10 Commandments: Religion or History?

Today, the US Supreme Court wages not 1, but 2 separate cases on the issue of the 10 Commandments, and whether the Government and other public facilities can display any symbols or monuments of the 10 Commandments. And the country watches, divided once again on 2 extreme sides.

The Constitution forbids, in general terms, the Government of USfrom making any laws that establishes any national religion. However, to some, the Supreme Court has began to become extremely anti-religious in many of its past interpretations on this issue.

Even the Judicial phrase of "separation of Church and State" is in controversy, a phrase first written by Thomas Jefferson in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But the argument now comes down to, is the 10 Commandments a symbol of Religion, or as some argued, merely a symbol of "history".

I have a rather simple answer, perhaps a bit too simplistic.

(1) the Difference between "history", and "religion", is that "history" can be challenged, whereas "religion" cannot. "History" is common to all the people, we can all argue over it, challenge its assertions, its meanings, its truthfulness, its different points of views. "Religion" is personal. What one person believes is SACRED to him, and difficult to dispute for others.

(2) then the question becomes, are the 10 Commandments disputable in the Public eye?

The Proponent of the 10 Commandments monuments clearly do not think they are disputable. Indeed, many have characterized them as the "original laws", or the UNDISPUTABLE laws from God. Yet, we know from our civil stand point of view, that at least a few of the 10 Commandments are no longer applicable in our present legal system.

#1, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", is clearly not TRUE any more in our legal system, where a multi-religious culture prospers.

(3) Do the Proponents of the 10 Commandments Monuments believe that the 10 Commandments should be challenged?

When we cite the origin/history of our legal system, we find documents like the Magna Carta, which can be challenged on legal basis, historical basis, and even its basic integrity. When lawyers go through school, they study cases, some of which were based upon the Magna Carta. There are no legal cases disputing interpretations of the 10Commandments. Yet, the 10 Commandments are sacred to many people, Jews and Christians in this country. I do not think they want the 10 Commandments challenged.

And yet, by making the 10 Commandments into a "historical symbol", it WILL be open to be challenged, as a historical symbol that's largely IRRELEVANT to today's legal codes. Then, this Monument will only serve to divide the country along theline of the "correctness" of the 10 Commandments.

The "Correctness" of the Constitution and the Magna Carta rests withordinary men in politics and law. Men created these documents, men will argue over them, for many centuries to come. But the "Correctness" of the 10 Commandments will bring in Religious crusades, as it has done for many past centuries.

(4) the only other purpose of 10 Commandments monument is a "Religious" one, ie. to present it as a symbol of God's authorityover Government, a Judeo-Christian God over a theoretically "multi-ethnic multi-religious" civil Government.

Many in the religious community have argued this very same point inthe past, that ultimate source of authority of this US Government derives not from the Constitution or the HISTORY of laws, but from God's words, because they equate the "ultimate source" of all laws of this land to the Judeo-Christian God and his laws, ie. 10 Commandments.

If we erect a monument for that, we imply its correctness, andabsoluteness over the laws of the land. As I said before, the Constitution and the Magna Carter can be disputed, challenged, but the 10 Commandments, to many at least, is never wrong.Then, it DOES become an absolute Religion, to which, every other laws of the land will be compared against.

And that cannot be allowed.