Talk:Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?
There are, in fact, instances of the 10 Commandments on just about every building in Washington D.C. When considering the 1st Ammendment, it should considered in its entire context instead of a portion taken out of context of the whole amendment.
The Ten Original Amendments: The Bill of Rights. Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note: That meaning the Congress shall not interfere with a persons free exercise of an established religion, such as Judaism or Christianity.
Today people no longer follow our American Constitution of the United States of America. They preach that there should be a separation of the Church from the State. A separation of the Church from all public arenas. This isn't from the 1st Amendment but rather it is from:
CONSTITUTION (FUNDAMENTAL LAW) OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Adopted at the Seventh (Special) Session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR Ninth Convocation On October 7, 1977
Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.
This should settle the matter. But for some, the big lie, is more important than the entire truth.--Roopilots6 12:02, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- Read "Lemon v. Kurtzman," Supreme Court Case, and tell me what the Constitutions says afterwards.-AmesGyo! 12:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
A classic mistake. First you read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, to get a true understanding of what their original intent was in the historical record of that time. Did that already. That way you'll know when a judge or lawyer has subverted the American peoples rights. i.e. Lemon v. Kurtzman. I'm going to give you a clue as to how to identify the big lie that subverts the 1st Amendment into the complete opposite of its original intent. When anyone only mentions the "establishment clause" out of context with the rest of the meaning that the whole amendment is meant to convey. That's why I provided article 52 of the now defunct USSR. It's only a recent attempt to establish the secular Humanist religion as the predominant religion. Recent political reinterpretations don't change the original, and whole true intent of it. So go ahead and site as many cases as you can where the rights of Americans have been taken away in a court of law. Just remember that everything Hitler and his nazis goons did was first made legal by his politically appointed judges and lawyers. You may remember what happened to that group of people that took religious liberty from people? So then, which version of the facts will you be casting your future with?--Roopilots6 11:52, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Beware reading the 1st Amendment in isolation
While the 1st Amendment does restrict establishment of religion by Congress, this was changed by ratification & interperetation of the 14th Amendment. Under the US Supreme Court's incorporation doctrine, the 14th expanded applicability of the 1st & some other amendments to all of government. While you won't find the exact phrase, "separation of church & state", in the Constitution, this phrase is shorthand for a body of thought that developed over centuries to become the law of the land. However, it isn't uniformly enforced.Tom Stockton 21:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)