Biblical monument redux

Washington Times ^ | 1/20/04 | AP

[kattracks]

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) — A City Council member who says he was inspired by Alabama's ousted chief justice placed a 1-ton granite monument to the Ten Commandments in front of City Hall yesterday while it was closed for the Martin Luther King holiday.

[orionblamblam]

>"This display is intended to acknowledge the undeniable role that the Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights have played in developing the American legal tradition,"

Ummm... do they have a similar display acknowledging the undeniable role that the pre-Christian European legal tradition (roman and Norse/Germanic) have played in developing the American legal tradition?

[MrJingles]

orionblamblam: Since Jan 8, 2004

Uh-oh, this isn't looking good...

[MrJingles]

As much as I hate to admit it, I think the atheists/pagans are right. The 10 Commandments is (at least interpreted as) a religious symbol, and thus has no place on government property.

As a born-again Christian, I wouldn't want some Buddah idol or a copy of the Koran in my local courthouse.

I think the solution, though, is not restricting religion, it's restraining government. Prayer in schools wouldn't be a problem if the Government wasn't in the education business.

[DesertSapper]

Your logic is a bit flawed. Neither the teachings of Buddha nor of the Koran had anything to do with our current legal system. The Bible/Torah and its 10 Commandments did.
The 10 Commandments are much, much more than a religious "symbol". Though a critical foundation for Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam (they are mentioned), these devine rules are the basis for secular law in 1/3 of the world.
Don't buy into the warped pseudo-logic of the anti-Christian, anti-establishment, amoral left.

[DesertSapper]

An A.R. Editorial
WHY SHOULDN'T WE KILL?
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent
Los Angeles, Calif.

Civilization sprang from law, and while there may have been earlier ones, the 10 Commandments - known to Jews as the Ten Declarations - pre-date Islam by 2,100 years, Christianity by 1,400 years, Confucianism by 850 years, and Buddhism by 775 years. They are the first Law of modern civilization, and while there may be a degree of religious and academic controversy about which version of these laws represents which religion, those differences are not carved in stone.

Moreover, there is a fundamental fact about the 10 Commandments: They are the reason we are a civilized people. For that reason alone, they do not merit exclusion from public places unless it is because they acknowledge the existence of God, as the Declaration of Independence also does, and to do so on that grounds is unconstitutional as a prohibition of religious expression - unless it is also unconstitutional to exhibit the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives and to teach it in our schools.

The 10 Commandments are the foundation of Western law, just as the Preamble (which is excluded from consideration as part of the Constitution but is very much part of it) is the foundation stone of the United States government. Even in Judaism, which recognizes 613 such commandments, or mitzvot, each of those is also recognized as a subdivision of the 10 that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai The U.S. Constitution expressly permits the free practice of religion and expressly prohibits the establishment not of religion but of a religion. Therefore, anything construed as "establishing" a religion is tabu under the law, but no expression of it may be forbidden. The 10 Commandments belong to no religion, but to a religious tradition that must have a place of honor in American life..

An attorney cannot be forbidden to recite the Koran (which precisely reiterates all 10 commandments in Quranic verse) or the Bible or the Lotus Sutra in any courtroom should it otherwise be relevant when it is his or her right to speak in a courtroom, and no defendant can be sanctioned by any American court for invoking his or her religious belief as the basis for his conduct in a criminal action. It is in the mere scholarly and technical sense that the wording of the 10 Commandments are a preference of one religion or another, yet they are a fundamental expression of religious practice that may not be inhibited by courts.

The commandment "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not kill" is the sole basis for any penal code section concernng homicide, and "Thou shalt not steal" is the sole basis for penalizing theft and robbery. Why, otherwise, would we not freely kill, and freely steal? Indeed, that is a right under Islamic law under certain circumstances, yet even that law says "If anyone has killed one person it is as if he had killed the whole of mankind." We permit people to kill others in self-defense - and so does the Old Testament. We kill at war and we kill at peace. So if we are otherwise free, what basis would our laws have to deny us the right to kill when we please? There are tens of thousands of laws that would be without an anchor unless the code of conduct that guided the development of Western and Middle Eastern civilization was present in them.

It is not trivial that a President swears his oath of office upon a Bible and uses the words, "so help me God." Even the United States Supreme Court begins its daily exertions only after hearing the declaration, "May God save this Honorable Court." U.S. currency proclaims "In God We Trust" because expressing our religious beliefs cannot be prohibited by law. These expressions of belief do not establish a religion.

The 5,300-pound block of granite containing the 10 Commandments located inside the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Ala., is a protected expression of religion, and it moreover is an important and historic statement relevant to every law considered by the court. It is a document of Western civilization, of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and of America's profound acceptance of a Creator who orders our lives and destinies. The commandments are laws that no one is forced to obey, and indeed our criminal courts are clogged with those who freely reject them. Our courts must not.

[Junior]

The guy has a point: trial by jury is a pre-Christian concept, for instance. Just because he's been a Freeper for a little more than a week his opinions are suspect? I've been a Freeper for more than five years. Are my opinions suspect?

[orionblamblam]

>Uh-oh, this isn't looking good...

How so?

[orionblamblam]

>trial by jury is a pre-Christian concept, for instance

As are a great many othjer things basic to our system. it basically works out like this: our system of laws is based on English Common Law. English Common Law was based on Saxon Common Law. Saxon Common Law predates the Christianization of the Saxons by several hundred years. To quote: letter to Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law...This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians...".

>Just because he's been a Freeper for a little more than a week...

Well... rather longer, actually. Got booted off a year or so ago. Hmm. Got booted off a year or so ago, *just* *after* pointing out that the American legal system is based on pre-Christian common law... maybe I should say my goodbyes now...

[orionblamblam]

>The 10 Commandments are much, much more than a religious "symbol".

"Thou shallt have no other gods before me."

Uhhh... where can I find that in the Constitution?

The ten commandments is actually pretty lean on things that would make up the basis of a system of laws. Don't murder, don't steal, don't purjor yourself (but it's hardly alone in being against these things).

After that, it gets rather fuzzier... committing adultery is clearly not a good thing, but it's arguably not something the government should be concerning itself with; and not covetting your neighbors stuff? That's downright anti-capitalist and unAmerican, dagnabit!

Don't make paintings/sculptures of gods, men or critters... well, there goes most of art. Remembering the sabbath is again not something the government gets involved with to the point of arresting those who don't, nor is there anything in the legal code that punished those who don't honor their parents.

Shouting "Jehovah" after whacking your thumb with a hammer won't get you sent to jail.

[The_Eaglet]

Campaign finance initiative fails to make ballot -Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 39

[orionblamblam]

> They are the first Law of modern civilization

What about the code of Hammurabi?

>the Preamble (which is excluded from consideration as part of the Constitution but is very much part of it) is the foundation stone of the United States government

Uhhh... no. That would be the Constitution. For the first several years, the US ran under the Articles of Confederation, and they didn't work out; the founders retooled and came up wioth the Constitution, which has worked well ever since. The Declaration was NOT a foundation for a form of government; it was what it was... a declaration of independence.

The Ten Commandments are what they are. Claims that they are what they are not diminishes them.

[Modernman]

Mr. Robinson said he had no authorization to place the monument on public property

Then what gives him the right to do this? At least Judge Moore could argue that, as Chief Justice, administration of the courthouse was his responsibility.

This guy is just grandstanding.

[orionblamblam]

> Then what gives him the right to do this?

The same right *you* have to put, say, a monument to Wendell Wilkie in the courthouse of your choice. And that right is enumerated in, um....

Errrr.....

[MrJingles]

Neither the teachings of Buddha nor of the Koran had anything to do with our current legal system.

Neither is the Bible. Our legal system is derived from English Common Law, which in turn was derived from Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which pre-dates the spread of Christianity into Germania.

Just because our system shares certain basic rules with the Old Testement does not mean that the former came from the latter. All advaned civilizations have established that theft and murder shoudn't be allowed, if only because the presence of such is not conducive to social stability.

Also, the 10 Commandments/American Law parallels are pretty slim. Our laws (for the most part) only enforce 2.5 of the 10 Commandments. (As they should.) Stealing and Murder are illegal, as is bearing false witness, but only when under oath. When's the last time you saw someone charged with not keeping the Sabbath? Or taking the Lord's Name in vain? Or for not honoring their parents?

2.5 out of ten is not evidence of a strong link.

[MrJingles]

When I see a newbie posting statements that will inspire (how should I put this?) a "robust" reaction from cetain members of this community, I instantly assume: "disruptor" or at the very least, "flame-bait."

I suppose the fact that Orion is still around detracts from this notion.

I apoligize.

(At least I never bet on baseball.)

[D Rider]

It is no longer about the 10 commandments religious or otherwise. It is now about the courts circumventing our laws and the rights of the people through their elected lawmakers, by a bunch of appointed oracles from on high.

Come the revolution, come the revolution! Using the ten commandments to flip the bird. Hmmm...

[orionblamblam]

>a newbie posting statements that will inspire ... a "robust" reaction from cetain members of this community

"This community" agrees on certain things, disagrees on others... and to conclude that someone takes one of the alternate positions does not make him *not* a member of "this community."

The facts are what they are; and the facts are that Saxon common law had a far broader and deeper impact on the formation of American law than the Ten Commandments... of which only two (don't kill anyone who didn't have it coming, don't take stuff that ain't yours) have any real bearing on American jurisprudence. And even with these two, the 10C are hardly unique.

So... why not simply hang a sign above the Judge that reads, "Don't murder and don't steal?" If you think that the 10C will ahve some special impact... consider the popularity of graven images.

Many people are convinced that there is an assault on Christianity, and that taking the 10C out of courts is a part of it. What was that Cromwell line... "I beg you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be wrong."

[NutCrackerBoy]

Saxon common law had a far broader and deeper impact on the formation of American law than the Ten Commandments.

Granted, the history of common law is of under-appreciated importance, and you allude to aspects of history not usually commited to monuments. Still, yours is essentially a technical argument. That the Ten Commandments form a basis and frame the legitimacy of the laws of men in Western Civilization is beyond question. To hold that it is an unfit subject for commemoration is ludicrous.

[orionblamblam]

> That the Ten Commandments form a basis and frame the legitimacy of the laws of men in Western Civilization ..

*A* basis, not *the* basis. Men of Western Civilization were getting along just fine with their own successful system of laws long before the 10 C showed up on their particular scene. Western civ is *not* the story solely of Judeo-Christianity, but the story of everything from ancient Egypt through Greece, Rome, the Germans, Franks, Britons, Celts, Norse and more... none of whom were Christian when they made their biggest marks. Christianity is a fairly late development in terms of western civ.

> To hold that it is an unfit subject for commemoration is ludicrous.

Huh. And where did I say that, again? And do you hold the Havamal in equal importance in terms of commemoration down at City Hall?

[NutCrackerBoy]

Western civilization has many roots, as you point out. But what is left of its current ascendancy and form and meaning if you subtract out the Christian line of tradition? Not much.

The Ten Commandments monuments have great meaning for the reasons stated in the article. You agree it to be a worthy subject for commemoration. So your entire point is they missed an opportunity to educate us on the non-Christian aspects of our history?

[orionblamblam]

>But what is left of its current
ascendancy and form and meaning if you subtract out the Christian line of tradition?

Most of it, actually. The introduction of Christianity to western Europe came at the dawn of the dark Age; the Dark Age began to abate and become the Rennaissance as the pre-Christian pagan concepts of science and reason began to reassert themselves.

> You agree it to be a worthy subject for commemoration.

In the right place. Like, say, your home, your church, your car, your t-shirt. But using a government facility to project the 10C as the basis of Western Civ is not only factually erroneous, but morally repugnant. In other discussions it has been pointed out that, say, the Library o'Congress has carvings of Odin, Athena, Thoth and other gods of wisdom/learning on them... but the difference is, those who put these carvigns in place had no intention, expectation or desire to see people convert to, say, the old Egyptian faith. With the 10C, though...

[NutCrackerBoy]

Your conception that the Christian line of tradition has little to do with our current ascendancy, form, and meaning demonstrates a lack of understand of what makes a civilization work. You subtract out the sense of moral purpose, the structure within which intricacies of behavior occur, and somehow imagine that the same achievements will be realized? Ridiculous.

We honor the commitment to a greater moral power, but the purpose of Ten Commandments momuments for you is conversion?? Oy vey.

[orionblamblam]

No, you're wrong. The "sense of moral purpose" existed long before the Europeans encountered Christianity. What's ridiculous is the belief that all peoples arebasically unmotivated, immoral and uncultured barbarians unless they've accepted some particular god.

> We honor the commitment to a greater moral power, but the purpose of Ten Commandments momuments for you is conversion??

In this circumstance, it's clearly a "neener-neener' to the vile nonbelievers... or at least a "look how holy *I* am!"

[NutCrackerBoy]

The "sense of moral purpose" existed long before the Europeans encountered Christianity.

Great! I agree. I would go on to say Judaism and Christianity have uniquely informed it for us, but we agree (I think) that unifying moral purpose is a key ingredient to civilization. The telling form that it has taken for us is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Ten Commandments embodies it. The previous history is somewhat incidental, as I have been saying. But this fails to explain what your problem is with honoring it.

In this circumstance, [a Ten Commandments monument is] clearly a "neener-neener' to the vile nonbelievers... or at least a "look how holy *I* am!"

You're hallucinating.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Don't make paintings/sculptures of gods, men or critters...

Something the Taliban took seriously when destroying the Buddhas.

[orionblamblam]

> The previous history is somewhat incidental

Uh-huh. The Ten Commandments were introduced to a bunch of cro magnons in Europe, and BLAMMO, the Bill of Rights.

>your problem is with honoring it

Sigh. How can I respond to you in a way that won't come off as an insult? Given your repeated efforts at twisting my clearly stated views, I'm not sure how.

[orionblamblam]

Much more so than your average crucifix wearin' True Believer. I find it odd the way some of the 10C have been interpretted. My personal favorite is the "no other gods before me" bit. So... who are these *other* *gods*? Seems the dogma has changed a wee bit since then...

[orionblamblam]

So long as you're editting my comments, please try to edit them *accurately*:

In this circumstance, [a Ten Commandments monument placed without permission on government property by a government official looking to win an election is] clearly a "neener-neener' to the vile nonbelievers... or at least a "look how holy *I* am!"

[NutCrackerBoy]

I apologize for misrepresenting your comments. I assumed that you referred generally to any placement of a Ten Commandments monument in a public place. (I suppose it wouldn't really be a monument if it was in a private place).

[NutCrackerBoy]

The previous history is somewhat incidental... -NutCrackerBoy

The Ten Commandments were introduced to a bunch of cro magnons in Europe, and BLAMMO, the Bill of Rights.

I take your statement to be ironic. Look, it willfully misunderstands the meaning of such monuments to liken them to the monolith in the film 2001, A Space Odyssey. Moses and the tablets, depending on your point of view, it doesn't matter, is either mythology or religious truth. Either way, they have a profound meaning in our culture. You haven't given any reason I can accept that the Ten Commandments is not suitable for a monument. Is it a church-state separation thingy for you?

[orionblamblam]

> You haven't given any reason I can accept that the Ten Commandments is not suitable for a monument.

No, I haven't. But then... I haven't given you a reason why cats are btter than dogs or why butterscotch is beter than chocolate or why we should be allowed to drag 50-foot long chains behind our cars. I have not given these reasons because *they* *aren't* *under* *debate*...and neither is the idea of the worth of a 10C monument *in* *general*.

This has been pointed out to you.

[NutCrackerBoy]

In Post # 2 you said:
Do they have a similar display acknowledging the undeniable role that the pre-Christian European legal tradition (roman and Norse/Germanic) have played in developing the American legal tradition?

In Post # 22 you said:
Using a government facility to project the 10C as the basis of Western Civ is not only factually erroneous, but morally repugnant.

I am trying to get you to to explain yourself. But you seem to back off from positions implied by these statements with a dodge that we are not talking about the worth of a 10C monument *in* *general*.

[orionblamblam]

> I am trying to get you to to explain yourself.

"Using a government facility to project the 10C as the basis of Western Civ is not only factually erroneous, but morally repugnant."

Note the words "GOVERNMENT FACILITY," which is what this has all been about. Your attempts to make this an issue about the 10C in general are just kinda lame.

[Junior]

My personal favorite is the "no other gods before me" bit. So... who are these *other* *gods*?

The line also implies that it is acceptable to worship other gods so long as God takes top billing.

[Junior]

BTW, most Protestants wouldn't be caught dead wearing a crucifix. They might wear crosses, but it's we Catholics who sport crucifixes...

[NutCrackerBoy]

Your attempts to make this an issue about the 10C in general are just kinda lame.

Not guilty.

Why is it morally repugnant for a government facility to honor the Ten Commandments? I apologize in advance if I have over-generalized your position. Please correct in that case.

[orionblamblam]

>Why is it morally repugnant for a government facility to honor the Ten Commandments?

Wow. You are THE KING of strawman arguements. Compare what you wrote above to what I wrote below:
"Using a government facility to project the 10C as the basis of Western Civ is not only factually erroneous, but morally repugnant."
See the important differences?

[Taliesan]

You're imposing a Western and analytical parse of syntax onto a Hebrew idiom.

Original intent. The commandment means whatever it meant to the writer and those to whom it was first addressed. That "line" didn't mean to the Jews, ever, it was "acceptable to worship other gods as long as God takes top billing."

That's the penumbra you're seeing there, pardner.

[orionblamblam]

Also interesting is that the 10C do *not* prohibit lying, just "bearing false witness." Basically, perjury. So, on just *that,* Bill Clinton is damned...

[orionblamblam]

> You're imposing a Western and analytical parse of syntax onto a Hebrew idiom.

Just a few days ago I heard a radio interview with the editor of a new book (something like "The Annotated Hebrew Bible," a scholarly work) who pointed out that the "no other gods" meant quite literally that you were to put Jehovah first, NOT that there were no other gods.

[NutCrackerBoy]

You are THE KING of strawman arguements.

Guilty as charged. But help me out, please.

Let's assume someone in charge of a government facility places a Ten Commandments monument in it. They are "using a government facility to honor the Ten Commandments", yes? But are they "Using a government facility to project the 10C as the basis of Western Civ"? Whether or not it is morally repugnant depends on their intent in placing the monument? I think I understand the intent, and I do not find it morally repugnant.

I am honestly trying to puzzle out what statement you want to stand by, and why.

[Taliesan]

There is always a scholar to say anything.

Think about it: it would be an island of sentiment in a sea of contradictory data. Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, any HINT of a relationship with any other god was considered an abomination.

Could you seriously argue that any other figure in the OT canon, including the author(s) of the Pentateuch, took up or preserved the "original" shade of interpretation? That, apparently, as soon as it was uttered or transcribed the "true" meaning was submerged beneath -- not just a variant tradition -- but one antithetical and hostile to the original? All this, without the persistence of even a thread of the now minority school?

Are we to believe the entire Jewish tradition developed in a direction contradictory to the meaning of THE foundational saying, with no historical record of the event, or controversy, or saying which caused the tradition to turn 90 or 180 degrees?

Nonsense.

[orionblamblam]

> They are "using a government facility to honor the Ten Commandments", yes?

Perhaps. Other motives have been laid out.

>Whether or not it is morally repugnant depends on their intent in placing the monument?

To a degree. But the pirimary reason under discussion at the time was whether or not it is being claimed, falsely, that it is the basis of Western Civ. That is, in short A Lie. Western Civ has many, many roots, maany of whom are far broader, deeepr and of greater impact and import than the 10C. To use a government facility to tell a bald-faced lie, to use it for personal gain, to use it to push a religious agenda... THOSE are morally repugnant.

> I think I understand the intent, and I do not find it morally repugnant.

How about if someone put up a statue of, say, Aleister Crowley in a government facility, and did so in a way that implied that Witchcraft was the basis of Western Civ, and that you really ought to follow *this* particular religious path? Woudl *THAT* be morally repugnant to you?

[orionblamblam]

> any HINT of a relationship with any other god was considered an abomination.

For the Hebrew people, yes. But where does the OT say "there Are No Other Gods?" Saying "I'm your God" is to "There are no other gods" as "I am your father" is to "there are no other fathers."

Ideas and movements, as with lifeforms, evolve over time. Religion does no differently.

[Taliesan]

I guess I don't understand your response.

1. Nobody said there were "no other gods." That's not the issue. We're not discussing THEOLOGY here. We're discussing an exegetical question -- what a specific phrase meant when it was written -- whether it meant "put me in front but you can worship the others, too", or "worship me alone". I argue that ALL THE EVIDENCE says it meant the latter, to the people who recieved it and transmitted it. How did the people who heard it acted like it meant to them, and what was the content of the transmission of tradition to their heirs?

2. We're not discussing whether or not religions evolve over time. We're discussing whether or not A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IN FACT HAPPENED.

Good grief. This is not hard.

All the evidence says that the entire Jewish tradition thought it meant "worship another god and you die", but now, in our enlightenment, we have discovered it meant something like "worship me most of all and the others a little bit".

If you assert the meaning of the saying was, in fact, the opposite of how it was thought to signify by the very religious tradition which recorded it, you have to propose some theory for how that original community got it wrong, or when it was altered, or SOMETHING. So the whole subsequent tradition MISUNDERSTOOD the saying? Until now?

Again, nonsense.

[orionblamblam]

> whether it meant "put me in front but you can worship the others, too", or "worship me alone".

I certainly seems *to me* to read, "I'm at the front of the worship line." Now, "worship me alone" does not seem to be explicit in *that* commandment, but the "I am the Lord Thy God" would seem to nail that one down. The 10C don't cover *everything* (now people fight about *which* commandments... oy).

>So the whole subsequent tradition MISUNDERSTOOD the saying?

*That* saying doesn't seem to cover *that* meaning. "Worship others and you go to hell, you go to hell and you die" seems to be covered elsewhere. Just as the Bill of Rights recognizes the right to keep and bear arms... but not in the First Ammendment.

[NutCrackerBoy]

You have an interesting point-of-view. I've re-read the entire thread. IMO, you are a bystander in the Culture War. If there were not a secular fundamentalist movement that strives, among many other things, to purge Ten Commandments displays from courtrooms, and most importantly, if there were not the subsequent backlash of the religionists, you wouldn't really care about those displays.

Not that your views are unique by any means, even on this forum, but they do lack a resonance with the conservative views of a Burke. Have you read Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamozov? Or studied the repression of Catholicism attempted by Bismarck? The religion of the people is a precious resource. I don't get the hostility to it. The Constitution, if we keep it, rules out theocracy and a-theocracy. Why can't we just be OK with that? (And stop with the hysterical church-state separation).

It makes for exciting discourse to acknowledge our pre-Christian heritage, which has far more influence on us than the current crop of religionists seem to acknowledge. Fine. But the displays of the Ten Commandments have a different meaning, than the basis of our law, which you seem to miss entirely. Men are under God, the laws of men are under God, the nation is under God. This view - even though the evocation of God is quasi-secular - is useful to remind us of the humility of the men acting for the State. May they act in accordance with God's will.

I think these ideas may not be out of place with your vaunted pre-Christians. That a God on high would prescribe a moral code to be followed by mortals. Not really the Greek way, but ... Speaking of the Greeks, I like the way Socrates had no detectable hostility toward the worship of gods, yet he was the essence of a critical thinker. When we look at religionists, we see them babbling about The One True God, and we roll our eyes. Yet, possibly aside from that stance, I do not detect a greater operation of critical thinking among non-religionists.

[orionblamblam]

> And stop with the hysterical church-state separation

I invite you to point out where I've been "hysterical" on "church-state separation."

My interest is accuracy.

>Men are under God, the laws of men are under God, the nation is under God.

Says you. And which "God?"

>The Constitution, if we keep it, rules out theocracy and a-theocracy.

And yet, we're told that it is "opposition to religion" to remove references to a specific deity from courtrooms. Yet, that is NOT anti-religious. If the courtrooms were truly anti-religious, instead of removing the 10C, they'd replace it with a plaque that read "There is no God."

Why some people feel the need to have constant re-affiramtion of their faith is beyond me.

[NutCrackerBoy]

And stop with the hysterical church-state separation. -NutCrackerBoy

I invite you to point out where I've been "hysterical" on "church-state separation."

I specifically excluded you from this observation. I stated my opinion that you were a bystander in the Culture War.

Men are under God, the laws of men are under God, the nation is under God. -NutCrackerBoy

Says you. And which "God?"

I don't believe in God. I believe that the stance of the state to be under God is critical to an anti-totalitarian philosophy. In my post I called this evoking a quasi-secular God. It does not bother me, and I do not understand why it should bother others, if the references are more or less specific to the traditional religion of the republic.

The Constitution, if we keep it, rules out theocracy and a-theocracy. -NutCrackerBoy

And yet, we're told that it is "opposition to religion" to remove references to a specific deity from courtrooms.

In my opinion, these court-ordered removals are an anti-religious act of tyranny. The Constitution clearly shows the way to avoid theocracy. There was no need for activist judges to invent a new interpretation of the First Amendment which declares government facilities as religion-free zones.

Why some people feel the need to have constant re-affiramtion of their faith is beyond me.

People do feel the need to have reaffirmation that the US still supports traditional expressions of faith, including the tradition of Ten Commandments displays in courtrooms.