Brittany: I was going to post this as a comment under Victor's topic, but decided that it was entirely too long.

Some try to argue that the Ten Commandments are merely ethical standards that are observed by most countries. The last six (honor thy father and mother, do not steal, do not kill, do not covet, do not commit adultery, and do not lie) are all ethical standards that are encouraged by many U.S. laws. The first four commandments, however, are strictly religious (one God before thee, no graven images, observe the Sabbath, and do not take God's name in vain). While the government can endorse the last six, it is required to remain neutral concerning the first four.

I do not feel that it can be argued that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed as a historical document UNLESS you are willing to display similar documents from different cultures in the same setting.

I am a Christian, so it doesn't bother me to see the Commandments displayed...in fact I have always found it rather comforting, but I DO see the other side of the issue. I think that it is understandable to say that it should not be displayed in the courts because that is a branch of government. I think the problem comes in when you try to carry it even further (and they will). I see no problem with displaying the TC in a museum as a piece of heritage, observing the Judeo-Christian norms of the western world (after all, most museums contain artifacts from many cultures, and those beautiful granite tablets should be displayed somewhere - hehe). I'm fine accepting that they shouldn't be allowed on government property, but what happens when their appearance on ANY public property is challenged? I think the latter will eventually come down to the states to decide how much they are going to regulate (or restrict) the display of religious documents. THAT'S when I will have a problem.

Individuals are still allowed to display the Ten Commandments in their front yards as much as they want. Anyone is free to express any religious opinion as long as it is on their property...not the government's. Until my individual rights of expression are threatened, I probably won't be overly concerned. To tell the truth, it makes me kind of sick that people are capitalizing on this by selling those yard signs like hot cakes. "Ten Commandments yard signs are now available at a new low price!" Ugh. I dunno...maybe a church can sell them as a fundraiser or something...that would be better. Hehe.

A similar situation that I was annoyed by was the one involving "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that one reeeeaaaally has to be stretched to be viewed as the nation imposing religion. After all, no one can be required to recite the Pledge. It just seemed a bit more ridiculous. (Just a little side note: the phrase "under God was actually added in 1954 during the Cold War against "Godless Communism") The word "God" is mentioned four times in the "Declaration of Independence" and once in the Articles of Confederation.

President's still utter "so help me God" at inauguration, and the same phrase is used to swear in individuals in court. Very few seem to feel that these expressions violate the Constitution, but I suppose that is only a matter of time. ::sigh:: Reknowned atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hare (sp?) admitted to wanting to completely wipe all references to God from society. That kind of thing is worrisome because the more you give, the more people are going to take.

Anyway! I would love to see the Ten Commandments stay, but I realize that it can be
considered a violation of the Constitution (although the phrase "separation of church and state isn't actually IN the Constitution - heh - not freedom FROM, but freedom OF...but that's a totally different story), and therefore do not expect them to be allowed to remain in the courts. Wow. Long post. Sorry bout that. If only I could muster the same enthusiasm for academic posts...  ¶ 4:02 PM