Term papers writing service


The reasons why the ten commandments should be posted in public schools

Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution? From Conservapedia Jump to: Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. The fact that we can all legally enjoy a beer is proof except for you college freshmen and sophomores in New York State Spoken like a true person-who-has-recently-attained-the-age-of-majority! Me, I can legally consume a beer.

After years of bracing myself, swallowing the stuff, trying hard not to wince, and learning to say "Ahhh! That hit the spot" as if I meant it, I finally concluded that I don't actually like the taste of spoiled yeast dying in its own waste products.

Ten Commandments: Display in Schools

Now, milk overgrown with lactobacillus acidophilus bacteria? A burned slab of mangled muscle tissue from an immature castrated cow? Yes, and give me fries with that. I just found out that Andrew Schlafly's mother's nephew—would that be a second cousin? Louis, that even brews beer made from sorghum. I guess I'd better stop making negative comments about beer, huh? Prohibition wasn't amended, it was repealed.

Amendments aren't amended, the constitution is. The bill of rights is not going to change.

  • Someone may object, "Well, then whose right and wrong do we teach?
  • Which interpretation — the Protestant, the Catholic, or the Jewish?
  • Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered.

It is the moral fabric of our constitution. Separation of church and state was made as a result of the religious persecution of christian sects in England. There is no need for a secular the reasons why the ten commandments should be posted in public schools to display any religious paraphernalia of any kind. By the way, by "public" I assume this article means government buildings and property as "public", and not public demonstrations by private citizens.

Furthermore, the role of the 10 commandments for christians is clear: Jesus fulfilled the law. He also gave us the sum-total of the commandments, love your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. The whole idea of erecting stone monuments of a book is a bit cultish anyway, bordering on a violation of the commandment prohibiting engraven images.

In fact, if one takes the constitution at its word rather than twisting it probably by calling it an "evolving document"it is UNconstitutional for congress to prohibit any public display of religion. The issue is whether any branch of the Government should allow the public display of religious documents for the express purpose of encouraging their acceptance. Specifically, allowing a judge to display the protestant version of the 10 commandments there are differences between different Christian sects and to imply he is using them to superceede the actual laws of the country.

Surely it depends on the context: Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol?

Although because of the swastika, most people are likely to think the Hindu symbol is the swastika, or the swastika drawn wrongly. Just saying - JamesCA 00: In a courtroom, which is a public building, there is separation of church and state, no religious paraphernalia allowed.

But in his private life, he can practice any religion he wants. Despite your straw man, I will answer that, yes, it would be protected. Perhaps the judge who has the swastika should never have been approved as judge, or perhaps there may even be good grounds to impeach him, yet his swastika should not be removed under the excuse that it is religious symbol; that would be unconstitutional.

Fortunately I think that there is little chance of this ever being a problem. Well, I think that the legal situation here, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, must surely depend on what is in the judge's heart. If the judge is, in his heart, a Hindu, and has put the swastika up for the purpose of expressing his Hinduism, then it is sending a religious message. But what if the judge is not really a Hindu at all, but is actually a Nazi, and has put it up to send a political message and is just pretending that it is a religious message?

Is it the same situation? Although I used the phrase "free speech" and you might be right: The judge does not have control over his courtroom above the constitution. Suppose he also wanted to put a French flag in the courtroom, can he do that? The courtroom is not his private property; he is a public servant working in a public building under the regulation of a government that is separate from the church.

  • They knew that throughout history, governmental involvement in religion had caused millions to be killed in conflicts over whose religious beliefs should be supported or opposed by the government;
  • The county thought that posting the Ten Commandments, along with the first part of the United States Constitution, might help increase moral values;
  • Should the Ten Commandments be Posted in Schools?
  • Parents have a right to ensure that their children receive religious instruction;
  • Amendments aren't amended, the constitution is.

What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers? In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B.

Should the Ten Commandments Be Posted?

DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message. Even in the case of something like the Ten Commandments, which are part of the religious heritage of the vast majority of American citizens, there are opportunities for sectarian friction, since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently.

Incredible as it may seem, this was a real issue when the Eagles began placing these monuments in the 1950s. Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and the wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958. Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered.

But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution. The first Amendment to the Constitution states: If the issue were clear, it would not be controversial. Since the ACLU has won some of these cases, some judges must have thought some cases of this kind were not "clear. I don't quite agree with your argument.

  1. Same with any other would-be shooter. That position is further supported in a brief filed at the U.
  2. They also use different Commandments, wording, and translations.
  3. The county thought that posting the Ten Commandments, along with the first part of the United States Constitution, might help increase moral values. But in nineteen eighty, the Court ruled that the Ten Commandments cannot be shown in public schools because displaying them shows support of religion by the government.
  4. The courtroom is not his private property; he is a public servant working in a public building under the regulation of a government that is separate from the church. Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments...
  5. They knew that throughout history, governmental involvement in religion had caused millions to be killed in conflicts over whose religious beliefs should be supported or opposed by the government.

The ACLU has an agenga; they are trying to remove religious symbols from public display. Despite the fact that allowing a public display of the 10 commandments is clearly protected by the constitution, the ACLU still fights it because it is against their agenda. This is why I believe at any rate that people call the constitution an "evolving document" and why the 1st ammendment is re-interpreted "eperation of church and state"; The only hope for the ACLU is to reduce clarity.

Tim, I'm a bit confused by your logic. You state that "regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religion. It isn't at all clear to me what that has to do with congress passing regulations. This is prohibited by the free exercise clause: People say that there is a "Separation of Church and State," in the first ammendment, but that is not true.

The establishment clause was put in to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. People also say there's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in the Constitution, but gosh darn it, I can't seem to find those words anywhere! Does that mean that those, too, are invalid?

  • You had better believe in and worship the Judeo-Christian God, and only Him;
  • And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage;
  • It is so important to God that you worship only Him that he orders the death penalty for those who do otherwise:

Government should remain neutral to religion, and the 10 Commandments are certainly not a religiously neutral document. Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument. You are dismissing out of hand the actual logic used in all cases by the courts where they have struck down such displays and therefore think that the only relevant case is if congress prohibited it?

Am I following you correctly? And the only way to properly ban it that I can think of would be an act of congress, and that is prohibited by the free exercise clause.

Also note that one doesn't need a "Separation of Church and State" to consider the placement of a 10 commandments to be an establishment of religion note that not even everyone agrees how to split them up. As far as I can tell there are three major divisions, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish although some Protestants use the Jewish division, and some Protestants Anglicans?

The division of the commandments is irrelevant to this debate. It's not quite irrelevant, because it means that even though the Ten Commandments are common to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, any particular public display of them in which they are numbered one through ten is identifiable as being the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish "version.

Posting the Ten Commandments on Public Buildings

But I'll bet a nickel that Judge Roy Moore is aware of this, and that his monument uses the Protestant numbering. I haven't checked yet.

Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments. I have the feeling that neither side is being candid about their motivation. If Judge Roy Moore or anyone else wants to acknowledge God, he can do so with his actions and with the conduct of his life.

I don't know why he needs a ton of stone to do it. If I felt that the only message people intended to send by a display of the Ten Commandments was that they personally oppose murder, adultery, profane language, and Sunday shopping, I don't think I would see any harm in it. On the other hand, I don't really think I really equate a public display of the Ten Commandments, with a legal requirement that, as a condition of employment, every government official and university professor must subscribe to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England.