and the publican.
Both went into the temple to pray. The Pharisee prayed this, "God I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess"
The publican standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying,"God be merciful to me a sinner"
Which one of these men went home more forgiven.
These people want to feel better than other people, this is why they do these things. They do nothing in their lives to reach out a hand to help others. It's all about them. Why do I say this, if they were busy living the 10 commandments,they would not have time on their hands to be posting them.
God help us all.

It's a no brainer, the Ten Commandments are religious, and shouldn't be displayed on goverment property. And spidermean2 can you cite the passages in the bible that predict Democratic states will be nuked? That part must have been ommitted from every version of the good book I've ever seen. Or maybe you don't get the fact that the Pharisees are what we call republicans today. And BTW, the Old Testament became obsolete with the introduction of the New Covenant. Or are you still sacrificing sheep in order to be cleansed?

In our society, only religion competes effectively with government as a source of moral authority. Ahead we have major wars of invasion, and Washington cannot rely upon Rome to generate another morally debasing sex abuse scandal.

In 2002 and 2003, when religious leaders should have been opposing the Iraq Invasion, they were instead defending against a massive sex abuse scandal that went unaddressed by secular authorities for decades. Our invasions ahead cannot rely upon pedophile priests (reliable as they are in their misconduct).

Religion must be purged from the American landscape for us to achieve our potential as a world empire. Citizens must forget that the Ten Commandments, a religious document, is the origin of our most basic civic laws.

Why are fundies so determined to shove their religion down everybody's throat?

NO other religion does this in America - just the fundies.

They are no different from the Taliban.

Christianity does not only mean to be against gay marriage and homosexuality and bringing down Sodom and Gomorrah on anyone who is gay. Christianity is to be like Christ. Your whole life should reflect love and caring. Spidermean2, your name tells me a lot about you.

Is there any evidence of a god, much less he wanted us to follow these commandments?

Looking forward to seeing some evidence, thanks in advance.

Keeping religion out of government allows America to be a great country. Look at the 'I' and other 'A' countries: Iran- religious government/crappy country. Israel- religious government/crappy country, Iraq- religious government/crappy country. Afghanistan- Religious talaballistic rule/crappy country.

With such a transparent charade, it's a wonder that anyone takes these people seriously at all.

Only in a Scalia-esque parallel universe is the Ten Commandments not a religious document. You know, that same universe where God itself is not a religious figure but just another bland secular expression of civil unity.

Neither God nor the 10 Commandments is religious! For real?! Where are the defenders of the Christian religion when you really need 'em?

Won't any of you Christians stand up for your religion in the face of such an egregious attempt to secularize your core religious beliefs?

Or are you willing to sacrifce the sanctity of your religion for some hollow promise that the State will show preference for your beliefs from here on out?

Is the central nature of your religion really that easily expendable?

Wow! Breathtaking.

Courthouses are a favorite target for posting the ten commandments because believers feel our laws are based on the commandments. I propose a compromise. Instead of posting the commandments, post the laws that correspond to them. Here's a draft:
1.Worship any god or none - your choice.
2.Blasphemy is permitted.
3.Do whatever you like on Sunday - shopping and football are encouraged.
4.Treat Mom and Dad however you like short of violence.
5.Don't murder. War is OK.
6.Adultery is OK, but risks alimony and child support.
7.Don't steal, unless you can afford lobbyists.
8.Lying is OK, unless under oath.
9.Covet whom you will (but see 6 above.)
10.Covet your neighbor's neat stuff - it's the basis of capitalism (but see 7 above.)

Gee, maybe our laws don't enforce the ten commandments as well as I thought. Maybe religious types want to change our laws so they do.

If other type of religions had their images up like the christan religions do, the christan element whould be up in arms. The USA is a country with a goverment OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE. Hey, the USA is not a goverment by any religion but it is a nation under GOD which applies to all religions of GOD. GOD BLESS.

Ralph5 said (wrongly) "Christ said his coming replaced the ten with two: Love God above all else and love thy neighbor as thyself. Why aren't these two commandments fought for as the alleged christians fight for the jewish ten?"

Jesus said in the Sermons on the Mountain and on the Plain that he did not come to change the least portion of the law, but to teach how it is supposed to be fully lived. The Sermons change each of the 10 commandments from the prohibition or prescription of specific external moral acts, to a complete change of interior motivation and intention. Jesus specifically says if one's motivation and intention is not purified, then one is guilty of breaking the commandment whether one breaks the commandment by exterior act or not.

Don't be fooled by these religious nuts who use the 10 Commandments to advance their perverted brand of Christianity. God did not send them. They are a product of their own collective unregenerated minds. All ignorant Republicans who think God is a Republican. That fact alone reveals them as frauds. On the flip side those who deny Christ and the reality of God will lead you into a ditch if you continue to follow them. The Law cannot save you. The Lord Jesus is the only way to the Father! Romans 10:9,10

Ross,
Except for prohibitions against the ACTS of murder, theft, and perjury, the laws laid out in the Bible only apply to Jews and Christians. The rest of us aren't bound by them.

Anyone who doesn't read the First Amendment in the context of the preceding three centuries of religious wars in Europe, cannot read the first amendment in context. The 1st amendment was intended to prevent repetition of the religious conflict and persecution. I think if you told the three founding fathers most nearly not holding Christian beliefs (Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson) that the 1st Amendment would apply someday to some religion other than Judaism and Christianity, they would have laughed in your face.

Having said that, I am proud to live in a country that has extended the first amendment to cover any bad idea any one ever came up with, and I think that in many ways it has enriched the country and serious theological debate (which almost never appears in the Washington Post.)

My objection, and what I and many others reject as utter nonsense, is the requirement that many would impose on Americans wishing to practice their faith, i.e., that in exchange for my religious liberty I must accept as a condition of inclusion in public discourse that all religions are equally true and equally good/bad. That simply violates the principle of contradiction, and it encourages the simple folk to believe that reality in only what you want it to be. Not only should no private American be made to accept such BS, but elected officials must be allowed to reject this principle without detriment to the political lives or public careers!

10.Covet your neighbor's neat stuff - it's the basis of capitalism (but see 7 above.)
***

I'm glad to see an Eddie Izzard fan on here! Not to mention the fact that you're correct.

I am an Amercian of 56 years age. I am a min ority and not Asian. I am a practicing Buddhist, and I am offended by Arizona forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of us. I do NOT live by your ten commandments, and I feel I am segregrated from Christians with this attitude.

BTW, Arizona, also declined to celebrate Maertin Luther King Birthday, until the Federal government withheld Federal Highway funding from Arizona.

Arizomn is a racist state, I used to live there, and moved out qu8ickly after learning how racists Arizona really is. I moved to nevada s just as racists state.

the southwest is filled with racism against black american's, as I have observed my last twenty years.

Perhaps Christians might actually consider applying the ten commandents to their own lives instead of the lives of others.

SAD

unlike jpanzal, i say we actually codify the 10 commandments as written. sounds like a super awesome way live! and then we can erect monuments all over the damn place. except on the sabbath.

Well, since nobody can really agree on which 10 are the commandments; posting 10 of any version is advocating for that religious denomination's version. Ergo, it's against the Consitution to put the 10 Commandments on public buildings.

However, the CONCEPT of the 10 Commandments does have historic importance in American law and culture due to the influence of our primarily judeo-christian founders.

Jesus' first commandment is un-Constitutional for us to put into law. His second is the basis of most of our law.

I. Love God with all your mind, body and soul
1. I am the Lord your God
2. You shall have no other gods before me
3. You shall not make for yourself an idol
4. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
5. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
II. Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
6. Honor your father and mother
7. You shall not murder
8. You shall not kill
9. You shall not commit adultery
10. You shall not steal
11. You shall not kidnap
12. You shall not steal anything that would be a capital crime
13. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
14. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife
15. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Hard to honor your father and mother if you're living in a single parent or same-sex family.

People kill other folks all the time. Cops and military for the benefit of the society as a whole, regular people to defend themselves. I can't see any merciful God condemning me for blowing away some nut threatening to murder my wife or child.

Adultry, stealing, kidnapping, coveting all relate to crimes or inclinations to crimes of property. Adultry is not a crime unless you consider your wife or your husband to be property. Considering the prevalence of extramarital sexual relationships; I'd say that was the majority of American's opinions also.

I can understand people not wanting to experience the consequences of their bad behavior; but anyone who'd try to shift the blame for something they did to another person really deserves to be punished twice as hard.

The same people who believe in Armageddon (end of the world) are supporters of erecting religious monuments on public lands and there is a chasm between what they say and how they live. Our previous president did all he could to dismantle the "wall between Church and State". Such champions of the bible will always exist. The fact remains, however, that no matter what they do, they cannot stop the inexorable influx of immigrants who are not Christians. America is becoming a country of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, tree worshippers. And there are the atheists. All of them have the right to be here and practice what they believe in without any interference, overt or otherwise, from others. The Ten Commandments do not belong to public lands.

Ross,
First off I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that the founding fathers would have laughed at the idea of freedom of relgion applying to religions other than judaism and christianity. I think they envisioned a country where everyone could worship whatever god they wanted without prejudice or harrassment.

As for the second part, no one has to personally accept that all religions are equally true or beneficial. What you, and the political leaders do have to accept is that the government, and in this I mean any government official acting in their official capacity, can not take a position on this matter. Once elected officials start ranking religions based on what they believe is true, and writing that ranking into law, the fundamental freedom to worship is threatened.

The hair splitting is what makes all the difference. If the majority are not attempting to foist there religion on the minority and not using the gov't to help them do so then such displays are harmless. When the majority are delibertly using the gov'ts power to intimidate the minority then they are in violation of the 1st amendment. Intent is routinely determined in courts and forms the basis of many judicial decisions.

Such distinctions are obviously lost on County Commissioner Worsham. State Sen. Allan's comment could be taken two ways. Without more evidence one way or the other I prefer to interpret it harmlessly.

"Controversy equalizes fools and wise men - and the fools know it." Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Four of the commandments deal with the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine. The remaining six prescribe a moral code that is not unique to Judaism or Christianity. Including the four prescribing who is to be worshiped, who and what isn't, and what day of the week this is to be done is parochially religious in nature, and allowing them to be posted in a public building would be an endorsement of a specific belief system, Judeo-Christian monotheism. The remaining six could be posted without being seen as an endorsement of a specific religion. An argument could be made that these six are at the basis of our legal system, but no such claim can be made that monotheism results in any more of a moral society than any other religious schema. Let us not forget that those terrible, terrible Muslims are the most scrupulous monotheists of all of the three religions of the book.

Ross needs to read more. A simple perusal of Jefferson, Madison and Adam's written works will show him to be wrong.

Another instance of the Republican party becoming more and more like america's Taliban.

Are these rules/laws of god(s) dependent on religion or do religions simply present commonsense expressions of how to properly behave?

Such expressions have been going on since humankind began to express itself.

Again, there are many commonsense rules for good behaviour but be cognizant of the embellishments, falsehoods, and fiction surrounding the formulators and "rocks" of said rules of life."

The Biblical quote of the Home Schooled Boy in “Mean Girls” says it beautifully:

And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.

This is a tough issue. As a Christian, I have no problem looking at the 10 commandments. However, I can certainly understand the problem with forcing others into a particular religion -- be it Christianity, Islam, Judism...etc. Unfortunately, the past has taught us that people who participated in religions did force others to conform. That is something we all should want to avoid - religious or not.

My thoughts:
1) I think that the 10 commandments did play a very important role in the the founding of this country's legal system. And based on that fact, I do believe that that there should be no problem. However, based on that prinicple, I must acknowledge that other law system that played an important part in the founding of our legal system should also be able to display something. Regardless of the religion, it is important to explore the past and understand how we have come to be the great country that we are. A country that actually allows for these sort of debates. We are truly fortunate to live here in the US!
2) Based on my feelings in point #1 I have to agree with the supreme court justice who spoke about the motivation behind the situation. I think if the motivation is based on appreciating where our laws/system come from, then the commandments have every right to be displayed. However, if the motivation is derived from a sense of forcing religion on others, then it is not appropriate to place the 10 commandments up.
3) Just because a person who doesn't agree with the ten commandments sees them, doesn't mean you are being discriminated against or forced into their religion. I guess the issue is really just the location of the commandments.
4) I think this should be reviewed in a case by case basis and not ruled upon in one large sweeping law.

As a Christian, I should try and understand where others are coming from and respect their feelings. I do not agree with other religions (which is why I subscribe to Christianity - it is the one and only way), but I can appreciate that people have the ability to choose to follow another religion. Our country was founded on freedom. Tolerance is a bad word. I refuse to "tolerate" other religions. Instead, I will disagree with them but respect that we as people can choose what we would like to follow. This is a gift - from God.

Considering that only 3 or 4 of the 10 Commandments are codified into the U.S. legal code, I would say that they have about a 30-40% value to being posted in a public area.

Adultery is not considered to be a crime. If it was, most Congress would be locked up.

Idolaritry is not a crime. But American Idol should be one.

Taking the name of God in vain is not a crime, dammit! :D

Putting other Gods before God is not a crime. Money, power, prestige, etc. can also be considered objects of worship. We reward people that worship them, not throw them in jail. (Unless you violate secular laws.)

Keeping the Sabbath holy requires not working on Sunday. That includes NASCAR drivers, NFL football players, bartenders, and Wal-Mart. If a business like Chik-Fil-A wants to close on Sundays, that's their business. But try to force Wal-Mart to close on a Sunday? You'd have a riot on your hands!

Coveting your neighbor's spouse or property is not a crime. In fact, it's the very basis of our capitalist society.

One follow up:

The Magna Carta has more to do with our legal system than the 10 Commandments do. But I don't see that posted everywhere.

Were any, or some of the five republicans or
three democrats JEWS?

Then what do you mean Judeo Christian
part of Arizona?

Religion is what it means for its believers. In spite of numerous attempts over two millennia, no one has proven either the existence or non-existence of god. In fact, among Christian believers there has been during that time a dichotomy over this issue. One position, best represented by St. Augustine, is that a person has to receive god's grace, leading to faith in his revelation, in order to prove the existence of god, i.e., basically one has to believe god exists in order to prove he exists (perhaps true, but logically trivial), the other position, best represented by Thomas Aquinas, asserts that god can only be discovered through the intellect, i.e., one can't intuitively see god in the scriptures or nature, his existence has to be proved; the problem for this position is that there is, to date, no argument for god’s existence that is immune from a just as valid counter argument that he doesn’t exist. Given one position states faith precedes knowledge and the other has of yet not proven god’s existence intellectually, we are left with the fact that religious belief is subjective, depending on the personal opinion of its adherents. Also, in spite of professions to the contrary in this thread, there is also no proof of what constitutes absolute good and bad behavior. There is no absolute proof that Christianity is, ipso facto, better than any other religion. What is good or bad in regard to religion is dependent on personal opinion and social convention. What you see as good and true in consensus with your religion may be evil and false in consensus with mine. In our country you are free to try to convert others to your opinion as I am to mine; however, the government is restricted from taking side in these debates or coercing conversions. Invite potential converts to your church, but don't set up your pulpit in public buildings or on public property, unless all religions have the same access.

Posted by: spidermean2

"Three Democrats who govern the secular and pluralistic part of Arizona voted against it."

It just reinforces the validity of the Biblical prophecy that most democrat states will be nuked. Not only they are vulnerable by virtue of their location but they also have the attributes of stupidity like that of Sodom.

The same kind of people who are in favor of gay marriages and gays in the military. Truly a society of perverts and a disgrace to God thus it will be DOOMED.
==========================================

Wow! Where did your "God of Love" go?
I had rather go to hell and be with good folks instead of going to a heaven populated by blindly ignorant and arrogant fundamentalists!

Copies of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse are slightly obnoxious.

The only thing worse are Jews constantly screaming about tolerance. They have none but demand it for themselves.

And since the idea of a Christian nation was here long before they came in uninvited droves...the constant pointing out of how different they are merely contributes to the rising feelings against them. You hadn't heard?

Justice Stephen Bryer, by the wayis a Jew.

And 98% Of Americans are NOT.

The Ten Commandments is such an obvious masterpiece of ambiguity that it is hard to imagine its attribution to some kind of a perfect supreme deity or spirit of its substantive faults and flaws. These readily identifiable flaws are indicative of its human origin and the length to which religious zealots will go in their attempts to legitimate their creeds.

What's next, giant statues and posters of the Last Supper everywhere?. Should EVERY religion be allowed the same leniency? This is why there should NO govenment sanctioned expression of religion. Plus, if we really found out what the religious majority REALLY IS in America, I think we all might be surprised, and it might not jive with what pols in AZ think it is (even in their own state!). This is Catholic fascism.

ROSSACPA wrote: " I think if you told the three founding fathers most nearly not holding Christian beliefs (Franklin, Paine, and Jefferson) that the 1st Amendment would apply someday to some religion other than Judaism and Christianity, they would have laughed in your face."

--------------

Hey ROSSACPA, Here's T.J. laughing in YOUR face ....

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

If one reads the real complete story of Moses getting those commandments, one will see that there were more than 10 of them and the tablets of stone had writing on both sides, too. AND they each had the same commandments on them.

Some people think taking the Lord's name in vain is but, the LORD's name is not used in English Translations, "LORD" is. LORD is substituted for the transliterated syllables of YHWH. Lord is "Adon" in Hebrew.

Jesus talked about using the LORD's name in Matthew and he said don't swear by anything. That means "Don't make a promise to do something in which you include YHWH as your witness" and "Don't include YHWH when you are asked to given an answer to a question." He said "Do not swear by anything on earth or in heaven. Let your yes be a yes and your no be a no."

Jesus allowed divorce; but, he said that if one remarried after being divorce, one committed adultery and if one married a divorced persosn, one caused that person to commit adultery. By literal interpretation, that means divorced and remarried people are adulterers and it is not a one-time sinful act.

the requirement that many would impose on Americans wishing to practice their faith, i.e., that in exchange for my religious liberty I must accept as a condition of inclusion in public discourse that all religions are equally true and equally good/bad.

That's merely a straw man because no one is advocating that. The idea for political discourse is to take the truth claims by ALL religions off the table. That doesn't mean that people give up their faiths. Nor does it mean that people stop using their faith as a basis for forming political positions. What it does mean that the PUBLIC arguments they make should not depend on any particular religion being true or false. And if it's not possible to defend or criticize Law X on purely secular grounds, then perhaps that law has no valid basis in a nonsectarian democracy.

Oh my. what we have here is the usual sophists delivering the usual sophistry. Not much has changed from this thread to the last or the next or the next. The same old tired arguments for the pointless nihilism of modern atheists.

How sad for them to live a life without purpose.

Adultery and Coveting Your Neighbor's Wife/Partner are not crimes ? Agreed, but they do serve as a basis for divorce and significant loss of income, alimony and child support payments. We will see how Tiger Woods tries to limit the effects of his adulterous ways in his "confession" scheduled for tomorrow.

Maybe he will declare himself to be a Muslim and then all women will become his "slaves". (well at least four of them).

"How sad for them to live a life without purpose."

-------

Oh we have a purpose ... debunking your bronze-age mythology at every turn!

Granted, it is child's play but very entertaining nontheless because you Theocrats just never seem to know when to quit!

salero21, you don't have to shout....

In response to both SkipSailing and the atheists, this issue isn't about either Christianity or atheism. Americans of any religion or no religion can appreciate and benefit from government neutrality on religious questions.

I have no problem tolerating the majority's beliefs. I think they are all entiled to go to the church of their choice and practce whatever form of what they call "Christianity" they wish.
That is assuming they really are the majority....
However, toleration of the "majority's beliefs" does not translate to permitting the majority to shove it down everyone else's throat.
What did we do that whole constitutioney thingy for? Wasn't it to assure ALL citizens are free from the tyrany of a single faction or group? How quickly that seems to be forgotten...
It appears Sylvia Allen and others are rebelling against the Tea Party. Does Sarah know about this?

Whenever I see stories like this, I really do wonder what part of "separation of church and state" many Christians have difficulty understanding.

I'm tolerant of other people's faith - what bothers me is that the Christians who insist that nothing is wrong with this actually aren't similarly tolerant. If you don't want to acknowledge the implications of the Treaty of Tripoli, that's really not my issue, but it is something that is woven into the foundations of the United States.

Because freedom of religion doesn't just mean the freedom to practice your religion - it also means freedom from having someone else's religion forced upon you in areas that should be neutral. Like, say, a court of law.

joe_allen_doty - "Jesus allowed divorce"????
Maybe you should actually read your New Testament.
Jesus was very clear about this. Divorce was not an option.
What strikes me as funny - both in the philosophical and in the fall on the floor laughing sense - is that Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexuality and said a great deal about the prohibition of divorce yet every single "major" "fundamentalist" church thinks divorce is AOK but is apoplectic about homosexuality.

Carstonio - "Americans of any religion or no religion can appreciate and benefit from government neutrality on religious questions."

HERE! HERE! Well said!!!!!

Agree 100%

it seems to me that only Christianity is under attack...
not Judism, Islam or Hinduism...
which is sad...
the ten comandments are the cornerstone of our laws and the way we are supposed to act...
not wanting them shown means that there should be no support for these laws...
deep down a person who doesn't believe in the 10 commandments is a deviate or pervert looking to do whatever he wants to and we all know society does not work that way...

The beginning of the 10 commandments from Exodus 20:

2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery;
3 Do not have any other gods before me.

Is that what our legal system is based on? No. Is it religious? Yes.

don't pretend you don't covet, dwightcollins!

by the way, several posters already have pointed out that only three of the ten commandments are codified in u.s. law, so i'll ask: are there any prominent legal systems that do not outlaw murder, theft, and perjury? i suppose the mosaic tradition is the cornerstone of japanese law?

and skipsailing, my purpose comes from unicorns. where do you get yours?

I disagree that the 10 commandments are the cornerstone of our laws. If you pay any attention to history you might see that the primary influences on our law were the Magna Carta, which had minimal religious influence and the Hammarabic Code, which was written by a pagan.
If you read the Federalist Papers I do not believe you will find a single reference to the 10 Commandments.
And, on top of all of this, a reading of the New Testament might inform you that Jesus says he has come to throw out the 10 commandments. He only mentions them in response to a question designed to entrap him and, in his answer, essentially says you only need to heed 2 of them (because if you heed those two everything else comes automatically).
In making the 10 commandments a fetish you trivialize everything about them.
Evangelism by coercion is no better than no evangelism at all.
If your God is so great why is he so dependent upon you defending him? Is your God that small? My God can stand on his own and I think he is more desirous of a Loving act than puffery.
It was the Pharisees, remember, who were all about public displays of piety - and they still are....

"deep down a person who doesn't believe in the 10 commandments is a deviate or pervert looking to do whatever he wants to ..."

-------

Hell Yes and even Moses can't stop us! Freedom baby, it's what's for dinner!

it seems to me that only Christianity is under attack... not Judism, Islam or Hinduism.

It seems only christianity is attacking the first amendment here.

And the only people who make these claims of yours about deviates and perverts are people who themselves are deviates and perverts, with only their fear of their sick perverted god keeping them in line.

The constitution was written and signed by people who came to America for the freedom to practice their numerous different religions, not the freedom to practice no religion. In this context, it seems to me the establishment clause was to prevent the government from favoring one specific religion to the detriment of the others. The ten commandments are part of the Judeo-Christian tradition which encompasses a number of different religions including at least 3 varieties of Jews and numerous varieties of Christians. The commandments may also be considered part of Islam since Mohammad professed belief same God of the Jewish and Christian prophets before him.
So it seems to me, that displaying the commandments certainly does not establish a single religion.
Unfortunately, the establishment clause is being twisted so that it effectively prohibits government acknowledgement of religion generically.

Each time this topic is brought up for discussion, the more and more I find that most citizens of this country either slept through history class; did not make it to school the day their teacher taught US History; and, quite possibly didn't understand what the teacher was saying; or they have just forgotten the lessons.

More likely it might even be "selective memory" that is the problem, but in my somewhat, old brain, I see to recall this:

Our country was NOT founded on Religion! The "Pilgrims" or more correctly, "Separatists" left England because the "Church of England" was forcing those church's beliefs on those who disagreed.

They left England for the very same reasons that the current Pentecostal, fundamentalist, evangelicals want to have GOD in our schools, in our government and any place else 'they' deem it appropriate, without regards to others feelings who do not believe or feel the same way.

To me, a group of people forcing any kind of ideology, or religion, and being told what to believe, how to believe, and when to believe, isn't any better than a dictator, a tyrant or Hitler and the Nazi's.

Our Revolutionary WAR was fought because:"

We were being taxed to death with imports/exports and the King and English Parliament would NOT allow us representation.

Remember in history class: "NO taxation, without representation"?

And, as long as we are talking about "US History" -

The words on our coins/currency "In God We Trust" were ordered by President Abraham Lincoln to be put on our money to remember those who fought and died in the Civil War.

And, as far as those words in the pledge of allegiance, "One Nation, Under God," I believe they were added in 1953 by some senator who thought it would be a good way to fight against Communism!

To Bruce18 and anyone else confused about our country's history:

You need to go back to school and study the history of this country.

This country was NOT founded on religion!

Where were you the day your US history teacher taught about the Separatists, and the reason for the Revolutionary War? They are two ENTIRELY different matters

The Separatists came here in 1620 because they disagreed with the teachings of the Church of England, the ONLY religion accepted at the time.

The 1776 Revolutionary War was NOT fought about religion, but about being taxed for goods and services without having someone in Parliament to represent the colonists.

Go find a good book on US history from a RELIABLE, well-established authority on the subject.

it takes a special kind of person to counter a charge of sophistry with sophistry, but hey, carstonio handles it with grace and aplomb.

Yes, the atheists see the imposition of christianity in everything we christians do. I have no idea how they survive with such a hypersensitivity.

Let's try some commonsense shall we? Is anybody actively discussing the imposition of a state religion? Is anybody actively pursuing a religious litmus test for Americans? Uh, no.

so what's all the blather boys and girls?

I can't wait to see what kind of spin job the sophists will use in response. This should be amusing.

What has the godless among us most upset, IMHO, is the fact that people of faith are no longer tacitly accepting the changes in our society that result from our willfull abandonment of religion. We're fighting back and we're winning too.

What also has the godless all wee wee'd up is the fact the religious among us are using the very same tools that they use. The godless seek to order society as they see fit. So do those of us who actually believe in god. So when a person of faith makes a position statement the godless, lacking any other response, runs to "this is just the imposition of your faith" or some such.

Perhaps it is. so what? For Example, my faith leads me to believe that abortion is wrong. So am I somehow prevented from advocating my position because doing so is tantamount to the imposition of religion? When the gays finally break their 0 for 31 record and gain an election victory, will that be the imposition of "no god"?

As I noted on another tiresome "there is no god" thread here, the godless are so small minded that some of them are actually seeking to stop the issuance of a stamp commemorating Mother Theresa.

angry, hypersensitive, small minded sophists. yeah, that's the ticket to an election majority, right?

Bruce18 wrote: "The constitution was written and signed by people who came to America for the freedom to practice their numerous different religions, not the freedom to practice no religion."

-----------

Hey Bruce,

Ever hear of Thomas Jefferson? Here's what he had to say about your proposterous claim:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. "

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Do you even know what the word infidel means? (Hint: It rhymes with Unbeliever)

Skip,

If government-sponsored religion is no big deal, why not just drop it altogether?

If it wasn't such a big deal, you probably would drop it but you won't drop it so it must be a big deal.

It's no surprise. Theocrats never think forcing their religion on others is a big deal.

Salerio asks:

“Where is the evidence? Where is the place, where God opened the waters of any Sea or river for any people to go across? Like He did for Israel.”

No kidding! Where is the evidence that He opened the waters for Israel? Most of the Israelis of today do not subscribe to such a myth and they would tell the likes of you that this story along with similar ones were written by Jews for Jews to control and unify their efforts.

...The godless seek to order society as they see fit.

The godless are only seeking protection from our constitution from turds like you. I don't know any atheists who are trying to order society, it is and always has been you christians pests trying to tell everybody else how to live. And when we don't listen, you try to legislate how everybody should live.

None of us are trying to stop you from being the religious person you ... ahem, claim to be. I could not care less what kind of stupid things you want to believe, just keep it out of my front yard and I'll have nothign to say about it.

ELA5 wrote:

"First off I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that the founding fathers would have laughed at the idea of freedom of relgion applying to religions other than judaism and christianity. I think they envisioned a country where everyone could worship whatever god they wanted without prejudice or harrassment."

And if you had a scintilla of evidence you would cite it. Read my first paragraph; the 1st Amendment was drafted solely in response to 3 centuries of European religious war. There was virtually no knowledge of any other religion; their foreign/unknown religion was Catholicism .

"As for the second part, no one has to personally accept that all religions are equally true or beneficial. What you, and the political leaders do have to accept is that the government, and in this I mean any government official acting in their official capacity, can not take a position on this matter. Once elected officials start ranking religions based on what they believe is true, and writing that ranking into law, the fundamental freedom to worship is threatened."

That may be what you want,but tough! The Constitution doesn't require it, (ask CJJR and company) and broad pluralism enfeebles the citizenry, and under-minds the Republic. We need Reality not blase indifferentism.

????

"salero21, you don't have to shout....Posted by: TOMMYBASEBALL | February 18, 2010 3:45 PM

THIS WOULD BE SHOUTING! Like in TOMMYBASEBALL OR THIS WOULD BE SHOUTING!

This is not. Tags for html can be used for easier reading. Which is my purpose for using Bold.

!!

Lepindop.,, wrote "Except for prohibitions against the ACTS of murder, theft, and perjury, the laws laid out in the Bible only apply to Jews and Christians. The rest of us aren't bound by them."

Wrong. Most states and in some instances the federal gov't given the ten commandment the force of criminal law, Ever hear of criminal adultery, criminal fornication, perjury... and those are the ones still on the books In days gone by one could be prosecuted for failure to attend Sabbath services, swearing, atheism, etc. Familial violence is something we still see in our criminal court daily.

Reading broadly is an excellent habit for those whose who possess intellectual deficits.

Freestinker |

You're quoting his autobiography, which he wrote after public life. Cite something he proposed for legislation. Or better yet, read the Britannica article on American Deism and the related bibliography.

SkipSailing,

First, I'm not an atheist because my answer to the question of whether gods exist is "I don't know." Your use of the word "godless" distorts the issue into a god-or-no-god one, wrongly framing it as Christianity versus atheism as if other religions didn't exist.

Second, there are indeed politically active people who favor a state religion in practice. As Eboo Patel explains elsewhere on this site (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2010/02/religious_rights_for_christian.html), WallBuilders advances the hateful argument that the First Amendment protects religious freedom only for Christians.

For Example, my faith leads me to believe that abortion is wrong. So am I somehow prevented from advocating my position because doing so is tantamount to the imposition of religion?

Third, I'm saying that in the political arena, arguments for or against legal abortion need to be secular and nonsectarian. One doesn't have to be a Christian to oppose abortion, and I've even encountered a couple of atheists who oppose it. There's also a tactical reason to keep the arguments secular - if you want to convince someone to oppose abortion and the person isn't a Christian, it doesn't make sense for you to use arguments that depend on belief in Jesus, as opposed to a one-size-fits-all nonsectarian argument.

I cannot emphasize enough that secularism and nonsectarianism do NOT equate to atheism. Religion isn't about society or government. It's about the individual and what he believes to be his meaning and purpose. Religion flourishes when the government doesn't choose sides among the sects. That's the only agenda here.

?? :-D

"No kidding! Where is the evidence that He opened the waters for Israel? Most of the Israelis of today do not subscribe to such a myth and they would tell the likes of you that this story along with similar ones were written by Jews for Jews to control and unify their efforts."Posted by: abhab1 | February 18, 2010 6:20 PM
-0-

No kidding! Really, how do you know that? Or are you posting on their behalf?

I really can't care less about what Most of todays Israelis subscribe to or not. They are not the example or Paradigm of a faith for me to follow. BTW you need to inform or educate yourself just a tiny bit better about who wrote what, when and where. Because the real Myth is yours adjudicating it to the Jews. But thanks anyways for reading my post.;-)

!!

Rossawhatever, don't like jefferson?
Try John Adams: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

People needs godly reminders sometimes especially when dealing with other people. The State Capitol is one good place to be reminded of such. Only the idiots would hate to see such good reminders. the Dems are a bunch of idiots that is why they cringe when they see God's reminders:

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

(Only an idiot don't believe in God. Even by mere common sense, you would know that there is a God.)

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

(Helping the poor or don't overwork your employees is the message of this commandment)

4. Honor your father and mother

5 You shall not murder

6 You shall not commit adultery

7 You shall not steal

8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

9 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

10 You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

These are such very good REMINDERS and it boggles the mind why the idiots go out of their way to block its display.

I don't think any other religion (Buddhist, Islam, etc) would be offended by these messages. ONLY IDIOTS WILL BE OFFENDED.

Parts of America will burn because of grave stupidity.

I disagree with the premise of this article that it has to be a simple yes it's legal, or no it's not. I much prefer shades of gray in this debate, because that's probably going to be a better way of dealing with these sorts of things moving. forward.

There is no formulation of the Ten Commandments for Protestants, and another for Catholics. (You totally ignored the Eastern Orthodox and the LDS,) Both versions are included in the Law of Moses. The more common is included in the historical narrative of Exodus, and the other is found in the legal codification of Leviticus. Posted by: rossacpa | February 18, 2010 9:53 AM

If there aren't different formulations of the Decalogue why do you refer to them as "versions"?

In what way is the story of Exodus "historical"? Are you not disturbed by the fact that there has never been any archeological or recorded Egyptian evidence corroborating this story?

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath.htm

What king of idiot uses the term "Judeo-Christian"? All the years I went to shul and I never heard it except in the disproof. Jews are monotheists who abhor the idea that G-d rapes women or that ritual cannibalism is at all acceptable. We also want to know when Torah changed the seventh day to the first. Sunday is not and never has been Shabbos.

Wow! Flashback to the 80s!

Didn't we bury this debate a generation ago?

Just mention "The Ten Commandments" and you'll rouse the interest of two groups who usually have little to do with each other:

(1) The antisemites who demand that everything that has anything to do with Jews or Jewishiness be hidden from public site, and

(2) A category of Jewish people who demand that anything that has any relationship withsoever to Jews or Jewishness be mediated by them FIRST.

Oh yeah? Which 10 are we talking about? Personally, I prefer Exodus 34:11-27:

11 Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you.

13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles

14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

15 You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice.

16 And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.

17 You shall not make cast idols.

18 You shall keep the festival of unleavened bread. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt.

19 All that first opens the womb is mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep.

20 The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.

No one shall appear before me empty-handed.

21 For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in ploughing time and in harvest time you shall rest.

22 You shall observe the festival of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the festival of ingathering at the turn of the year.

23 Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.

24 For I will cast out nations before you, and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year.

25 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning.

26 The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God.

You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.

27 The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.

People needs godly reminders sometimes especially when dealing with other people. The State Capitol is one good place to be reminded of such. Only the idiots would hate to see such good reminders. the Dems are a bunch of idiots that is why they cringe when they see God's reminders:

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

(Only an idiot don't believe in God. Even by mere common sense, you would know that there is a God.)

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

(Helping the poor or don't overwork your employees is the message of this commandment)

4. Honor your father and mother

5 You shall not murder

6 You shall not commit adultery

7 You shall not steal

8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

9 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

10 You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

These are such very good REMINDERS and it boggles the mind why the idiots go out of their way to block its display.

I don't think any other religion (Buddhist, Islam, etc) would be offended by these messages. ONLY IDIOTS WILL BE OFFENDED.

Parts of America will burn because of grave stupidity.

The problem with idiots reading a very intelligent book is they end up worse than before they read the wise book.

DonRitchie's comment above is a clear example.

Now, wait a sec champ! Read your Bible!

Moses got YOUR 10 commandments and came down the hill and all the Israelites were worshipping a statue of cow. Moses was like, "WTF!" and threw down YOUR tablets. And the Israelites were all, "Sorry dude." And Moses was like, "It's all good. I just go back up the mountain and get another set of tablets from God."

So, Moses went back up the mountain and came back down with new tablets with MY 10 commandments on them.

So what? You prefer God's first draft or something? You're smarter than God, huh? Sounds like you have your own Golden Calf issues...

Christians just like marking their territory. That's why only public displays will do.

This certainly stimulated a load of responses.
Suffice to say that the world is supposed to follow the 7 Noahide Laws and the Jewish people are required to follow the Torah which includes the Ten Commandments.
Beyond that, there's separation between government and religion; at least there is supposed to be.
Public prayer breakfasts and postings of the Ten Commandments are not exactly good examples of that separation.
Doc

spidermean2:

I was under the impression that you don't like the Catholic church too much. So why are you posting the abbreviated Catholic version of the 10 Commandments?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

In case you don't get the distinction, the Catholic version ignores the bit about "graven images", which is #2 in the Protestant version.

Only inbred crackers believe in the Ten Commandments..

The Supreme Court conservative majority consists of perverted child molesters.

SAY WHAT?!

The Catholic bible does not omit the idolatry parts of the 10 commandments!!!

Catholic American Bible, Exodus 20:4-5:

"You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth;

you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; "

NIV, Exodus 20:4-5:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,"

Catholic catechisms condense all the idolatry commandments into a single commandment - because otherwise the "10 commandments" as written in Exodus 20 is actually like 14 or 15 commandments.

There is no Catholic conspiracy to omit idolatry from the Bible!!! LOL

While the Ten Commandments are certainly religious in nature, does the posting of those words constitute an "establishment of religion"? That would clearly be a violation of the Constitution, but in my humble opinion, the mere words on government institutions by itself does not violate the US Constitution.

Cornbread.r2

I merely mentioned that the two statements of the Decalogue appear in two different categories of literature in the Pentateuch. I am comfortable with the term "historical narrative," because I know that almost any historiography would fail the rigorous demands we place on contemporary historians. Today's historians are duty bond to ensure each detail is accurate; previous generations used history primarily to create identity and meaning for the clan, nation,or group. Does this clarify your question?

DonRitchie:

If you referring to my post, I never claimed that it wasn't in Catholic bibles. Read my post again. You'll notice that I was referring to the "abbreviated version" of the commandments -- the abbreviated version that is taught in the Catholic catechism (as referenced). In the abbreviated Catholic version the bit about "graven images" -- the bit that is the second, separate, commandment in most abbreviated Protestant versions -- is not included.

Please also note that I have no interest as to why this discrepancy exists. I've been merely pointing out that that there are, in fact, different versions and that the version that is usually proposed for public buildings is not the Catholic version (among others). That would seem to contradict the claims of some Christians that they aren't trying to advance particular Christian denominations over others. If I were a Catholic, I would disagree.

I wonder which one of the following statements the idiots find horrible. For sane people it is worth repeating every minute.

1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.

(Only an idiot don't believe in God. Even by mere common sense, you would know that there is a God.)

2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.

3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

(Helping the poor or don't overwork your employees is the message of this commandment)

4. Honor your father and mother

5 You shall not murder

6 You shall not commit adultery

7 You shall not steal

8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

9 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife

10 You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Sorry Bruce 18. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison specifically rejected a proposal to substitute the phrase “Jesus Christ” for the words “Almighty God” in the first line of “The Virginia Act for Religious Freedom” (1784) Jefferson probably would have little to do with defending the content of Islam but plenty to say in favor of people having a right to practice it. He put out his sentiments with crystal clarity when he said “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Almost no member of the delegations that enacted the Declaration of Independence and/or the U.S. Constitution was born outside the country. They were of a generational quite removed from the religious pilgrims. The frieze on the Supreme Court building strikes an appropriate balance between these different contingents, Moses is depicted, but his tablets are blank.

"1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me."

Meaningless superstition; disregard.

"2. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God."

Do it all the time.

"3. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy."

Never do this.

"4. Honor your father and mother"

Are you kidding, have you met them?

"5 You shall not murder"

Thinking about doing this one.

"6 You shall not commit adultery"

Done this many times.

"7 You shall not steal"

This too.

"8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

Many, many times.

"9 You shall not covet your neighbor's wife"

Doing this right now.

"10 You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor"

Done this.

Good point about how churches don't put them up on their own property...

I really don't want to meander about any government property for any reason and feel like I'm living in some whacky theocracy. It's bad enough I have to worry about the pronouncements of Mullah Robertson, and his fellow travelers Limbaugh & Beck.

The fact is it's better if people keep their religious nuttery to themselves. That's why we have the establishment clause. It's so everyone gets to be right about whatever they want to think, and do, within the limits of our civil society.

People who want to plaster these things up in government spaces want to take away the freedom of others. That's the bottom line, and it's why they should not be allowed to do it.

The Bible tells us where to post the Commandments. Not in courthouses or public parks. It says: "Write them on the tablet of your heart." Prov. 7.3.

"The Bible tells us where to post the Commandments. Not in courthouses or public parks. It says: "Write them on the tablet of your heart." Prov. 7.3."

Ouch! I think I'll pass.

As someone else has posted, if these Christianists are so big on posting the Ten Commandments where anyone can see them, why don't they have them displayed on the front of their own churches, where there would be no issue in the slightest?

Does anybody rational really think that the Founding Fathers weren't aware of the reasons why many of the colonies were founded and how quickly several of the colonies that were explicitly founded to promote freedom of belief moved to deny freedom of belief to people who didn't believe the right way? It didn't take the Massachusetts Puritans long to start hanging Quakers.

"It just reinforces the validity of the Biblical prophecy that most democrat states will be nuked. Not only they are vulnerable by virtue of their location but they also have the attributes of stupidity like that of Sodom."

Um, you do know that the sin of Sodom was inhospitability and rape, right?

And you also know that Jesus was confronted with blatant homosexuality during His time in Judea, primarily from the ruling Romans. And He didn't bother to make one single statement condemning homosexuality.

But he did condemn divorce. Pretty strongly.

I assume you are going to follow His lead and condemn all your friends that are divorced, and lead the fight to deny them the right to remarry?

Fine article except for the first sentence. Why, why, why do writers have to continually conscript Jews into this far-right Christian army of soldiers? It wasn't enough that we should have been drafted by the Tsar at age 8 in the Old Country, that now we have to serve unwillingly in the fundamentalist Christian takeover of this country?

For the love of God, please, drop the Judeo-. There's nothing Judeo-Christian about what these religious radicals are doing. How can you use that word in this context? They're all Onward Christian Soldiers and I'm left wondering if there's any office in the Post's editorial department where I can apply for conscientious objector status as a Jew. Depending on your denomination of Christianity, we don't even have the same set of 10 commandments. They can talk about the religion of the majority and all that, fine, it's the majority, you can say that, but please don't force me to be part of it. It doesn't all become okay and constitutional because the wackos start calling it Judeo-Christian. And reputable writers like this one don't have to help them.

"As someone else has posted, if these Christianists are so big on posting the Ten Commandments where anyone can see them, why don't they have them displayed on the front of their own churches, where there would be no issue in the slightest?"

Because it's a power trip. They seem to be all about the forced public acknowledgement of their religion as having favored status by being placed prominently on government buildings.

Sad, really. Wouldn't their time and money be better spent, say, saving the lives of orphans in Africa that are dying from preventable diseases?

For the cost of one of these Supreme Court battles you could save, what, 5000 children in Africa?

I believe that posting the Ten Commandments on a govt building in effect, supports the establishment of one religion.

But what really chaffs is that most Christians do not have the Commandments posted in their own homes. For some bizarre reason many Americans think God will smile on the US if we have the trappings of following Biblican law, but Christians can behhave any way they want in their own homes.

Sorry. If you're a Christian you'd better believe God is smarter than that.

Even the laziest of scholars with a modest effort can quickly learn that the establishment clause was meant to prevent the government from choosing a given denomination as the official one. This was to avoid the kind of abuses the founders had seen in Europe, it was NOT to squelch religious displays or discussion in public venues.

The founders encouraged religous worhsip publicly and often. Their actions and words in this realm are voluminous.

There are those among us who wish to change the meaning of our constitution by simply redefining its words and phrases - and excuse themselves by saying it is a 'living constitution'. The constitution lives via the amendment process specified within, not by the creative writing of journalist and judges.

www.fact-index.com/t/te/ten_commandments.html

"Public monuments in the USA

There is an ongoing dispute in the United States concerning the posting of the Ten Commandments on public property. Certain conservative religious groups, alarmed by the banning of officially-sanctioned prayer from public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court, feel the need to protect their right to express their religious beliefs in public life. As a result they have successfully lobbied many state and local governments to display the ten commandments in public buildings. As seen above, any attempt to post the "Ten Commandments" on a public building necessarily takes a sectarian stance; Protestants and Roman Catholics number the commandments differently.

Secularist liberals oppose this, arguing that it is violating the separation of church and state. Conservative groups claim that the commandments are not necessarily religious, but represent the moral and legal foundation of society. Liberal groups counter that they are explicitly religious, and that statements of monotheism like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" are unacceptable to many religious viewpoints, such as atheists or followers of polytheistic religions.

Digression: (needs a better home than here.)

Contrary to popular belief, the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in no founding American document. The concept of a "wall of separation between church and state," is often interpreted as prohibiting religious expressions in public settings (schools, courtrooms, etc.). The phrase was first used by Thomas Jefferson in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Episcopal church in Virginia). His intention was to assure this religious minority that their rights would be protected from undue external interference.

Many religious Jews oppose the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, as they feel it is wrong for public schools to teach their children Judaism. The argument is that if a Jewish parent wishes to teach their child to be a Jew (as most do), then this education should come from educated and practicing Jews, and not from non-Jews.

This position is based on the demographic fact that the vast majority of public school teachers in the United States are not Jews; the same is true for the students. This same reasoning and position is also held by many believers in other religions. Many Christians have some concerns about this as well; for example, can Catholic parents count on Protestant or Orthodox teachers to tell their children their particular understanding of the commandments? Differences in the interpretation and translation of these commandments, as noted above, can sometimes be significant.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have launched lawsuits challenging the posting of the ten commandments in public buildings. Opponents of these displays include a number of religious groups, including some Christian denominations, both because they don't want government to be issuing religious doctrine, and because they feel strongly that the commandments are inherently religious. Many commentators see this issue as part of a wider kulturkampf (culture struggle) between liberal and conservative elements in American society."

"The founders encouraged religous worhsip publicly and often."

so what? although the issue at hand is framed as a constitutional question, should we really be concerned only with legality? the founders' intentions and beliefs are as subject to critical scrutiny as those of anyone else. there's a reason stirct constructionists tend to be religious fundamentalists: both approaches assume an outmoded text to emdody absolute truth (so there's little need for actual thought, leaving more time to erect ridiculous monuments). of course, there's little question that the constitution is far superior to the bible as the basis for a legal system, but that certainly doesn't mean it's perfect. nor were its authors. we've learned a lot in 200 years.

it was NOT to squelch religious displays or discussion in public venues.

How are you defining "public"? A key to the issue is not to think of "religion" as a monolithic entity, because it most certainly is not. A courthouse is for official government business, so a display there that endorses one sect or some sects implies an endorsement from government itself. With a town square, government need only stay neutral among the sects. It could comply with the First Amendment by prohibiting all religious groups from putting up displays on the square. But it also could comply by letting all those groups set up displays, as long as it didn't allow just some of them and not others.

Another key is that government and "public" are not the same thing. No one is saying that people can't talk about their faiths with their friends or on TV or on blogs. No one is saying that people of faith can't advocate for or against laws on issues important to them. The issue here is when they offer arguments for such laws based solely on sectarian beliefs. "Abortion should be illegal to protect innocent life" is a secular, nonsectarian argument. "Abortion should be illegal because my gods want it to be so" is a sectarian argument.

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
Ben Franklin. 'nuf said.

Lepindop.,, wrote "Except for prohibitions against the ACTS of murder, theft, and perjury, the laws laid out in the Bible only apply to Jews and Christians. The rest of us aren't bound by them."
Wrong. Most states and in some instances the federal gov't given the ten commandment the force of criminal law, Ever hear of criminal adultery, criminal fornication, perjury... and those are the ones still on the books In days gone by one could be prosecuted for failure to attend Sabbath services, swearing, atheism, etc. Familial violence is something we still see in our criminal court daily.
Reading broadly is an excellent habit for those whose who possess intellectual deficits.
Posted by: rossacpa

Criminal adultery? I've never heard of anyone being jailed in this country in modern times for cheating on hizzer spouse.

Criminal fornication? As long as everyone involved in a sex act is a consenting adult, and no money is being exchanged, it's legal. There are special circumstances where adults waive the right to consent - on active duty in the military, for example. Even those silly laws forbidding sex between same-sex consenting adults have been ruled unconstitutional. I know there are still laws on the books in some states forbidding certain organ/orifice combos, regardless of age, consent, gender or marital status, but they are not enforced, and the issue of oral sex between married cpouples is never addressed in the Bible.

In THIS day and age, one cannot be arrested for using names of deities as parts of profane expressions, even if those invectives are directed at one's parents. It's perfectly legal for me to tell my parents to take a g-d- flying f- at a rolling donut if I feel that their behavior warrants such an outburst. It's not legal for me to punch my dad in the face - that's assualt, and it goes way beyond disrespect. It's not legal for me to assault anyone, parent or not.

We need these monuments as reminders? Reminders? We don't need no stinking reminders. If you check the New Testament, you find that when Jesus was asked which of the laws was most important, he pointed out that ALL of the laws boiled down to loving God and loving one's neighbor. Would that apply to Jews? Jesus was a Jew speaking to Jews, so it certainly would. It obviously would apply to Christians. Actually, adherents of many other faiths would not find it inconsistent with their beliefs.
Most people can remember it without reminders. If you need the reminder, may I suggest a laminated card in your wallet? I'm sure someone supplies them.

Whose Ten Commandments are they? The Jewish (Masoretic) ones? And which Jewish ones? Exodus or Deuteronomy--they're different. The King James ones? They're not the same as the Jewish ones. I'm not familiar with the Catholic version, but it may be different, also. This is part of the problem you get into when you allow this on government property.

This is where the Democrats are wrong and I"m a Democrat but I'm a Christian first!

America was founded upon Christian Values, and if America ever leaves God behind, then...

..."ALL BETS ARE OFF...

..."Call unto me, and I will answer thee, "And Show thee Great and Mighty Things."
---Jeremiah 33:3

..."Let your hope make you glad. "Be patient in times of trouble..."And NEVER STOP PRAYING.
---Romans 12:12

..."I do...everyday...

Sincerely, Tommy Birchfield, Voter/Vet USAF,
Graduate STudent, Masters Program
Professional Studies,
EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
CLASS/2010.

Ask Georgia representative Lynn Westmoreland about the importance of the 10 Commandments! Stephen Colbert did: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/70730/june-14-2006/better-know-a-district---georgia-s-8th---lynn-westmoreland

Colbert: You have not introduced a single piece of legislation since you entered Congress.

Westmoreland: That's correct.

Colbert: This has been called a do nothing Congress. Is it safe to say you're the do nothingest?

Westmoreland: I, I, ..Well there's one other do nothiner. I don't know who that is, but they're a Democrat.

Colbert: What can we get rid of to balance the budget?

Westmoreland: The Dept. of Education.

Colbert: What are the Ten Commandments?

Westmoreland: You mean all of them?--Um... Don't murder. Don't lie. Don't steal Um... I can't name them all.

Which version of the ten commandments are they requiring? And, assuming they're going to be chiseled in English this time which translation will they use?

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. thou shalt not make an idol ( either
in your mind or with your hands )

3. Thou shalt not use the name of the
Lord in vain.

4. Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy.

5. Thou shalt honor thy mother and Father.

8. Thou shalt not murder

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery

8. Thou shalt not steal

9 Thou shalt not lie

10. Thou shalt not covet.

"1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Done that.

"2. thou shalt not make an idol ( either
in your mind or with your hands )"

Done that.

"3. Thou shalt not use the name of the
Lord in vain."

Done that.

"4. Thou shalt keep the Sabbath holy."

Never done that.

"5. Thou shalt honor thy mother and Father."

Never done that.

"8. Thou shalt not murder"

Thinking about doing that.

"7. Thou shalt not commit adultery"

Done that.

"8. Thou shalt not steal"

Done that.

"9 Thou shalt not lie"

Done that.

"10. Thou shalt not covet."

Doing that as I type.

"Why does the Constitution's prohibition of "establishment of religion" so often seem to conflict with its mandate of "free exercise of religion."?"

It doesn't unless you believe, as many secularists do, that the "establishment of religion" includes being influenced or inspired by religion. "Establishment" meant a national church with similar mandatory attendance requirements, control over marriage contracts, assigned aides and mandated religious instruction for political leaders and their families.
Such an "establishment" failed Europe's societies including its religions and governments. The founding fathers didn't want that, but they viewed the new country to be free to act and be inspired by religion.

This great from jpanzal:
1.Worship any god or none - your choice.
2.Blasphemy is permitted.
3.Do whatever you like on Sunday - shopping and football are encouraged.
4.Treat Mom and Dad however you like short of violence.
5.Don't murder. War is OK.
6.Adultery is OK, but risks alimony and child support.
7.Don't steal, unless you can afford lobbyists.
8.Lying is OK, unless under oath.
9.Covet whom you will (but see 6 above.)
10.Covet your neighbor's neat stuff - it's the basis of capitalism (but see 7 above.)

Gee, maybe our laws don't enforce the ten commandments as well as I thought. Maybe religious types want to change our laws so they do.

First of all these Xian nitwits aren't even aware that there are three damn versions of ten commandments not including the two that were brought down from the hillock by Musa. Another issue I ponder over, some times even sleepless nights, when did gentle & meek nazerene say "Hereunto forward, thou shalt observe sabath on Sunday, to rejoice in the fact that my father thought creating thee and the entire universe". I missed this completely during my education in catholic schools. Them catholic brothers in India did not know where it is in the new testament. In fact I got cained for asking such self evident questions. Lets not forget that the ten commandments are actually ten commandments of IMMORALITY. The first five are statements of a megalomaniacal leader commanding utter servility of his/her chattel. The next few don't fare any better. One says don lie about your kith and kin or tribesmen. But regarding the others outsiders it is ok. If you dont believe me you need to find proper explanation for the three words "against thy neighbor". The one about respecting the parents is so foul as to bribe the children with long life to take care of their parents. You fundies, the ten commandments are just as vulgar as Hammurabi's code.

The Ten Commandants aren't followed by christians. They just use them for intimidation, domination and control. I am so sick and tired of all these hypocritical christians screaming about their rights and never hear a whisper about their responsibilities.

Walk your talk or shut up! Can we mention Ted Haggard here and all the other Republicans caught with their knickers down with the boys!!!

The Supreme Court explained the relationship between the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the 1963 school prayer case, Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp.

Thus, the Amendment embraces two concepts -- freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.

The case that Arizona may have a majority of Christians is without value when it involves the government. In the same case, the SC said:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to . . . freedom of worship . . . and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

That seems pretty clear to me.