9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 120:
Line 120: − − Line 133:
Line 131: + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution? (view source)
Revision as of 13:37, September 29, 2007
, 13:37, September 29, 2007The Constitution DOES allow public display of the 10 Commandments
::I agree that the title is misleading. The word "public" is the problem. As worded, it seems to ask if a display "visible to the public" should be allowed (which, ''of course'', it is!). The question I believe it ''means'' to ask is whether the 10C's can be displayed on ''public property'' - which they can be, and are - when they are presented in historical context (cf. the frieze on the Supreme Court). It is when they are presented in the context of the processes of government, especially presented alone, that the issue gets contentious. So the lesson I see here for people posting debate topics is to be very careful about wording so the question is clear and unambiguous. Which can sometimes be very challenging! [[User:Human|Human]] 16:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree that the title is misleading. The word "public" is the problem. As worded, it seems to ask if a display "visible to the public" should be allowed (which, ''of course'', it is!). The question I believe it ''means'' to ask is whether the 10C's can be displayed on ''public property'' - which they can be, and are - when they are presented in historical context (cf. the frieze on the Supreme Court). It is when they are presented in the context of the processes of government, especially presented alone, that the issue gets contentious. So the lesson I see here for people posting debate topics is to be very careful about wording so the question is clear and unambiguous. Which can sometimes be very challenging! [[User:Human|Human]] 16:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
gov't property under the lame excuse of "historical reference".
gov't property under the lame excuse of "historical reference".
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
==The Constitution DOES allow the public display of the 10 Commandments==
For 200 years the Constitution allowed the display of the 10 Commandments on public property. The Supreme Court building itself has a representation of the 10 Commandments engraved on it. The Constitution has not changed since that time. What has changed is the interpretation of the Constitution by unelected federal judges and justices.
The Constitution still allows display of the 10 Commandments. Sadly the interpretation of the Constitution currently enforced by our government does not allow their display.
The courts won't allow the 10 Commandments, but they will allow a crucifix in a bowl of urine. They will protect anti-religious "art" in the name of freedom of speech. If the First Amendment did not mention religion, then freedom of speech would allow display of the 10 Commandments. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to allow even more freedom for religious expression, but courts have interpreted them to provide less protection for religious symbols than for ordinary speech. The courts have twisted the religion clauses to protect people from religion, rather than to protect religion from government.
The Constitution should be interpreted - as it long was - as allowing religious expression in the public arena and preventing the government from interfering with religion. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)