Editor’s note: This is in response to the article “Removal of Ten Commandments questioned” published in the Thursday, March 8, edition.
When I walk into a restaurant and am met with a list of the day’s specials, do I feel that the special is being “foisted” upon me?
When I am greeted at Walmart by the retiree, do I feel that welcome is “foisted” upon me?
To say that a religious message is being “foisted” upon anyone entering a courtroom is an exaggeration of its intent, former or present. We have choices and freedoms in this country that make it impossible to feel foisted upon. In addition to that point, we have complete control over our own thoughts, feelings and actions.
The removal of the Ten Commandments from the Hibbing Courthouse is a lawful removal if we understand the intent of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but that’s not what this opinion is about. This opinion is about challenging the indication that a religious object forces us to feel or believe a certain way or force us to forego our religious liberties because of it.
And it absolutely does not.
It’s just an object, and if you are allowing it to affect you to the point of legal and county interaction, then perhaps a deeper inward look at yourself is in order.
How it really appears is that the FFRF objective is to pick on small towns to try to make big headlines about religious freedom.
Removing the Ten Commandments doesn’t change a thing except the appearance of the wall.
Maple Grove, Minn.