Well put... I had a whole big thing written here, but I deleted it until I have time to thing about it some more. So I'll just leave it at that.
BTW, you need to fix your RSS feed so that the links to your entries work. I think one of your values in SiteConfig needs a trailing slash.

How's my RSS feed now?

...perfect. Thanks

boooya

I agree that the Constitution has "ardent followers much like any organized religion." But if you want the Constitution changed so that the Ten Commandments can be displayed, then it needs to be altered to officially recognize Christianity as the established religion. Supposedly, there is no such official state religion. So unless this is changed, then texts from the Koran could be displayed as well (or not at all, as with the Ten Commandments). Isn't it double-speak to say that there is no official religion, yet Christian/Jewish scripture should be displayed because that is what the country was "founded on"? Yes, the Ten Commandments have been around so dang long that they could be seen as simply "a historical document." But to those of other faiths, it is certainly religiously charged. Our nation is confused. Are we a Christian nation, or not? Is there a national church? No. Is there religious freedom? Yes. So, shouldn't the Ten Commandments be left there in Alabama? Yes and no. Yes, because of religious freedom. No, because it is in the Supreme courthouse. The Constitution as is is a remarkable document, one that has enabled a degenerate form of government, democracy, to flourish in our country. That is why democracy doesn't work as well (or at all) in other countries, despite our best efforts to "spread the faith." Besides, as Christians, do we base our judgements on the Ten Commandments, or on Jesus' reinterpretation of them?

Who said anything about not allowing Koran texts to be displayed as well? In fact, if it were from the Koran, probably no one would have complained. In a country where obscenity and pornography are protected under the first amendment, why is morality not afforded the same protection? While someone may disagree with Christianity or Judaism, surely they can see what positive effect on the Ten Commandments have on society and their integral part in our system of law. I don't follow the teachings of Confucius, but a wise quote from him concerning law adorning a courthouse building hardly seems out of place. I don't think anyone has argued that people in Alabama were being convicted under the Ten Commandments. Or that defendants were led by the monument before their trial by the prosecutor and told that they should have honored their father and mother. I fail to see how displaying the Ten Commandments in any way undermines anyone's freedom in this country. Refusing to allow its display, however, does.

So, if the constitution is changed to allow the ten commandments, that necessitates officially recognizing Christianity as the established religon? Does that mean that since the current interpretation does NOT allow it that the current official established religion is atheism?
I've been to countries that mandate a specific religion. Having a monument that reflects the heritage and history of a region doesn't violate anyone's rights. Putting people in prison for not praying at the specified times does.
Government agencies sign contracts to use specific kinds of cars, but I don't have to buy them. There's no one screaming that governements should ban cars. There are tons of things that could be seen as "endorsements" by the government. Why then the fuss about religion? Because by blotting out religion from everything public, we teach our kids that Christianity is bad for the country, and that's exactly what Satan wants.
Fun discussion.

Scooby Boo Ya!!!!!!!

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that he based his judicial decisions on his own morals and beliefs, then he found the law(s) to justify his ruling. Such is our system of law, which is the basis for our government and our way of life. The law is there, its on paper. Courts, lawyers, activists, etc. give the law meaning. What does it mean when it says, "separation of church and state"? The answer: who knows? Alexander Hamilton wrote most of Constitution sitting in a pub drinking ale.
The Constitution wasn't designed as a Law Giver. It was a Law Restricter. Its principle was two-fold, 1. Set up a government, 2. Restrict that government from infringing on the people's freedom. Sure certain amendments have been made that provide law, for instance banning slavery, giving women that right to vote, 18 years of age voting limit, etc. But the original Constitution (the O.C.) was designed to limit the government, mainly aimed at the newly born federal government. You (the government or any agent of the government) can't station soldiers in people's homes, you can't supress a person's right to speak freely, to publish what they wish, to get their blog on whenever they feel like it. Yeah, the Constitution is no Magna Carta (its better), it is probably the best "historical document" ever written. But notice how I leave it in its own class. Not necessarily the "best of the worst" but certainly it doesn't attain "Wonders of the World" status (see my blog update later today). So when Hamilton writes church and state should be kept separate he's saying the State should stay out of the church. Not the church out of the State. But as you see I've entered into a "it means this" argument that Pete spoke against. Why does it have to be this way? I say its not the Constitution's fault. My snide, one sentence answer is this: It has to be this way because nobody likes playing by the rules, especially tricky, deceitful lawyers. So they attempt to twist the Constitution into what they WANT it to mean, not what they KNOW it means. I could have made that into one sentence if I wanted to. This is our government. The law is there, and I think its plain enough. I really don't think we could change the Constitution enough to be so plain that no one would argue about its meaning. I take an example from current events. The Episcopal Church relies on the Bible as its law, its Constitution. The Bible says that homosexuality is "illegal." Yet somehow, they've interpreted it to mean "its ok, even so far as our clergy goes, but just as long as you don't practice it....even though our first openly homosexual clergyman is practicing." I agree with Pete that barring the Ten Commandments does hinder my religious freedom, mine in the communial sense of the guy who first put it up there. Religion is one of the most sensitive topics in our country...well, Christianity anyways. Its hard for a Christian not to be labeled "insensitive, ignorant, or a hypocrite" for simply just being a Christian. Rarely do we have to tell total strangers they are going to hell (I don't endorse this method under any circumstances, just thinking about a personal experience from my BU days) to invoke these reactions, all we have to do is harmlessly put up 10 laws that are the basis for our laws today that have a connection to Christianity. Somebody told me that we'd be hated by the world...who said that? dang if I can't remember. Jenkins if you are refering to Christ's golden rule reinterpreting the 10 Commandments: didn't he fulfill the law, not destroy it? So its the same thing right? 10 examples of the Golden Rule. And if you want to get tricky lawyerly like you could put up the Golden Rule and then say you got it from Greek Philosophy. So to sum it up, I say its a fight, a war if you will. I personally feel led to defend us against misinterpretations and our freedom of expression.

boo-ya

Yes, He came to fulfill the law. By asking if we follow the Ten Commandments or Jesus' reinterpretation of them, I was not implying that they are obsolete. If they were, then Jesus' reinterpretation of them would be obsolete as well. I suppose it would be the Golden Rule (which was not "discovered" by Jesus - He simply emphasized a passage in Deuteronomy - a modification of the Shema). But the Ten Commandments represents the old law, the Lex Talionis (remember?). I wouldn't go so far as to say that the 10 and Jesus' reinterpretation of them are the same thing.

I just can't help it.....boooooo-yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Wow, fantastic discussion guys! I really enjoy hearing everyone's point of view. I'm going to try to write some more when I get home this evening. Even though I have plenty of other things to do, and I bought F-Zero-GX for the GameCube today.