As much as I tend to easily get into fussing with christains, I feel this is wrong (clicka).
Right, church is separate from state, people have the right to follow any religion & stuff. But then, I think this act would only be right if they were doctrinating in the court. As long as they didn’t use that statue to help judging cases, nor refered to it while speaking to the jury etc… things would be ok. It wasn’t harming anyone.
Looks more like extremism to me. I tell religious people to stay at least 10 steps away from me in a weekly basis but I don’t persecute them & destroy their symbols. I believe people should be free to addorn their workplace with said symbols too.
I agree, it was in a school, and church and state have got to be fully seperated - religion has got no place in our public school system, and if you give one step, then that only brings more to come.
Religious people are also part of the public though. Not that it affects me any, but taking it away for the sole fact of it being church property is a bit senseless (if there was was another reason, I am a bit clueless to see it). That’s kind of like taking a Shinto temple down just because of the same reason. I agree it’s not hurting anyone and whoever doesn’t care about a piece of property like that, shouldn’t just take it down because they don’t believe in it. it’s harmless.
And instead of tearing it down, all they would have had to do was remove the headline. The Ten Commandments exists in almost every religion, and set of laws: Just in a different form, and sometimes language. Besides: They’re actually good laws.
And the whole reason the Ten Commandments were there to begin with was to show where our laws come from. Hell, every law on Earth is mentioned somewhere in the Ten Commandments. However, it could easily be a thinly-veiled religious thing, but I doubt that any court would be THAT stupid.
It wasn’t just church property, it was a statue of the ten commandments the size of a washing machine - thats a bit more than just a little paper weight. That sounds more like a shrine.
As such, religion is not in our schools for a reason. Just because laws based on the ten commandments doesn’t mean they are the ten commandments - as such, they were right in removing it because it is a blatant and unneccessary religious reference stapled right in the atrium of the school.
Religion is taught in schools.Not all schools, but a lot. I don’t think it should be, but it is, and quite frankly it’s harmless. It’s culture, sometimes it’s interesting, even if you don’t believe in it. Like that piece of property, it can be acknowledged by those who believe in the church and it can be ignored by those who don’t. Saying it’s unecessary can be said for all the numerous religious icons around the world. Bhuddist statues, Greek and Roman temples, etc. Just because a lot of people don’t believe in God is no reason to punish those who do. I’m not exactly saying taking away a religious pice of property is punishment, mind you, but if something like that happens, then they may as well take down shrines and churches as well, do those who deem them unecessary…(just my opinion)
The seperation of church and state aren’t based on them being unneccesary at all, they are seperated to allow a wider range of children to attend public schools (mainly). I disagree with religion being taught in schools at all, and I disagree with religious clubs after school, and any general religious presence in school, not just because it doesn’t need to be there, but why should you make some people feel uncomfortable when everybody else can get along without it just fine?
Seperation of Church and State wasnt made up to keep people from religion. It was intended to be used so that the church doesent have legal authority. As far that goes, why not remove the word God from our money and pledge of allegiance ? By having the Ten Commandments posted, they arent forcing religion upon anyone. Some people are just too sensitive about some things. How about keeping churches from posting those wity little comments out front “Get right with God or get Left behind” wouldn’t you consider that forcing religion on people before the 10 commandments on a courthouse lawn ?
ponders what the 10 Commandments of Nate would look like in a public place… I’d be assassinated… tolly
It’s a sticking-point. It’s very hard to completely remove religion from the government because it’s such an ingrained part of many people’s lives, and to ignore it or pretend it doesn’t exist (or outlaw it) is counterproductive. No matter what happens, people will complain. If you strike all mention of God from everything official, religious people will complain. If you include God in something, atheists will complain.
But the whole “in God we trust” is generic enough to not really bug too many people. The problem is that the Ten Commandments are of a specific religion, and are on government property. Quite frankly, it doesn’t infringe on anyone if it’s removed, whereas those who aren’t Judeo-Christian would feel very uncomfortable walking past it every day. Private churches are, of course, free to post what they want where people might walk past it, but this is a public government building.
Freedom of religion is a right guaranteed by your constitution, I believe, and the judicial branch of the federal govenment must adhere to these things to the letter to appear impartial and law-abiding. Otherwise, they may get challenged.
I’ve never understood why public places need to be so religiously sterile. The Ten Commandments make some people uncomfortable? Wooden chairs make people uncomfortable too, but no one sues over them. Whether people are comfortable viewing religious items is not the point.
The question is, does the Constitution outlaw religious items in public buildings? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” - but does a granite monument really prohibit the free exercise of religion? No. Not at all.
People can make up all kinds of excuses - it makes them uncomfortable, it distracts them, it infringes on their rights - but those are not good enough reasons to purge religion from the public eye. For example, the Amish believe that portraits and photographs are evil, due to the Bible’s warning against graven images. Thus, any public institution with pictures hanging on its walls is, in a sense, infringing on their religious rights - according to some people’s logic, anyway.
If the Amish believe pictures are wrong and nobody cares, then why does it matter that some people disagree with the Ten Commandments? No one, by seeing them, is being forced to believe in them. More often than not, people complain about this sort of thing because they dislike Christianity, not because they’re worried about anyone’s freedoms. It’s a ‘crutch for the weak’ and all that, and they’d like to see it disappear.
Frankly, I’m inclined to disagree with thier removal.
I do prefer the separation of Church and State, but when it comes down to it, the Ten Commandments statue isn’t meant to bother anyone. I figure it’s a reminder to everyone what the most basic laws are…
REligion aside, the Ten Commandments are good, common-sense laws. In a way, they are the basis of most Western law. Not always follwed, true, but still. The only reason some are uncomfortable is because they turn up in a book considered holy to at least half, if not more of, the western world.
Ultimeately, it’s not prohibiting any relgion, but some would see as condoning it A breach of Church and State. Unfortunately, as much as you can dream of an Athiestic government, you really cannot expect something run by people to go completely without something that affects so many of the same people.
I think that symbolism is exactly the reason it should have been removed. the supreme court s based entirely upon the constitution. the ten commandments are not. whether or not the ten commandments are good or bad is irrelevant. religious doctrines should not be posted in government buildings.