We have a political problem here and not a religious one. The moral authority is being used to service a political end. What else is new? It's the history of religion. The question as to what the Founding Fathers would say about the way the law is being handled in Alabama is quite clear. They would be appalled.

I think the Statement is ambiguous but not incorrect. It's subject of course to interpretation. This is the nature of laws in general.
They need to be updated to fit present times and they must be tested in court to determine their validity.

I think one way to handle it would be to insist on the Code of Hanarabi from early Indian culture to be placed alongside of the Commandments since many scholars agree that this was the basis for the Commandments historically. This would give the proponents of the Commandments a little necessary education.

Frank Hamilton








"Separation of Church and State," as many point out, is an ambiguous and incorrect statement of the constitutional proscription against the state sponsored establishment of religion. Question whether a belief in revealed law by a judge is State sponsored establishment of religion. You can argue it both ways. But the essence of the argument reaches fundamental principals. No one is going to scream their way into winning that argument.