Replies

That's ok, I not sure I do either upon rereading it! LOL

The gist of it is: we do not have to deny the very foundation of our rule of law, our moral codes, nor do we have to promote those codes in a way that offends others.

If the name of God is on our money, in the prayers before our congress everyday, in our hearts and instilled in our rule of law via the founding Father's careful acknowledgement in the Bill of Rights, perhaps it is ok to allow certain symbols that HONESTLY relate to our heritage to remain, no matter how the minority rails against this 'offense'. There cannot be a WALL dividing religion and government when the foundations of one are noted in the formulation of the other. That is not to say one religion is to be sanctioned above all others-but to DENY its historical relevance is somehow, well, clintonian in that the truth, once again, gets crushed under the weight of of the false wall.

How does an oath have any meaning without a higher authority overseeing it? Why does our President lay his (or her) hand upon a Bible when swearing in-and the same with all judges, etc. THERE IS NO WALL HERE....nor is there a wall between our code of moral behavior within our system of laws and religious rules for conduct.

The wall is just as the Judge indicates-a very bad metaphor. Regardless of who first stated the wall concept.

God flows throughout our system of laws, and tho no one religion is to be held above others, and certainly not state sanctioned, a higher ruling authority does deserve acknowledgement. It is in our Bill of Rights. Precious and not to be denied.

First, we must erect a wall of separation between the concepts of a belief in God, and religion; they are by no means one and the same.

When Roy Moore began specifically promoting his sectarian view of God, is when this issue entered a different plane.

One of the questions that seemed not to have been asked in any reports on this controversy, is exactly WHICH Ten Commandments are inscribed in that monument.

They are certainly not the same Ten Commandments I learned growing up in a Catholic (if repressed) household, nor are they the same Ten Commandments that are inscribed in the walls of the synagogues that I've visited in the past, and they are not the Ten Commandments traditionally taught by mainstream Protestant Churches.

If we can't agree on the exact wording of these Commandmens amongst ourselves, the people to whom they truly pertain to, how can Roy Moore expect all those who enter the building to acknowledge what's written on that monument as being the Word of God?

"How does an oath have any meaning without a higher authority overseeing it?"

This is the crux of everything.

We need men and women of higher moral standards to swear to uphold the Laws of these United States, because ONLY their strenght of character, and their belief in their oath will lead them to decisions that may be in complete disagreement with their religious beliefs, but in accordance to current civil law.

I read somewhere a poster claiming that George W. Bush was pro-abortion because of his statement that Roe v. Wade was the law, and his duty was to uphold the law. We know that the President is most certainly NOT pro-choice, but his oath, sworn on his family Bible, binds him to do what is expected of him, and it binds him to obey the current laws of the country...even if these laws may be offensive to him.