As a Buddhist, you may well be out of luck in the Judge’s courtroom.
=====================================
Wednesday, April 9, 1997 10:41 am EDT
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Judge Roy Moore displays a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom and opens sessions with prayer.
And the judge, a Baptist whose fight to keep religion in his courtroom has inspired a national rally, invites others to pray with him -- as long as they're not Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists.
They do not acknowledge the God of the holy Bible on which this country was founded," Moore says.
….snip….
"My duty under the Constitution is to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian God," not the gods of other faiths, Moore said." We are not a nation founded upon the Hindu god or Buddha. continued…..
=====================================
There certainly is no reason the Commandments shouldn’t be displayed in a historical context. The problem here is the judge, not the display. If you search for and read many of his statements, he’s clearly promoting religion. He’s a terrible example to base a Ten Commandments on public grounds case on.
And there is where the crux of the problem is. Now I am being somewhat adversarial in my post simply to draw out the arguments as to why this does not violate the 1st amendment of freedom of religion. If there is a valid position then, then it should be able to be supported.
But in a real world context I just saw a segment on Bill O'Reilly a few moments ago where he had some muslim woman on, from of all places Montgomery Co. Maryland, who now wants prayer time for muslims in public schools, no pork on the menu, and a couple of other things that I can't remember.
So the question becomes if one group is allowed to practice or display their religion on public property why should not others be able to do the same. Maybe it's just me but I always assumed that ones faith was a personal matter, not one that needed to be enforced on the public.