use Perl

• It Doesn't (Score:1)

  by pudge (1) on 2002.02.27 10:18 (#5189) Homepage Journal

  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 that the de facto posting of the Ten Commandments may be considered to take away someone else's right to freedom of religion; however, that is not the same thing as disallowing all cases of posting the Ten Commandments, as it would be dependent on each specific circumstance: if no one is offended, then there's no violation on those grounds.
  
  At that point it may end up as, "The Ten Commandments in a public place are not unconstitutional in themselves, but someone will probably be offended, and we'd have to take it down, so it's best to avoid it entirely."
  
  As to the lack of its posting causing immorality, no, I think we're capable of achieving that regardless of what's printed on our walls.
  

  Reply to This

  • Re:It Doesn't (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lachoy (1663)

    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. ("H