Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 1, 2005, to permit the display on public property of the Ten Commandments or other religious objects or documents with state or national historical import, when they are displayed with other documents, public records, or objects of historical significance that have formed and influenced the legal or governmental system of the United States

The vote was 74 in favor, 34 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 46 at House Journal 26)

Click here to view bill details.

This is a veiled attempt to eventually remove and further distance our Judeo-Christian roots in this country. No other society on this earth has greater freedom and liberty and safety than those that embrace Judeo-Christian values, which this country's core values were started with. There are those who want to destroy this and degrade society in the process - to their personal satisfaction of ruling over other people I guess, representing only themselves far more than the people they represent.

With afterthought I may be wrong about the authors intentions. We should not even need a law like this. The author may have good intentions now, but eventually have the effect of eliminating the Ted-Commandments alltogether with others simular "laws" in the future.

This country was founded on religious freedom and the intentional separation of church and state. Yes, there are many Christians in this state, but we should be welcoming to those of diverse religions. Having the ten commandments posted is not a welcoming gesture to those who are not Judeo-Christian. The state government represents a united state including people of all religions, not just the religions founded on the ten commandments. Posting the 10 commandments may be an intimidating gesture for someone who does not follow them (yes there are people in MI who do not follow them e.g. Michigan has one of the largest muslim populations in the country) and they may not be comfortable speaking to their state representatives because of it. As a state, we should be welcoming diversity and not limiting it. There is too much discrimination already in this country and adding the 10 commandments may symbolize discrimination to many.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." It was a later Supreme Court opinion that created the questionable doctrine known as "Separation of Church and State." That Western religions have played a fundamental role in the history and development of this country is not arguable. The modern attempt to remove the symbols of religion and to deny this fact is tantamount to blasting a cornerstone from the structure of th organizational principles on which the U.S. was founded. Seven of the Ten Commandments are nothing more than a series of very basic social rules. They are certainly not intimidating. How silly is that little ruse? If one reads a bit of history, one will realize that the Founders did not credit individual rights to man or to government. They based their concepts of individual rights in natural law and as coming from God. With this in mind, I do wonder about the real motivation behind the anti's.

Let's realize where our heritage is and get on with life. I thought this was a majority rule country. The ten commandments are a part of our history get over it with the negative comments.

Although you are wrong about the majority rule thing (This is and always was a Constitutional Republic not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule and bound to fail. A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.) I agree that this country was founded on the notion that our rights are God given..not state given...Big Difference.

It's true, of course, that the Decalogue is part of the religious history of this great nation. That makes it partt of the national history, as well. But it's far from the whole thing as a basis for our system of government and law. As for this bill? Well, it ought to be dumped. It is nothing but another divisive and quite unnecessary proposition that is intended to gain some political advantage for its sponsors and supporters in the legislature. Grandstanding. The US Supreme Court right now is considering two cases that address this very issue. Let the Court reach its decision. If the Court says Ten Comanment tablet facsimiles or texts may be displayed, then the law is unnecessary. If the Court says "no," then the law is automatically no good. That means it's not needed either way.

Let's add these laws: 1. St. Ignace will be allowed to continue to use it's name as long as on any official document, it will add any name proposed by a bipartisan committee to address religious diversity, such as "Mohammadville" or "Shivaton". 2. Legislators with Christian names will be allowed to continue to use them as long as on all official correspondence they add the middle name "Not an endorsement of any religion". For example: Mary "Not an endorsement of any religion" Waters Joe "Not an endorsement of any religion" Hune Let's get away from the "If it's not illegal, it's mandatory" school of legislation.

This country is about freedom in many facets. Not just religious. Remember, religion is just a story. If it were true, there would be only one religion that everyone would follow undeniably. We don't need the Ten Commandments anywhere around the goverment to tell us what the right path is.

Incorrect -- it was what the founders themselves had in mind. Madison, considered the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." There are your exact words. But, just in case there is any doubt as to intent, Thomas Jefferson explained the amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptists when he wrote: “Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole of the American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state” There are many other supporting statements in The Federalist Papers. All it takes to prove that the Ten Commandments are sacred, religious text, is to read the first two. Even if this bill doesn't exactly establish a state religion, it certainly allows government to give that appearance. Save the religious text for the churches and historical documents for the museum. Government needs to serve ALL the people and favor none. THAT is the true spirit of the First Amendment. (Oh, and "god" isn't mentioned in the Constitution or it's Bill of Rights. A vague statement about a "creator," and a reference to "nature's god" appears in the Declaration of Independence.)

Our law is based on English common law, and has nothing to do with the Decalogue. With the abuses of the Church of England fresh in their minds, our wise founding fathers purposely installed -- as ammendment #1 to the Constitution -- a barrier between Church and State. They were learned men, and had the histories of all previous and then current forms of government to examine. It was clear to them that a theocracy always fails in the long term. We can see the dangers inherent in them today quite clearly by looking at countries like Iran and Iraq, where Islam is the law of the land. The marriage of religion and government is divisive in the least and deadly dangerous at it's worst, and it's stunning how often the worst comes to pass. Kill this bill and let's get past this meaningless posturing. Let the legislature work on things that really matter, like fixing our crumbling roads, keeping schools open (and safe) and getting out from under all the red ink. The Ten Commandments already has a home in the hundreds of thousands of churches all over our country.

Rep. Miller, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I recognize the importance that the Ten Commandments play in my Christian faith, as well as in the beautiful history of the Jewish people, from Moses to Sandy Koufax. However, I cannot support this measure unless we are sure to honor all the faiths of Michigan equally, including the faiths of my Muslim, Buddhist and Taoist brothers and sisters. Many call God by a different name and worship Him according to different traditions and we must always respect this. Let's stop playing politics with holy texts and get back to the business of the people of the State of Michigan. "

Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This legislation is offensive on many fronts. Of greatest offense may well be the message that we send to those people of faith across our state who practice their faith--in churches, synagogues, temples and mosques--and don't appreciate government poking its nose in their worship. When we ignore the lessons of our history, we are doomed to repeat them. The sponsors of this legislation have clearly forgotten one of the principle reasons our country was founded--to escape the religious persecution of their government."

Rep. Whitmer, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I opposed passage of HB 4433, displaying the Ten Commandments for 2 main reasons. First, I believe that this is a constitutional issue that is properly pending before and will be decided by the United State Supreme Court, presently. Second, I proudly represent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists among members of many other religious affiliations who reside in the 69th District. I do my best to represent all of my constituents equally. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution wrote the Establishment Clause because they understood that when a government endorses one religion over others it is by implication disadvantaging others. Many of our forefathers fled England because their home government established a national religion and consequently nonmembers felt persecuted. Finally, the Speaker Pro Tem did not permit the Democratic members an equal opportunity to speak and that oppressive conduct is the very thing that threatens to destroy the noble democracy upon which our country founded."

Reps. Adamini, Kathleen Law and Lipsey, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on House Bill 4433 because its only purpose is to use religion as a political football. The First Amendment was intended to keep our government from becoming embroiled in religious debates, but this bill's focus, as stated in its title is 'to allow the display of the Ten Commandments' on Government property. This can only lead to our governing bodies becoming embroiled in precisely the type of debates the First amendment sought to avoid--which version of the Ten Commandments? What other documents need be included? What other religious documents had an impact? Furthermore, the bill is problematic because it is clearly unconstitutional under the current test used by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even more important is the fact that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing two cases on the posting of the Ten Commandments, acting now, before the ruling means that we will likely be forced to revisit this issue once the court has ruled--if the decision allows posting under certain circumstances (it seems unlikely that we have had the good fortune to stumble upon those circumstances). On the other hand, if the Court reiterates its current standard or implements a stricter standard, then this will face inevitable and costly challenge in our courts."

Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against this bill for two reasons. First, I believe it is clearly unconstitutional and, given the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments on this matter, I believe it is foolish to try to move forward without waiting for their opinion in the coming months. In fact, I think passage of this act will only heighten the chances that placement of the Ten Commandments on public grounds in Michigan will be found unconstitutional. Second, I believe it is an absolute perversion of the traditions of our founding fathers and the principles upon which our nation was founded. Had I not been inappropriately gaveled by the presiding speaker, I would have quoted from the Virginia statute of Religious Freedom, a document drafted by Thomas Jefferson and a document that he considered so important he inscribed his authorship as one of the three accomplishments listed on his gravestone. Specifically, Thomas Jefferson wrote: '...that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible...That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher or his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern...that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.' These are the real traditions upon which this country was founded and the traditions that have made our nation a beacon of tolerance and safe harbor for people of all religions, cultures, ethnicities and heritages."

Rep. Gonzales, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on House Bill 4433 because its only purpose is to use religion as a political football. The First Amendment was intended to keep our government from becoming embroiled in religious debates, but this bill's focus, as stated in its title is 'to allow the display of the Ten Commandments' on Government property. This can only lead to our governing bodies becoming embroiled in precisely the type of debates the First amendment sought to avoid--which version of the Ten Commandments? What other documents need be included? What other religious documents had an impact? Furthermore, the bill is problematic because it is clearly unconstitutional under the current test used by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even more important is the fact that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing two cases on the posting of the Ten Commandments, acting now, before the ruling means that we will likely be forced to revisit this issue once the court has ruled--if the decision allows posting under certain circumstances (it seems unlikely that we have had the good fortune to stumble upon those circumstances). On the other hand, if the Court reiterates its current standard or implements a stricter standard, then this will face inevitable and costly challenge in our courts. As a result, one can only conclude that the reason we have taken this bill up today, instead of waiting to hear the Supreme Court's decision, is to move a patently unconstitutional bill to the Governor's desk that she will be obligated to veto. It's not about putting up the Ten Commandments for viewing in a public place--it's about living one's public life genuinely and respecting others' space."

Rep. Anderson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on House Bill 4433 because its only purpose is to use religion as a political football. The First Amendment was intended to keep our government from becoming embroiled in religious debates, but this bill's focus, as stated in its title is 'to allow the display of the Ten Commandments' on Government property. This can only lead to our governing bodies becoming embroiled in precisely the type of debates the First amendment sought to avoid--which version of the Ten Commandments? What other documents need be included? What other religious documents had an impact? It is my belief that these attempts to use such religious issues to further divide our state and nation is not what we should be doing as elected leaders. I find the politicizing and exploitation of our religious beliefs for political gain to be appalling. Furthermore, the bill is problematic because it is clearly unconstitutional under the current test used by the Supreme Court of the United States. Even more important is the fact that the Supreme Court is currently reviewing two cases on the posting of the Ten Commandments, acting now, before the ruling means that we will likely be forced to revisit this issue once the court has ruled--if the decision allows posting under certain circumstances (it seems unlikely that we have had the good fortune to stumble upon those circumstances). On the other hand, if the Court reiterates its current standard or implements a stricter standard, then this will face inevitable and costly challenge in our courts."

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I voted against this bill because I strongly support religious freedom and religious tolerance in this country. As drafted, this bill is likely to be found unconstitutional. The existing test for determining constitutionality looks at the 'purpose' of the law, whether it has a secular purpose. In this case, the bill's purpose, as clearly set forth in the title, is to 'allow the display of the Ten Commandments' it is abundantly clear that the purpose is not secular. Moreover, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case on the posting of the Ten Commandments in public places and the decision is likely to be released within the next few months, so this legislation does nothing that could change the rule of law. Thus, I voted no on HB 4433."

Rep. Cushingberry, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: As an ordained Baptist Minister, Atty, and Social Scientist I am appalled at the actions of this House in advocating this bill. Matthew 6th Chapter verses 1-6 read as follows 'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward and when thou prayest thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the standing in the church/synagogues and in the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have there reward.' We are today acting as the hypocrites even though the revolutionary preacher who stated this warned us over 2000 years ago! The ku klux clan also used the 1st of the Ten Commandments to justify lynching African Americans, Native Americans, Catholic Americans, and Jewish Americans in the name of the God and with the symbol of the cross! Those founding fathers quoted today didn't think much of 'Darkies', or women, or nonlandowners in their allocation of the rights based in 'Natural Law' elucidated in the original Constitution. God doesn't need our help he needs our action on providing for the less fortunate- the widows, orphans, and the poor who have been neglected so heavily by our society today. America is not following the edicts of the very document we profess to believe, we are killing people in Iraq, we have made money our new God, we are covetous of our neighbors possessions leading to a kind of selfishness that underfunds the social services and tries to figure out how to cut welfare to the poor but give more to the rich. That same revolutionary preacher who I try to emulate said in Matthew 23 vs 1-36 that woe unto ye hypocrites specifically stating 'All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be bourne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen by men: they make broad their phylacteries, (garment patches of religious symbols and words) and enlarging the borders of their garments.' We need to spend our time, talent, trash, and efforts in a more real loving way by trying to improve the quality of life for the State's people. We need to reduce the prison population (leave vengeance to God) and increase the education population. We should live the 'Natural law' and protect the separation of church and state by honoring the bill of rights and not passing laws which help establish religion on State Govt. property."

Rep. Zelenko, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: My main objection is that HB 4433 is likely to be found unconstitutional. The existing test for determining constitutionality looks at the 'purpose' of the law, whether it has a secular purpose. Since the bill's purpose, set forth clearly in the title is to 'allow the display of the Ten Commandments' it is fairly clear that the purpose is not secular, but rather to use religion as a political football. The Supreme Court of the United States is currently reviewing two cases on the posting of the Ten Commandments, acting now, before the ruling means that we will likely be forced to revisit this issue once the court has ruled--if the higher court's decision allows posting under certain circumstances (it seems unlikely that we have had the good fortune to stumble upon those circumstances). On the other hand, if the higher Court reiterates its current standard or implements a stricter standard, then this will face inevitable and costly challenge in our courts. The First Amendment was intended to keep our government from becoming embroiled in religious debates, but this bill's focus, as stated in its title is 'to allow the display of the Ten Commandments' on Government property. This can only lead to our governing bodies becoming embroiled in precisely the type of debates the First amendment sought to avoid--which version of the Ten Commandments? What other documents need be included? What other documents and opinions had an impact on our founding fathers? Should we include the opinions of such founding fathers that didn't have much regard for the men of color, of women, of non-landowners, in debating the 'rights' based in the Natural Law of the original constitution? In addition, I protest the ruling of the Chair when he gaveled Members for reading documents from their podiums during floor debate. He was incorrect. There is no prohibition in the House Rules on reading documents or prepared text. The requirement is just that the substance of your comments be confined to the matter currently before the House. In conclusion, I find distaste in the irony of the hypocrisy. My faith tells me that it would be more fitting if we spent more effort and energy in living our lives in holding ourselves to the higher standard of the Ten Commandments, or any of the creeds of faith in our respective religions, not using such documents for the purpose of selfish political advancement."

Rep. Waters, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: To echo the comments of my colleague, the Minister and Representative Cushingberry, I too am appalled at the actions of this House in advocating this bill. Matthew 6th Chapter verses 1-6 read 'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward...And when thou prayest thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the standing in the church/synagogues and in the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, they have there reward.' We are today acting as the hypocrites even as the revolutionary preacher who stated this warned us over 2000 years ago! The ku klux klan also used the first of the Ten Commandments to justify lynching African Americans, Native Americans, Catholic Americans, and Jewish Americans in the name of the God and with the symbol of the cross! Those founding fathers quoted today didn't think much of 'Darkies', or women, or non-landowners in their allocation of the rights based in 'Natural Law' elucidated in the original Constitution. God doesn't need our help, he needs our action, on providing for the less fortunate--the widows, orphans, and the poor who have been neglected so much by our society today. America is not following the edicts of the very document we profess to believe, we are killing people in Iraq, we have made money our new God, we are covetous of our neighbors' possessions leading to a kind of selfishness that underfunds social services and tries to figure out how to cut welfare to the poor but give more to the rich. That same revolutionary preacher who I try to emulate said in Matthew 23 verses 1-36, woe unto ye hypocrites, specifically stating 'All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be bourne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen by men: they make broad their phylacteries (garment patches of religious symbols and words), and enlarging the borders of their garments.' We need to spend our time, talent and efforts in a more loving way by trying to improve the quality of life for the State's people. We need to reduce the prison population (leave vengeance to God) and increase the education population. We should live the 'Natural law' and protect the separation of church and state by honoring the bill of rights and not passing laws which help establish religion on State Government property."

Rep. Kolb, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on House Bill 4433 because I believe that this legislation attempts to pierce the concept of separation of Church and State. This legislations only apparent purpose is to shamelessly use religion as a political football. This bill is most likely to violate the First Amendment and be found unconstitutional if challenged in a court of law. The current legal test for determining constitutionality looks at the 'purpose' of the law, whether it has a secular purpose. Since the bill's purpose, set forth clearly in the title is to 'allow the display of the Ten Commandments' it is fairly clear that the purpose is not secular. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black opined, 'The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must remain high and impregnable.' This bill lowers that wall and makes it pregnable. This is a federal Constitutional issue and state legislation will have no impact on the separation questions that will have to be decided in the federal courts. In fact the Supreme Court is currently reviewing two cases on the posting of the Ten Commandments; acting now is extremely premature at best. This bill is plague with so many problems, which version of the Ten Commandments? There are four different versions that are recognized by different religions and even different versions in different sections of the same version of the Bible (Exodus 20:2-17; Exodus 34:12-26; Deuteronomy 5:6-21). The principle of separation of Church and State is an important doctrine upon which our country was founded, to respect the rights of all religious beliefs, to protect the rights of minority religious viewpoints and prevent the establishment of a state sponsored religion. The very thing that many of our ancestors fled to this country for, religious freedom and freedom from persecution based upon their religious views. I cannot see the need for this legislation. It is either patently unconstitutional, or if it is Constitutional there is no need for a state statute to allow it."

Seems like these folks that pushed for, and voted for this really stupid piece of legislation make an even stronger case for a part-time legislature in Michigan. With an unemployment rate being one of the highest in the nation, a state budget bleeding red, and a number of other important challenges facing this state, Rep. Tom Casperson and Speaker DeRoche apparently thinks that this is a burning issue that needs to be addressed. Not so! You silly fools really ought to pick up a couple of good books on the founding fathers, perhaps read some of the Federalist papers, maybe even get a college degree -- or at least take a couple of college level courses on American history. This legislation is an embarassment. The fact that every single Republican member of the Michigan House of Representatives voted for this piece of garbage just shows how out-of-touch this right-wing cabel is with reality.

While thinking about the passage of the "ten-commandments" bill, my thoughts quickly turned from fear to hope. At least those politicians on the religious-right have recognized their personal need for something to constantly remind them of the morals that they might once have pretended to live by.

History of the church so violent, let's not go there.

discrimination is a choice... like whether or not you like chocolate... if the muslim population were intimidated by our values, they wouldn't BE HERE... they'd still be back where they can be intimidated by fellow muslims. people are discriminated against (and discriminated FOR, for that matter) all the time. we make choices every day, and not everybody has to like them.

No thanks! History is history. Keep it there.

Let's get down to business

on Capitol grounds so that more people will participate in the democratic process.

in my opinion

part of our collective history?

It's beautiful. Your collective history. Not mine.

An interesting recent (June 7, 2006) news story relates the difficulties legislators in the great State of Louisiana have run into with their bill to get the Ten Commandments posted in government buildings. No. The struggle isn’t over whether or not the decalogue ought be posted. Not a bit. The Louse-iana legislature has been wrangling over how the Commandments should be worded -- literally, over whose version (which sectarian version) of the Commandments will be the one officially endorsed by the state. Amusing, as well as interesting, isn’t it? The Louisiana story points out the very real difficulty we bump into when our government involves itself in religious expression. It is invariably divisive. That’s very likely one reason the Founders of our great nation basically held that religion and state are to be separated and not comingled. Will we ever learn and assimilate that lesson ourselves?

i'm sure it's back there in your past too... history isn't exclusive, history is history.

So adopt some problem solving models and get busy. Pray for our state on your day of worship, whatever that is, your choice. Get down to the BUSINESS of running our state. Religous freedom is guaranteed for your downtime. And I'd rather not see the 10 commandments displayed. I'd rather see your plan of action or legislators showing up to vote or spending a "REASONABLE" amount of time campaigning. Laws are in place for behavior!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I trust in them.

Probably just wanted no religion at all at that point. The idea that one person was right and the other wrong or that one group should be slaughtered because the physically looked different wasn't too appealing. I'm sure it was a relief to get here and have the freedom not to declare a religion at all. One ancestor was a founding father, right up there, but even our president need not pass a religous test. I seem to remember reading that. That's in our history somewhere, so why not display the system of government, the process by which citizens can get involved and fix thing. Display our core democratic values. Teach people about our government and their role.

they look different, fix things, sorry

let's teach the proper role of government. obviously this lesson has been lost, or at least has lost priority.