"Commandments Debate Prompts Demonstrations

Wed Mar 2, 1:51 PM ET

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Shouts of "Amen" and a response of "hypocrites" pierced the chill air Wednesday as demonstrators protested in front of the Supreme Court while inside justices considered cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments on government property.

At times, the demonstration of those backing the displays took on the fervor of a prayer meeting, as the group of fewer than 100 sang "Amazing Grace" and recited prayers at the courthouse steps.

Just a few feet away, those on the other side defied the teeth-chattering cold to hold up signs that read "Honor Founding Fathers. Keep Church and Religion Separate" or "No Religious Test For Patriotism."

The group quoted Bible verses they said suggested that the public praying by the other demonstrators was hypocritical.

"I don't want to deny anyone their religious rights, but they already have ample opportunity to express their religious faith, without denying us our right not to," said Tony Hileman, whose group numbered about 30.

The cases before the court centered on whether a 6-foot-tall monument of the Ten Commandments in Texas should be allowed to remain on Capitol grounds and a copy of the Commandments can stay posted in a courthouse in Kentucky.

Monuments carrying the Ten Commandments are common in town squares, courthouses and other government-owned land around the country. Lawyers challenging these displays argue that they violate the First Amendment ban on any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

Christan Stapleton, 13, of Newland, N.C. carried a homemade, cardboard Ten Commandments tablet. She came to the Supreme Court with her church and family members.

"We do need them in our school," she said, "to help us know what to do, what God wants us to do as we go through our day."

Personally, I could understand people being against th display of a cross or buddha statue on public property, but I don't see the real fuss about the 10 Commandments.

The 10 Commandments display serves more as a historical symbol, representing the foundation of our current legal system, not necessarily a religious symbol. I view the 10 Commandments as being almost equivalent to the Declaration of Indepdence or the US Constitution.

Because of that, I think the 10 Commandments should say at court houses and other public places.

Nothing more to add, except that 100%

Hey... I thought in another thread that I argued that the ten commandments could be interpreted to be secular symbols and you same folks disagreed...

Good point Patrick.

lol! Who says I always tell what I believe here? Someone has to play devil's advocate every once in awhile!

Seriously, in the political sector, I view the 10 Commandments more as a historical symbol. In the religious sector, they're more of a religious symbol though. It just depends on which side of the separation of church/state equation you're looking at.

It's funny though Patrick.. People are all for seperation of church and state when it comes to preserving a potentially religious image in our public places... but when it comes to putting stickers saying that evolution is only a "theory" on our textbooks, they seem okay with it.

Of course, I never accused fundamentalists of being logical.

Interesting, I've lived in several places on both sides of the Rockies and have not known many people who want 10 commandment monuments pulled from public places. The fact is that they understand it is a secular symbol in this location yet can be a religious symbol in a church or home. It seems to be some people with advanced educations that have trouble seeing this duality of purpose and the common sense to tell which is which. You cannot remove the 10 comandments from our government without destroying part of the foundation of the legal system that it supports. Hopefully the Supreme court will devise some "legaleese" that will serve the same function as common sense in this matter.

For some reason, people get the idea that "Separation of Church and State" was designed to pull all religious elements from political life. This just isn't true. "Separation of Church and State" was originally designed to protect the church from the state, a one-way direction.


Check this out: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

Over the years, interpretations of these laws change (and by the way, your article presents one viewpoint on this, there are others that are just as valid). I'm not sure why we have such reverence for our "founding fathers". These guys were imperfect, especially by many of our standards. They were middle aged white tobacco farmers, marijuana farmers and distillers. They were all pot smoking old white guys that thought "freedom" and a government of the "people" should be limited to land owning white men.

Even if true, I think keeping the two extremely seperated today is a smart move. One need look no further than history. Name me one time that a union between church and state resulted in something good? Or perhaps remind me when it did not end up with horrific human rights abuses and murder in the name of their God or gods? Truly, throughout history, and even in recent times, it has become aparent that in order to have a civilization that can respect all of its people, institutionalized government needs to be left out.

I don't necessarily think church should be involved in government, but by the same token, I don't think we should remove Christian elements like prayer, under God, 10 Commandements, etc. from our political landscape. Including those elements and letting the church run the government are two different things.

Picture this....

"President" Jerry Fallwell

That's actually quite scary.

Could be worse. "President Howard Stern." Now THAT is scarey.:tweeted: :tweeted: :tweeted: :tweeted:

Both would be bad. Fallwell is a Bible thumping Jesus pimp and Stern is just a plain 'ol disgusting human being.

I like for my President to be somewhere in between those two, how about you?