10 Commandments in Dixie County

[pbrlimit]

So are we to believe that before the 10 Commandments were given to them, the Jews did not know rape, murder, and theft were immoral ?

[SkyShaw]

Stupid, why don't they put up the pillars of islam? The 8 noble paths? Or the rules of any other religion? We don't follow the ten commandments in our law system, the only ones we follow are "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". What about non-abrahamic and non-theist residents? the courthouse should not display any preference of any religion, ow would you feel if you went to court and say a buddhist statue in front? It's the same damn thing.

[l0rdh00ters]

well i believe in seperation of church but if no one with a voice will stand up nothing will be done.....if nothing is done, its not hurting anyone....people can argue that it is hurting the constitution......but hey if it finnaly goes away to a priviate location, let it be...if not i still say let it be....its not like we are building WMD's at the courthouse (*whistle whistle*)

[l0rdh00ters]

my name is sean matthew mccauley, i have lived in dixie my whole life...i pass the courthouse daily because it is on the way to the park...when im playing basketball i often look over at the courthouse and think to my self how proud i am to see that monument! leave us alone....seperation of church and state can kiss my dirty word....its our lord comandments...and we will follow them until we meet him in heaven above...all i have to say about that!

[sirdanielm]

Sean, thank you for commenting. This 10 Commandments monument belongs on private or church property. In America you have the freedom to follow the 10 Commandments if you want to, to heaven or wherever you want to believe you go after you die. You don't have the freedom to use the government to help you endorse them. One day someone from Dixie will have the courage to stand up for the Constitution and go forward with a lawsuit and it will be moved there.

[Jeremyguru]

You need to go to school and get an education. Learn about how our government works and why the Founders made is secular.

[plimbuff]

Separation of church and state is essential.

[vetwife]

OMG folks trying to tell Cross City folks how to live? husband a native of Dixie County. Mother buried in Dixie County

Take heed. ROFL make your complaints at City Hall see how fast you will be heading out of Dixie County

Dixie County is primarily a democratic county

They hunt they fish they have a wonderful town but trust me.You heard the saying Nobody messes with Texas. that goes Double for Cross City. One of the few towns that actually will invite you to leave. Thumbs up !

[ccheng21]

"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."

nuff said

[lucash21158]

People who say that the American constitution is based on christian law are retarted. What's the first amendment say? Freedom to worship whomever you see fit. What's the first commandment say? Worship no god but me. How is it even an argument. The authors of the constitution should be put to death according to christian law.

[lucifersbud]

even that i dissagree on all of this bullshit and hate rednecks like that freak saying put it back ,people should say what ever they want even thow he made a compleat asshole out of himself A.

[thafuture15a]

As a resident of Dixie County, I must say let sleeping dogs lie!

If you don't live here then leave us alone! We haven't had any complaints within our county about the Commandments. If it bothers you that much, do not come through our county or near our courthouse! thanks!

[sirdanielm]

As I said below, you are not exempted from the rule of law; it isn't about "complaints" - it's about the Constitution. Also, as far as that goes, Page Davies, DCHS Class of 1954, wrote a letter to the editor in the DC Advocate the week of 2/19/07 complaining against it.

[bootleggersouth]

Let Dixie County do as Dixie County chooses---all you other bastards go home. Dixie County is a fine place.

[sirdanielm]

Yeah, forget the rule of law and the Constitution! Wait...that's what the South said during the Confederacy too!

[bootleggersouth]

The law belongs to whoever has the most money to buy it. The Constitution belongs to whoever has the most powerful lawyers to interpret it in a manner favorable to their interests.

[sirdanielm]

Well, if that's really how you think, then you ought to retract your first comment above -- maybe the "other bastards" have more money & more powerful lawyers...

[bootleggersouth]

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson

[Chuloloc]

Pretty ridiculous debate on both sides. Personally, I believe that both religious and nonreligious people should have equal rights but neither party should try and legislate their views on each other. As for the seperation of church and state, it works both ways. The government does not dictate the affiars of religion and religion does not dictate the affairs of government. It's as simple as that.

[sirdanielm]

Thanks for the comment Chuloloc. I am in agreement on your interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The thing with "legislat[ing] their views on each other" is that atheists are not trying to change the pledge to say, "one nation under *NO* God..." -- they're trying to move the country back to true neutrality, like the Founders established with the motto "e pluribus unum" and &c. see

web(dot)danielmorgan(dot)name(­slash)hannitycolmes(dot)htm for more.

[Chuloloc]

Thanks. But what we need in this country is for people, expecially the conservative extremist right to recognized the neutrality and equality of our constition, freedoms and rights in our country. In other words, that this is a land when the freedoms apply to all people, not one spacific group. This is what both opposing parties seem to forget.

[iamagiantseaturd]

holy crap, 18,000 people???

man dixie has grown since i lived there

[doublea10point]

That feed store near the courthouse is closed now, but Creekside Farm Supply is the best in Dixie.

[freightmaster2]

Fox news for ya...Fox= Government propaganda,

[trueuniverse2100]

The feed store close to the court house has the best prices on corn.

[ypevan]

They spelled ADULTERY wrong on the monument. I'm a Christian and I'm embarassed of thw whole story. IMO Christianity should have the same rights as all other religions. No more or less.

[LinaKDavis]

Yeah, that's Dixie for you. I grew up there the first 13 years of my life, you have no idea how tiny that place is.

[reverendjeremiah]

Joseph Lander is a typical religious hypocrite. Colmes got him good at the end and Joseph could make up lies fast enough. A monument full of religious rules doesnt have anything to do with enforcing religion? Do all Christians lie and cheat like this? So when a government court house places a stone monument that says "Love God and keep his commandments" isnt an official endorsement of religion?

[LoveOneAnother1]

No, such a statement does not promote any particular establishment of religion. It promotes many religions, which encourages freedom of religion. This is in keeping with the Spirit of the First Amendment of our Constitution. To argue that such statements should be prohibited would be discriminatory against theists. To truly be neutral in regards to religion, we could never prohibit the word "God" just because the word is deemed to be religious. Think about it.

[sirdanielm]

Neutrality = discrimination? You're going off into left field now. So if the government refuses to acknowledge something that exists, they're "discriminating" against it?

The 1st Am is about the citizens' freedom, silly, not the government's freedom.

[reverendjeremiah]

"Something that exists"? LOL, silly person, God is an imaginary friend that is popular to many. And after all of your blow hard "1st amendment" arguments, something tells me you would be up in arms if someone put something about paganism or Islam on your court house lawn. To truly be neutral to religion, we must allow all religions on the courthouse. Thats when all of your tripe about neutrality stops and the "we're a christian nation" begins..hypocrites!

[qpwillie]

I haven't heard of any evidence of Joseph Lander making any efforts to "enforce" the ten commandments.

The constitution only states that CONGRESS may pass no LAWS regarding the esatblishment of a religion. It doesn't address what a community may or may not decide to place in front of their court house. It doesn't even state that liberals are free to decide what it meant to say but didn't.

[sirdanielm]

qpwillie,

I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, your argument that the 1st Amendment only applies to the Congress is specious. The Constitution is enforced to every state and local agency by virtue of the 14th Amendment (incorporation). The courts and stare decisis are firmly against you, friend.

[qpwillie]

I'm not sure how an amendment which was adopted to protect the freed slaves can be used to nullify the first amendment but I'm not surprised that the liberals can work out a way to use it to satisfy their agenda.

[sirdanielm]

Yes, of course, it must be the case that liberals were running the Supreme Court in 1947 (Everson v. Board of Education). Liberals have apparently been running the country for decades now (centuries?)...

[sirdanielm]

leeemo, Agreed. I do disagree with "God" as it favors religion over non-religion, in conflict with Epperson v. Arkansas (1961). However, I am willing to admit that the ceremonial Deistic pretense takes away most of the legal power to remove it. I wouldn't personally file a suit over it.

[leeemo]

For the "In God We Trust" and things like that, the reason why they have "God" as a vague figure is so any American can look at that and interpret it in their own way, for whatever God they worship.

But in this case, the Ten Commandments are derived from a specific religion (Christianity), making it unconstitutional to place it on Supreme Court steps.

[jjbookgal]

I wanted to see Joe Namath! LOL

[vestalallen]

To argue the separation of church and state while this particular administration is in power is just plain silly. Our glorious leader has reduced all the nuances of foreign policy to a simplistic "good against evil" argument.

[sirdanielm]

Luckily, for the moment, there is still a separation of powers (or at least the illusion thereof). Bush has done his best to weaken and eradicate this separation, with his "signing statements" and blatant disregard for the legality of his "war on terror" programs. But, the Court is still the place where these battles matter, not Bush's House.

[LoveOneAnother1]

Public displays of the Ten Commandments should be allowed. The Supreme Court as well as the Alabama Courts in the case of Chief Justice Roy Moore, are making the same kind of rational mistakes that it made in the Dred Scott decision that helped lead our country into Civil War.

[sirdanielm]

Beautiful legal analysis, there bud. Great analogy too, with bountiful logical support!

By the Lemon Test, substantiate your naked assertions, why don't you?

[LoveOneAnother1]

The Lemon Test has created problems by changing the concept of the First Amendment that speaks about AN ESTABLISHMENT of religion. The Lemon Test instead refers to RELIGION, not recognizing the distinction. The secular purpose of this display is to remind people that laws started with God, written by his very own finger. Therefore, while they think they get away with stealing here, they won't on the final day of judgment. Not enough space here to say more, sorry.

[sirdanielm]

"respecting an establishment of religion" does not refer only to buildings. The Court has ruled for a very long time that this refers to anything that establishes a religion. It's hilarious that you use "secular purpose" followed by a Bible story "with God".

Stealing? The Hebrews stole all their laws from the Sumerians and Egyptians. Go read a history book, dude.

[LoveOneAnother1]

I don't know why you would bring up buildings. I didn't say anything about buildings. The Court is wrong when it says "anything that promotes religion." The First Amendment is worded to protect discrimination against religion. The First Amendment is about freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Therefore, the federal government can make religious endorsements, such as saying, "In God we trust," without violating the Constitution.

[sirdanielm]

Read Michael Newdow's article in the WorldNUTdaily on Dec 2, "WND's fatuous reporting", YouTube won't let me post the link here. It addresses this question in detail.

[HeyTina]

Read the second commandment. Thou shall not have no graven images before thee. Seems to me the 2nd one was broken. Does it really matter? Most Christians break many of their commandments: lying, adultry, not honoring the Sabbath. Silly Guys. Find something more important to argue about; Fox.

[sirdanielm]

They need something tangiable to have faith in, somewhat parallel to the story about the golden calf when these 10 were supposedly delievered. Note that the Hebrews put them inside an ark, hidden from view, and that the ark itself was inside a temple, surrounded by a curtain, hidden from view. These people are sad.

[LoveOneAnother1]

They put the ORIGINAL commandments, the ones written with God's own finger, inside the ark. Copies were read publicly. What is sad is that we put man's laws out in public and try to hide or discard God's laws.

[sirdanielm]

Hide or discard? So, logicmaster, I guess we "hide or discard" Lev 17 too? Should we place "stone the homos" out in front of the courthouse? What about 1 Sam 15:3 -- kill the infants and sucklings? I would love to stop "hiding and discarding" those verses. Where does it end? Put up a crucifix, since we're "hiding and discarding" that too, right?

I thought they were now supposed to be "written on men's hearts", or some such nonsense?

[LoveOneAnother1]

The Decalogue provides an important historical foundation for our legal system similar to how the Bill of Rights functions for our Constitution. To expand beyond that in this venue is not prudent. Also, you might consider that these other laws you mention were not written with the finger of God.

[sirdanielm]

These all have precedents in Sumerian and Babylonian law. Should we post those instead? Okay, so let's just post the "secular" 3: murder, perjury, theft.

You make distinction in your belief between God's voice and God's finger? Re-read the passage in Ex 20 as these 10 on this monument were spoken, then in Ex 31, after all had been given, two tablets were handed over, which were broken. Then, compare Ex 34:1 to 34:27-28. Who wrote them? ps: let's put ex 31:14-15 underneath comm#4 for context.

[occidentalmartyr]

"Thou shalt not commit adultry"

Hahaha

[Rox1SMF]

Whether or not the monument's placement is constitutional, the fact that apparently a LONG line of boneheads approved it with the included misspelling should be of concern to anyone who cares about education.

[dflateau]

See Hannity's method here - he asks questions to the opponent of the display that has nothing to do with the display itself - creating a one sided argument in teh interview by only having the proponent of the display articulate his position on it. Smelly turd.

[sirdanielm]

very keen analysis

[Lbgrowl]

Of course I'd want "In God We Trust" the currency, but I guess this is a case of choosing your battles. I hate Hannity and Colmes by the way.

[sirdanielm]

Did you mean to say, "off the currency"?

It isn't just choosing battles. It's also the fact that the generic term "God" doesn't endorse any particular religion, and so I think we have very little Constitutional grounds there. Also, it's trite and doesn't mean much.

[Rox1SMF]

I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion there, on the grounds that "God" with a capital "G" is anything but generic. The "ceremonial deism" argument you're making by dismissing the word "God" as being generic and/or trite (and it is clearly neither to folks who believe) fails on the grounds that it gives preferential treatment to god-believers over non-god-believers.

[sirdanielm]

Trust me, I understand the argument, and Epperson v. Arkansas cites "religion vs. non-religion" as well. I just don't really care about the issue, and I think it's a weak and probably futile argument. I think that Congress needs to amend the law, (preferably removing it, but that won't happen for another 40 years) in order to facilitate the Court's action.