Now, I may be on my own here, but putting a monument of the Ten Commandments, a very sound and highly influential ancient law code, in a courthouse, or merely mentioning the name of God is a far, far distance from establishing a national U.S. religion!
The Ten Commandments are not "highly influential". The only things from the Ten Commandments that influence US laws are the things that are absolute no-brainers, like "don't murder" and "don't steal". The first four commandments, all of which are about God and/or religion, are not in any way a part of American law. What about the first one, for example: "Thou shalt have no gods before me"? Last I checked, it was perfectly okay to have a god before the Christian god in America, so, nope, that one's gone. Keeping the Sabbath holy? Nope, it's legal to work on Sundays (or Saturdays, whichever you consider to be the Sabbath). Et cetera.
If every single part of the Commandments dealing with religion has no bearing on American law, why do we need to include those Commandments? The reason is, of course, quite clear: it would no longer be the Christian Ten Commandments if we removed the ones that have no bearing on American law. Therefore, it seems to me that the Ten Commandments, as a whole, form a religious document out of the Bible, plain and simple, that is not directly related to anything in American law. Thus, they have no place that I can see in a courthouse - unless we want to include the Five Pillars of Islam and the major tenets of every other religion in existence. It seems to me that it'd be much easier to just keep all of them out.
I feel that when Christianity is discriminated against in this way, keeping it out whether it's reasonable or not, it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. We live in a widely diverse country, where all kinds of people can speak up. We permit people such as Ward Churchill teach in this country's universities, the kind people who disrespect their fellow citizens and country. We allow for talent competitions such as American Idol to be featured on TV. No one complains about people expressing themselves through music, and neither do I. The American justice system affords due process to criminals, and provides food and shelter for even prisoners. The American Civil Liberties Union, the cause of much distress over freedom of religion, even receives tax dollars. There's plenty of free speech there. However, God forbid that someone should do something in school or at work in the name of the Lord. (Forgive the pun).
Um, my school had a few people I knew that were openly religious. I was friends with two of them. Nobody discriminated against any of them. I'm not sure what discrimination you're talking about here.
Anyone has every right to talk about God.
Absolutely.
On one hand, Separation of Church and State is not always a bad thing. It is in fact wrong to make someone believe something they don't want to. That's why America should not establish a national religion. But no one should have the right to share their beliefs taken away. That is truly a violation of the First Amendment.
Prohibiting the display of the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not prohibit anyone from sharing their beliefs. The only thing it's prohibiting is the government from sponsoring those beliefs by displaying what is, at the root of it, a religious document in a government-owned building.
Yeah, acutally, I do have a point! Why is it that schools can talk about evolution all they won't, but even mention "intelligent design", heck no! That would be religious.
Um, that's because it
is religious. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, plain and simple. Regardless of what you think of evolution - that is an entirely different matter - intelligent design makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, does not open the door towards any further discovery, and is not supported by any reproducible tests. Furthermore, what would be the point of including it in a science class, anyway? What do you say? Something like, "The Bible says that God created the universe in seven days. Okay, class dismissed"?
Why is it such a problem in this country to have a monument to a fundamental law code?
See above.
I'm going to have to request a second source for this. Anything that quotes Scripture in an article about something religious, while not automatically biased, does not do its best in my eyes of assuring me that what they're presenting is in a completely neutral point of view. Non-religious organizations can certainly blow a religious matter way out of proportion, but religious organizations can just as equally blow something out of propotion.
