The Ten Commandments are historical
Published: Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2012, 8:57 p.m.
I support the New Kensington-Arnold School District for standing firm in the Ten Commandments lawsuit.
The Ten Commandments are historical statutes recorded in the Bible. Having the monument does not violate the often-misinterpreted separation of church and state, which appears nowhere in the Constitution.
It is lawful to teach the history of the commandments as an academic history topic. The Greek mythology of gods and goddesses is taught to our children in the public schools, as is evolution and different historical “religious” literary documents. And this is apparently OK.
It's quite impossible to teach history, especially U.S. history, without including Christianity.
It's amazing the striking similarities you can find in different religions when they are held next to the Bible. The devil will come as a wolf in sheep's clothing, so be mindful.
I vote to leave our historical monument intact to show the standard for which our country once stood. I pray that the people of this land repent and turn from their ways so God can heal this land.
No one should be able to convince this nation that we were founded on anything less than the strong, honest, truthful, lawful, perfect words of the Bible because we surely were.
To all who disagree: Do you mean to tell me that you are against goodness? It offends you? Really? I ask respectfully that you study the book before saying that it offends you.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Menace unaddressed
- Hunt where the deer are
- Harming, not improving
- ACA deserves support
- Handled it well
- Choosing judges II
- Remember Pearl Harbor
- About time for Gilpin
- ‘Chained’ sellout
- Choosing judges I