The 10 commandments newly set up on the grounds of the Oklahoma City capitol building is illegal

I do not have a lot of time, so I will make this short. Pro claims that the cases that I pointed out are later "refuted" by other Supreme Courts. They might have been refuted, but not overturned. Starting with Allegheny v. ACLU. While Lynch v Donnley and Allegheny v ACLU are similar, there is one major difference. A difference that Pro conveniently forgot to address. In Allegheny v ACLU, there were some words that were prominently displayed above it, that were part of the display, saying, "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. " THAT is why the Court ruled it as not having a secular meaning. Had the display stood alone, as in Lynch v. Donnley, it would not have been ruled as promoting a religion. Now to McCreary v. ACLU. Pro says "In Van Orden V. Perry, the monument was donated by a secular group and thereby seen to come about under non-religious terms. However, in the McCreary County case, on the same day, "the court upheld the lower courts' rulings, noting that a pastor was present to testify to the certainty of the existence of God at the dedication of one of the displays. Because there was a pastor present attempting to testify to the existence of God it became clear that this was not a secular display of history, but rather a religious move and thereby violating the Lemon Test. "That is my point exactly. Since there was no pastor to dedicate the 10 Commandments in Van Orden v. Perry, it remains constitutional. If there was a pastor there to try and "testify to the existence of God" only then would it become unconstitutional. Similar, not same. Not to mention that both were ruled on the same day, so both are still good law as neither have been overturned. Here is a quote by Justice Byer to help further my point: "In certain contexts, a display of the tablets of the Ten Commandments can convey not simply a religious message but also a secular moral message (about proper standards of social conduct). And in certain contexts, a display of the tablets can also convey a historical message (about a historic relation between those standards and the law)--a fact that helps to explain the display of those tablets in dozens of courthouses throughout the Nation, including the Supreme Court of the United States. You misunderstood my "Historic Value" point. The 10 Commandments have a historic value because, as stated previously, because it has long been a part pf the common law of the U. S. and Oklahoma. I was NOT arguing that it had a historic value because it had been sitting there for a while, which makes your refutation void. What Justice Byer used to make his decision was NOT, and I cannot stress it enough, a new test. They were simply his observations. Of the 9 factors that Justice Byer used to weigh his decision, you only apply four to the 10 Commandments in Oklahoma. So, I will argue those four, assuming that the other five are met by as they were not addressed. Point 1: Already refuted. (Previous Paragraph)Point 3: Why would you need consult with officials? You already have the support of the Founding Fathers. (Refer to quotes that I gave from James Madison and Patrick Henry)Point 6: It would not stand alone if other religions could come up with reasons that their displays have a secular value. Point 8: Again, historic value, Writers of the Ten Commandments Monument Display Act have already declared that the intent was historic. In conclusion, the Act passes the Lemon Test, and It passes the observations of Justice Byer. Which were the main points that were covered in this debate. . http://www.oyez.org... . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...http://www.ecapitol.net...http://home.comcast.net...