[kellynla]

BTTT

[odoso]

Aren't the 10 Commandments engraved on the doors leading into the Supreme court bldg in Washington?

[sgtbono2002]

If the Supreme Court rules against the Ten Commandments its going to cost the taxpayers a ton of money to have them removed from the front of the Supreme Court building.

[pgyanke]

But the declaration doesn't maintain that God has handed Americans their laws. It states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and that this is "self-evident." That is, the declaration holds that we know by natural reason that we have rights; it is not necessary to receive a historical revelation to know that God has endowed all people with them.

Translation: "Don't believe what you read... I will tell you what it means... Look at the monkey!"

[the invisib1e hand]

forcing the removal of the Decalogue, only to have it replaced by some "code of ethics," is effectively a promotion of secular humanism, which the court ruled is a religion.

double standard on the part of God haters? nothing new under the sun.

[little jeremiah]

Ping to self.

[ndt]

"...going to cost the taxpayers a ton of money to have them removed"

I'm sure somebody would want to give them a good home. You can start an adopt a tablet program. Group together, pay for the removal and buy a prominent piece of property downtown somewhere and set them up with huge spotlights.

As for the laws of the country, I firmly believe that if the law has merit for society as a whole, you should not have to rely on "because God said so", you should be able to argue your case based on facts and logic.

Most of the Ten Commandments are "self evident" so to speak and easily arguable in terms of respecting the rights of another, never having to refer to where YOUR conviction originated.

Others are not so easy to argue, for example coveting your neighbors wife. Is it good, no. Is it worthy of prosecution? I don't believe so. If you don't actually take any action other than to covet, then no, and even if you have a fling (Thou shalt not commit adultery) , that is an issue between two losers and one rightfully angry person, not a criminal offense in my opinion.

Some are a direct infringement our rights (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) That is pretty much the antithesis of freedom of religion

The laws of the U.S. were based on many many things from Hammurabi on up the time line. We chose some and threw out others.

There are only 10 commandants, and last time I looked, there were a few more U.S. laws than that. Thats a pretty small base for a pretty big building.

[nosofar]

"...forbidding the establishment of religion ..."

Doesn't the 2nd Amendment state that no law shall be made "respecting AN establishment of religion", not THE establishment of religion. I interpret this as meaning any organized institution of religion, not merely a set of beliefs that might define a religion.