10 Commandments in the court room?

Question

Do advocates know that by doing so would be a direct affront to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 9th commandments?

In placing the commandments one acknowledges the supreme law of God over any other - by placing them in a courtroom of MAN is a slap in the face of God.

The Court of Man is false idolatry of law other than God's.

How can advocates of placement of the Commandments in the courts possibly call themselves advocates of God's law when admittance of other is an affront to God and the very Commandments?

By the way - the motto "In God We Trust" has nothing to do with the behest of our founding fathers - rather it has everything to do with the communism scare and blacklisting of the 1950's and anti-American idiots like Joe McCarthy. That's the end of that argument.

Answer 1

I agree with you and will add this: the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance were also added during the McCarthy era. The founding fathers would be appalled at the direct influence religion now has over our government.

Answer 2

Your argument does not bode well when you compare it to God and man's law!

Your theory is only based on your opinion but not the fact. I say leave the commandment wherever they are. It's simply a cultural and historical marking which has nothing to do with modern day law, which has descended from our forefathers. Based on your question, a statue of Ben Franklin in the court room would be slap in the face of God.

The ten commandments are not a deity nor an obligation but a reflection of our culture and should not be used for litigation or a balance to religion...

By the way, many court rooms in the United States have never had the ten commandments or any religious articles placed or built into them!

Answer 3

"In God We Trust" and "...one nation under God.." were 1950's intrusions into what had been a balanced practice of separation.

But, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law for or against religion and the 10th Amendment says that the federal government has no powers to interfere with the States that are not specifically defined in the Constitution, which means that the Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to override State court rulings on religious observance.

Answer 4

Yes. Good question. We can have morals without the use of the 10 Commandments. The morals in the world didn't change with the 10 Commandments and, over all, the segment of the population that calls itself religious has more problems with violenc, teenage pregnancy.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html

“The Nobel Prize-winning American physicist Steven Weinberg said, 'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion.'”
"The God Delusion" by Prof. Richard Dawkins, p249

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/morals.html

Answer 5

No, I did not know that. Very interesting! Really now, do you think God is displeased or insulted because people choose to live by his commandments as well as the laws of society? Sounds a bit pixilated, doesn't it.

Answer 6

Someone tell me how many of the commandments are law, and then tell me how many of those laws aren't laws in countries like Japan, where there is no "Christian tradition."

Christians really think that the 10 commandments are why we have laws against stealing and murder?

Answer 7

I think the last thing a defendant needs to worry about are the decorations at his hearing.

Answer 8

I look cooler than John K

Answer 9

Who cares, no one follows the 10 commandments any more.