It Takes An Act Of Congress to Display The Ten Commandments

H.Con.Res. 12 (ih) Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in the United States Capitol. [Introduced in House]

There is absolutely no benefit, to the citizenry, for 95% of what goes on in Washington or in most of our state capitals. The fact that Congress has to legislate permission to display the Ten Commandments is only symbolic, after the attorneys get the issue into their “court” the whole issue becomes doubtful and could take years of litigation to go nowhere.

Imagine our capitalist upbringing where improving, growing, doing-better and thinking outside-the-box has replaced a slower built-on-fundamentals approach. Add that entrepreneurial dynamism to years of advocacy legal training and you start to get a feel for our current legal system. At one time we could brag about our legal professionals that would defend the guilty with the same efficacy as the innocence, advocate for the weak with the same audacity as the strong. But as causes for various individual rights issues gained in popularity, funding improved, allowing their positions to be championed by the best and the brightest.

The American people have always shown their resiliency to overcome and conquer the many obstacles that circumstances have thrown our way. Depressions, wars and diseases are easy to identify and Americans have always stiffened, pooled their resources, and prevailed. But what about a threat we can’t identify, a threat that works from the inside and whose only goal is to win.

Does an atheist have rights, absolutely. The exact same rights as any other recognized religious group. If having the Ten Commandments on the wall of a Capital building is in support of a religion and offensive to atheists then NOT having it on the wall is in support of Atheists and equally offensive to someone else. This argument can go on forever and everyone loses, but it’s the lawyers from both sides that gain in stature, obtain lucrative commissions and what is most important, create a never ending argument.

It’s this advocacy training that prepares attorneys to do so well in politics, the ability to aggressively debate an issue or put into contention an issue that they don’t want action to be taken on. The will of the people or even personal opinion has nothing to with it, the first priority is self-interest, the next is party politics, then there are the needs of the special interests, and lastly come the constituents.

Even it they lose on an issue it is still not over. Look at the issue of the “Border Fence”. Congress passes a bill to build the fence, then passes a bill to fund it and the President reluctantly signs both bills. Does that mean we have a fence? No. The funds are not going to be appropriated and if they are, a court will find an excuse to block it.