Replies

[W]hy are the leftist in America, really so afraid of something as common sense as the "Ten Commandments"?

Conservative Americans should be worried about it, too.

The first four commandments are based on a specific religion. To state that all American laws are based on them is to exclude members of other faiths, or dismiss nonbelievers. This is one of the main reasons we have an exclusion clause in the first place.
The 10 commandments form the basis of religious dogma. Our nation's freedoms are based on ideas that can all be explained rationally without recourse to religion. Religion can and has inspired us, but each of our laws must also be explained by logic and arguments based on fact.

It's easy to see Moore's troubles in terms of an American rejection of religion. However, this is not the case. His specific argument that the 10 commandments in total were the basis of our laws is what got him in trouble. When one considers that nonbelievers, members of other religions, and members of Christian sects that interpret the 10 commandments in widely different ways from Judge Moore are constituents of his judicial office, this is a dangerous and wholly undemocratic position to take.

The real question should be why do fundamentalist Christians want to impose the 10 commandments on their fellow citizens? Could it be due to the fact that some Christians have failed to persuade their fellow citizens to enact or uphold laws that are in agreement with their strict and narrow beliefs? I think so. Turning to religion, lawmakers and judges can forego arguments, disregard rationality, and impose their own will. All without recourse, because after all, the Bible said it.

This is why some of us patriots refuse to follow the crowd calling for a return to complete Judeo-Christian law in this country. We are not your enemies, we are not anti-Christian; far from it. We simply don't believe what you believe, and we feel law should be formed in the open, based on argument.

I am not aware that you or any other person in this country, are or have been required or imposed upon, in believing in one or another religion, either by a religious organization or the government. Perhaps you could document such statement. In terms of your belief that somehow there is a Constitutional exclusion to the "Ten Commandments", again, I must suggest that you document your statement.

The "Ten Commandments" are not only that which Christians (and most other religions and beliefs) understand to be "God's" laws, but each of them are mirrored, founded and anchored in both criminal and civil law. Your assumption (however mistaken) that our laws, if defined by the principles of the "Ten Commandments", must therein (somehow) "exclude members of other faiths, or dismiss nonbelievers", is nothing less than an uneducated comment and or guess at the historical basis of our judiciary and the laws to which they must work within. As such, they represent neither religious dogma or trivial rational. These are principles of moral responsibilities, which over thousands of decades, have been adopted by civilized societies throughout the world, regardless of religious affiliation.

The laws of this nation, each of our states and in our local communities are based and founded on a combination of English, Roman and religious laws, as applicable to this country and the moral will of the people. While some people such as yourself, or let's say the criminal element, may feel "excluded", exclusion usually is self imposed as the result of selfishness and or self gratification. One can play thesaurus word tag all day, but in the end, laws are designed to protect the general public from "immoral" criminal acts.

Judge Moore's assessment of the basis of our laws is straight forward, correct and based upon fact. Whether you agree with him or not, is not important. What is important, is that he was required to take an oath, which he took, lived, honored and obeyed. What is important, is a Federal Judge, without proper foundation or Constitutional power, overthrew a State's Constitutional law, based solely on his personal biased liberal beliefs. But you, like the Judge in question, are only concerned with issues against Christians, people of religious conviction and the Ten Commandments. There is absolutely nothing in the Ten Commandments, that adopts any religion. Perhaps if you read the Ten Commandments, you might understand the importance of it. But fear not, the issue is not resolved, nor will it die away.

If a person is so lacking in the educated ability to see the absolute moral equivalency between the Ten Commandments and the laws of this country, which have and continue to be equally adjudicated toward all people in this nation, to protect all people in this nation, nothing that can be written or said can help you.

I would close by reminding you just where laws are written, debated, adopted and or rejected and by what means. We have two houses of Congress at the Federal level, and two houses in each Legislatures for each state. In all cases, these people are elected by the people. Most criminal law statutes are written by criminal attorneys, which seek sponsorship by their Representative, in bringing the new legislation to the floor as a "Bill". Once debated, the Bill is passed or rejected on it's merits. If there were no "moral" concerns, there would be no reason to object to any Bill or law. Perhaps you know of some religious group that hides deep within a tunnel that makes laws? Or are you just against people of moral and religious conviction, having an equal right to express their desires and requests?

This is one of the main reasons we have an exclusion clause in the first place.

I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as "an exclusion clause" in the "rock-solid" 1st amendment. There is an establishment clause, which states plainly that congress (the United States legislature) may make no law establishing a state religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. (Note: I am fully aware of the current argument regarding the phrase "an establishment", but am choosing willfully to select the more common understanding of the phrase).

Further, your statement that "Our nation's freedoms are based on ideas that can all be explained rationally without recourse to religion." is completely unfounded, and is not supported by any evidence proffered by you. Our nations freedoms are founded on the viewpoint that ...all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights....

Turning to religion, lawmakers and judges can forego arguments, disregard rationality, and impose their own will. All without recourse, because after all, the Bible said it.

This is an interesting line of argument. Unfortunately, it is a mirror image of what many people see happening in today's courts, when SCOTUS rationalizes the voiding of a state law based on foreign (European) law and opinion.

Further, this argument is fatally flawed as it presupposes that acknowledgement of the ten commandments as an historical basis for United States law mandates that all law conform strictly to all of the ten commandments. This may be the end goal for some fringe elements. As for myself, as well as those few I have held detailed conversations with on this subject, the goal is to stem the complete subversion of morality within the law. I do not wish to ban homosexuality (as an example), but merely reestablish my ability to shield my own life and my children from being required to tacitly approve of homosexual behavior. For another example, consider that a landlord can and probably will be sued if he or she refuses to rent to an unmarried couple - even if the landlord has strong religious convictions that "shacking up" is immoral and sinful, and cannot countenance such behavior.

In regard to your last point, I don't know anyone who advocates the imposition of a puritanical code. I do know many people who recognize the need to allow people to live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs. I don't see anyone calling for the subversive creation of law, excepting those who most vociferously oppose any vestige of religious expression in any governmentally connected environment. If that's not the prohibition of free religious expression, I don't know what is.