Ten Commandments influence legal system but remain seperate

Editor:

This is in response to Dan Mackey's letter ("Ten Commandments basis of legal system and are fitting in courtroom," March 24).

"Since you have such a problem with religion and anything that smells of it," Mr. Mackey said. I share Jeremy Pepper's opinions and I have no such problem, Mr. Mackey. We who "abuse" the "cry" of separation of church and state do so because the "state" shouldn't act upon religion in any form, or else it claims to determine which prayers should be heard and which shouldn't.

Your arguments have merit and flaws. Yes, Pepper used excess sarcasm, and I'll admit I found myself agreeing on the benefits the Commandments had/have. Indeed, they are a part of our legal system's foundation, but not the entire basis for it.

Have you read them lately? Numbers five through 10 are considered criminal (or immoral) in American society. But I must object on the appropriateness of numbers one, three and four in a court of law. For those unfamiliar, here they are from the King James Version of The Holy Bible: "I am the Lord thy God ... Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:2-3), "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." (Exodus 20:7) and "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." (Exodus 20:8).

The Constitution (a larger influence of our legal system) addresses these issues. No, exclamations like "God Dammit" ("taking His name in vain") are not actually illegal, but this pinpoints censorship issues; listen to prime-time television and the difference between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. programming. On another note, the First Amendment established free exercise of religion. Employees cannot be forced to work on the "Sabbath" ... or on any holy day if it infringes on religious exercise.

The same applies to the Commandments' place in a court; they cannot and should not forbid the worship of any god despite the First Commandment. If the First Amendment cancels out the First Commandment like this, which is more important; which really rules in the courts of this "free" nation?

Apologies to any I offended, but I don't think anyone should have to stand trial under the doctrines of another religion, whether in the sense of lawful justice or simply interior design.

By Jennifer D. Cohoon (letter)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
March 31, 1997