> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
>> Twice today for the first time in weeks I checked the Trash folder
>> before compacting it, and each time found an interesting post.
>
> Catchy intro!
>
>> I
>> wouldn't have wanted to miss a chance to agree with Nathan, it happens
>> so infrequently. But I think he is more or less right on this. In any
>> case, as Marx & Engels both emphasized, you don't get rid of religion by
>> direct attacks on it.
>
> Could you explain to me how keeping the Ten Commandments out of
> public buildings is a "direct attack" on religion? People are and
> should be free to practice whatever spiritual nonsense they'd like
> to, just not on public property. Or do you think secular law should,
> say, criminalize adultery because the Old Testament says to?
>
> Doug
No, but anyone who is about to enter a court of law must be reminded that there is only one God and that asses are not to be coveted...
I don't understand Nathan and Carrol's comments. The token of faith wasn't just casually placed in a corner with no purpose or intention. The judge and his supporters are quite explicit that the point of the monument was to underscore what they perceive as a fact - that US law is founded upon the will of God. That sure sounds like theocratic thinking.
Thiago