US Supreme Court rules on 10 Commandments

[Walt Sherrill]

What has slavery to do with this? It has to do with INTERPRETING the Constitution!

I thought all men were created equal? Clearly not the case. The Constitution said it and then immediately ignored it. On the other hand, show us where, in the Constitution, God is even mentioned. (Hint: He isn't.)

The Declaration of Independence, which is often cited in these discussions, isn't part of our legal system; the Constitution is. Using the Declaration as justification is no different than using other historical documents or letters from the time.

Some have argued, correctly, I think, that the writers of the Declaration had to say "God gave us these rights" -- as they were fighting a ruler who had been appointed by God. That's what DIVINE RIGHT RULERS like King George claimed, anyhow -- God gave them the job, and who were we to act up?! It was fight fire with fire or really get burned.

The only other mention of religion in the Constitution, except for the First Amendment, is a passing one, in stipulating that there shall be NO RELIGIOIUS TESTS for holding office. You'd think, if our Founding Fathers were so enamored of building religion into government, they'd make us profess our faith when we took office or accepted a government job, wouldn't you?

God and religion were clearly important to our Founding Fathers. Its clearly important to people, today. BUT IT IS NOT A DUTY OF GOVERNMENT TO PROMOTE RELIGION! That's your duty, and the duty of those who share your faith. Why do you want GOVERNMENT to do it for you?! What else do you want government to do for you?

If you're ever in a religious minority, you'll understand this better. And at the rate some groups and religions are growing in the US, you may see it before your die.

I don't want a public school teacher -- a government employee -- leading my kids in prayer or teaching my kids religious values. If those values are going to be so watered down as to be acceptable to everyone, they'll be meaningless, anyway.

Teaching these things are my job and your job and, if you go to church, the Church's job. Its not something to be left to a government employee.

 

[dev_null]

TE: Already more heat than light here.

 

[rock jock]

The big deal is that the Supreme Court sole responsibility is to interpret Constitutional law. There is NOTHING in the Constitution about seperation of church and state. The Constitution prohibits a state sponsored religion and guarantess freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. By ruling like this the Supreme Court has once again ignored the Constitutional law and ruled how they felt. This along with the land grab precedent they just set is the new legal reality we have to deal with. The rulings are not based on law anymore, its just made up by the S.C. judges.

+1

There is plenty of clear precedent for 200+ years on the separation of church and state (which exists as much to protect churches as for the disestablishment clause). To argue otherwise is to emulate the famous ostrich.

From http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9:

Therefore, if Jefferson’s letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given-as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson’s Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America’s history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter-words clearly divorced from their context-have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson’s Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson’s views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment.

For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the “power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy.

One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.

In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.

 

[neoncowboy]

My (admittedly simple) question about the whole thing is:

When a courthouse is built and the inscription of the 10 Commandments is inscribed in it's stone facade...how is this the same thing as Congress passing a law respecting the establishment of a religion? Congress doesn't pass laws to determine the courthouse construction design comittee's work.

IMO, the whole Jefferson 'wall of separation' has been GROSSLY distorted and taken out of context, hijacked by secularists in an attempt to absolutely remove God from all facets of public life. You're an atheist and don't want government to ever mention God? Fine, vote for atheist representatives, write them letters encouraging their platform of atheism.

That's what representative goverment is.

I'm a Christian and want my government to acknowledge, revere and awe God...as an American with representative goverment I believe I have that right.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Neon:

Do I have the same right to keep this guy on the walls too?

Would that be my right as a Hindu (not that I am, but for argument's sake)?

How about having Sharia law etched into the courtroom chambers? Would you feel like you were getting a fair shake with a Muslim judge, in a courtroom whose adornments were all Muslim?

Or would you also have the "right" to demand that your judge be of the same religion as you, and to hell with the whole "blind justice" and "rule of law" thing?

Courts are about enforcing the law. In this country, the law is based on reason, not on a belief structure. If you go on a chainsaw rampage in the middle of some coven's sabbat, you can't turn around, point to the 10 commandments on the wall, and claim "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" gets you off the hook.

Law. Not religion.

 

[neoncowboy]

Do I have the same right to keep this guy on the walls too?

That's a category fallacy.

I don't have the 'right' to a Christian government anymore than you have a right to a Hindu one.

What I have a right to is representative government. Or, government comprised of representatives chosen by the people, including me. Representatives who think like me, who share my values, who think of morality the same way, who see human nature as I see human nature and yes, who share my religion.

So, sure...if you can elect a majority Hindu government that then decides to adorn courthouses with images of (false) gods...I guess that's what a representative goverment is, one that looks like the people it represents.

But you can't...not in America anway. I can elect a majority of representatives who identify themselves as Christian, because our nation predominantly identifies itself as Christian. So how is the 10 commandments on a courthouse, prayer in school, prayer in congress or any other public/government acknowledgement of Christianity anything other than representative government?

 

[rock jock]

Good summary, neon.

 

[dev_null]

Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State


"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. 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 the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Thomas Jefferson, 01 Jan 1802


"From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:545


"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
-Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378


"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine."
-Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198


"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on ... the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science."
-Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281


"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination."
-Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425


"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1810. ME 12:345


"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another."
-Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78


"The advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from [the clergy]."
-Thomas Jefferson to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305


"The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."
-Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813. ME 14:21


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."
-Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119


"We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church."
-Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546

 

[R.H. Lee]

Each judge presides over his individual courtroom. He should be able to put up any damn thing he wants. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, unrestrained by the state. Not freedom from religion. See the difference?

 

[dev_null]

What God Has Put Asunder: James Madison Quotes On Church And State


Total Separation

"[T]he number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State."
–Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819


Three Pence Only

"t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties....Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"
–From the "Memorial and Remonstrance," 1785


Disproving The Old Error

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."
–Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821


Ye States Of America!

"Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitution or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions. Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt. in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."
–"Detached Memoranda," date of authorship unknown, estimated between 1817 and 1832


Teaching The World

"We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt."
–Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822


The Worst Of Government

"In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Govts. In most of the Govts. of the old world, the legal establishment of a particular religion and without or with very little toleration of others makes a part of the Political and Civil organization and there are few of the most enlightened judges who will maintain that the system has been favorable either to Religion or to Govt."
–Letter to Jasper Adams, 1832-1833 (date uncertain)


Freedom For Every Sect

"Having ever regarded the freedom of religious opinion & worship as equally belonging to every sect, & the secure enjoyment of it as the best human provision for bringing all either into the same way of thinking, or into that mutual charity which is the only substitute, I observe with pleasure the view you give of the spirit in which your Sect partake of the blessings offered by our Govt. and Laws."
–Letter to Mordecai Noah, May 15, 1818


No Intermeddling With Religion

"There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it, would be a most flagrant usurpation. I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom."
–Journal excerpt, June 12, 1788


Forbidding Everything Like An Establishment

The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion."
–"Detached Memoranda"


Torrents Of Blood

"Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease."
–"Memorial and Remonstrance"


Equality Of Rights For Sects

"Among the features peculiar to the Political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious Sect. And it is particularly pleasing to observe in the good citizenship of such as have been most distrusted and oppressed elsewhere, a happy illustration of the safety and success of this experiment of a just and benignant policy. Equal law protecting equal rights, are found as they ought to be presumed, the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country; as well as best calculated to cherish that mutual respect and good will among Citizens of every religious denomination which are necessary to social harmony and most favorable to the advancement of truth."
-Letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820


Religion Without The Aid Of Law

"The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from Civil Govt. and exempt from its cognizance; that a connexion between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast, which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or overheated maginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with toleration, is no security for public quiet & harmony, but rather a source of discord & animosity; and finally that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between Law & religion, from the partial example of Holland, to its consummation in Pennsylvania Delaware N.J. [etc.] has been found as safe in practice as it is sounds in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of independence it was left with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among now than there ever was before the change; and particularly in the Sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than, that the law is not necessary to the support of religion."
- Letter to Edward Everett, March 19, 1823


No Congressional Chaplains

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation."
-"Detached Memoranda"

 

[dev_null]

Other documents

Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797.

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ... "
- Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship
between The United States and the Bey and
Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797.


The treaty was written by Joel Barlow, negotiated during Washington's administration, concluded on November 4, 1796, ratified by the Senate in June, 1797, and signed by John Adams [2nd U.S. President] on June 10, 1797. Jefferson was Vice-President when the treaty was ratified and signed.

[I understand there is some controversy about whether this is a binding treaty. Nevertheless, regardless of whether or not it was ratified, it clearly shows the authors' intent.]



"I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. ... That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal,and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity... I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure... "
- Benjamin Franklin, on his deathbed



"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.

"The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation itself, and his own existence?

"There is a happiness in Deism, when rightly understood, that is not to be found in any other system of religion. All other systems have something in them that either shock our reason, or are repugnant to it, and man, if he thinks at all, must stifle his reason in order to force himself to believe them.

"Except in the first article in the Christian creed, that of believing in God, there is not an article in it but fills the mind with doubt as to the truth of it, the instant man begins to think.

"The truth of the first article is proved by God Himself, and is universal; for the creation is of itself demonstration of the existence of a Creator. But the second article, that of God's begetting a son, is not proved in like manner, and stands on no other authority than that of a tale.

"What truth there may be in the story that Mary, before she was married to Joseph, was kept by one of the Roman soldiers, and was with child by him, I leave to be settled between the Jews and Christians. The story however has probability on its side, for her husband Joseph suspected and was jealous of her, and was going to put her away. 'Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was going to put her away, privately.' (Matt. i, 19).

"The belief of the redemption of Jesus Christ is altogether an invention of the Church of Rome... "

[A person] "... may believe that such a person as is called Jesus (for Christ was not his name) was born and grew to be a man, because it is no more than a natural and probable case. But who is to prove he is the son of God, that he was begotten by the Holy Ghost? Of these things there can be no proof; and that which admits not of proof, and is against the laws of probability and the order of nature, which God Himself has established, is not an object for belief. God has not given man reason to embarrass him, but to prevent his being imposed upon.

"He may believe that Jesus was crucified, because many others were crucified, but who is to prove he was crucified for the sins of the world? This article has no evidence, not even in the New Testament; and if it had, where is the proof that the New Testament, in relating things neither probable nor provable, is to be believed as true?

"When an article in a creed does not admit of proof nor of probability, the salvo is to call it revelation; but this is only putting one difficulty in the place of another, for it is as impossible to prove a thing to be revelation as it is to prove that Mary was gotten with child by the Holy Ghost.

"Here it is that the religion of Deism is superior to the Christian Religion. It is free from all those invented and torturing articles that shock our reason or injure our humanity, and with which the Christian religion abounds. Its creed is pure, and sublimely simple. It believes in God, and there it rests.

"It honors reason as the choicest gift of God to man, and the faculty by which he is enabled to contemplate the power, wisdom and goodness of the Creator displayed in the creation; and reposing itself on His protection, both here and hereafter, it avoids all presumptuous beliefs, and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.

-Thomas Paine, OF THE RELIGION OF DEISM COMPARED WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION (excerpted)

 

[stonewall34]

Does the heart good to see so much quoting of the founders in this discussion (particularly Madison). That being said I believe that the original intent of the founders was for the government (particularly the national branch) to be absolutely neutral in matters of religion. The danger in giving preferential treatment to any religion is that that religion can have an inordinate amount of influence over policy. The founders were influenced by the example of the excesses of the state-sponsored religions in Europe. They wanted to avoid this excess and to allow each person to decide what religion if any they wanted to practice. The danger to me is when groups attempt to restrict the ability of religious people to practice their religion as they see fit on their private time and in their private lives. This is where I totally disagree with the stand of some on how religion should be practiced. If you don't like what's being said in a private discussion LEAVE don't force someone to conform to your beliefs simply because you disagree with them. As to religion in the schools I know I am very uncomfortable with someone not of my persuasion teaching my child how to pray some watered down prayer and forcing them to say it. My wife and I have solved this problem by sending our daughter to a private Christian school where she can be taught by people who largely believe as we do. If we simply allow all people to practice their religion as they see fit we would not have half the problems that we do today. Also as Jefferson said we should allow religious discussions to be conducted in a reasoned rational way and allow each person to decide on their own, after all the gospel of Christ is not meant to be forced down people's throats it is a decision one can only make on their own and after careful consideration of what they believe.
Stonewall34

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Each judge presides over his individual courtroom. He should be able to put up any damn thing he wants. The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, unrestrained by the state. Not freedom from religion. See the difference?

Then you wouldn't mind the 11 Satanic laws being in a courtroom either? What about the 5 pillars of Islam?

If you read the case, this is not a ban of the 10 commandments, it is a regulation. In other words, all or none. Thankfully, you don't have freedom from religions other than Christianity, nor do I. If you are going to show ancient laws, then play homage to all of them, religious or not. This is the reason why the 10 on the wall of the SCotUS is not in violation.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Then you wouldn't mind the 11 Satanic laws being in a courtroom either? What about the 5 pillars of Islam?

Nope, because any judge that displayed those would be considered a quirk and an oddball. After all, that judge does have 'freedom of expression' also. What about his 1st amendment rights?

 

[Glock Glockler]

If you are going to show ancient laws, then play homage to all of them, religious or not

Why, necessarily, would you show homage to all laws? Though it takes the exercising of a value judgement I would hope that one would pay homage to good and productive laws. Not all law is created equal.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

^^^^^^

Maybe I should have stated historically significant laws.

 

[RevDisk]

Nope, because any judge that displayed those would be considered a quirk and an oddball. After all, that judge does have 'freedom of expression' also. What about his 1st amendment rights?

The Judge checks some of his 1st amendment rights at the door when he dons the black robes. This is called "professionalism". Sadly, not all judges do so. But justice is supposed to be equal.

I could care less if someone considers my religious beliefs quirky or odd. Attempting to use state sponsored coersion is a dual edged sword when it comes to religion. I've seen many Christians get bent out of shape when it comes to the 10 commandments.

There are many different sects within Christianity, and apparently not all of them get along. I'd find it darkly amusing to see a zealot of one sect get slammed by a zealot judge of another sect. If one pushes for more religion in government, expect to see it. Be careful what you wish for, my friends, you may just get it.

But you can't...not in America anway. I can elect a majority of representatives who identify themselves as Christian, because our nation predominantly identifies itself as Christian. So how is the 10 commandments on a courthouse, prayer in school, prayer in congress or any other public/government acknowledgement of Christianity anything other than representative government?

What you're trying to do is argue the side of the anti-gunnies. (See, I can make this related to RKBA!) We are a Constitutional Republic. 51% of the population cannot vote away the rights of the other 49%. We are a representative democracy except when it comes to civil rights. They are off-limits to all but a Constutitional amendment.

If 51% of the country is Christian, that does not make this country a Christian theocracy. Again, the 51% can TRY to make this beautiful country into a theocracy. But that's why the Second Amendment exists.

 

[gc70]

Some very interesting quotes have been cited in which many of the Founding Fathers spoke eloquently against mixing church and state. Nevertheless, the Founding Fathers found no inconsistency in personally invoking the deity within a governmental context.

Below are excerpts from the first five Presidents' inaugural addresses, in which they invoke the deity.

George Washington

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

John Adams

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.

Thomas Jefferson

And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

James Madison

But the source to which I look or the aids which alone can supply my deficiencies is in the well-tried intelligence and virtue of my fellow-citizens, and in the counsels of those representing them in the other departments associated in the care of the national interests. In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future.

James Monroe

Relying on the aid to be derived from the other departments of the Government, I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.

The hallmark of the above quotes is that the five Presidents invoked the deity in a marvelously non-sectarian way. Maybe they just understood the whole diversity/sensitivity thing better than we do today.

 

[RevDisk]

The hallmark of the above quotes is that the five Presidents invoked the deity in a marvelously non-sectarian way. Maybe they just understood the whole diversity/sensitivity thing better than we do today.

Possibly because a number of the Founding Fathers were deists and/or unitarians.

 

[dev_null]

I would appear that by and large people fall into one of two camps on this issue: for displaying the Decalog in secular governmental edifices, and against doing so.

From what I've observed, people who are against it come from all different religious backgrounds, from atheist to polytheist to agnostic to devout members of various Jewish, Christian and other major world religious sects.

People who are adamantly for it, on the other hand, seem to come almost exclusively from only one religious group: Protestant Christian.

That in itself seems to me to speak volumes about whether this is indeed a secular issue or one of advancing the opinions of one group at the expense of others'.

All standard disclaimers apply.

- 0 -

BTW, someone explain to me again how all this is gun-related?

 

[neoncowboy]

If 51% of the country is Christian, that does not make this country a Christian theocracy.

:shakes head:

Is it not amazing to anyone else here that the 10 commandments, which are historically significant as the foundation of our modern law, being etched on courthouses is likened to 'Christian theocracy'?

We don't expect or want a Christian theocracy.

That's not what it is when we ALLOW Christians to participate in the leadership and direction of the nation.

It is just a shame to me that 'separation of church and state' has taken on the perverse, extreme, ridiculous characteristic that it has...where we can't have the 10 commandments etched on buildings anymore. As if acknowledging our nation's being founded on those very principals somehow tramples people's civil rights.

:banghead:

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Is it not amazing to anyone else here that the 10 commandments, which are historically significant as the foundation of our modern law, being etched on courthouses is likened to 'Christian theocracy'?

You misspelled Hammurabi's Codes.

 

[RevDisk]

Is it not amazing to anyone else here that the 10 commandments, which are historically significant as the foundation of our modern law, being etched on courthouses is likened to 'Christian theocracy'?

Depends on the circumstances.

If the 5 pillars of Islam, 10 commandments, Wiccan Rede and Code of Hammurabi are equally etched, we have a republic.

If the 10 commandments are etched and no others are allowed, I'd say that'd be totalitarian, theocracy or oligarchy depending on your opinions.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Hey Rev, don't forget my elephant-nosed god!

Throw Thoth in as well - maybe Hermes -- it seems our judges need all the help they can get nowadays.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Is it not amazing to anyone else here that the 10 commandments, which are historically significant as the foundation of our modern law, being etched on courthouses is likened to 'Christian theocracy'?

Please explain how the 10 Commandments are the foundation of our modern law...

I hear this a lot.

It was my understanding that our legal system was based strongly on English common law -- which is many, many generations of tried and true practice -- and statutory law, which has NOTHING to do with the 10 Commandments.

Perhaps I have missed something -- it wouldn't be the first time.

The Supremes called the Kentucky lawmakers on this point, too, by the way. They said the lawmakers made the assertion, but didn't substantiate it. If its true, you should be able to do so and find the evidence.