First I want to say that I hope my avatar is allowed. Second, the man's question is lame. Our objection has nothing to do with the fact it's the ten commandments. It has to do with civil and religious liberties. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the ten commandments being in a public display. The removal would be the first of many steps of Constitutional violations, and the negation of religious and civil liberties.

Although the founding fathers of this nation were primarily deists, they obviously had a profound respect for the biblical view of law and used the Ten Commandments as a foundational example of justice in civil government. The Ten Commandments of Moses arose before most other systems of law in the ancient world besides, of course, that of Hammurabi, and is therefore a foundational piece of governing authority not only for Judeo-Christian society, but societies all over the world that have even the slightest respect for the foundational monuments brought about through history that made their societies what they are today.

To tear the Ten Commandments down from its historical displays is like taking scissors to the history books and cutting out everything that is offensive to you. Of course, Thomas Jefferson did that to Scripture but thats beside the point. Because you cut something out or tear it down does not discount the fact that it was there in the first place. The founding fathers, both the deists and the theists, had respect for these commandments either as history to law and governing, or as the word of God, or both, and they had a huge impact in forming what we know today as the United States of America. To tear them down is like ripping pages from the history books.

The first four may be a little offensive to people, but nobody is telling anybody to "Love the Lord Your God..." or "Have no idols..." or "Keep the Sabbath..." or "Not to take God's name in vain..." unless you submit yourself to these laws. Its part of history no matter if it offends you or not. The other six are all civil laws and should be applicaple to everyone regardless of religion.

Now, even though Christians are "under grace", they still try to follow those laws because they are the picture of what biblical righteousness is, even though Christ took care of perfectly fulfilling them because nobody else could. And these commandments are also the foundation of several world religions, so they're pretty significant and relevant to today's culture.

There is no rational reason to tear these displays down. I'm not going to protest if they are, no reason to. It just indicates how pathetic modern society has become to try and erase history because it "offends" some poor soul who can't handle ideas that are different than his. Yes there needs to be separation of church and state, but these have nothing to do with that issue. The Ten Commandments are not interfering with government and the government is not interfering with the Church with these slabs of rock hanging around. It should be a non-issue, as far as the courts are concerned, but people just want to make a point about their philosophy of life by trying to take them down, rather than focusing on more important issues that get neglected in this whole ridiculous process.

"Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?"

Christians are just smart people that, since they were once atheists or other non-Christian peoples they know a thing or two about what's going on.

But, to answer the question (again) and not using the logic and ratioanlity of murderous-genocidal Atheism, that sponsered the Soviet Union alone to slaughter tens of millions of human beings, let us here from an enlightenment thinker . . .:

This is just a glimpse, that the Atheist versus the Christian, isn't anything even remotely unique in 2007 social babble. 

(Click on the link below, or go buy and read the whole thing. What is quoted is way down within the piece by Locke)

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple

( http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm ) 

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated.

It remains that I say something concerning those assemblies which, being vulgarly called and perhaps having sometimes been conventicles and nurseries of factions and seditions, are thought to afford against this doctrine of toleration. But this has not happened by anything peculiar unto the genius of such assemblies, but by the unhappy circumstances of an oppressed or ill-settled liberty. These accusations would soon cease if the law of toleration were once so settled that all Churches were obliged to lay down toleration as the foundation of their own liberty, and teach that liberty of conscience is every man's natural right, equally belonging to dissenters as to themselves; and that nobody ought to be compelled in matters of religion either by law or force. The establishment of this one thing would take away all ground of complaints and tumults upon account of conscience; and these causes of discontents and animosities being once removed, there would remain nothing in these assemblies that were not more peaceable and less apt to produce disturbance of state than in any other meetings whatsoever. But let us examine particularly the heads of these accusations.

You will say that assemblies and meetings endanger the public peace and threaten the commonwealth. I answer: If this be so, why are there daily such numerous meetings in markets and Courts of Judicature? Why are crowds upon the Exchange and a concourse of people in cities suffered? You will reply: "Those are civil assemblies, but these we object against are ecclesiastical." I answer: It is a likely thing, indeed, that such assemblies as are altogether remote from civil affairs should be most apt to embroil them. Oh, but civil assemblies are composed of men that differ from one another in matters of religion, but these ecclesiastical meetings are of persons that are all of one opinion. As if an agreement in matters of religion were in effect a conspiracy against the commonwealth; or as if men would not be so much the more warmly unanimous in religion the less liberty they had of assembling. But it will be urged still that civil assemblies are open and free for any one to enter into, whereas religious conventicles are more private and thereby give opportunity to clandestine machinations. I answer that this is not strictly true, for many civil assemblies are not open to everyone. And if some religious meetings be private, who are they (I beseech you) that are to be blamed for it, those that desire, or those that forbid their being public! Again, you will say that religious communion does exceedingly unite men's minds and affections to one another and is therefore the more dangerous. But if this be so, why is not the magistrate afraid of his own Church; and why does he not forbid their assemblies as things dangerous to his Government? You will say because he himself is a part and even the head of them. As if he were not also a part of the commonwealth, and the head of the whole people! 

And I hate it when f--king idiot skeptics discard history for their own selfish revisionist egos to be stroked. Hitler did not promote Christianity (See: Dietrich Bonhoeffer spanning the years from the rise of Nazism until his death in the Flossenburg concentration camp in 1945). Hitler promoted more of a survival of the fittest model; that unfortunately for you Darwin worshippers fits your evolutionary goals to a tee.

The inconsistency of the atheist is sickening and worrisome. "If" the Ten Commandments represent nothing, then why does it bother a "Freethinker?"

Removing the Ten Commandments is a threat to Christians becuase we all know it is a real threat to Christians. History has proven that the Egostist that despises law becomes a danger to others. Lenin and Stalin belong to you Atheists whether you deny it or not!

You Atheists cannot cast off the communists and facsists no matter how hard yuo try. You act like them too. Screaming, threatening and violent actions that dwarf anything the "Christian" world has inflcited on any society. Like Marx has pointed you to, you are using the rope of freedom provided by the democracy that follows Christian thinking, to kill off Christians. That is what you Atheists are, absolutist and totalitarian.  That is a fact.

You also have the First Amendment of the Constitution claiming to be able to do NOTHING in regards to religion. If, a religion wants tp permeate a court house with its doctrines and dogma's there is nothing BY LAW anyone can do about.

 PLease, please, move to wipe away the First Amendment. It is used for far too many sickening purposes anyway.

It's funny (in a horrible way) you "Freethinkers" would applaud Larry Flint (which you have) showing vaginas spread wide all over the walls of anywhere (demeaning woman of course), but things that you don't like you scream and rail against. And yes, yes, I do know that the Ten Commandments offends Liberals and Progressives. Tough fecal matter. None of these kinds of people have to live with or under the ten Commandments anyway.

Another idiot brain-washed by his little Christian chuch... Why should anyone not believe the words of Hitler himself?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

“I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”

“In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.”

“At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.”

“How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.”

“The root of the whole evil lay, particularly in Schonerer's opinion, in the fact that the directing body of the Catholic Church was not in Germany, and that for this very reason alone it was hostile to the interests of our nationality.”

“Protestantism as such is a better defender of the interests of Germanism, in so far as this is grounded in its genesis and later tradition”

“Thus, Protestantism will always stand up for the advancement of all Germans as such, as long as matters of inner purity or national deepening as well as German freedom are involved, since all these things have a firm foundation in its own being; but it combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.”

“Whether Protestant pastor or Catholic priest, both together and particularly at the first flare, there really existed in both camps but a single holy German Reich, for whose existence and future each man turned to his own heaven.”

Hitler was a Christian and a devout roman catholic, not only did he equate "Germany's struggle" with the Christian Biblical fairytales, his Christian faith and the Bible were the cornerstone of his rationalization towards anti-Semitism and fascism. Bigotry and fascism are pillars of most religion, especially the Christian and Muslim faiths.

Oh dear, Pot, kettle, black? Mmmmhh?

What if it were a statue of Gishnue or quotations from the Koran? You and your little Christinian bigots would be up in arms!? None of you believe in the Hindu and Muslim faith; how dare they errect something in-front of court house when the courts have nothing to do with Muslims or Hindus!!!

And you Christians can't shake off the shadow of biotry and nazism; you all sound like Hitler, the Christian faith this, the Bible that...

No, the Bible does not teach equality amongst men and democracy in everything; Christians are bigots and so likewise don't believe in true democracy.

BTW: Here's a clue; the US is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

The founding fathers feared democracy would trample on minorities as the rule of the mob is the rule of government. Atheists are such a minority and US Christians have proven time and again that in their bigoted "democracy" religious freedom means you worship the Christian God and the Christian Bible.

A REPUBLIC means that publicly elected officials rule for the best interests of GOVERNMENT, not the majority consensus of their constituents – that’s a DEMOCRACY.

You mean the way free-thinkers were up arms because of civil liberties and the freedom of speech in this case? It's expected, but still very funny that you Christians hold the naive views you do regarding atheists.

Let's change "10 comandments" to "Verses from the Koran", still ok with you then? Mmmmmhhh little Christian bigot?

I can answer your question with two major points.  First off, this country was founded based upon the Bible.  Christians came to this country for religious freedom, and based the laws upon them.  By removing the ten commandments out of public places, and by taking "God" out of the pledge of allegience, we as a country are not only denying and rejecting God, but we're denying and rejecting the very basic truths that our great country was founded upon.  Whether you're a Christian or Athiest or whatever religion you belong to, we can all agree that the Bible is a very real part of our history as a nation.  Those who despise the history and policies of this country are completely free to move out. 

My second point is about your claim of Christians not believing in the ten commandments.  I don't know where you have gotten your information from, but Christians definitely still believe and follow the ten commandments.  Of course there are things that Christians don't do anymore, like sacrifice animals, but that is because some of God's laws changed after Jesus died on the cross.  Christians definitely still follow the ten commandments, and even if you're a non-believer, I think we can all agree that they are good morals and values to abide by. 

God bless

That is incorrect. The pilgrims who first landed in Plymouth Rock were Puritans, and they came to this country so that they could practice their brand of intolerant, ascetic Christianity and legally persecute anyone who didn't believe as they did. By the time the Constitution was written, most states had an "official" religion, which citizens were compelled to support regardless of whether they were a member of that faith or not. In many cases, belonging to the wrong church got people run out of town or killed. Our Founders created the Constitution as a wholly secular document without a single reference to God, Jesus or Christianity (which Christians have bitched about and tried to rectify through legislation ever since); and to further clarify what they meant about this obviously important issue of freedom of religion and conscience, it is addressed in the FIRST amendment.

The Founders' own personal religious opinions are entirely irrelevant; however, it's clear from their own writings that they knew the only way to avoid never-ending religious strife was for the government itself to have no official opinion, as is codified in the first Amendment.

Most of the 10C monuments were erected within the past 50 years; around the same time "God" was put INTO the Pledge, and our Motto was changed. All of these laws respecting establishments of religion are unconstitutional, but back then if you raised a ruckus you'd be labeled a "commie." They can call me whatever they like, but I insist they abide by the Constitution they've sworn to defend and uphold. If it was erected during the Cold War, I say get rid of it.

The bible is a very real part of our most shameful, barbaric and bloodthirsty behavior throughout the history of this nation (and way, way before that of course); that's as far toward agreeing with your POV as I'd really come... Yes, we eventually created a (theoretically) secular nation, but in getting there our ancestors wiped out entire cultures because they refused to bow to Jesus, or perhaps to "God's plan" for America to become Jesusland; at swordpoint if necessary. The bible can be used to excuse any atrocity no matter how foul - and has been, time and again.

Those who despise the Constitution of the United States, and would deny the fundamental human rights of others while claiming special rights for themselves are the ones who should be moving... I hear "God's Law" reigns supreme in Iran; that might be an option.

The punishment for breaking a Commandment is death. Whether you commit murder, adultery or merely covet your neighbor's property (including his wife), all are equal in the eyes of God. As far as I know there's no death penalty for adultery anywhere in "Christendom" these days so clearly our laws are not based on the Ten Commandments, nor are most Christians following them to the letter.

Which is not to say that they necessarily should, because beyond those that ensure the success of any interdependent social group (no lying, stealing, murder), the Commandments are absolutely useless as the bases of law in a free society; and they're certainly nothing worth killing someone over! The first Amendment is a blatant violation of the first Commandment in allowing Americans the freedom to worship whom they wish as they see fit. So I must respectfully disagree that the Commandments are "good morals and values to abide by," with the exception of the universal three...

Personally, I'd like to see the 10C monuments replaced with monuments to our Constitution. Far too many people are ignorant of its importance and fail to see how their civil liberties are being taken away, quite often through the purposeful use of biblical imagery, rhetoric and fear tactics that have a proven track record of getting people to line up and put their safety in the hands of their "godly" leaders. :snort:

BUZZZZZZZ, you are wrong.

There are only two commandments have any direct correlation to federal law (thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal) and one that relates to some states laws (thou shalt not commit adultery). Therefore U.S. law is not founded on the commandments and to further illustrate we were not founded as a christian nation here is some information to chew on.

First, the Danbury letter Thomas Jefferson wrote was in response to Danbury Baptist Church’s inquiry as to the intent of the wording of the first amendment. Jefferson in this letter clearly stated the first amendment essentially “built a wall of separation between church and state”. This indicates state shall not involve itself in religion and religion will not interfere with state issues. I think this amendment is the most breached portion of our constitution. You can read the letter here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Second, in the Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11 which was ratified by congress and signed by then President John Adams states that, the United States of America is in no way a “christian nation”. We may have christians in the country but we were not established as a “christian nation” You can read that document here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Third, the Federalist Papers which document the drafting of the constitution can be reviewed and one can observe that various points in the process references to the christian god, were inserted by various legislators but ultimately all were removed because the founders did not want to endorse any one religion. The constitution references a creator but this is a benign term, where my creator is nature, I am sure yours is god. In no part of the constitution is yahweh mentioned, nor Christianity. This is for a reason, the founders wanted to establish a secular country. You can read those documents here.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

Such ten commandment monuments in federal buildings give the guise of government favoring one religion over all the other or even non-belief.

Now do you see where the trouble is? Do you really feel this is silly? What if it were not your religion being endorsed but a different religion you do not agree with? Would you still feel that way?

I can agree with you on the fact that the legislation this country has been written in a "not endorsing any one religion" kind of style. That is evident from the links you have provided and others I am familiar with.

I guess what I really meant about this being a Christian nation was the fact that most of the founding fathers were Christians (with the exception of a few) also most of the settlers that traveled here initially were Christian (of one sort or another) and came here to practice religion freely and also to spread the gospel as well.

It is that freedom that has made this country great and is also becoming our undoing.

Considering the fact that the earliest settlers were from Europe it stands to reason that most adhered to some sort of Christianity. While it's true that the Puritans came here to practice their brand of Christianity, they did so because they felt the Church of England was too liberal. They wanted to be able to burn witches and put people in the stocks for religious transgressions, and once they came here and settled in, they made laws that allowed them to mete out severe punishment for breaking God's laws. These laws justified them in killing Quakers, Anabaptists or members of any other sects who refused to subject themselves to the Puritans' laws. Research the founding of the state of Rhode Island; people who'd been driven out of Massachusetts for being the wrong religon made themselves a state where they could practice their own religion unmolested, without having to pay taxes in support of a different sect.

The thousands of denominations of Christianity that exist in the US today owe their existence to the first Amendment. It is because of the Amendment's proscription against government becoming entangled in religious issues that such a diversity of sects has arisen over the past 200+ years.

 Paul said that if someone is praticing one part of the Law,they should follow the entire thing.

 I don't consider killing someone because they covet what i have to be a fair rule to live by.

I am never able to figure out in what way it is that America is any freer than any other democracy in the world. Indeed, the laws governing democracies are so similar across the board that the differences are hardly worth noting. In fact, some of the only differences that stand out in democracies are those that set America a part from the others, as in the right to bear arms, to name a prominent one. When it comes to the use of freedom here, I become distressed, for the poster would have it seem that somehow freedom of religion, in the way that it is granted within the United States, and indeed within other democracies, creates a negative circumstance that can lead to a countries 'undoing'. Just how is 'undoing' defined? If this is so, where is the evidence that this kind of freedom has had a negative effect in other democracies? Is America unique in this 'undoing'? Is there not, then, something else that can explain how freedom of religion is becoming America's 'undoing'? Does the poster mean to suggest that if there were not freedom of religion, that if one religion were not only dominant but the only lawful religion, that America would not be great and would not be subject to this 'undoing'? Or does he mean that if the freedom were tweaked America would be great and would not be subject to this 'undoing'? In what way, then, would the freedom be adjusted?

I am sorry to have broached a new tangent in this quite off track thread. I am just always bothered by the apparent arrogance of some Americans. I am unable to see what it is that makes any country great and I definitely am unable to see by what definition of great America would qualify as a great country if one could exist. Perhaps I would need to feel some sort of patriotism to understand the particular illogic that could lead to the conclusion, but necessarily patriotism lies as distant from me as theism. I can never hope to have either as a belief.

In regards to the topic, while I am not a Christian or American (if that wasn't discernable) and the topic really doesn't affect me (though perhaps this objective view will be useful), I find it (the posting of any religious article) contravenes the particular freedom I addressed in the former portion of my post and plain peculiar of a government that is supposed to be secular. What purpose is served by the commandments being displayed? I can only imagine that, as it can have nothing to do with a secular government, it is there simply by virtue that Christians are a majority in America and that only goes to compound the contravening of the freedom of religion. I don't believe the law is intended to be interpreted as 'the freedom of Christian devotees to do as they like, especially when they are the majority and can exert enough political force as to simply (and apparently so) forgo the freedom of everyone else.' The problem is not that the ten commandments are being displayed; it is that displaying a religious article of any sort in any manner where the government is concerned is pandering to religion. It would not necessarily be better, but perhaps the case would be different if similar laws from other religions were displayed also and equally (after all many are similar to and as acceptable as the ten commandments), but they are not and are not likely to be because they are not the ten commandments and would necessarily not represent Christianity or pick it out as special (which certainly their being displayed by the government does), or else again: Why display them at all?

Christians get upset for two reasons:

1. Christianity represents morality. By removing these symbols, Christians believe you are removing morality.

2. Status Quo. If it's not broken, dont fix it. It doesnt hurt have the 10 commandments in a court house, especially a sculpted one. Thats just removing a piece of art, a piece of history.

I got a PHP Fatal error saying that there was an undefined function commentLastPage() and thought it didn't post. Sorry for the multiple posts.

I never mentioned myths, beliefs, and feelings. Morality/Christianity teaches good behavior, honesty, and humility--character traits that ANYBODY should agree are good characteristics. And it would be typical that you have an all-or-nothing attitude toward theism. Probably why you are an atheist?

This is the good part: the peices of art im talking about were built specifically for the project. For example, lets take the Supreme Court building in DC:

In the middle is Moses holding the 10 commandments. Very beautiful architectual work. Moses isnt the only "mythilogical" person up there either. Confucius and Solon are up there next to him. Read a little bit more about it here: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg8c.htm

The sculptor is Hermon A. MacNeil.

Here is a little more information about the building on the supreme court's website: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf

I agree. That is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't matter where humans and non-humans recieve teachings of good vs bad, of morals, and other good characteristics. The same goes for those who use logic to come up with the same result. I know not to rob from people because logically, its not mine. Logically I know I shouldn't negatively affect other people with my actions. Some people must fear brimstone and tortuous eternity to keep from doing bad things. If that's what works for them, then let them have it. If that's what the majority needs to feel happy in their lives then why stricken them of that?

I thought this issue was about having religous references in a publicly funded building, maybe I was mistaken. As for Judge Moore, if his intentions for posting the 10C's were to emphasis ancient literature, would it have made a difference to you? Or is it because the 10C's allude to religion?

I think the question is a subtle accusation directed at christians that is saying that christians are not doing good works. The accuser is the devil. I think Paul said "Let us not weary ourselves with good works'.

Where in the bible does it mention that christians are supposed to get 'upset' if men want to move a rock with 10 commandments written on it???

It is not in the bible. The bible does not say what to do. Love your enemy? But, the law is death to me.

I am dead to the law.