We have received feedback on this issue from people all across America. Review the graph to the left for a quick snapshot of the responses received to date, or read the responses below.

... If we allow one... ...

January 28,2004

If we allow one then we have to allow others to show their respect to others and their God

... people of many faiths and none ...

January 28,2004

It's one thing to have "in God we trust" on money and other such aspects of "tradition". But, it's quite another to put the Ten Commandments in State Courthouses, where people of many faiths and none, all come to seek justice. The Alabama judege that did this was blatently VIOLATING the establishment-of-religion clause of the First Amendment.

... dependence on the creator ...

January 28,2004

The 10 commandments are a public testimony of the faith that our country and freedom is founded and rooted in, the christian faith. To be an American was once associated as being a christian.Where we have publically acknowledge this as our founding fathers have, we have honored the very existence of our dependence on the creator.

... walk on by ...

January 28,2004

If some people have a problem with this then walk on by and don't read it!

... Thank God for the man! ...

January 28,2004

Thank God for the man who will stand up for rights that founded our great nation

... should be restricted ...

January 28,2004

The First Amendment should be restricted to its original scope - a limitation on the federal government. The founders never intended the amendment to apply to states or localities. The expansion of the amendment's reached was created by the Supreme Court, which has used this theory to control more and more areas of public life instead of allowing the political institutions to do so.

... we started tinkering ...

January 28,2004

Without moral fiber, a culture has little to hold it together (and in check) - ours happens to be the Christian faith. It was started that way - and it worked until we started tinkering with it. Check the stats on crime since 1947, Edmunson vs Bd of Ed.

... not Judeo-Christian. ...

January 28,2004

I'm a committed Christian, who cherishes the Ten Commandments. I live in a nation which is now more likely to erect a 10 Commandments monument than, say, a monument to the 5 pillars of Islam. Yet time could change all this -- we are, after all, a demographically evolving democracy. If the Chief Justice of Alabama were a devote Buddhist, I would be grateful to our Constitutional authors that he (she?) could not erect a giant statue of the Buddha in a public courthouse. I somehow doubt those who "strongly agree" with the permissibility of the ten commandments monument would be intellectually consistent, at least in terms of interpretation of constitutional law, were the monument not Judeo-Christian.

... The rule of law ...

January 28,2004

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a state judge cannot violate the words, "Congress shall make no law..." The rule of law requires that Supreme Court judges apply and construe the LAW, i.e. the constitution - not their own predilections!

... pay for maintenance ...

January 28,2004

We live in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation; to display articles enforcing ANY belief system on public property, which relies upon taxes as the source of funds to pay for maintenance, is nothing short of barbarism.

... founded on this ...

January 28,2004

Our heritage is founded on this. It can't, nor should it, be erased. It doesn't dictate to others how they should believe. Yet, it gives all of us an understanding of where our nation came from and the honorable laws our forefathers believed in, because one person is offended the others suffer. This is not democracy where votes of the citizens rule. And laws can be changed, using facts, evidence, examples.

... direct violation ...

January 28,2004

It is my understanding that law in America, both contract and criminal, was originally derived from British Common Law. It was comprised of two fundamental principles upon which all major philosophies and/or religions agreed: 1) Do what you have agreed to do, and 2) Do not encroach upon others or on their property. Disputes between people usually arose from either one or both of these two principles being violated. Having said this, allowing a monument to the Ten Commandments to stand in a state courthouse is, in my view, in direct violation of the second principle. Should this stone be allowed to stand, it would be a select and forced encroachment of one religious sensibility to the exclusion of all others.

... lack of understanding ...

January 28,2004

Qwen asked a question to the Alabama judge implying that the 10 Commandments would offend Muslims. That plus the judges answer, showed lack of understanding of Islam. Muslims believe in the Old and New Testament. We love Moses and the Tablets.
Suggestion for a show, Is Jesus God or a Muslim?

... why bring religion ...

January 28,2004

A religious monument as such belongs in a house of worship, not in a court of law. People don't go on trial in a church; so why bring religion into a courthouse?

... not founded on the principles ...

January 28,2004

Yes! The Ten Commandments is part of this country's foundation. It is the basic moral guidlines for this country. This country was not founded on the principles of Islam, Hinduism, Budahism or anything else. Furthermore, there is nothing in the 10 commandments that is harmful to our moral fiber.

... We wrote the Constitution ...

January 28,2004

Undecided only because the question is biased and shows a lack of understanding of all Constitutional law. It is really easy to understand, if you know simple grammer.

We wrote the Constitution to the government. It creates the government, defines its structure, its limitations and OUR rights. It is not written by the government to us to limit us, or to give the government any rights. Doesn't matter which part you are speaking of. All rights are ours and all limitations are on the government. The Bill of Rights are our rights and the governments limitations. So...

The people own the courthouse. The government does not. We have rights. The government only has our permission. We can decide to put "In God We Trust" on our money, or "God" in our pledge. Or practice any religion where ever we want. The government cannot decide either way on public or private property. We can even designate the courthouse to be a church on Sundays, if we want. The US Capitol Building is such a church and the President is not to bother them on Sunday. The government cannot decide differently. We can put the 10 Commandments there if we want, but the government cannot - nor should a judge - a mear public servant - think he can.

The division in the law is that we have the right to our own unlimited religious expression and the government has no rights at all. It only has our permission to protect our rights. All of the Bill of Rights are our rights. There are no government rights. There is no "seperation of church and state." Only seperation of the state from the church, limiting government only.

Read the exact words in the First Amendment. The restriction is on the government only and the rights are all ours. Limiting us in any way is forbidden.

For those who protect our rights, our military, we provide places of religious practice, clergy and artifacts at public expense. It is not illegal to do so as an offer of service. It is only illegal to require our attendance, nonattendance, or to specify a religion.

Those who want to remove religion from all public places are illegally requireing other's nonattendance and nonexpression in violation of our right to free expression.

This is no more correct than to limit our freedom of speach on public property because it is public.

... law in the court. ...

January 28,2004

The Ten Commandment momunment suggests that the said commandments are the law being applied at court. It does more than simply suggesting a in a belief in God. It establishes the Christian/Jewish law in the court.

... ive in a community ...

January 28,2004

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -- President John Adams (1797 Treaty with Tripoli). He was there, and he ought to know.

As for the prohibitions on stealing, lying, murder, etc, virtually all societies have those, because that's how people manage to live in a community. But the first four commandments of the ten are specific to one religion, and are not part of the civil government of this country. They do not belong in the courthouse, and they don't belong in the classroom.

... obvious bias ...

January 28,2004

There are literally millions of non-Christian Americans. I whole-heartedly support each American's right to pursue their own religious practice or to lack any religious belief and not have it foisted on them. To place a very blatantly Judeo-Christian document in a place of American law must be very disheartening, and even downright threatening, to any non-Christian defendant entering that courthourse -- wondering could they possibly receive a fair and unbiased trial in a place with such obvious bias! Governmennt buildings are absolutely NO place for religious symbolism of any kind - it only creates divisiveness.

... identify themselves ...

January 28,2004

I notice that almost everyone who agrees that Judeo-Christian monuments should be forced upon the populace identify themselves in one way or another as Christians--the very same ones who would be rioting if commandments from the Quoran were similarly ensconced. Love thy neighbor as thyself, huh?