The bullshit being slung in this thread is almost mind-numbing.  There are some things that need to be straightened out.

Ellie said:…

Give her a break Lobo; she’s a school teacher. /sarcasm
Her students, on the other hand, should sue.

Sorry ellie, but you do disingenuous SO well.

Middle East “Religionocracies”:
I think the word you are looking for is theocracy. Let me deal with this before moving on to your later reply.

There is only one theocracy in the ME and that is Iran. The rest, excluding the democratic nations, are authoritarian regimes.

Rule of law does not equal to democracy although some have argued that it is a prerequisite to a democracy but I would disagree. It may be a prerequisite to a functioning well developed democracy but certainly it is not a prerequisite to democracy. Remember rule of law merely talks about how one enforces and applies the law, it has nothing with regards to whether the law is just.

The best example of a country not being a democracy yet having a rule of law in the Middle East would be the UAE.

97% Statistic:
Using the Pew survey as pointed out below shows that there are 3% Atheist but 16% unaffiliated and another 2.7% of other faith (Exclude Christian/Jews/Catholics).

There is a logical flaw in your 97% assumption. That is, if a person states he is a Christian he must necessarily believe that the 10 Commandments are the foundational beliefs or that his right or wrong compass stems primarily from religious belief. As has been pointed out in debate over moral education in school, one can teach morals and right and wrong without the need to invoke religion. On the other hand there may be unaffiliated believers who are not of the Abrahamic religion that believes in the 10 Commandments or at least in a particular version of it.

Strict Interpretation: No Air Force
Now I am not too sure whether have I said this before on this site but if one decides to adopt a strict construction of the constitution, we would have to abolish the US Air Force simply because the constitution only provides for funding of Army and Navy. And of course the rules of construction have to be similar. Furthermore, a strict construction is not used if such construction would in effect defeat the whole purpose, or render the particular provision meaningless whatsoever. One crazy example is if there is a law banning a student from bringing a gun to school. One strict construction could mean that this does not include rifles and thus students can bring rifles to school.

Choice:
Offering people choice does not resolve the issue that one is treating someone better than the other.

By that argument one might say that a dictator that allows people to freely leave and enter his country is giving the people choice as to whether they want to stay under a dictatorship or move away. Since choice is provided, we do not need democracy in that country as long as there is democracy in some other country.

Hammurabi:
A small point on his code. Actually his law includes protection of women and children against injustice.

10Cs: Deuteronmy & Leviticus
Ah I was hoping you would say this. The 10Cs is thus reliant upon an additional document, that of the bible. Thus they are simple fundamental guidelines in reference to the bible.

Roman Law:
Hate to burst your bubble but Roman law established many principles that are still used today. There is a reason why there are some latin terms in law. From the nemo dat principle to laws on what happen when you mix stuff that belongs to you and another person (commixtio and confusio). Just type Roman Law into google. The Roman empire had law AND power. Well as for it being written thousands of years ago before the Romans, that is something the religion claimed much akin to some claims that the world is only 6000 years old. At best I can agree that the Old Testament was written somewhere during the 7 century BC.

Not too sure exactly what you mean by “...fulfilled them.so when Christianity was established as their state religion, gentiles were trying to eliminate the Jewish roots of their new cult.” But like it or not it was Constantine (hey I suddenly get the idea behind the name of Keanu Reeves new movie) who adopted Christianity, which had existed but until then was a relatively unimportant cult. And it has been argued that it is the Chruch specifically the papacy that is the heir to the Roman Empire.

By the way, I happen to be in class during history lessons. There is no need to throw insults and use curses if you want a proper discourse. But since you enjoy using them I guess the question to ask is where were YOU when you were supposed to be in history, busy stuffing your face with food and putting on weight? Really gluttony is a sin you know, no harm shedding some pounds, Fatty Ellie.

Culture:
I understand what you are saying about religion and culture. Of course, one might argue in jest that as long as one can define one’s religious action as cultural then can the state establish a “culture” that just so happens to worship a particular god?

I don’t understand what’s so complicated about the case.  As far as I’ve read it wasn’t paid for by taxpayers, it was private donation.  The 1st amendment states that CONGRESS shall PASS NO LAW establishing or restricting the exercise of any religion.  Congress nor any state legislative body is involved, & no law has been passed.

Any monument placed in a public venue (that is, one that receives its primary funding from collected taxes or government subsidies), no matter how it ARRIVED there, is being maintained using public funds.  Mowing the grass around it, or whatever other sort of upkeep it requires to stay clean and in good repair, is paid for by funds that were appropriated THROUGH LAWS PASSED to dole out those taxpayer dollars or government subsidies.

Although this is in part based on the fact that I don’t think any of his followers have either the money or the generosity to do so, & even if they did, it would help Christianity more than hurt it by scaring & offending people.

Your grasp of Satanism shows that you watch too much TV.  However, I’d have to agree that the Satanic principle of taking responsibility for one’s own actions (for one example) rather than crediting all good things in life to the worship of an invisible guy in the sky, or a dead god on a stick would be QUITE scary and offensive to Christians.  You DO know that most Satanists don’t believe in an actual entity named Satan, much less the archfiend that stalks the souls of Christians in hopes of swelling the ranks of Hell, right?

PopTarts:  Don’t be hatin on Ellie.  I personally think she’s a cutie, but I always liked the “healthy” girls.

If you gotta take whacks at her, go for the parts that are relevant, like being dumb as a box of hammers.

Pop Tarts:

I usually agree with you, but I have to go with Lobo on this one.  Until you post a picture of yourself, leave the weight comments on the sidelines.  Better yet, just stay above the fray. It will lend credence to your comments. Leave the humor to Brock.

Peter Fredson:

The article is at best your subjective opinion.  It contains nothing in the way of legal analysis, and illustrates a lack of understanding of the law with respect to Establishment Clause law. 

A point of distinction with respect to the article. You reference “Justice Moore.” Roy Moore is not a Justice.  He is not even an attorney now.  He was removed from the Alabama Supreme Court and was disbarred, and rightfully so.  He is the former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Your article leaves the impression that “Justice Moore” serves on the Supreme Court with Justice Scalia.  The chasm in intellectual prowess between Justice Scalia and the disbarred Roy Moore is so wide it is not even comparable.  No writer, at least no writer that wants to be taken credibly, would dare to compare the two.  Even the most ardent liberals will ackowledge this.

Ellie:

I want to root for you.  I’m on your side.  And yet when you say that Roman law had no bearing upon our legal system, I just have to shake my head.  Google Justinian Code or Corpus Juris Civilus. PLEASE?

To all:

The Supreme Court currently has before it two cases that involve the 10 Commandments.  The fact patterns in the two cases are different.  It is quite possible the Court could issues different rulings in the two cases before it.  When discussing this issue, the FACTS of each case matter. 

For future reference, any writing on this subject that fails to highlight the factual differences between the two cases is an excellent indication that the author is getting ready to propagandize.  The article that started this thread is a textbook example of this.

Going back to the beginning, Ellie said this:

So it might have more to do with what kind of donations of art may public places accept.

among many other things.

An interesting thought, but nothing but sophistry in this case. If the building in questions was a school, or a post office or even the bloody senate, that arguement could be made. But it’s not, it is a court house, a place where people go to be judged and any document or artwork depicting rules of judgment is not simply artwork, it takes on an implied significance that is much greater. In the case of the 10c’s, specifically number 1, it makes someone like me, an atheist, fell that I couldn’t possibly get a fair trail because I don’t bow down before the imaginary dude in the sky.

No, as long as a person gives me an argument even if it may be “dumb” I will give it the respect it deserve and counter it or point out the lack of logic. But once anyone stray off the debate to personal attacks… Besides, I speak of weight only because, I love, much akin to some Christians who proselytize, because they believe in their heart that they are trying to save the “unsaved” for an eternity of damnation. So Ellie, treat my concerns for a healthy life as seriously as how you treat your comments on my history lessons. Unfortunately, I cannot put up a picture for doing so would prevent me from expressing my views or any views for that matter.

Consigliere:  Yes, opinion is always subjective but I have read extensively in legal literature on this case and know all the Supreme Court Decisions.  Do I propagandize? You bet! I have utter contempt for the Bush administration and its successful attempts to divert attention from real issues. The attempt to install religious slogans, icons and monuments in public places is tantamount to spitting in the faces of all non-Christians.
On “Justice” Moore.  Yes, I know what you say, but when you GOOGLE for him, most of the Far Right sites still refer to him as “Justice.” It may be an honorific way, like calling someone Mayor long after they have left office.

Ellie: You might open a book on CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY to check your rendering of Religion vs Culture.  By the way I do have a blog site
http://peterfredson.diaryland.com/050224_92.html
I’m sorry if any of my remarks offended you as I recognize signs of irritation, after years of married life, when I would ask my wife, “What’s Wrong?” and she would snap back ‘NOTHING!”

Tired, & still considering the review of Stem cell ethics I’ve been reading, but here goes:
Brock:  Aww, no problem.  You do bitchy so well.
1) I never said the 10 commandments are our basis of law.  Simply exploring the idea that they are privately donated to promote a movie that gives the story of the roots (at a modest estimate) 81% of our counrty identifies with religiously, & up to 97% culturally.  I simply pointed out there is no law involved here, only a display of artwork.
2) I wrote religionocracies because I want to call them that.
3) Regarding my EXACT QUOTE

the Roman Empire has little to do with the legal aspects of our cultural heritage.

As usual, I have to repent my exaggeration, I was first of all overlooking the Roman Republic completely & second of all would amend it to “is only one part of the legal aspects of our cultural heritage.”
4) I never made a connection between democracy & rule of law, but between freedom & rule of law, although I conceed the 2 can be easily confused.
5) I’m not going to respond to PopTarts’ pathetic misunderstanding of strict interpreation.
6) I opened the door to personal insults with both my statements & the incredibly silly choice of revealing my morbid (since PopTarts felt the need to intervene & save my life) obesity in my avitar.  If you have the impression that I’m commenting for any other purpose than engaging discussion, (however selfish that may be) you’re wrong & I guess you’ll have to take my word for it.  But this next statementis not intended sarcastically when I say Amen! brother, “Super Size Me” changed my life!
Gyn: yeah, why does everyone assume I need schooling in Satanism?  you have to admit Satanic artwork, while perhaps thought provoking is not exactly intended for display before the average nor the immature mind.
Peter: Ummm, if you were addressing me, no, not offended...?

Upon further reflection I think the reason I overlook both of the Roman influences on our legal system is I like Locke so much, & I feel he & the Magna Carta are of greater relevance, but that’s obviously just an opinion.

The 10C’s were a way of freeing the people from the tyranny of the god-king religionocracy of the pharoh in Egypt.

Other than the small little fact that the 10Cs actually came FROM Egypt in the first place.
These few “Jewish tenets” came directly from the Kemetic 42 Admonitions of Ma’at.
Which were written long before any mythical Moses allegedly strided up Mt. Sinai.
http://anu-world.com/id9.html

Why exactly are Jewish tenets being so vehemently defended and pushed by Christians BTW? Mostly it seems because 99% of so called Christians really have no clue what Christianity is, there are 33,800 different sects, several Bibles and so many outright LIES told by the Authority of the Church for 2000 years that how could anyone know unless the “Sheeple” actually think for themselves and seek the REAL truth, the REAL origins of what it is they think they worship.
Iv found that most Atheist know far more about Christianity and the Bible than any Christian.

As for whether or not a stone Monument or whatever other form of display of what is without question a Jewish/Christian religious icon (10Cs) is in fact Displaying thus Authorizing & Proselytizing the Christian religion on Federal/State/Public property, Ummm why is this even a question?  What could possibly be more religious? Why is ONLY 1 religious faction (Christianity) pushing/blubbering/yelling and screaming for these so called (Ceremonial Deism) Monuments to be displayed?
Funny I dont see Jews or Atheist or any others demanding these “Secular” *Guffaw* documents remain in place, where BTW I might add they were put ILLEGALLY.

The 10Cs are no more a basis for American Law than is David Letterman’s Top 10 list.

It did not reflect the values of all the founding fathers, this fact can clearly be inferred by the total absence of anything Biblical or God etc. written into the Constitution, they took great pains to purposely leave all religious dogma OUT.

Our laws come from interpretations of John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government which I believe got some if not most of his ideas from Aristotles: A Treatise on Government.
Here is where our founding fathers took the Ideas of American Law.
http://www.agh-attorneys.com/3_camo_ch_1_heritage.htm
These text were interpreted into American Law by Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison, Adams taking the good concepts, the contracts while being careful to omit any references to anyone’s alleged “God”.
http://www.manybooks.net/pages/aristotletext04tgovt10/-1.html

Displaying the Judeo Christian 10 commandments on State & Federal property is without question a blatant violation of Separation of Church & State, what could possibly be more religious?

It is true, the phrase “separation of church and state” does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution. There is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like “right to privacy” or even “right to a fair trial.” Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Of course not - the absence of these specific words does not mean that there is also an absence of these ideas.
The right to a fair trial, for example, is necessitated by what is in the text because what we do find simply makes no moral or legal sense otherwise in the 6th Amendment.
There is nothing there about a “fair trial,” but what should be clear is that this Amendment is setting up the conditions for fair trials: public, speedy, impartial juries, information about the crimes and laws, etc. The Constitution does not specifically say that you have a right to a fair trial, but the rights created only make sense on the premise that a right to a fair trial exists. Thus, if the government found a way to fulfill all of the above obligations while also making a trial unfair, the courts would hold those actions to be unconstitutional.

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a “religious liberty” exists in the First Amendment, even if those words are NOT actually there:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”...

The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. This is why such complete lunatics like Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell have carte Blanche to preach their divine Hatred nation wide 24/7 on TV, Second it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government “establishes” a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.

Can anyone deny that the First Amendment guarantees the principle of religious liberty, even though those words do not appear there? Similarly, the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state - by implication, because separating church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.

This is precisely what Jefferson both inferred in his writing of it and argued vehemently for, so did I might add most all of the founding fathers Christians included & powers that be at that time, This exact point was argued and laid to rest 200 years ago. The only reason it is brought up today is ignorance of the law, the Constitution and its implied principle.