What has park angered? I don't get it.
Oh how sad to be in the persecuted majority! I'm so thankful that Atheists
are helping to keep religion where it should be...in your place of worship and
out of the "town square".
"Christians are told not to believe what we believe and that it is offensive
to others — but the fact is others are offending us"Can
you provide anything to back up that claim?I highly doubt that
anyone, atheist or not, cares what you believe.Do you need statues
on public property in order to believe? Or the 10 commandments posted in public
places to believe? Or prayer in public school to believe?There are
hundreds of religions out there. It makes much more sense to keep them all off
of public property than to allow them all.It is not about being
"politically correct". It is about being
Given that Mormons are an even smaller minority than atheists, may we expect
that the letter writer will encourage "offended" Mormons to stop playing
the persecution card and begin showing more acceptance whenever other religions
are critical of their beliefs?
"Atheists count for less than 12 percent of the U.S. and just over 2 percent
in the world. Those people should show tolerance and quit filing lawsuits and
being so offended by something that causes them no real harm."Way to go Patricia; but isn't that just the opposite of what you've
endorsed in other letters you've written to the editors of both the DN and
SLTrib?Please take your own advice. Christians should also show
tolerance and quit filing laws and lawsuits and quit being offended BY SOMETHING
THAT CAUSES THEM NO REAL HARM. Same sex marriages.What is good for
the goose is good for the gander, Patricia.
Seriously, DesNews? I understand that opinion forums are a place to engender
debate but all you had to do was read the very first sentence of the First
Amendment to deem this letter unworthy for publication. And yes, the USA does
prohibit the Ten Commandments and Jesus statues in public forums - both
immediately fail the first prong of the Lemon Test (statue must have a secular
purpose). In fact, Stone v Graham explicitly stated that the Ten Commandments
have no secular purpose. Christian zealots once dressed up the Ten Commandments
with a bunch of American flag noise in Van Orden v Perry to give it "secular
purpose" but that case is an outlier. Indeed, in Everson v. Board of
Education the SCOTUS stated "The 1st Amendment has erected a wall between
church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not
approve the slightest breach." Give it time, the Jesus ski statue will come
down. As a Christian, I find neither the Ten Commandments
objectionable nor a Jesus statue offensive. What I do find offensive is that
some Christians believe they need to violate the COTUS and engage in idol
worship on public lands.
I agree PC has gone to far. But the ten commandments ruling is not a part of
this. This is about government NOT endorsing religion, not a PC issue. But a
fundamental issue, I for one would rather see lady justice or the regular
Fed/state gov architecture when I'm at the courthouse, not what the zealots
want us to display.
I'm sure this will fly right by Pati, but, you don't have to be
offended by the ten commandments to be offended by a plague of the ten
commandments being placed on public property. Being offended by a statue of
Jesus on federal land doesn't mean you are offended by Jesus. In fact you
all would be wise to have a healthy respect for a separation of church and state
in all aspects. Many states have preemptively passed laws against Sharia law so
apparently Christians do believe in a separation of state and church, as long as
it's someone else's church.
Once again limiting your ability to force your religion on others is not
Oh that I could have a special filter on my eyes and ears that would prevent me
from seeing or hearing that which offends me, before I see it. Lacking such a
filter I will just have to settle for a negotiated agreement between the others
I live with to temper their advertising. America tries to do just that. Somewhere in the way-back, religion and churches claimed the right and
privilege to tell others what they should believe and also what they should do.
For the most part America put limits on the “do” part of religion to
allow the “belief” part to be unlimited. When you
advertise your religion you are trying to tell others what to believe and what
they should do. The advertising isn’t necessary for the loyalty of
members of your church, so it must be aimed at non-members. We allow the
clothes, jewelry that people wear along with building form and shape and even
prayers and other actions in public places. Signs, monuments, statues and
displays are sometime found to be troublesome when put in the public square.
Rule: keep your religion to your self.
I was in Boston recently. When we went around there were statues of Mary on a
lot of lawns. That is part of the diversity of Boston. I noted in a park that
there was a statue and people had put prayer candles around the statue. I noted
to the person that was hosting me that this would not be allowed in Utah. She
smiled and said, "Well, in Boston, we are more liberal."
The reasoning of he author seems to be that since she is a member of the
majority, her religious beliefs should be given precedence. Islam is
the fastest growing religion in the world - will she feel the same when it is a
statue of Mohammad?
Minding your manners is simply to be considerate and appreciative. To honor your
mom and dad is to support yourself and respect their property. The code of
conduct of the Myion Indians was; 1. Watch what you say. 2. don't take what
anyone said to heart or personally. 3. Never assume anything. 4. Always do your
best. Religion is what you go religiously.
It looks like some Atheists have gotten on the monument bandwagon and an
anonymous donor is paying for 50 monuments to Atheism to be spread across the
US, starting with one recently unveiled in Florida.Presumably,
religionists will have no problem with this, and will welcome the Atheist
physical expressions, along side the 10 Commandments.Problem solved!
Pati, what has a prophet of god said about this?"When we believe
or say we have been offended, we usually mean we feel insulted, mistreated,
snubbed, or disrespected. And certainly clumsy, embarrassing, unprincipled, and
mean-spirited things do occur in our interactions with other people that would
allow us to take offense. However, it ultimately is impossible for another
person to offend you or to offend me. Indeed, believing that another person
offended us is fundamentally false. To be offended is a choice we make"- David BednarYou choose to be offended. Perhaps you should
stop worrying so much about how others have offended you and worry more about
yourself. Are you serving others? Are you comforting those in need of comfort?
Are you loving your fellow man? Or are you too busy being
"offended" by them to do anything positive for society?
I learned a great truth long ago that is so basic and fundamental yet so simple
that most people miss it: Others cannot offend you without your permission. You
are the one who decides if something offends you, not the other way around.Two men in white shirts and ties knock on your door and ask to share
about Jesus Christ with you. How do you respond? Was the act of knocking on your
door offensive? Was the fact that two men want to talk to you offensive? Or is
it your own attitude of "how dare they interrupt my day" or "how
dare they contradict what I already believe" that creates the offense?You drive down the highway and see a white cross on the side of the road
marking the place of a tragic accident. Was the cross in and of itself
offensive? Was the idea of remembering a lost loved one offensive? Or is it your
own personal outrage that you were "forced" to see something that could
represent religion that causes the offense.You must make a personal
choice to be offended. Likewise, you can make a choice to not be offended.
It's that simple!
Really, in a nation where many are trying to displace science with
'creation theory' in schools you feel offended?
Were a rosary if you wish.Put a crucifix up in YOUR yard.Hold a
Bible camp at your house.Put a BYU sticker in your car window.Burn a
menorah in your front window.Dress up in a burqa or hijab.How
is ANY of that stopping your freedom of Religious expression?Just
keep it OUT of secular [common to all, neutral territory] Government.uber-Christian is no different than uber-Islam, uber-Hindi, and uber-Voo-Doo.
Pushy liberals, Patricia Sorensen (slt)Attacking belief, Patricia Sorensen
(slt)Expensive schools, Patricia Sorensen (DN)Government programs
should be to give people a temporary hand, not a lifestyle, Patricia Sorensen
(DN)There is no such thing as a free ride — someone must pay,
Patricia Sorensen (DN)The wonderful (and terrible) thing about the
internet is that it never goes away.
RanchHandHuntsville, UTThat RanchHand for the list of
Letters.BTW - It's easy to see and establish a clear pattern
into Patricia's agenda.Perhaps we should find out if she's
a member of the Utah Eagle Forum?
I am an active Latter-day Saint, but when it comes to public displays of the Ten
Commandments either at courthouses or in similar places, I agree with the
atheists.The whole fight over displays of the Ten Commandments is
frankly rather silly. There are many other issues regarding freedom of religion
which I feel are a whole lot more important than religious monuments.
How did conservatives react when Muslims wanted to construct a mosque near the
WTC in New York?
@BlueIf you want to stand outside of Temple Square and hold up signs
calling me and my fellow Latter-day Saints every foul word under the book, I
say, Go For It! Just don't expect me to acknowledge you. @LDS
Liberal, The Real Maverick, Kalindra, embarrassed Utahn!We probably
don't agree on a whole lot, but in this case, I would say we agree 100%.
Whenever I here anyone talk about "Kicking God out of our
country" regarding issues such as displays of the Ten Commandments or prayer
at high school football games, I almost want to role my eyes and shake my
head.I have been a religious person my entire life, but no group in
our country has a monopoly on freedom of religion or freedom from religion. And
if we who are religious wish to preserve our right to worship, fighting over
monuments is, in my opinion, the wrong approach.
Actually, Kalindra, you probably wouldn't see a statue of Mohammed
anywhere. Representing the Prophet is prohibited by Islam. But good thoughts
@ClarkHippo;Welcome to the twilight zone. We are on the same side
for a change.
LDS Liberal -- Haven't you heard of the new conservative group in Utah.Yup. Another one.The Utah Turkey Vulture Society.
MY religion (or lack thereof) is the only TRUE religion.So THERE!
@ Eric Samuelsen: Supposedly, Christians don't believe in idol worship
either (one of the 10 Commandments) but that doesn't stop them from putting
statues up everywhere. ;)While Muslims may not put up statues of
Mohammad, they have other public symbols that reflect their beliefs. Some
people in Pleasant Grove object to having a mosque in their town - at least
atheists aren't objecting to houses of worship being built. There has been a lot of fear lately over Sharia law coming to the US and
concerns that it will be honored above the law of the land. Some states have
even gone so far as to pass laws prohibiting Sharia to be taken into account
when interpreting contracts and wills regardless of the religious preferences of
the individuals involved.Only by strictly prohibiting Christian laws
from being enshrined into US law can we guarantee that we can also keep Sharia
law from being enshrined. If we open the door to one, the other will come also.
To "LDS Liberal" why do you want to promote the religion of Secular
Humanism as the state religion of the US?If government is neutral
territory, then they should allow all to be represented. What you and the
Secular Humanists/Athiests/Anti-Thiests are pushing is not a neutral ground, but
a ground devoid of any religion except their.To "Ernest T.
Bass" conservatives said that the Muslims had a right to, but that it was in
It isn't hurting anyone? How do you know that? I would say that about the
gay issue. I am not hurting you or any other christian. In fact, I am a
christian myself. A gay person does not hurt any christian and gay marriage is
not forced on anyone. So, tell me, why do you not leave it alone? If you think
opposition to a statue is painful, try having an entire religion or religions
treat you as if you were a demon from hell!You did, however touch upon a
thought that has been in my mind all day. Why do we do it? Why do we insist on
doing these things? We have to be right to the point of hurting those around us?
You know, most Mormons won't even have a talk to me about Christ or some
other spirtitual subject! I miss it very much! So, maybe we should all look
around and see how we can change it. Please, if you give advice, can you try and
do the same. Thanks
Redshirt - You actually have the government neutrality analysis inside-out.
Government neutrality is not typically viewed as a "free-for-all" of
religious symbolism but rather a dedication to advocate for no religion
whatsoever. So, for example, there are times when Christmas Trees and/or
Menorahs are permissible because they have become secular representations of
Winter, as opposed to religion-specific symbols. Regarding Secular
Humanism - I would suggest you brush up on the differences between a religion
and general life philosophies of individuals. Further, if you are pushing the
idea that the absence of organized religious symbols is somehow advocating for
the non-existent Secular Human religion, one must ask you: What specific symbol
represents Secular Humanism? Is it a rock? A piece of grass? The oxygen we
breathe? I believe you just engaged in an act of argumentum ad absurdum.
Although, I hope you pick "oxygen" as the Secular Humanists'
religious symbol because I like the idea that their religion is coursing through
your lungs at this very moment, being absorbed into your bloodstream, and then
distributed to each and every cell within your body.
I just want to say that this is the reason we should have more consideration
towards others, even those we may not like. If we want something for ourselves,
we should allow the same right to everyone else. We may not like it, but it
helps protect all of our rights. It amazes me how many people get all bent out
of shape when they find out I am gay. The Mormon neighbors all got concerned
when I was helping my elderly neighbor and visiting with her. Who knows what
they thought. I guess they thought I would turn her gay! Actually, we loved to
talk about geneology and many other church related topics! they never seemed to
care how much they offended me, but then, why should they??? Why should they
care what a gay person thinks or feels? It all depends what side of the issue we
"If you find the Ten Commandments objectionable, do not look at
them--problem solved."Absolutely right! And if someone hangs
posters in a public building saying "Mormonism is a cult" and "God
is dead," do not look at them. Or, if you find nudity and sex on prime-time
TV objectionable, do not look at them. Problem solved.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" according to the dictionary a religion is "a
set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".
Secular Humanism is a religion, according to that definition.So,
tell us how the government is neutral if they favor Secular
Humanism/Athiesism/Anti-Thiesm?If what you say is true about
Christmas Trees and Menorahs, then what about a cross. When placed at a road
side that is a non-religion specific symbol of death, yet the courts
disagree.You ask what specific symbol represents Secular Humanism,
they have what they call "The Happy Human". That is according to the
International Humanist and Ethical Union.Again, how can you have
government neutrality when they favor Secular Humanism?
It's called Karma -- Do unto others as you would have done unto
you.If YOU want religious freedom, YOU must allow others the
same.It's an Eternal truth.For the Record -- Mr. RedShirt was adamantly opposed to Muslims building a cultural Center
in NY [or Utah, or anywhere else in the world.]and as for your
comment toward me:"What you and the Secular
Humanists/Athiests/Anti-Thiests are pushing..." I find highly
offensive 'per this article'.I am every bit as much a Latter-Day
Saint as you claim to be - most likely even more so -- because I'm
Liberal, just like Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young and all the rest have
To "LDS Liberal" I never said that I was opposed to the Muslims building
in NY, I have always said that their choice in locations was a poor taste.Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Brigham Young were classical liberals not
Progressive/Liberal we have today, today we would call them Libertarians. You
have stated on multiple occasions that you support Socialism and fully believe
in it. You cannot be a libertarian and a socialist at the same time, only a
hypocrite would claim both. The gospel of Christ is in direct contradiction to
socialism, and much of what you have vocally supported.The fact that
you call yourself a Liberal also shows that you do not understand the church you
claim membership in. According to the Apostle and Prophet John Widstow,
"the self-called liberal is usually one who has broken with the fundamental
principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs." You
have claimed to follow the prophets, but it seems you do so only when it
doesn't interfere with your Progressive beliefs.As for being
offended about Secular Humanism, why be offended in what you are promoting for
It is dumb to demand 10 commandments monuments. But it is even stupider to whine
about them in a country that’s national anthem says: ...may the
heav'n-rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a
nation! ... And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust”.@embarrassed UtahnFree country means free to express one's
beliefs.@JoeBlowYou can claim that atheists don’t care
what other’s believe, but the reality is, atheism IS contention against
other people’s beliefs. The Constitution supports freedom to believe and
to express beliefs. You want to stop that.@BlueAll anti
beliefs, atheist or anti-Mormon, are by definition, offensive. You can share
your beliefs. But if you speak out against other people’s beliefs, you are
being offensive and contentious.@RanchHandWhen our government
endorses behavior that many of its people do not endorse, it IS causing real
harm.@Stalwart SentinelLine up all the ridiculous legal cases
you want. You will not convince me that the Constitution was designed to oppress
religious expression.@ TolstoyExpressing beliefs is not
"forcing your religion on others."
@Ultra BobAdvertising your religion is NOT telling others what to do.
I’m not forced to buy a refrigerator because I just now saw an ad for one
on this website. No one should be told where, when, or how to express their
beliefs. Period.KalindraIf Moslems want to express their
beliefs with a monument, the commentator likely would not care less. I would be
proud to see the diversity of our beliefs publically honored (but not
non-beliefs, such as atheism, which exist only to attack other people’s
beliefs). @10CCThe atheist monument in Florida proves that the
real goal of atheists is not to fight oppression. And rather than express a
belief, their monument attacks and denigrates other people’s beliefs. @HutteriteYou denigrate all creation theorists as anti-science
fools and then claim YOU are being offended? Wow.@Ernest T. BassOffense about the mosque near the WTC had nothing to do with religion.@KalindraStatues are not automatically idols.@Stalwart
SentinelNice that we can so conveniently segregate religious beliefs from
“life philosophies.” Makes it easier to deny rights to the chosen
inferior classification of believer.
RedshirtFirst - Secular Humanism is not a religion according to that
definition; re-read it more carefully. Second - You do realize I
have internet access. Hence, I have the ability to look up the definition you
cite, which means it is rather simple to confirm that you intentionally left out
the latter half of the definition which reads, that your definition applies
"especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or
agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often
containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Redshirt,
if you're so correct, why would you try to intentionally mislead me with
half-truths? Third - IHEU is an NGO, as in corporation, not
religion. Regardless, for fun, please show me where the Happy Human is
displayed in a public sphere and file your case. Put your money where your
mouth is; I can't wait for the outcome. Fourth - Convince
society at large that a cross symbolizes death in general and you may have a leg
to stand on. Fifth - if "secular humanism is religion" is
your best argument, you'll lose every time.
@Steve C. WarrenThere is a huge difference between an offensive statement
attacking another’s beliefs and a positive statement expressing
one’s own beliefs. A ten commandments monument merely shows that a segment
of America honors the ten commandments. No one is dumb enough to assume it
represents everyone's beliefs. Anti God and anti-Mormon expressions
however, say nothing about the beliefs of the person expressing those
sentiments. They merely attack the beliefs of other people--which is contention
and denigration. Ludeness and profanity on public TV are similarly
lacking in consideration of many people's beliefs and sensitivities. Since
they can be acquired elsewhere, there is no justification for obligating large
segments of the population to look the other way.You seem want it
both ways. It is apparently okay to offend, disrespect, and ignore the
sensitivities of believers in traditional marriage, believers in God, Mormons,
and those who are against public ludeness and profanity. But is not acceptable
to disrespect atheists or those who want to change the concept of marriage to
@Redshirt --Red, Dictionary.com actually says: "a set of beliefs
concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, **especially when
considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies**..."NIce attempt to mislead, Red. ;-)from Merriam-Webster:re·li·gion1: the service and worship of a god, of
multiple gods, or of the supernatural...2: the state of a religious
(life)3a : one of the systems of faith and worship : a religious
faith b : the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred
beliefs....4: the profession or practice of religious beliefs :
religious observances5: archaic : scrupulous conformity :
conscientiousness, fidelity6a : a personal awareness or conviction
of the existence of a supreme being... b : the access of such an awareness
or conviction accompanied by or arousing reverence...7a : a cause,
principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and
faith : a value held to be of supreme importance b : a quality, condition,
custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and
cherishing When the **US Constitution** talks about religion
it's referring to meanings 1,2,3,4, and 6.Secular humanism does
NOT qualify. It would be nice if it did. ;-)
Maybe there IS a persecution complex unwittingly taught in Christian Sunday
school. I can see how that could come across.But as adults, be smart
enough to know that YOU have not been persecuted against. Atheists have aver
right to not have their taxes go to religious purposes.
RedShirt -- I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, not the Church of Ezra Taft Benson.[and we already know that
Ezra T. Benson was not a Liberal].Sorry, It is NOT yours to
decide.and YES, there are Mormons who are Socialists.[most are not
in Utah, not even in America, and therefore NOT Utah Republican Tea-Partiers.]
@ContrariusAh contrar...5 and 7 fit secular humanism
quite well.And the fact is secular humanism does have its gods and
supreme beings, they may not be divine nor sometimes even human but they have
them, from scientists and philosophers, to Gaia, from money and other items of
wealth to power...--Public religious expression is
protected by the constitution NOT denied by it.Religions and
Religious people have EQUAL access to the public square, to proclaim what they
believe and to influence the making of law.That is how our system
works.It is left that wants to silence voices especially religious
and conservative ones, with incredibly nonsensical interpretations of the
Constitution, they constantly attempt to denigrate and humiliate voices they do
not like into submission or silence.
@JoeBlow"Do you need statues on public property in order to
believe? Or the 10 commandments posted in public places to believe? Or prayer in
public school to believe?"I guess we will have to tell the U.S.
Supreme Court that they need to remove their copy of the ten commandments.
@the truth --"Ah contrar..."Ummm.....I believe
you actually mean "au contraire". ;-)"5 and 7 fit
secular humanism quite well."And I already pointed out that the
US Constitution is using the meanings of 1,2,3,4, and 6.If you
really want to consider secular humanism as a religion, then secular humanist
groups ought to start getting tax exemptions. And religious speech protections.
And I can just see secular humanists going door to door on missions in Utah to
proselytize to the poor confused Mormons. ;-D And secular humanist holidays. This could be fun!But before any of that happens, you really
need to look up the meaning of the word "secular". ;-D
"Christians are told not to believe..."As said before.... I
am a Christian, I am LDS..... and at no point has anyone in my 50+ years ever
told me I can't believe what I want to believe. I have had plenty tell me
they don't agree with what I believe... and that is fine..... as I
don't believe what they believe. But honestly, I don't need the
co-mingling of government and religion to make me feel secure in my beliefs. I
don't need government having any part in my faith.... and likewise I
don't need my religion being intertwined with government. One
is sacred.... one is often subject to corruption and over reach.... I
don't need those two part of one another.
@ zoar 63: The Supreme Court building does have reference to the 10
Commandments - right next to references to other sources of religious and
secular law. The Roman Numerals I through X that are on the main doors actually
symbolize The Bill of Rights. @ RAB: Not all statues are idols,
but when you worship a statue or claim its presence is required in order for you
to be able to worship, then that statue is an idol.The Star Spangled
Banner was written in 1814, and did not become the national anthem until 1931.
The majority of the time it is performed, only the first curse is sung - which
does not contain the lyrics you reference. And claiming that we
shouldn't fuss about religion being in so many places because it exists in
so many other places besides is a ridiculous argument. I mean really - people
shouldn't complain about religion in public places because there is
religion in other public places also - that's your argument?
@ KalindraI don’t know of anyone who worships statues or
claims they need a statue to be able to worship. Fact remains that
no one in our nation had a problem acknowledging God’s importance to our
nation until the last 40 years or so when atheists began ramming their will down
everyone’s throat. Congress cannot prohibit exercise of a
religion or impede a citizen’s ability to express beliefs. Atheism is not
a set of beliefs. It is a not-belief. The Constitution therefore, neither
addresses it nor protects it. Congress cannot support non-beliefs. We have a
right to share our beliefs. But it is not anyone’s right to contend with
other people’s beliefs or to seek to limit their ability to share those
beliefs.Nativity scenes and displays of the Ten Commandments are
religious-based expressions commonly held by many Americans. It can be argued
that the spending of public money in support of religious expressions insinuates
government support. But that argument ONLY has merit when the government DENIES
proportionally equal financial support for the beliefs (not non-beliefs) of
other religious groups.
One could argue that building a monument to the 10 Commandments is actually
against one of the 10 Commandments.
Kudos RAB Take note of the answers this person gives for the comments made, As I
have watched those answers, I would like to go back to what this nation was
founded upon lest we forget. It was are you ready RELIGIOUS FReedom! thats right
to worship almight God by the dictates of our own conscience. Wether we agree or
disagree it matters not what one believes, for as Joseph Smith once said I will
defend any mans religious rights. The thing i disagree with is this, in our
government halls of Washington there are times when prayers are given, yet
denied as mixing state and church in other places. When i was growing up our
teacher would offer a simple prayer, not any religion specified and then we
would say the Pledge of Alligence, My feelings are how does this offend anyone
and if so why not ask to leave the room as opposed to what Madelyn Maree Ohare
did in the early 60s by wanting the 30 students to stand outside because she
didnt want her child to be part of pray. just for your info this is what started
the whole deal.
Thou shalt not share too much. That's what God really meant to say right?
There's such cognitive dissonance to be a republican.
I can't imagine that the message Jesus tried to teach us had anything to do
with statues of Himself.The Grinch thought he could steal Christmas
by removing all the visual, tangible symbols. "Every Who down in
Whoville, the tall and the small,Was singing! Without any presents at
all!Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a
store.""Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"
@Kalindra " The Supreme Court building does have reference
to the 10 Commandments - right next to references to other sources of religious
and secular law. The Roman Numerals I through X that are on the main doors
actually symbolize The Bill of Rights. "Google” Ten
commandments stunner” and see for yourself it even includes pictures as
part of that article. Here is an excerpt:“So he continued
looking and after calling in some assistance in his hunt for evidence, he found
a 1975 official U.S. Supreme Court Handbook, prepared under the direction of
Mark Cannon, administrative assistant to the chief justice. It said,
“Directly above the Bench are two central figures, depicting Majesty of
the Law and Power of Government. Between them is a tableau of the Ten
Commandments…”Also research the “Weinman
Letter," the artist who designed the sculptures.
@zoar63 --"Google "Ten commandments stunner" and see for
yourself it even includes pictures as part of that article. "There's a good article at the snopes website rebutting these claims as
well as others relating to religion and federal government buildings. Look under
the heading "National Capital".It even includes a photo of
Weinman's letter -- which clearly states that the statue represents THE
BILL OF RIGHTS, not the Ten Commandments.
@ zoar63: Full research reveals that the tablet between law and government
represents many ancient forms of law - the 10 Commandments may be included in
this list, but do not encompass the entirety of the list. Catherine Millard may
claim differently, but the only reference she provides is herself.As
depicted in other areas of the Court and in popular culture (and in the Bible),
the 10 Commandments were on two tablets - not one.Moses, Confucius,
Mohammad, and many others are depicted together and given equal precedence.
Truth... you are always good for a good giggle. So tell me, this secularist
religion, who heads it up, where are its doctrines enshrined, what are the
conditions of membership, and what are the forms of worship? I
love the argument that if a government says you can't push your religion on
someone else, that the government is anti religion. It isn't. It is
just anti coercion. Just because someone isn't promoting your beliefs does
that mean they are anti your beliefs. We are back to the silly land of black
and whitism. Its either all this, or all that. You are either all good... or
all evil.I don't need the government dictating any part of my
religious beliefs. I would rather religions paid taxes before I would have the
government get into the tole it played for 1800 years of dictating religious
beliefs. No thanks.... I don't need the government in my religion at