>I said.. part not all. Do some study on what the hebrew word that we translate as murder and get back to me. What about theft? and yes even the "premise" of the adultry commandment is there. With an open minded study you just can not get away from the presence of the 10 commandments in our legal system. Of course, many Old Testament scholars agree that the 10 commandments are simple a complilation of other ancient legal systems with some additions to suit the Hebrew nation. But that is another story! :)

As I understand it, the hebrew word "ratsach" was translated to "kill" in the King James version. Ratsach (again, in my understanding) deals with premeditated killing of a human being. Now, there were justifications, according to Hebrew scripture, for ignoring this commandment, and a list can be found here:

http://www.aboundinglove.org/deathpen.htm

So, basically, if we are going to follow one instance, why not all? I would not be involved in this chat if I were to be executed for drunkenness? *g* And then again, we don't we stone people to death? Or is that cruel and unusual? *g*

Also, there had to be TWO eyewitnesses before the accused could be executed. We have abandonded that, too.

And as far as Thou shalt not steal, The Hebrew word translated here as "steal" had a very narrow application. It referred to kidnapping and selling a person into slavery. Somehow, this country seemed to skip that commandment too for a long time. And the original meaning had nothing to do with stealing a piece of property.

I guess I am saying that while maybe one or two of the commandments have found there way into our laws, I think that is a long way from stating that the Ten Commandments are major basis of our legal system. And if they are not even close to being a major foundation, there is no argument for them to be in our schools.

>Ah..... and the intent was what? Was it to keep us from becomming a nation where the Goverment dictated that we all must go to the Chruch of England and that was our STATE church. Or was it's meaning more in line with the fact that we could worship as we the individual sees fit?

As you the individual sees fit. It does not mean that my children will be forced to follow your religious beliefs, much less be exposed to them, or any one else's, in a public school. You can practice your religion and your beliefs any time you want. Just not on my time. *g*

>So would putting up a poster with the communist manifesto also be prohibited?
>What about the stuff of secular huminism?? by the way... recognized as a religion under current laws.

I'll leave that to the courts. Are you arguing that you are better qualified to rule on this than they are?

>I would agree is it was exclusivly the 10 commandments and nothing else but to deny them is censorship plain and simple and denies the pivitol part that this faith had in the founding and constituting of this country.

I disagree. The posting of the Ten Commandments is a not so thinly veiled attempt at the establishment of Christianity in our schools. It has nothing to do with the children learning about the founding of our country. I have no problem with children learning the religious backrounds and thoughts of our founding fathers. But the argument has never been about that. It is a backdoor method to the establishment of religion, plain and simple. And the US Supreme Court has drawn a line in the sand.

>1)Get a copy of the document and show me the phrase " a seperation of chruch and state."

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

>2) That portion of the 1st has to do with the establishment of a state run and state sponsered mandated religious faith. (IMO)

And posting the Ten Commandments, a clearly Judeo/Christian document, would be the first step in the establishment of religion.

>The Freedom of Religion Restoration Act. I happend a couple of years ago and passsed both houses of congress and is law.

This is incorrect. The US Supreme Court struck this down in Boerne v. Flores, June 25th, 1997.

>Not my suggestion. I have no desire for ANY part of our Constitution to be changed AS it was written.
>
>The point was that according to your argument someone wanted to sacrifice a virgin... then if that was a part of their heritage it should be allowed... or where would it stop... etc. So then, my point to you was they certianly had the right to seek to make their views into law by sending like minded people to congress and the White House.
>
>>But only for the summer. Come Winter, I am heading to Jamaica man, and smoking >some ganja(?). *g*
>
>LOL! :)
>
>Have fun... I'm going to stick it out here. :)

Yeah, me too. Too many flies in Canada during the summer. *g*