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

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for hosting this debate.The Court has always cited previous cases as justification for its ruling. I will use previous cases to prove that the X Commandments being displayed in front of a State House is in fact Constitutional.In order to pass the Lemon Test, whatever it is that is before the Court must have a "secular meaning." The Lemon Test was created in 1971. I will use two cases after the Test was created for my support.This case is almost exactly the same scenario as what we are debating. In the case Van Orden V Perry, The Texas State Capitol Building had the 10 Commandments displayed in front of it. When it was brought before the Supreme Court they ruled that it was in fact constitutional. The holding was this: Although the Ten Commandments are religious, "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with religious doctrine DOES NOT RUN AFOUL WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE." (Emphasis Added) It also passed the the Lemon Test, as it was not purely religious.In the Case Lynch v Donnley, the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island displayed a Nativity Scene in a park, in the center of the local shopping district. Someone took this to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it was Constitutional for a city to display the Nativity Scene. In a time when people are to busy preparing for Christmas, they have any time to remember where the holiday came from. The Court's Holding was this: The Constitution "Affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility towards any." It goes on to say that it was simply displaying where the holiday that we know today came from. It passed the Lemon Test because it had a secular value.The public opinion is obviously in favor of displaying the Ten Commandments, as it was privately funded. The PEOPLE not the government funded it. Since it was privately funded, what is to keep other religious groups from doing the same thing?Our Nation has had a long history of recognizing the Ten Commandments. It was James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, that once said, "We have staked the future of all of our political institutions... upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." As Patrick Henry once said, 'It cannot be emphasized to strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists. but by Christians; not by religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" And in Updegraph V. Commonwealth, in 1826, a phrase in the Court's holding,, you can find the phrase, "Christianity is part of the common law." This gives the Ten Commandments a historical value, not necessarily a religious value.There are many other cases that support the holding that the 10 Commandments are apart of the common law.Now I will show how this case that we are currently debating is not in violation of the Lemon Test.1. The "Ten Commandments Monument Display Act" has the secular value of honoring a national tradition. Since the 10 Commandments have long been part of the common law, it gives them a historic value. Thus, it is not in violation of the first part of the Lemon Test.2. It's primary purpose is neither to advance religion or to inhibit religion, rather it is to identify the "moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and the State of Oklahoma."3. Excessive Government Entanglement with religion would include: Funding and promoting a religion or its teachings. As previously stated, the 10 Commandments display was privately funded. Since, as stated before, The 10 Commandments are an important part of our government's morals, it is simply stating what the government believes to be good morals. It is not necessarily promoting a religion.Now on to how it is Constitutional.The 10th Amendment gives certain "rights" to the states. Is it not a State's rights to display the 10 Commandments so long as it does so in a non-partial manner and non-discriminatory way?Other religious groups have petitioned to have their symbols displayed, however they do not have a secular meaning. They want their symbols displayed in order to promote their religion. If other religious symbols or text had a secular reason for being displayed, then they to could be displayed.The Myth Of Separation- David Bartonhttp://www.oyez.org...http://www.oyez.org...http://www.ecapitol.net...http://billofrightsinstitute.org...http://nationalparalegal.edu...