Is it really as Rep. Alderholt said "We have the freedom of religion, not freedom from religion-? (Leavitt) According to the Supreme Court The honorable Alderholt is wrong. In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that a similar Kentucky law, which required all classrooms to post a copy of the Decalogue, was unconstitutional. .
The oppositions' arguments against this law are enormous. One major argument is which set of commandments do you use? Do you use the Catholic, Jewish, or Protestant versions? Is there one version better than the others? Is it thou shalt not kill or is that thou shalt not murder? (Boston) Does that include self defense? What constitutes a graven image? These are just some of the questions brought up by those opposed to the bill. If the government puts up the Ten Commandments will they also post the Five Pillars of Islam, The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, the Wiccan Rede and the Affirmation of Humanism? (Boston) The government should not play favorites with religion. Religion does not need the governments help to promote the Ten Commandments. For a few thousand years, the leaders of Judaism and Christianity have been doing a pretty good job of getting the word out to the people. Four of the Ten Commandments are religious in nature. People have fought and died because they disagreed over what constitutes a "false god- or over the meaning of the ban on worshipping a "graven image."" Does this mean that believers of Islam and Hinduism should be punished because they worship a different god then what is on a piece of paper? What day is the Sabbath Friday, Saturday, or Sunday? Religious leaders differ on these questions. They not government bureaucrats are best suited to interpret the Commandments. No matter which way one looks at it, posting a version of the Ten Commandments would exclude millions of Americans who follow different religions, or none at all, and many of them would be upset to stare at someone else's beliefs every day in a public school.