Atheist Activist Group Wants Santa Fe Ten Commandments Monument Moved to Private Property

Photo Credit: Freedom From Religion Foundation

SANTA FE, N.M. — One of the nation’s most conspicuous atheist activist groups has contacted the city attorney for Santa Fe, New Mexico to assert that a Ten Commandments monument displayed in a public park adjacent to a fire station is unconstitutional and should be moved to private property.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) says that the six-foot monument that rests in Ashbaugh Park in front of Fire Station No. 3 should be given back to the Fraternal Order of Eagles or transferred to the grounds of a church.

“The First Commandment alone makes it obvious why the Ten Commandments may not be posted on government property. The government has no business telling citizens which God they must have, how many gods they must have, or that they must have any God at all,” wrote Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor in the letter, dated Jan. 8.

“One the government confers endorsement and preference for some religions over others, it strikes a blow at religious liberty, forcing taxpayers of all faith and of no religion to support a particular expression of worship,” she said.

Gaylor also claimed that the 10th Commandment, which teaches men not to covet their “neighbor’s house [nor his] neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s” offensively implies that wives and servants are a man’s “property” and “on par with cattle.”

According to the Santa Fe New Mexican, the monument was placed in 1968 by the Eagles. FFRF believes the Eagles erected the display to coincide with Cecil B. DeMille’s classic film “The Ten Commandments.”

“This monolith in front of the city fire station is little more than one big unconstitutional advertisement,” Gaylor wrote. “The simplest solution, as many enlightened governmental bodies have found, is to have the monument removed. Give it back to the Eagles or a church to display.”

  • Connect with Christian News

City officials have not yet commented on the FFRF letter, and had said previously that no complaints had been received about the Decalogue display.

While a similar monument in New Mexico was declared unconstitutional by the 10th Circuit in 2016 and later moved to a local church, two judges on the appeals court noted that the Establishment Clause is being misinterpreted by the judicial system.

Bloomfield monument

As previously reported, Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. and Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich opined that their colleagues incorrectly concluded that the Bloomfield monument violated the Constitution.

“This decision continues the error of our Establishment Clause cases. It does not align with the historical understanding of an ‘establishment of religion’ and thus with what the First Amendment actually prohibits,” Kelly wrote.

He noted that “[e]stablishment was … the norm in the American Colonies. Exclusive Anglican establishments reigned in the southern states, whereas localized Puritan establishments were the norm in New England, except in Rhode Island.”

This began in Europe, “the continent of origin for most American colonists,” Kelly outlined. “[E]ach country had long established its own state church—a generalized version of cuius regio, eius religio—over which each government exercised varying degrees of control. Germany and Scandinavia had official Lutheran establishments; Holland, a Reformed state church; France, the Gallican Catholic Church; Ireland, the Church of Ireland; Scotland, the Church of Scotland; and so on.”

Therefore, the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution regarding “respecting an establishment” only referred to these arrangements, and only applied to the federal government, not the states.

“From the words of the text, though, two conclusions are relatively clear: first, the provision originally limited the federal government and not the states, many of which continued to support established churches; and second, the limitation respected only an actual ‘establishment of religion,’” Kelly explained.

“Though this court may view the placement of the Ten Commandments as unwise, unnecessary, or even aesthetically displeasing, we should defer to local government decisions absent an actual violation of the First Amendment,” he declared.


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • C_Alan_Nault

    Why a monument for ten commandments? There are 613 commandments in the old testament.

    And the ten on the monument are NOT the ones the Bible calls the ten commandments.

    “Gaylor also claimed that the 10th Commandment, which teaches men not to covet their “neighbor’s house [nor his] neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s” ”

    Apparently neither Gaylor nor the people who made the monument know the Bible very well.

    According to the Bible, the 10th commandment is “Thou shalt not seeth a kid in his mother’s milk.”

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      C_Alan_Nault know the bible very well …………………

      • C_Alan_Nault

        I’ve liked reading mythology ( Norse, Roman, Greek, the Bible, and others) since elementary school.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          is that a scientific or theological opinion …………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It’s my opinion. I am prepared to change my opinion when someone presents evidence that proves a god or goddess exists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and that is just a lie ….. FYI …. God is not the one that submits to you and your opinion …….. and now you want to say your opinion is evidence based …. that is science ….. SO WHICH IS IT ……

          • C_Alan_Nault

            FYI I don’t believe any god exists, so anything you have to say about the god you believe in will be dismissed by me until you present evidence for your god.

            “and now you want to say your opinion is evidence based …. that is science .”

            Nope. You could tell me you own a Lamborghini & I may not believe you until you show me your Lamborghini. When you show it to me, that would be your evidence but none of this has anything to do with science.

            Do you believe leprechauns exist?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Truth is either accepted or rejected ….. we are not going to debate the obvious ….. any more than we are going to debate the existence of gravity …… you cannot prove gravity exists ….. you have no direct evidence …… no particle, no wave ….. all you can see is the secondary effects of it ….. and it is not up for debate …. the evidence for God is just as evident as gravity ……

          • MarkSebree

            “Truth is either accepted or rejected”

            And you usually reject it.

            “we are not going to debate the obvious ”

            Because you are not interested in a debate, and you could come unarmed to such an intellectual match.

            “any more than we are going to debate the existence of gravity”

            Because you do not understand science or the subject.

            “you cannot prove gravity exists”

            Actually, you can. Take any object. Hold it out at arms length. Let go of it. Observe that it drops to the floor. That proves that gravity exists.

            For more qualitative and quantitative experiments, talk to any high school physics student, or go online and read about the thousands of available experiments yourself.

            And if you want higher level proofs, look up Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity and gravitational lensing.

            “you have no direct evidence”

            Actually, you do. I just gave you one.

            “no particle, no wave”

            That is because gravity is better described as being a field effect caused by the presence of mass. The greater the mass, the greater the effect. A high enough mass will bend light (i.e. gravitational lensing, which has been seen every total solar eclipse since 1919.)

            “all you can see is the secondary effects of it”

            No, those are primary effects of gravity.

            “and it is not up for debate”

            Especially since you do not seem to understand the subject.

            “the evidence for God is just as evident as gravity”

            Where? NOBODY has EVER provided any objective evidence that any deity of any religious belief system has ever existed. NOBODY has EVER been able to propose an objective experiment that would show that any deity even exists, one that would work no matter what the person’s beliefs are. There is NO evidence that your deity exists at all. That makes it the exact opposite of gravity, which has plenty of evidence that it exists, and easy experiments that shows that it exists that anyone can do.

            As I said at the beginning of this post, you tend to reject the truth.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Truth is either accepted or rejected ”

            Sure, when it can be demonstrated to be the truth. All claims regarding the existence of a god have not been proven & so cannot be considered the truth.

            “you cannot prove gravity exists”

            Yes, I can. I can demonstrate gravity exists by holding up a stone & releasing it.

            “… you have no direct evidence ”

            Yes, I do. I can demonstrate gravity exists by holding up a stone & releasing it.

            ” the evidence for God is just as evident as gravity …”

            I hear this claim bleated a lot by theists, but they never actually present any of the alleged evidence.

            I can demonstrate gravity exists by holding up a stone & releasing it.

            How can you demonstrate god exists?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. truth is not demonstrated ….. it is accepted or rejected ….. you reject it …………

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Nope… stating something is truth does not make it truth. To be accepted as truth it must be proven.

            Unless it is proven to be the truth, there is no need to accept or reject it, it can be dismissed until such time it is proven.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            stating you do not accept truth makes you an enemy of truth …… truth is the top level of which all other things are known ….. truth is the measure …. not the measured …… truth is knowable with no other information such as math, science, reason or logic ……. all those things are measured by the truth …. they do not establish nor refute truth … the truth stands alone and is knowable and is known …… that you reject truth as the ultimate standard is no surprise ….. you think you get to judge what truth is …… truth does not care about your judgement of it …….

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “stating you do not accept truth makes you an enemy of truth”

            Since I haven’t said I do not accept truth makes your statement moot.

            ” truth is the top level of which all other things are known”

            That statement is known as word salad..

            Word Salad: An incoherent jumble of word”

            “truth is the measure …. not the measured”

            More word sald.

            “truth is knowable with no other information such as math, science, reason or logic ”

            Ridiculous.

            “……. all those things are measured by the truth …. they do not establish nor refute truth”

            They can establish or refute facts. For something to be considered truth it must be proven.

            ” that you reject truth as the ultimate standard is no surprise ”

            That you think something is the truth simply because you are calling it the truth is something a child may do.
            When it is done by an adult is is both laughable and sad.

            ” you think you get to judge what truth is”

            Not at all. But I DO know that unless something has been proven, there is no reason to call it truth or assume it is truth.

            “truth does not care about your judgement of it ”

            Are you implying truth has consciousness? If so, can you present evidence to prove the claim?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … when you say you reject God or that you want to sit in judgement of God ……. that is rejection of truth …… FYI … YOU (the personal you) are not the arbiter of truth ………

          • C_Alan_Nault

            ” when you say you reject God ”

            Do you reject Odin? What are you going to do when you sit in judgement by Odin & are not allowed to enter Valhalla?

            “or that you want to sit in judgement of God”

            What are you talking about? I told you I am an atheist. That means I do not believe a god exists. What would make you imagine I want to sit in judgement of a god I don’t believe exists?

            “. that is rejection of truth”

            This is what you are claiming, but you have presented no evidence to prove your claim.

            “YOU (the personal you) are not the arbiter of truth”

            Neither are you. And since I do not believe a god exists, and no one can present any evidence to prove a god exists, I would say neither is the imaginary god.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Odin is not God and that is a red herring ……….. nor does it have anything to do with the discussion of truth …… “I told you I am an atheist. ” …… so YOU DO want to sit in judgement of God and His existence ….. THAT is why you are here ……….. “Neither are you.” ….. i never claimed to be nor do i sit in judgement of the existence of God ….. YOU DO ……. so by your ACTIONS you think you get to decide His existence …….. so you are a liar ……….

            again ….. truth is either accepted of rejected …. you reject it …… as you think you are the arbiter of truth …… you get to decide what is truth for you ……

            you do not ………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Odin is not God and that is a red herring”

            Odin was presented as ONE example. I could have named one of the Hindu deities instead.

            The fact is there is as much evidence for the existence of Odin (or any of the Hindu gods & goddesses ) as there is for the god you say you believe in.

            “nor does it have anything to do with the discussion of truth ”

            The truth is there is as much evidence for the existence of Odin as there is for the god you say you believe in.

            “”I told you I am an atheist. ” …… so YOU DO want to sit in judgement of God and His existence .”

            “i never claimed to be nor do i sit in judgement of the existence of God ….. YOU DO”

            Nope, wrong again. I have never said a god does not exist. I have said I do not believe a god exists.

            I could be wrong… all you have to do to prove me wrong is present evidence that a god exists.

            “so by your ACTIONS you think you get to decide His existence …….. so you are a liar ”

            Nope, wrong again ( at least you are consistent). The claim I have made is I don’t believe a god exists. This is NOT a claim that a god does not exist, it is only a claim about my non-belief. Why are you being so dishonest about what I actually say?

            “Have you not read the Bible? According to the Bible everyone will be judged by your god, not just atheists.

            And to save you time in the future, I will inform you that using the threat/warning of the judgement of a god the atheist doesn’t believe exist is not effective. It is on par with telling an adult that if they are naughty Santa Claus won’t bring them any presents.

            “truth is either accepted of rejected …. you reject it ”

            Wrong. I have rejected your CLAIM that it is truth. You can prove my rejection of your claim is wrong by proving your claim is the truth.

            “as you think you are the arbiter of truth”

            Until you actually prove your claim IS truth, all that is being arbitrated is your claim.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so YOU DO know about God …… and yet you continue to plead STUPIDITY ……. WHY …………

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I know what the Bible says about it’s god. And I know what the Hindu Vedas say about their gods & goddesses.

            I also know that since no deity ( Biblical or other) has been proven to actually exist, the Bible, the Hindu Vedas, the Torah, the Quran, etc can all be considered myth & fable, no more relevant than the Harry Potter books or the Lord of the Rings books.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I know what the Bible says about it’s god. ”

            Then know this …………

            Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

            Psa 53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

            You are a liar …………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            You haven’t presented any evidence that the god of the Bible exists, so anything the Bible has to say on the matter can be ignored.

            As for what the Bible says about fools, it also says to become a fool.

            1 Corinthians 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

            Going by what the passages you posted say & what the passage I posted said it’s obviously the Bible can’t make up it’s mind about fools.

            This is blatantly obvious with these two passages from the Bible, giving advice on how to deal with fools:

            Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

            It gives the exact opposite advice one sentence later:

            Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

            “You are a liar …………..”

            Oh? Can you point out a post here where I lied? If you can’;t, it demonstrates that you are the liar.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            You haven’t presented any evidence that the GRAVITY of SCIENCE exists, so anything the SCIENCE BOOK has to say on the matter can be ignored.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “You haven’t presented any evidence that the GRAVITY of SCIENCE exists, so anything the SCIENCE BOOK has to say on the matter can be ignored.”

            If you really believed the crap you just said, you wouldn’t have any issues with stepping off the roof of a tall building or off a high cliff.

            Are you willing to step off the roof of a high building?

            If you aren’t, why not?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i did not say gravity does not exist …. i said ….. YOU CANNOT PROVE IT IS GRAVITY THAT MAKES YOU FALL …….. as there is no EVIDENCE ………….. DUHHH …. it is just a THEORY …… and all you can show is the SECONDARY EFFECTS ….. like stepping off a building …… and you do not seem to understand the difference between PRIMARY EVIDENCE and SECONDARY EFFECTS ………. again ……. DUHHHHHH ……………….

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “i did not say gravity does not exist …. i said ….. YOU CANNOT PROVE IT IS GRAVITY THAT MAKES YOU FALL …….. as there is no EVIDENCE .”

            The fact is gravity is the name we gave to whatever it is that makes stuff fall. Even if we did not know how gravity works we can still demonstrate it exists.

            Do you have any such demonstration for your god?

            “it is just a THEORY ”

            It is a scientific theory.

            A SCIENTIFIC theory is not the same as a plain theory, as you could learn if you wanted to by looking up the definitions of the word theory & the words scientific theory.

            A SCIENTIFIC theory is defined as: an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to “theory” for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word “theory”

            In everyday speech, “theory” can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, the opposite of its meaning in science.

            Do you have any evidence for your god?

            Can you even define your god clearly?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            but you have no evidence is exists …… and SECONDARY EFFECTS …… ARE NOT EVIDENCE of existence …. ACCORDING to YOU ………….. YOUR STANDARD …….. and you are being held to YOUR STANDARD …… because the evidence of GOD is the SECONDARY EFFECTS ….. so if God is a myth ….. THEN SO IS GRAVITY …… as you have no PRIMARY EVIDENCE ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Can you point out a post here where I lied?”

            you said God is a myth ………… and you can not demonstrate any evidence it is so …….. and neither can you prove the theory of gravity ………. LIAR ………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            And here is the evidence that you are lying.

            I DID NOT SAY god ( or God, if you prefer) is a myth.

            What I said ( this can be verified by scrolling up) is:

            since no deity ( Biblical or other) has been proven to actually exist, the Bible, the Hindu Vedas, the Torah, the Quran, etc can all be considered myth & fable.

            See the difference? I said since god has not been proven to exist god can be CONSIDERED a myth.

            Now stop lying & prove your god is not a myth by presenting evidence for the god.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            in the EXACT SAME POST ….. that you JUST MADE ……

            “I DID NOT SAY god ( or God, if you prefer) is a myth.”

            ” prove your god is not a myth”

            self CONTRADICTION is the SUREST SIGN you are a LIAR ………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “self CONTRADICTION is the SUREST SIGN you are a LIAR ………..”

            Lying about what I said is the surest sign you are a liar.

            Here it is once again, maybe you will figure out what I said this time ( I doubt it though, you seem to want to remain wilfully ignorant or a liar):

            I said since no deity ( Biblical or other) has been proven to actually exist, the Bible, the Hindu Vedas, the Torah, the Quran, etc can all be considered myth & fable.

            See what is being said there?

            I DID NOT say your god is a myth. I said your god can be considered a myth until it has been proven to exist.

            I then said prove your god is not a myth by presenting evidence for the god.

            Without evidence ( as I stated), your & all other gods can be considered myths until proven.

            You have the chance to prove that this considering your god a myth is wrong by proving your god exists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. i CUT AND PASTED what you said …….. and you are LYING about calling God a myth ….. so that makes you a LIAR ……

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Truth is a person …………

            John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

            FYI ….. Gravity does not care if you believe it or not ……. you will find your error soon enough ………… GRAVITY does not care if you prove it or not ….. and ANY ONE YEAR OLD understands it exists with no reason, logic or science ……….. or “PROOF” ……..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Truth is a person ”

            What we have here is a claim. Can you present any evidence to prove this claim?

            “John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

            What we have here is a passage from the Bible. Unless you can present proof that this Jesus actually existed & actually said that, there is no reason to take the passage any more seriously that a passage from the Hindu Vedas.

            “FYI ….. Gravity does not care if you believe it or not”

            True. And until someone can prove Jesus or god exist, there is no reason to believe Jesus or god exist.

            ” GRAVITY does not care if you prove it or not ”

            True. And until someone can prove Jesus or god exist, there is no reason to believe Jesus or god care if you exist.

            ” and ANY ONE YEAR OLD understands it exists with no reason, logic or science ……….. or “PROOF””

            Incorrect. They understand it exists when they experience it. They may not know what causes gravity, they may not even know adults call it gravity, but they can see it demonstrated & can feel it act on them.

            What sort of demonstration can you present for the existence of a god?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. what we have here is the truth …… that you reject …… you do not accept the truth …….

            SO WHAT ……….. it is not my job to prove the truth to you …… it is my job to PRESENT the truth to you ……. what you do with it is your business ……….. this is a CHRISTIAN forum …… it is for CHRISTIANS to discuss CHRISTIANITY …….. we do not DEBATE the truth of Gods existence any more than YOU debate the existence of GRAVITY ……. that BTW ….. you cannot prove and that science has never proven that GRAVITY exists ……

            BUT WE BOTH KNOW IT EXISTS ……………. God AND Gravity ………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “it is not my job to prove the truth to you ”

            It is if you expect me to accept your CLAIM is valid. Since you appear unable to prove your claim, I reject it.

            “it is my job to PRESENT the truth to you ”

            So far you have only presented what you are CLAIMING is the truth. Since you won’t prove your claim is true, I reject it.

            “this is a CHRISTIAN forum …… it is for CHRISTIANS to discuss CHRISTIANITY ”

            Which makes it strange that the forum would discuss the ten commandments ( out of the 613 ), which are old testament, which is Jewish.

            What is even stranger is that the monument pictured does not show the 10 commandments ( out of the 613) that the Bible ACTUALLY calls the ten commandments.

            According to what the Bible actually says, THESE are the 10 commandments ( the monument gets a couple right):

            They begin in Exodus 34:14

            01 Thou shalt worship no other god.
            02 Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
            03 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep.
            04 Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day rest.
            05 Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks.
            06 Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
            07 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
            08 Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left until the morning.
            09 The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God.
            10 Thou shalt not seeth a kid in his mother’s milk.

            and end at Exodus 34:28 with “And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i do not have any stake in your coming to the truth ……. sorry ….. that is between you and God …… not you and me ….. again …… it is not my job to CONVINCE you of the truth …… it is merely my job to PRESENT you the truth ….. and i have …… what you do with it is your affair …. not mine ……..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Since no one has been able to present any evidence that the god you speak of actually exists, the fact that you call it “the truth” can be dismissed as wishful thinking.

            Since they have not been able to even present a clear meaningful definition of the god I am not surprised that no one has been able to present evidence for their god.

            “it is merely my job to PRESENT you the truth ….. and i have …”

            No, you have presented claims that it is the truth. You have presented nothing to prove it is the truth.

            Here’s a timesaver for you: repeating the same unproven claim again and again doesn’t make it true.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            oh … i see ….. so it is back to science …… or are we still on your OPINION as to existence or non-existence …… i keep getting confused as you keep going back and forth …… which is it this time …..

            and while you are at it ….. PROVE GRAVITY EXISTS …………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “and while you are at it ….. PROVE GRAVITY EXISTS ”

            Why? Do you think gravity does not exist?

            Once again you forgot to present any evidence for the existence of a god.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            noope …. YOU are claiming science ….. SCIENCE has not ever proven the THEORY of gravity ….. so YOU CAN NOT PROVE IT ….. you can show the SECONDARY EFFECTS of gravity …. but you can not prove it exists …… BUT IT DOES …. and so does GOD …… as the same EVIDENCE exists for both ……….

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “but you can not prove it exists …… BUT IT DOES …. and so does GOD …… as the same EVIDENCE exists for both ……”

            Gravity is the name we give to the force that causes a rock in our hands to fall to the ground when we release it.

            It can be demonstrated to exist to exist by holding up a rock & releasing it & watching it fall to the ground.

            What is your demonstration for the existence of a god?

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    “God does not exist and I hate that you keep reminding me that He does” ….. rebellion to law is all they stand for ……. there is a standard and they do not want to be reminded of that standard ……

    • C_Alan_Nault

      The standard here is the Constitution of the United States. Placing a religious monument on public land is unconstitutional.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        the standard of the constitution is not ABSENCE of religion ……….

        Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story –

        § 1871. The real object of the (1st) amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity (Atheism), by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head; and even New England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals. Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Personally, I have no problem with the monument as long as any other religion that wishes to can place a monument just as large on the land there.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          A ruling dated 1871? Why not post a modern example?

          Also, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story died in 1845… how’d he make a ruling in 1871?

          One might suspect you are being dishonest when you attribute the quote to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a ruling that is still valid and refutes your assertion as to what the constitution meant at the time it was written …. not your post modern clap trap …….

          • C_Alan_Nault

            A ruling attributed to a Supreme Court Justice & dated 26 years AFTER he died is not convincing.

            Can you post a web link that credits Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story saying what you have claimed he said?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            did not say anything about it being a ruling ….. that is just YOUR OPINION ……….

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Actually, you DID say it was a ruling. I will quote you: “a ruling that is still valid and refutes your assertion as to what the constitution meant at the time it was written”

            You are attributing it to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story but it is dated 26 years after he died. Post a link to a web page that has him quoting what you said he quoted.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no i did not … learn to parse ………….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. YOU said it was a ruling …. i was parroting your assertion ….. and as is pointed out here elsewhere …. the origin of the quote is from Storys commentaries ………

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Apparently you have forgotten that YOU said ” “a ruling that is still valid and refutes your assertion as to what the constitution meant at the time it was written”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your word was “ruling” …… YOUR misconception …… not mine ……….. your failure to parse what was written … not mine ………..

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “your word was “ruling” .”

            And I took the word from your post.

            Perhaps you have forgotten what you said:

            Amos Moses – He>i C_Alan_Nault • a day ago
            a ruling that is still valid and refutes your assertion as to what the constitution meant at the time it was written

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Justice David Josiah Brewer (143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226): “This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus … (recited) that ‘it is hoped that by God’s assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered’ …

            “The first colonial grant made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584 … and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony provided ‘that they be not against the true Christian faith’ … The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I in 1606 … commenced the grant in these words: ‘… in propagating of Christian Religion to such People as yet live in Darkness …’ Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony … in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant.

            “The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: ‘Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith … a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia’ … The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this declaration: ‘… And well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union … there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God … to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess … of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us.’

            “In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: ‘… no people can be truly happy, though under the greatest enjoyment of civil liberties, if abridged of … their religious profession and worship …’

            “Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. … appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions. … And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor’ … These declarations … reaffirm that this is a religious nation.”

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “These declarations … reaffirm that this is a religious nation.””

            And nothing after the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution say anything about Christ or Christianity.

            The commandments ( 613 of them) are, according to the Bible, meant for the Hebrews. Every time a group erects a ten commandments monument they not only get the commandments wrong ( according to the Bible), they are erecting a Jewish monument.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “And nothing after the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution say anything about Christ or Christianity.”

            God …. in EVERY STATE constitution …..

            Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ..

            Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

            Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution…

            Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government…

            California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
            grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

            Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

            Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy …

            Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences .

            Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty … establish this
            Constitution…

            Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution…

            Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance . establish this Constitution

            Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ..

            Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

            Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government ..

            Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings … establish this Constitution

            Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.

            Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties…

            Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ..

            Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity … and imploring His aid and direction

            Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty…

            Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We…the people of Massachusetts,
            acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe…in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction …

            Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom … establish this Constitution

            Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings

            Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

            Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ..establish this Constitution ..

            Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

            Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution

            Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution ..

            New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience .

            New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

            New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

            New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

            North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those

            North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain…

            Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
            Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ..

            Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty … establish this

            Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be securein the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences .

            Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance

            Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

            South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution

            South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this

            Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience…

            Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

            Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution .

            Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to … enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man …

            Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI … Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator . can be directed only by Reason … and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other…

            Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution .

            West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .

            Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

            Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties … establish this Constitution .

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “God …. in EVERY STATE constitution …”

            Which god are they talking about? Zeus? Odin? Thor? Anubis? Shiva? Ganesh? They do not specify.

            Do any of these state constitutions mention Christ or Christianity?

            In any case, none of the mentions of god are any sort of evidence that the god actually exists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Does not matter ….. it REFUTES your claim …. and YOU KNOW which God ….. God is Christ and christianity is what is being referred to as God ….. unless you can prove otherwise … AND YOU CANNOT ………

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Refutes my claim? Why are you being so blatantly dishonest? All I have claimed is that nowhere in any of the documents you cites does it mention Christ or Christianity.

            “and YOU KNOW which God ….”

            Being an atheist no, I don’t know which god. All the religions have shown an equal amount of evidence for their deities.

            “God is Christ and christianity is what is being referred to as God”

            According to YOUR belief. Hindus would say something different.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so you are a liar AND you do know which God is being referred to ….. so a liar a second time ….. okay …. so you do not believe in God ….. SO WHAT …………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your belief or disbelief is not at issue ….. what God they refer to is the issue ….. and YOU KNOW which God they refer to ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Being an atheist no, I don’t know which god.”

            so you want to plead STUPIDITY …… really ……… but you just listed a bunch of gods ….. so is it STUPIDITY ….. or just being asinine …….

          • Guzzman

            Amos Moses appears to be quoting from “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” published by then-retired Associate Justice Joseph Story in 1833. It is basically the musings of a retired justice, not any sort of court ruling. The relevance to the current article completely escapes me.

          • John_Eidsmoe

            Mr. or Ms. Guzzman, You have correctly recognized this quotation as coming from Story’s 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution” but the rest of what you say is utter nonsense. Story served on the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, so he was on the Court when he wrote and published the Commentaries. The Commentaries are probably the leading exposition of the Constitution from the 19th century. Story was nominated to be a Justice by President James Madison, who many consider the “father of the Constitution.” He knew many of the Founding Fathers personally, so his explanation of what the Founding Fathers meant by the First Amendment is most relevant to the Ten Commandments debate today.
            Have you read Story’s Commentaries? If not, I suggest you do so before you dismiss them as the “musings of a [not] retired justice.” I used to require it of my students. Besides Section 1871 (not the year 1871, as Mr. Nault ignorantly stated), Sections 1865-73 are relevant to the First Amendment and the relation of religion and government. Consider Section (not year, Mr. Nault) 1868: “Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

          • Guzzman

            Amos Moses lifted a quote from Joseph Story’s “Commentaries” without providing a proper citation or context. I was merely pointing out that this quote was not from a court ruling but rather Associate Justice Story’s interpretation of various historical and legal issues.

            All Story is claiming in the quote provided by Amos Moses is that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was widespread sentiment for aiding Christianity. What Story does not claim here is that the Constitution empowered the Federal government to give such aid. Indeed, only a few pages latter in his “Commentaries” he explicitly denies that the Federal government had such power:

            “It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject [of religious aid].”

            In other words, Story believed, along with Madison, Jefferson, and a host of other framers, that the Constitution gave no power to the Federal government over religion. With respect to the Federal government, Story was a separationist. If Story were alive today, he would most certainly be opposed to placing a 10 Commandments monument on government property.

          • John_Eidsmoe

            I’m sure Mr. Moses assumed anyone entering a discussion of constitutional law would be familiar with Justice Story. Anyway, your confusion about Justice Story’s status on the Court when he published the Commentaries was in good faith and understandable.

            And you are absolutely correct that the Story quotation is not from a court ruling. No one (except maybe Mr. Nault) has thought otherwise. However, few Supreme Court decisions have influenced constitutional jurisprudence to as great an extent as Story’s Commentaries.

            Justice Story envisaged a limited role for the federal government in religious matters because that was, as Jefferson said, to be left to the states. But if you read sections 1865-73 in their entirety, it is clear that Justice Story believed government in general should give encouragement to religion in general and possibly to Christianity in general (as opposed to specific denominations). If Justice Story were alive today, he would be utterly baffled by the Court’s incorporation doctrine (for a good explanation of which, see Yale Law Prof Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment).

          • John_Eidsmoe

            Mr. Nault, Surely you realize that the symbol in front of 1871 means “Section.” The quotation is from Section 1871 of Justice Story’s monumental work, COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES (1833), generally considered to be the leading treatise on the Constitution during the 19th century. Justice Story, by the way, was a Harvard Law Professor as well as a Supreme Court Justice. Chief Justice John Marshall hoped Story would succeed him as Chief Justice, but by that time Marshall’s nemesis Andrew Jackson was President and he had other ideas.
            Mr. Moses is entirely correct in his use of this quotation, and you are wrong to accuse him of dishonesty. But I will not accuse you of dishonesty. Never attribute to malice anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            As a Canadian why would I realize what that symbol means?

            Thank you for the clarification.

            “Never attribute to malice anything that can be adequately explained by stupidity.”

            A suitable explanation for Donald Trump’s election to the office of president.

          • John_Eidsmoe

            A pretty pathetic excuse. If I were commenting on Canadian law, I’d certainly learn Canadian citation.
            And as for your gratuitous insult, I really don’t much care what you think of the election of President Trump.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “If I were commenting on Canadian law,”

            I thought we were commenting on a ” COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES “, not on American law.

            I really don’t much care whether you care about what I think of the election of Trump.

            I will point out that we Canadians have nothing to brag about when it comes to the leftist liberal traitor that somehow got elected as our current prime Minister.

          • John_Eidsmoe

            Mr. Nault, Have you read Justice Story’s Commentaries? They have probably influenced American constitutional jurisprudence more than any other American document since the Constitution was drafted, with the exception of the Federalist Papers, Madison’s Notes, and perhaps half a dozen Supreme Court decisions.
            I can respect a person who admits a mistake rather than making pathetic excuses and tries to blame others.
            But out of respect for you and your country, I will keep my thoughts about your prime minister to myself and simply note instead that your country has wonderful skiing.

  • disqus_BDBCEvISae

    Seems reasonable. Surely there must be a church/synagogue/temple/mosque that would like it on their property.

  • Vince

    Fire ants sting, but they are still small and insignificant.

  • Guzzman

    The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals already ruled that a virtually identical Ten Commandments monument on public property in Bloomfield, New Mexico was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court let that decision stand. Santa Fe has no choice but to remove the religious monument from government property.

  • lavon75

    I have an even better idea. Let’s move the Freedom From Religion Foundation from the state of New Mexico. Or….we could compromise. The 10 Commandments gets moved and the Freedom From Religion Foundation gets moved from the state of New Mexico.

    • John_Eidsmoe

      The Freedom From Religion Foundation has its national headquarters in Wisconsin.

      • lavon75

        It appeared to me that this group was harassing citizens of New Mexico.

    • C_Alan_Nault

      Why do they want to have a monument for the ten commandments when there are 613 commandments in the old testament?

      BTW, the 10 they have on the monument are not the ones the Bible calls the ten commandments.

  • james blue

    I would like to see ten commandment monuments put on church grounds. There are far more churches than government building, yet I cannot recall seeing a ten commandment monument on church grounds facing the road.

    The “ten” monument I would like to see on government ground is the bill of rights.

    • Al Cruise

      Sounds like you’ve never been inside a church.

      • james blue

        What makes you say that?

  • DoorknobHead

    PERNICIOUS PROPAGANDA PERPETUATES PROSCRIBED PROSECUTABLES
    Are these arguments taken out of context? They sound terrible, as if they guy shouldn’t be a judge in the first place. He refers to the colonies before there was a Constitution? (where those that arrived and escaped religious persecution, from across the great big pond, then created laws in a new world, before the Constitution, to persecute people with sectarian laws similar to how they were once persecuted) Not relevant. Why go ALL THE WAY back there judge? Refer to other countries before there was a Constitution? Not relevant. Why go there judge? It sounds like the guy is trying to make a case for his personal mythical beliefs, but only has a batch of terrible and irrelevant arguments. Religion is bad news, and should be completely separated from government. Separation of powers — separate the gas from the matches. When I first saw the article I thought of an adult (FFRF) scolding a kid, (the fire station), “Why did you do this? You should know better than this.” and the the child (the fire station) might reply, “I dunno. Seemed like the thing to do at the time.” Not an okay idea — take down the tombstone of the death cult. How do you establish religion? Have the government post propaganda about it, or put “In God We Trust” on money (where it does not belong), and then people can point to it and say, “The government does it so that must makes it okay (nope) and it must have always been that way (it wasn’t).

  • patrick sain

    You can’t doing it aclu it’s on private property aclu went nuts

  • Herrnhut

    Jesus said “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.” (John 5:45)

    Don’t go back to old covenant to get cursed and wonder why sick all the times.

  • Herrnhut

    For sheep that follows Jesus, this should be considered John 5:45 “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuse you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.”

    If you see Christianity as a religion, ten commandments is for you cursed and condemned by the old covenant. But the new covenant said Jesus is the Way , the Truth and the Life. He is the redeemer. To go back to old covenant will make your faith of no effect, hence all these scandals from all these religious even in Christendom.