Mr. Deters: Grams is former US Senator from Minnesota. Ten Commandment are pretty much the basis for all our laws. Aside from the first three, related to God, they are all pretty mundane and non-religious. And if you ask me, God is not religious. I believe in God, but have no religion. The Big Ten is a historical artifact and not worth the controversy. Let it be.

timbo

"Ten Commandment are pretty much the basis for all our laws."
THIS IS A MYTH PERPETUATED BY THE CONSERVATIVE MEDIA.

Think about this for a minute and you will see that you are wrong. Is adultery illegal? no. jealous of your neighbors stuff? no. lying? no, not unless under oath which is the part about bearing false witness-a separate commandment.
not honoring your parents? no. keeping holy the sabbath? no. no graven images? no. swearing? no, at least not yet...

In summary there are 3 commandments that are illegal in a general sense: Do not steal,do not kill, and do note perjure. So we're at 30% -hardly a system based on the commandments.

Our legal system is, I believe, based on the English system of case law, but I am sure Deters knows more about this than I do being a law student.

Timbo,

If the 10 commandments debate is not about religion, then why the tremendous controversy? The majority of those who support putting the 10C up on walls don't do so out of "historical respect," but intead out of a desire to tie Christianity to the state.

"To the contrary, the exclusion of religion from government and the inclusion of virtue in your home (in whatever form you choose) is the ideal sought by our founders."

Is that why the founders mentioned god so many times in their documents and speeches? Is that why the wording of the first amendment says nothing about "separation of church and state" but only forbids the "establishment of an official religion." A town having the ten commandments in a public place is far from establishing an official religion.

"A town having the ten commandments in a public place is far from establishing an official religion."

Really? Which version of the ten commandments? Didn't you know that Christianity and Judaism have differing versions? Do you think your hypothetical town would post the Jewish version too, or just the Christian version?

What about Muslims? Hindus? Buddhists? Would your hypothetical town post their versions? Probably not, since they don't have their own versions, and their moral codes aren't based in the ten commandments anyway.

And let's not forget about the atheists! Why shouldn't they be offended by your hypothetical town holding up a clearly religious document as its paragon of virtue?

So by definition, doesn't that mean your hypothetical town is establishing an official religion, de facto if not de jure?

"Is that why the founders mentioned god so many times in their documents and speeches?"

If you don't know that nearly every founder was a Deist who spoke of God in the sense of a "Supreme Architect," then you don't have any place contributing to this argument.

It really comes down to an attack on christianity. I bet if it was a symbol of other religions, there would not be these cases. Look at Los Angeles County that had to change its symbol due to the cross in it (even though it represented the mission it was founded on)... but the greek goddess Pomona was just fine. Are they endorsing greek mythology now? i think not. As a christian am I going to be horribly offended every time i see it? no. Or how about Palm Beach in Dec. 2003 that had a Menorah in a popular park, but when someone wnated to put a Nativity next to it the town refused.

Also, what is wrong with our leaders having faith of their own? You make it sound as if Bush and other elected officials are either unfit to serve or should denounce their faith while in office. You may not understand, because im guessing by many of your articles you are not a strong practicing Catholic, but as a very much practicing Protestant, my faith is part of every aspect of my life. I am not going to hide it if I am in a public position for fear of offending someone.

From the FFRF website....

1987 Freethinker of the Year

Phyllis Grams

Freedom From Religion Foundation v. City of La Crosse

Retired schoolteacher, daughter of a former member of Congress and lifelong resident Phyllis Grams objected to the presence of a Ten Commandments monument on public property in Cameron Park, La Crosse, Wisconsin. She contacted Freedom From Religion Foundation president Anne Gaylor, who filed a high-profile lawsuit in federal court in September 1985, with Phyllis as principal plaintiff. When Phyllis began receiving crank calls, the elderly but feisty litigant was not the least intimidated, recounting how, after receiving one death threat, she responded, "Well, tell me more."

The Foundation offered into evidence the religious/commercial purposes behind the campaign by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which had donated the La Crosse monument, to erect bible edicts in public buildings and parks nationwide. In the 1950s, Judge E.J. Ruegemer had launched the Eagles' project in conjunction with director Cecil B. DeMille's release of his movie "The Ten Commandments." After the 1986 trial, the case was dismissed on a technicality, not on the merits. In a moral victory, the La Crosse daily newspaper, which had actively editorialized against the complaint, changed its mind at the time of the federal trial and agreed that the monument should be moved to private property. The Freedom From Religion Foundation's annual college essay competition has been named in honor of the late Phyllis Grams, a longtime member of the Foundation.

"I remember one reporter quoting the La Crosse attorney as saying it was a trivial thing anyway, and I told them that was almost heresy, to intimate that any violation of the First Amendment was trivial."

"Is that why the founders mentioned god so many times in their documents and speeches?"

WTF "documents and speeches" are you reading? Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God.

Mythology is a fine thing in its place, which is in the fiction section of the library.

***

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

Our Godless Constitution

Our Constitution makes no mention whatever of God. The omission was too obvious to have been anything but deliberate, in spite of Alexander Hamilton's flippant responses when asked about it: According to one account, he said that the new nation was not in need of "foreign aid"; according to another, he simply said "we forgot." But as Hamilton's biographer Ron Chernow points out, Hamilton never forgot anything important.

In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist, God is mentioned only twice (both times by Madison, who uses the word, as Gore Vidal has remarked, in the "only Heaven knows" sense). In the Declaration of Independence, He gets two brief nods: a reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the famous line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." More blatant official references to a deity date from long after the founding period: "In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954 [see Elisabeth Sifton, "The Battle Over the Pledge," April 5, 2004].

What kind of person needs to be constantly reminded of what the ten commandments are? Shouldn't you be raised to inherently know how to behave? Are people so weak in their faith that they need reminders all over the place? This whole "outrage" over removing public ten commandments monuments is yet another ploy by the far right to mold everyone to be exactly like they are. If you do need reminders on how to behave they do NOT need to be taken from a religious source.

if the ten commandments were the law here, we'd just need Jerry Falwell to get elected president, and we'd have a nice theocracy.

Never underestimate the desire of the religious right to turn America into a Christian Iran.

"Never underestimate the desire of the religious right to turn America into a Christian Iran."

Isn't it funny that the religious right hates Iran so much, but also has so much in common with the Iranian regime?

"Is that why the founders mentioned god so many times in their documents and speeches?"

Well you're sort of right:

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." George Washington

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ..." from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams, June 10, 1797.

Dumbass.

"Isn't it funny that the religious right hates Iran so much, but also has so much in common with the Iranian regime?"

If by "funny" you mean "inducing me to shit myself with fear," then yeah.

Well jefferson did spent his free time rewriting the bible, but that's mostly because he didn't like all the religious dogma associated with the moral teaching. so the founding fathers were all about moral values (the real kind, not the neo con kind), they just didn't see the need to attach a god to them to make them powerful. they just had faith that people would know how to do right thing without having to be scared of a man in the sky in order to do it.

Get a clue Rob!
Our constitution does NOT say "seperation of church and state" and we do NOT have a state-sponsored religion. Our founders realized that religion and morals are inherent in our laws and our nation cannot exist without them. Read this quote by John Adams:"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The ACLU wastes its resources running around riping out Ten Commandments Monuments (they're NOT litter by the way) when they could be fighting REAL civil rights battles.

Real civil battles like opposing discriminatory amendments to the constitution that deny rights to same-sex couples?

"If by "funny" you mean "inducing me to shit myself with fear," then yeah."

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for picking up on that.

Rob-
You missed an important point here (perhaps intentionally) with the monument located in LaCrosse.

You say that the monument is "located in a park in the downtown city center". Like a good lawyer, you wrote something that is technically true but at the same time does not tell the whole story.

The monument sits on a PRIVATE parcel of land owned by the Fraternal Order of Eagles. The government has no more right to regulate what is on that parcel of private land than they do what is in my own house.

And this sale of the land was recently upheld unanimously by a federal appeals court.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200501%5CCUL20050104c.html

"When our president goes on about the divine spirit, finding Jesus or whatever other focus-group-tested religious bon mot he feels like tossing out, I can blow it off. But many do not."

So Bush's Christianity is only smoke and mirrors to get more votes from Christians? That's a pretty big charge to make. Disagree with his policy, disagree with his ideas, disagree with his administration, but don't say he's a fake.

Bill Clinton, a Democrat who won elections, said "Am I the only one who thinks these are both good men (referring to Kerry & Bush) who just have different ideas on how to make America a better place?"

I voted Democratic. I don't really like what the Bush administration has done. But I still don't think Bush is sitting in a high-backed chair in an underground lair laughing evilly while scheming to oppress more people.

We all believe in rights. Doesn't Bush have a right to practice his own religion?

*****

Moreover, on the general topic of whether the placing of the Ten Commandments violates the Separation of Church and State, we need to recognize the purpose of the memorials. If they're there to sell tickets to see Charlton Heston, they can go. But if they're there to acknowledge that some people in this country are motivated strongly by religion, why is this not ok?

Many things are important to people: families, music, art, religion, etc. We should recognize all of these facets, not cut a very important one out because we feel it's taboo. If people are motivated by Allah, I'd be fine with the symbol of a moon. If people are Jewish, put up a Star of David. This country is strong partly because its people have faith, and this deserves to be recognized. What particular religion people have faith in isn't the issue in this sense- even if they have faith in nothing. It's not establishing a religion- it's recognizing that as a people some of us are religious.

The guy who posted about Deters missing the point on the park, actualy the city sold the park recently, this case about the Ten Commandments came up 17 years ago. They argued on different issues. The Fraternal Order of Eagles bought the park WAY after the old lady got pissed about the monument.

So what? The point is the monument is now on private property, and since the courts have upheld this sale it's time to put this church and state separation argument to bed. It no longer applies in LaCrosse.

www.hookahuniversity.net for wholesale hookah products.

As a liberal and an agnostic, I would like to say that I support Bush practicing his own religion freely: in his personal life. In response to the person who wrote about an attack on Christianity, I completely disagree. True, there are some communities who are offended when a religious symbol, Chrisian or not, is in the public. But that is referring to a much smaller problem in my opinion.

Where religion forms a gray area is when it interfers with personal rights. Yes, you can argue that if someone gets mad that there is a Christian symbol somewhere, even though there are Jewish symbols in public, this is interferring with their rights. However, the bigger problem is what we are currently facing: gay marriage. I am a proud supporter of homosexuals having the right to marry. If you ask most conservatives, they look to religion and the "sanctity" of marriage as their main argument. To discriminate against millions of Americans openly because of a personal relgious belief is completely inappropriate. This is what blackens my opinion of religion, because I find that in cases like this it is very discrimitory. And you cannot argue much with strict religious followers, because of the evangelistic theme in their beliefs. As much as you have the right to practice religion, you have just as much right not to, (like myself) meaning you should not have to follow the morals of someone else's ideals.

I crap bigger 'n you.