Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The writers of the First Amendment clearly never meant it to exclude posting of the Ten Commandments in public places. They had that and other religious things posted in public places all the time, and they did -- and the legislature and judicial branches still do -- start off sessions with prayer to God. It isn't unconstitutional, unless you think the Constitution should be interpreted in some way other than it was originally intended, which I don't agree with for a portion of a moment.

    Now, it may be th
    • Having non-preachy (for lack of a better word) religious items like the ten commandments posted on government buildings bothers me, but it's not that big a deal, particularly when it's in a historical context. (Obvious symbols of a religion: crucifixes, christmas trees, etc. are another matter.)

      What really pissed me off was two aspects of his argument. First, on the one hand he claimed that because the ten commandments didn't endorse a particular religion, posting them didn't violate the constitution. ("Hey, it includes Christians and Jews.") Then he follows that up to say that the lack of morality in the justice system derives from not posting and following these tenets. Well, if they don't endorse a particular religion then they can't endorse a particular morality, right? But...

      Second, his amazingly offensive implication that people without religion -- or more specificially, without a Western Judeo-Christian-derived religion -- are immoral, or at best tending toward immorality. But as you noted, no religion (or lack of religion) has a monopoly on immorality :-)