So, Alabama Judge Roy Moore has decided that, after losing his court case to give him the right to display The Ten Commandments on public government grounds, he's going to use the court system to appeal to The Supreme Court. Talk about frivolous lawsuits.

What is his and other people's malfunction when they think that The Ten Commandments should be shoved down the throat of the public? For years, Cobb County had a plaque on the outside of the courthouse that displayed the Ten Commandments. An ACLU lawsuit forced them to take it down.

Contrary to what Michael Opitz is arguing in another opinion, there is ample evidence that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution meant exactly what the current interpretation of the First Amendment is with regards to the Establishment Clause: Government has no right to acknowledge, legislate, or promote any religion as long as this country remains a constitutional republic.

First, Opitz is incorrect when he states that the subject of religion only occurs once in our Constitution, in the First Amendment. It actually occurs much earlier in the document, under the section regarding qualifications to hold elected office in this country. Under Article VI (of OUR Constitution, Michael), I quote the following:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

I know this is a shock to some people, especially to the radical members of the Christian Coalition who have NEVER failed to employ religious differences as a political hammer in races in which they become involved.

Optiz is also wrong when he starts using the argument "Which constitution were the supreme court justices reading when they decided to reverse almost 200 years of unrestricted religious freedom in our country" when he challenges the decision of the USSC in 1964 to ban prayer in public school.

The "unrestricted freedom" that Opitz refers to was only "unrestricted freedom" practiced by Christians. I doubt the public school prayer ever included a Jewish prayer, or, even a Muslim prayer. No, I'm willing to bet a LOT of money that it was 100% indoctrination of Christianity in the public schools up until 1964.

As a side issue, anyone who uses the argument with me that "Well, this has been going on for 200 years and it worked fine" is asking for their head to be handed to them on a platter. Slavery in America was a fine institution for hundreds of years...not allowing women the right to vote was another fine institution that worked for 126 or so years...wife-beating in this country was ignored for a number of centuries as a justified means for "keeping the little lady in line"...if anyone needs more examples, just let me know.

The fact is that one of the primary RIGHTS granted to us by our Creator is the right to worship as we wish in private, without being involuntarily subjected to everyone else's method of worship. I don't see why this concept escapes so many people. If you want to argue that this was a country founded by Christians, I'll concede that fact. But, they didn't create this country to BE a Christian OR a Judaeo-Christian based society.

One only need to look at the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Virginia legislature in 1787 to 1) understand what I'm saying, and 2) realize that all you've ever been told about this country being a country based on ANY religious sect is 100% wrong.

This Statute was the basis for the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, passed later in 1791. The Statute was written due to the fact that it was the Church of England that had imposed its religious morality on the inhabitants of the States and forced them to pay homage, both in worship and in money, to the Church. This was one of the primary reasons for the American Revolution 11 years earlier. So, why would anyone think that this country, after being under the thumb of the Church of England for 100+ years, would want to mimic the country they just sacrificed their lives to breakaway from? Only a fool would continue to argue that line.

Back to the Ten Commandments and their display on public grounds. I have two major concerns with it: 1) Judge Moore's version is not my version, therefore we don't share the same religious values, and 2) if Moore (and those of you who believe like he does) wants people to follow the Commandments, he should make darn sure he follows them to the letter first, and lead by example.

On his engraved tablets, Judge Moore's version of the Sixth Commandment is "Thou shall not kill." The version in my Jewish Bible is "Thou shall not murder." The two statements have vastly different meanings. "Kill" means to end another human's life, whether by legal or illegal means. "Murder" means to end the life of another human with malice intent. Minor difference, you say? I don't think so. Those who know the Commandment as "kill" are the ones who end-up so confused with capital punishment. Use the term "murder" and then the state is allowed to kill the murderer without a conflict in moral law.

With regard to "living" the Ten Commandments, that is something very few people do, even those who claim to be so "religious." The one that most people violate every week is working 6 days and leaving the 7th day for the Sabbath. The only person that I am aware of who does that (and whom I believe is actually a Democrat, of all things) is Truett Cathy, founder of Chick-fil-a. That's a man who leads by example.

So, when judges, legislators, and any other government entities pass laws requiring that they work 6 days a week for their money, and thus allow us to gain more value for our tax dollars, then we'll discuss whether it's important or not for the Ten Commandments to be a part of everyone's life. My guess is, people will continue to interpret the Ten Commandments as something everyone else should follow, but not themselves.