I'd love to read the transcripts on this one

[Wombat]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/17/ten.commandments.ap/index.html

According to this, he quoted James Madison. I'd like to see how he quoted a Deist to support Christianity. Not to mention that about 1/4 of the Declaration's signers were also Deists.

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies."

"In no instance have ... the churches been guardians of the liberties of people."

"Democracy does not need the church, or the clergy."

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

<B>"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."</B>

Well, at least it was a laugh for the day.

[Dr Mordrid]

Actually having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse can be easily defended on the grounds that it (along with the Law Code of King Hammurabi (Babylon ~1775 BC), with which it shares many features and the Magna Carta) was one of the fundamental foundations of our legal system and those of many other nations of the world.

The main differences between them: the Ten Commandments (and its subtexts) demanded greater value be placed on human life in in general while the Laws of King Hamurabi were more secular; dealing mainly with civil and criminal issues.

IF your objection is that it has some religious content then ponder this; should one omit the Magna Carta from a courthouse?

It's even more closely related to our specific codes of law, but yet it starts out thusly;

"Know that before God, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury.....etc."

I'd put 'em all in there for their value as historic legal documents.

PS: you should read Exodus sometime and review all the Commandments and their subtexts. Very interesting and enlightened for the time and far more detailed than what's depicted in the movie.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

Fine, historic legal documents. But a 5300lb monument for prayer?

[Dr Mordrid]

I see stone "monuments" showing everything from soup to nuts. I'd make a stone tablet of each.

WTF does the weight have to do with it? Everything is ostentatios in Government buildings.

If they can make a 5000 lb statue of a 150 years dead governor or a nude in a government building they can do the same for the founding documents of our legal system.

Dr. Mordrid

[K6-III]

I concur with Wombat on this one....

[KRSESQ]

By all rights, one could sue the Supreme Court to force the removal of the Ten Commandments from the Supreme Court building.

But what court would you sue them in?

Kevin

[Wombat]

This thing was put in by the judge on his own, without even telling the other judges. He prays at it, and also opposes Supreme Court decisions that separate church and state. His intent was clear, and I won't have him pushing his values on me, nor should any other citizen be forced to bend to him.

The "nudes in public buildings" is also an interesting topic. I think poorly of Ashcroft for many, many reasons. The covering of the Spirit and Majesty of Justice is just a nice little anecdote.