Arguments about the display of the Ten Commandments



 Religions > Atheism > Arguments about the display of the Ten Commandments

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: ""
Date: 06 Jan 2006 12:33:59 PM
Object: Arguments about the display of the Ten Commandments
Arguments about the display of the Ten Commandments
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060102/OPINION02/601\
020329
Louisville Courier-Journal - Louisville,KY,USA
Arguments about the display of the Ten Commandments
The 'wall of separation'
In your Dec. 21 article, "Commandment display is upheld," you report
that "Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said that the ACLU brought
'tiresome' arguments about the 'wall of separation' between church and
state." You also report that Suhrheinrich's ruling "said that the
organization (the ACLU) does not represent a 'reasonable person.' "
Arguments about the separation of church and state may be old, but
they are far from "tiresome." In 1802, in a clear reference to the
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church
and state."
The "wall of separation" argument, then, comes from Thomas Jefferson
and other Founders of our country. If not the ACLU, perhaps Jefferson
can qualify, in Suhrheinrich's eyes, as a "reasonable person."
OSBORNE P. WIGGINS
Louisville 40205
'The Christian crusade'
Society's salvation against the Christian crusade for schools to
include prayer, the Ten Commandments, creationism and "under God" in
the Pledge of Allegiance is that our children are independent, defiant
and resilient. I guess we can thank God for that.
LEE STEELMAN
Lawrenceburg, Ky. 40342
'Tired' of liberal issues
In the Dec. 20 article about Kentucky lawmakers seeking to allow the
display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, Democratic state
chairman Jerry Lundergan said, "We will no longer allow the Republican
Party to identify themselves as the only political party that is
considered to be a party of people of faith." He further accused the
Republicans of using religion as a wedge to win elections.
We, the voters, have one message for Lundergan and the Democratic
Party. If you also want to be considered as a "party for people of
faith," show it in the issues you support and the votes that you cast.
Until you do, you'll continue to lose elections and blame those losses
on the Republicans and this so-called religious wedge.
The voters are tired of the liberal issues that we are forced to
accept, and this is being shown each year at the polls. If the
Democrats don't understand this, then they have deeper issues that
they need to explore.
JAY KRESEN
Louisville 40213
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

 

NEWER

pg.3585     pg.2749     pg.2106     pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER