Well, this debate is going nowhere. Arguing over the constitution can be interesting, but it has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments monument.
To the people who believe the courts should be officially acknowledging a relationship with the Ten Commandments, put yourselves in someone else's shoes for a minute: how would you feel walking into a courtroom preparing to be judged and walking past a monument to the seven pillars of wisdom, the Vedas, or the religious doctrines of some South Pacific Island cannibal sect? Hopefully the spirit of the Lord would be there to help you through, because you are going to be outraged is the judge finds against you because he doesn't understand your beliefs. Since some people think it is a such good idea to profoundly integrate religion into our government institutions, what's to stop people from bringing in golden bulls, crescent moons, rising suns, totems and all the other stuff that goes along with organized religion into our instituions? Nothing. It's a free society, and if you are lucky enough to be in power you can do it. I will tell you why: because Americans appreciate living in a society where we do not need to be afraid of the kind of religious strife that goes on in places like Northern Ireland, India, Germany, Russia, etc. Our grandparents escaped from places like that, where there were pogroms, purges, ethnic cleansings, zealotry and codified religious laws to make life unbearable. The idea that the Ten Commandments is the moral basis of our laws is great, go ahead and tell me all you want how important it is to know them and how if you just follow what the good book says your life will turn out perfect. But don't tell me life will be better if we let a bunch of politicians (this judge is an elected official) put monuments up to their faith wherever they want. They, and whatever simpleminded head-in-the-sand blowhards choose to treat this BS like an issue, can move back to wherever their ancestors came from and enjoy all the religious strife that goes along with official recognition of a particular religion. But this is America, *everybody* is entitled to their own beliefs, and no one deserves to be put down because another religious denomination has its people in power. To those who think the monument is a good idea: Promoting one sect over another will only lead to chaos, the historical precedent to this point goes back several millenia, and, really, you should have learned all this before you got out of high school. Turn off the Fox News Channel, learn to read, and stop letting others think for you. M > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 11:42 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: 10 commandments > > > I repeat. THERE IS NO SEPARATION CLAUSE! The Bill of rights > is not LAW or even > part of the constitution, but is a statement of principle > giving rise to the adoption of the constitution and the > separation of the Untied States from England. > > None of the provisions in the constitution mandate a > separation of Church and state, only prohibits restrictions > by the state on the free exercise of religion and forbids the > establishment of a religion. The intent was to break away > from the Church of England (The Official religion of England) > > The use of the word 'GOD" in a monument, a pledge of loyalty, > or stenciled on the national currency, does not "establish > religion" nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof. > > In that context, the word "God" is used in acknowledgement of > a supreme being, for an English Speaking Nation. Others may > refer to their own supreme being as Yaweh, Allah, Lord, > Spirit, trees, inanimate objects or many other terms, > according to local custom none of which is mutually > exclusive. Still others are free to deny the existence of a > supreme being if they so choose. None have the right to > impose their belief system on others outside of their family, > or congregation. That said, the act of some which may honor > a supreme being, is not considered by any reasonable person > as the imposition of their belief system on others, should > the others choose not to adopt it. > > The term "Separation of Church and State" is a principle > adopted by the Supreme Court in early times of this nation, > and is not Law, in any sense, but is used as a guideline for > the court in its deliberations. The Justices are free at any > time to either follow the principle or deviate from it as > they may choose from time to time. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:20 AM > Subject: Re: 10 commandments > > > | At 08:12 AM 8/28/2003 -0500, you wrote: > | >There IS NO SEPARATION CLAUSE! > | > | > | >Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights > | > > | >Note: The following text is a transcription of the first 10 > | >amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These > | >amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what > is known as > | >the "Bill of Rights." > | > > | >Amendment I > | > > | >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, > | >or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the > freedom of > | >speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > | >assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of > grievances. > | > | By including the phrase under god to the pledge of > Allegience, by an > | act of Congress, this apprears to violate the separation clause in > | Amendment 1 of the Constitution. > | > | larry > | > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
