I can see both sides of it, one it didnt bother me that the commandments were there. And my thoughts are if it was left there what happens with someone wants to place thier religous symbol there also, say something like a pentagram. To some that is thier belief and you would have to respect that belief. You should worry about keeping the ten commandments in your heart and not so much on the lawn of a court house.
I like how sensitive we have become as a nation to the feelings of others. In fact so much so, that we applaud the squashing of heritage in order to maintain the notion that everyone is entitled to not having their feelings hurt by the majority.
First let's accuratly portray reality, monuments such as the 10 Commandments and other religious icons, i.e. "In God We Trust", etc (specifically denoting Christianity here) did not appear on our front porches as a barrage from political forces involved in church. These came to us as the nation was in majority favor of them, and accepted them. Wether you believe in a deity of any kind or not, to say this nation was not founded on religious (particularly Christian) principles is an outright lie. It is obvious that our nation started out as being very religious in nature.
So these monuments remain so as a heritage. It does not in any way imply that the government endorses, promotes, or holds higher the religion of one over another.
My personal opinion, non-christian people have more of an agenda at hand then they really do a case. (Speaking of those who go out of their way to make an issue of religious infusion in our society.)
What is really interesting though is that as many churches as we have in Richmond, yet they made nothing of a stand to keep the commandments. It seems as if the nonchristians are more interested in religion than the christians.
What fun and important too! The discussion on the "Commandments" rages on. This is a failure of public education I think mostly. Our founding fathers and mothers were pretty clear on seperation. The secular - or the practical, and the religious or spiritual, were to be independant of one another because they served different, and here we can use here the eliptical: "gods! One served the practical needs of the nation. This side relied on rational men engaged in productive discourse and action. These discussions were guided by principle and an evolving body of constitutional law. The domain of religion deals in the metaphysical; the subjective, and belief in what can not be immediately proven rationally or scientifically. These two ways of seeing the world, the founders decided, had proven over the millenia to be concerned with mutually incompatible ends and means. They therefore agreed to recognize both and to define the limits that each would could impose on the other- that exclusivity is what we call seperation of church and state. It has nothing to do with wether or not the founders were believers or not, or wether they were messaging their founding beliefs in coded phrases on our currency or not, but on the simple recognition that these two important aspects of human existance are best kept apart. All the arguements we have seen are about the boundary line - how close is your neighbors nose to your stink? Not about the fundamentals. Mr. Rotha is an American hero who appears to know the law and has helped all of us see that boundary more clearly. The rest should take out their history books and get cracking, thankful that inquiry is still free in this country.
Mr. Roha never has been or ever will be an American hero!
Hero? Wow. Don't think I'd use that word to describe someone that got a rock moved from in front of a Courthouse. Now had he moved the rock physically, and in doing so saved someone's life, then yes maybe so.
I was not sure if this was true but I heard there is a protest at the courthouse on May 14 to bring back the commandments at the courthouse. I was wondering if anyone knew anything else about that.
Lord help us, if there is Mr. Roha will probably try to stop it.
Who is Mr. Roha?
Kind of like the Grinch. He's a mean one, mister Grinch.
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.
I'm pretty sure the meeting is May 15th (2004).
Mr Roha, a believer in the First Amendment, would certainly do nothing to stop your right to peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances.
However, the same First Amendment is why the government had to remove the religious monument from the front of the courthouse.
Okay fine I see you can carry the 1st Amendment around with you underneath your shoulder, however I don't think you would be worthy to show consistency in that matter. My point being that the 10 Commandments were not only merely posted on the courthouse lawn but also ingrained within our society. Even though you take them off the lawn, is irrelevant to the fact that we still have laws based on them same commandments. If you really want to be consistent with the government staying out of religious affairs and maintaining distance from legislating morality, then you will need to note the following:
Children will need no parental permission for anything anymore, this means drinking, driving, field trips, etc. We also will have to abolish the principle that parents are responsible for their children. We don't want any child growing up thinking that the government supports Biblical principles which encourage children to honor (obey)their parents. This is not only in the 10 commandments, but also repeated through out the rest of the "religious text".
Murder can not be considered a crime. We now must look at it as a mental deficiency equivalent to downs syndrome and others. We can still say that murder isn't the "right" thing to do, but cannot appear to follow traditional biblical guidlelines by posing such action as an illegal act worthy of a punishment, which by the way is exactly what the 10 C's does.
Adultery also cannot be considered a crime, or even that of any immoral act. Remember we aren't giving precedent to the 10 C's idea of morality here. So if a man wishes to divorce his wife on the grounds of adultery, he now cannot, as we don't wish to impose Judeo-Christian morals upon someone who doesn't want them. And since a judge needs to dissolve a marriage (which also has a religious derivitive), he cannot do so on grounds of adultery.
Stealing and purgery? Do I really need to explain these too?
Also something I noticed, the 1st Amendment states, "shall make no law". I would like to impose on you to define exactly which law the city of Richmond made by having a monument of the 10 C's. I want to know which law you were forced to break by having an opposing belief.
If Anyone wishes Legal Advice or assistance in challenging the Decision to remove the Ten Commandments Monument contact the CBN( Christian Broadcasting Network ) and they will put you in touch with their Legal Center.
The People at this center combat the ACLU all the time and their usually successful in combating the Left Wing Civil Liberty Agencies.
Do you think to remove the 10 commandments from the state so that there shall be no further obligation to observe your Creator’s demands? God Almighty asks, “Who, who will serve Me? My people, or a foreign nation?” Father, how can a foreign nation serve You, when they know You not? “Where am I going?” To save Your people. “But what of the others?” Father, what of the others? “How can I save them?” How can You, Father? “Only if they know Me.” How are they to know You, Father? “Have they listened to what I’ve said?” I don’t know that they have, but how can anyone come to know You without listening to what You say? “And what have I said?” These things are recorded in the Bible, and some people have a personal knowledge of You that helps to clarify Your purposes even further. “But what if people refuse Me?” How can they avoid the devastation that eventually will come to someone who stands aloof from God? You are their only protection from eventual destruction. “What happens if a nation refuses Me?” It, too, will find devastation if it refuses to heed Your instructions. We have plenty of history of this in the Bible already. “Will I tolerate their ruthlessness?” Why do You call this ruthlessness (having no compassion, merciless)? “To whom shall they go for safety, protection, salvation?" There’s no one left, but themselves. “Do they not see Me?” I believe they’ve chosen not to. “Then how shall I see them?” How, Father? “Who will see their trouble?” Do they need You to see their trouble? “My son, where is madness?” Where, Father? “To know a solution, but to refuse it. If a nation will not observe My life, what will it observe?” Death, Father. Perhaps not immediately, but eventually. And unmistakably. “Why will it not observe My life?” Rebellion. “Will rebellion cause it to live?” No, Father, rebellion is what causes a nation to die. How can anything rebel against life and live? That is basically suicide. “That’s what I want them to know.”