While I cannot imagine how anyone would not see the relationship between the two, I will help you out.

The presence of any religious symbols, quotations and doctrines in any courthouse lends preferential authority to those symbols. It makes an association of the law and specific religions that anyone with any sense of understanding can see is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

If the 10 Commandments can be there, then why not quotations from The Qur'an, or a statue of Buddha or Shiva?

It would perhaps be more appropriate to place a statue of Hammurabi, whose code was among the first to establish the presumption of innocence of the accused. But I do not see anyone clamoring for that.

I want age limits on the SUPREMES. I want reasonable and specific ways to remove activist judges who issue rulings not limited to facts presented in the case, totally without political or other personal views, based only on the constitution. I want a Congress composed of honest , patriotic people with commonsense with limited terms. I want election financiers changed so thst it is possible for ordinary citizens to run for office. I want a government that NEVER, EVER, puts ANYTHING above the best interests of America and its citizens. I want all USA citizens rights and benefits limited to USA citizens. I want Congress changed so that every bill/proposal is a stand-alone, and voted on thst way; no more attaching one bill to another when they have no relevance to each other. I want all bills published to the public at least 60 days before any voting. I want all voting records published to the public immediately after every vote on any bill. I want many of the perks of Congress cut out. I want Congress working at least an 8 hour day M-F, 48 weeks annually. I want SS/Medicare removed from access by Congress and remove their ability to vote themselves pay raises or any other increase in perks. I want the department of education disbanded and returned to the states. Because so many members of Congress are totally incompetent in their jobs but get reelected over and over, I want to hear lots of discussion and study about returning to the original plan of each state's legislature selecting federal representatives for limited times. I want the whole lobbying mess made illegal. I want state government limited to things individuals cannot easily do for themselves. I want federal government limited to only things affecting the protection of the whole country, things states can not easily do for themselves. I want the federal welfare system phased out, letting each state/community take care of its own. I want the entire deportation mess changed, enforcing immediate deportation within 60 days of arrest, no lawyers/judges/court hearings except in few very special cases. Being in our country illegally is easily determined and should be quickly solved by deportation, the only logical solution to the crime. I want the birthright citizenship ENDED now, with the requirement of one citizen parent required. I want the refugee/asylee program revamped completely with the allowed reasons limited to an individual being extremely persecuted for religion or political views, ENDING their country being at war as a reason. I want the bringing foreigners INTO our nation as an aspect of "helping" ENDED; send help to them but DO NOT bring them here and this includes reasons of war/fighting as well as natural disasters as well as poverty, etc. I want every federal government agency's duties/responsibilities specifically spelled out and the same for each employee. I want the number of employees in every agency cut in half and all salaries and perks commiserate with those of workers in the private sector. Heads of agencies salary should never exceed that of Congress members. I can go on, but will stop here.

ON ITS surface, the question posited above could for some, to be a daunting one. However, given the underlying tone I feel it relatively important to respond as succinctly and directly as possible.
I have to believe that anyone who seeks the knowledge of another must in his/her own mind have an opinion and since I am quite willing to share my point of view, I feel it incumbent upon the inquirer to share in kind. It is my hope, as I follow-up that this would indeed be the case.
Marcus Tullius Cicero (c. 106-43 B.C.) was the great defender of the Roman republic and a master of oratory. The author of several books on politics, philosophy, and rhetoric, he was the first to speak of natural law as a moral or political law, and was an important influence on our great nation's Founders.
Around 54-51 B.C. he wrote: "true law is right reason, consonant with nature, spread through all people. It is consonant and eternal; it summons to duty by its orders, it deters from crime by its prohibitions. Its orders and prohibitions to good people are never given in vain; but it does not move the wicked by these orders or prohibitions. It is wrong to pass laws obviating this law; it is not permitted to abrogate any of it; it cannot be totally repealed. We cannot be released from this law by the senate or the people, and it needs no exegete or interpreter like Sextus Aelius. There will not be one law at Rome and another at Athens, one now and another later; but all nations at all times will be bound by this one eternal and unchangeable law, and God will be one common Master and General (so to speak) of all people. He is the Author, Expounder and Mover of this law; and the person who does not obey Him will be in exile from himself. Insofar as he scorns his nature as a human being, by this very fact he will pay the greatest penalty, even if he escapes all the other things that are generally recognized as punishments...." (Ref. "On the Commonwealth," in James E.G. Zetel, ed., Cambridge University Press, 1999; 71-72).
So fifty-five delegates from twelve states (Rhode Island declined to participate) traveled to Philadelphia to attend the Constitutional Convention, which began in May 1787. They quickly scrapped the existing Articles of Confederation, and after four long months they concluded their business by adopting a new frame of government. On September 17th, 39 delegates signed what we hold today, the Constitution of the United States of America. It was nine months before the requisite nine-states ratified this Constitution, putting it into effect. The 13th state ratified it in 1790, and subsequently it has been ratified twenty-seven times.
At this point, I would note that pastors and ministers were among the highest educated citizens in the American colonies, and often addressed politics from the pulpit. As a source of reference for my perspective here, I should like to write excerpts from Gad Hitchcock (1718-1803), which was delivered in the presence of General Thomas Gage, the British military governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Basically it decries monarchical rule and celebrates the idea of the consent of the governed, appealing to reason as well as revelation: "....This form of government, in the opinion of subjects and strangers, is happily calculated for the preservation of the Bill of Rights and Liberties of mankind..." "In such a government, rulers have their distinct powers assigned to them by the PEOPLE, who are the ONLY SOURCE of civil authority on earth, with the view of having them exercised for the public advantage, and in proportion as worthy end of their investiture is kept in sight, and prosecuted, the bands of society are strengthened, and its interests promoted...." It goes on to say, "Rulers are under the most sacred ties to consult the good of society....." "For the promotion of this valuable end, they are ORDAINED OF GOD, and clothed with authority by men..."
So in an ideal society, (to my belief), in a state of nature men are equal, exactly on a par in regard to authority; each one is a law to himself, having the law of God, the sole rule of conduct, written on each man's heart. So I further believe that mental endowments, though excellent qualifications for rulers, should use those attributes in the advice, persuasion and to do good proportionate to the degrees of each, yet do not give any antecedent right to the exercise of authority without a moral obligation from the Supreme Author and Finisher.
So in contemplating your question, I could go much deeper into what to me would be far from utopian, but at least ideal in the sense that we must be governed and the rule of law exercised, by stating unequivocally, that America needs only to return to the Founding Father's ideals for a Christian nation and once again, take up the values and principles of the Constitution as set forth under the guidance and grace of Almighty God.
Today, I believe that Christ is standing outside of Washington D.C. knocking. His knocking is good news. We know that Christ is all powerful and can walk through any door so why does He not just enter into the hearts of every man?
The answer is in the Word of God...Fellowship cannot be forced. Communion cannot be commanded. Christ cannot have fellowship with us by breaking down the door. He seeks a deeper fellowship with us than we do with Him.
Let's put God back in the hearts and minds of Congress, the legislature, the Supreme Court, the state Capitals, and the city councils and schools. God Bess America (again)!

Nickolai; it appears you have a very limited knowledge of good from bad. your perspective is suspect.


The Effect - When Rhodesia Became Zimbabwe
https://youtu.be/6VewMd0lriw

Zimbabwe, good by Rhodesia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3u5CxS3j5M

Dictator of Zimbabwe, he kicked out or had killed, every white person in the country, who just so happened to be literally the only people who knew how to farm.

So later everyone is starving and a solid, nearly developed country, has been plunged into the dark ages, and they're all dying.

It failed not due to colonialism, but because the UN, United States, UK and Soviets all teamed up to fund a Communist warlord (Mugabe) and rejected free and fair elections.


Thank You For Watching!! Subscribe If You Like This Content!, But More Importantly Like & Share So My Videos Can Be Seen By More People. To Plant A Seed, If We Share & Talk To More People About These Subjects, Even Just To Plant A Seed Of Reality. That Seed Will Grow And Soon (Sometimes years) We Will Have More People That Get A Great Opportunity, A Chance To Wake Up!

Nickolai; it appears you have a very limited knowledge of good from bad. your perspective is suspect.


The Effect - When Rhodesia Became Zimbabwe
https://youtu.be/6VewMd0lriw

Zimbabwe, good by Rhodesia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3u5CxS3j5M

Dictator of Zimbabwe, he kicked out or had killed, every white person in the country, who just so happened to be literally the only people who knew how to farm.

So later everyone is starving and a solid, nearly developed country, has been plunged into the dark ages, and they're all dying.

It failed not due to colonialism, but because the UN, United States, UK and Soviets all teamed up to fund a Communist warlord (Mugabe) and rejected free and fair elections.


Thank You For Watching!! Subscribe If You Like This Content!, But More Importantly Like & Share So My Videos Can Be Seen By More People. To Plant A Seed, If We Share & Talk To More People About These Subjects, Even Just To Plant A Seed Of Reality. That Seed Will Grow And Soon (Sometimes years) We Will Have More People That Get A Great Opportunity, A Chance To Wake Up!

https://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/how-loss-property-rights-caused-zimbabwes-collapse

How the Loss of Property Rights Caused Zimbabwe’s Collapse
By Craig J. Richardson
November 14, 2005
For many years, Zimbabwe was known as the “jewel” of Africa. Rich in raw materials and productive farmland, it grew enough food to feed its people and export the rest. The farm sector supplied about 60 percent of the inputs to the manufacturing base-so agriculture was truly the backbone of the economy.

Yet, unlike most other African countries, Zimbabwe had a sophisticated manufacturing base as well. That sector employed thousands of workers who made things such as textiles, cement, chemicals, wood products, and steel. Zimbabwe also had a strong banking sector, vibrant tourism, and more dams than any other Sub-Saharan country except South Africa. Most people trusted the police and believed the court system would treat cases fairly; indeed, the low crime rate rivaled that of many European countries. Perhaps most important, the country had a secure rule of law, with a modern property rights system that allowed owners to use the equity in their land to develop and build new businesses, or expand their old ones. All that led to strong real GDP growth, which averaged 4.3 percent per year after independence in 1980. 1

The Disparity in Farmland

Despite those successes, the notion of land reform had political appeal prior to 2000, when President Robert Mugabe began seizing commercial farms. Anyone flying over Zimbabwe on a clear day would have seen huge differences in the farming regions, and perhaps better understood the country’s long-standing concern with land reform. In some areas of the country, there were vast tracts of well-irrigated commercial farms, producing thousands of acres of tobacco, cotton, or other cash crops. In other regions, small, dusty communal farms were crowded together, typically suffering from a lack of water. Those farms produced maize, groundnuts, and other staple crops. About 4,500 white families owned most of the commercial farms. In contrast, 840,000 black farmers eked out a living on the communal lands-a legacy of colonialism.

More than 80 percent of white-owned commercial farms had changed hands since Mugabe came to power in 1980, and less than 5 percent of white farmers could trace their ancestry back to the original British colonists who arrived in the 1890s. Still, the disparities between blacks and whites fueled calls by Mugabe and others to return the fertile “stolen lands” to black Zimbabweans. 2

However, what many observers missed was that the fertility of the land wasn’t determined just by rainfall or quality of the soil. Although communal lands tended to be in drier areas, many were directly adjacent to commercial farms or in high-rainfall areas. In addition, there were commercial farms in very arid parts of Zimbabwe. Yet in nearly all cases, the communal areas were dry and scorched, whereas the commercial lands were green and lush. 3

The Disparity in Property Rights

Why the difference then? A good part of the answer lies in the difference in property rights between the two areas. Commercial farms had secure property titles that gave farmers large incentives to efficiently manage the land and allowed a banking sector to loan funds for machinery, irrigation pipes, seeds, and tools. Those institutions developed the most sophisticated water delivery system in Southern Africa (excluding South Africa). Of the 12,430 dams in this entire region, an astonishing 10,747 are in Zimbabwe. Although Zimbabwe has only 7 percent of the land area of the region, it has 93 percent of all the reservoir water surface area. 4 That gave the country a tremendous cushion against droughts. Large commercial farms also employed about 350,000 black workers and often provided money for local schools and clinics. Small-scale commercial farms, run by about 8,500 black farmers, had access to credit and were also productive.

Communal lands, on the other hand, were typically plagued by tragedy-of-the-commons types of problems, as the land became overused and greatly eroded over time. In addition, without property titles, there was often squabbling over land use rights between village residents and the village chief, since each village had complicated use restrictions on how the land could or could not be used.

Unfortunately, the vital role that property rights played in underpinning the Zimbabwe economy was invisible to most people. What was immediately apparent to any observer was the enormous and tangible contrast between the vast and lush commercial farms and the small and dusty communal ones. War veterans saw the commercial farms as a just prize for having supported Mugabe during the independence movement 20 years earlier, and they continued to clamor for the commercial farmland prior to the 2000 parliamentary election. Nevertheless, Zimbabwe’s constitution forbade the wholesale seizure of the land without proper compensation, and the law-abiding people of Zimbabwe supported that notion by and large. In early 2000, they rejected Mugabe’s attempt to broaden the state’s confiscatory powers in a voter referendum. In addition, in a 2000 poll by the South Africa-based Helen Suzman Foundation, only 9 percent of Zimbabweans said land reform was the most important issue in the election.

Some of Mugabe’s advisers apparently knew better than to upend property rights. In early 2000, Mugabe was handed a confidential memo from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, the country’s central bank. The memo predicted that going forward with farmland seizures would result in a pullout of foreign investment, defaults on farm bank loans, and a massive decline in agricultural production. 5

The memo would prove to be staggeringly prescient. Unfortunately, Mugabe ignored it. Between 2000 and 2003, his government went ahead and authorized the seizure of nearly all the 4,500 commercial farms. The official goal was to divide the farms into hundreds of thousands of small plots for traditional black farmers. In practice, most plots ended up in the hands of Mugabe’s political supporters and government officials, whose knowledge of farming was meager.

The Economic Implosion

The predictions of the central bank memo would come to haunt ordinary Zimbabweans. During the next four years, the economy began to implode with increasing speed. By 2003 it was shrinking faster than any other in the world, at 18 percent per year. 6 Inflation was running at 500 percent, and Zimbabwean dollars lost more than 99 percent of their real exchange value. 7 Today the economy continues its extraordinary freefall. Here are some other things that have happened since 2000:

Financial investors have fled, wondering if other businesses might be seized next. Foreign direct investment fell to zero by 2001, and the World Bank’s risk premium on investment in Zimbabwe shot up from 4 percent to 20 percent that year as well.
Because the government no longer enforced titles to land, there was far less collateral for bank loans. Dozens of banks collapsed; those that did not collapse refused to extend credit to farmers.
Commercial farmland lost an estimated three-quarters of its aggregate value between 2000 and 2001 alone as a result of lost property titles. That one-year loss, by my estimates, was $5.3 billion-more than three and a half times the amount of all the foreign aid given by the World Bank to Zimbabwe since its independence in 1980. 8 Without equity in the banking system, vast networks of economic activity collapsed across all sectors of the economy. Seven hundred companies closed by the end of 2001, as industrial production declined by 10.5 percent in 2001 and an estimated 17.5 percent in 2002. 9
The demise of the agricultural sector led to widespread famine, as the commercial farmers left for other African countries such as Zambia, Nigeria, and Ghana, taking with them their intricate knowledge of farming practices.
The Zimbabwean government has blamed the country’s economic collapse on a variety of external factors, including Western conspiracies and racism. Mugabe’s most potent excuse, however, proved to be the drought. As he reiterated at the United Nations summit in September 2005, Zimbabwe’s economy is suffering because of “continuous years of drought.” 10 In fact, dams in Zimbabwe were full throughout the economic downturn. 11 Unfortunately, irrigation pipes are no longer owned by anyone, so they are being dug up for scrap in a free-for-all. Some are even melted down to make coffin handles, one of the few growth industries left in the country.

Yet, some people seem to believe Mugabe. The 2001-02 drought, for example, was called one of the worst in the past 50 years by an IMF official. 12 In fact, after I analyzed the data from Zimbabwe’s 93 rainfall stations, it turned out that the 2001-02 “drought” came in 13th in the past 50 years, with rainfall in the 2001-02 planting year only 22 percent below average. Indeed, as Figure 1 shows, the close relationship between rainfall and GDP growth sharply disconnected in 2000, the first year of the land reforms. Subsequent years show above-average or average rainfall, even as the economy continued to plummet.

My econometric estimates indicate that the independent effect of the land reforms, after controlling for rainfall, foreign aid, capital, and labor productivity, led to a 12.5 percent annual decline in GDP growth for each of the four years between 2000 and 2003. 13 The drop in rainfall in the 2001-02 growing season contributed to less than one-seventh of the overall downturn. Without above-average rains, Zimbabwe’s economy would have been in even worse shape, hard as that is to believe.

Zimbabwe thus provides a compelling case study of the perils of ignoring the rule of law and property rights when enacting (often well-intentioned) land reforms. We have seen how Zimbabwe’s markets collapsed extraordinarily quickly after 2000, with a domino-like effect. The lesson learned here is that well-protected private property rights are crucial for economic growth and serve as the market economy’s linchpin. Once those rights are damaged or removed, economies may be prone to collapse with surprising and devastating speed. That is because of the subsequent loss of investor trust, the vanishing of land equity, and the disappearance of entrepreneurial knowledge and incentives-all of which are essential ingredients for economic growth. I hope this lesson will not be lost on other countries that find themselves at the crossroads of land reform.

Stolen land, the people did not give the land to the boers.
This is how they do it.
Why did Spain tell the rest of Europe about the discovery of the Americas?::
Well, it’s actually an interesting story.
In January 4 1493, Colón decided to return to Europe: it was more out of necessity, since the ships had suffered damages the crew just couldn’t repair with whatever they had on board.
During the trip back, a storm further damaged the ships while splitting the formation: La Niña ended in Bayona (Spain) while Columbus, in La Pinta, limped until arriving to Portugal.
Then things got even more interesting: he wrote two letters, the first to the Portuguese King, asking for an audience. The second one was sent to two high-ranking Castilian officers (not the Catholic Monarchs, why?): Luis de Santángel, the Crown’s notary, and Gabriel Sánchez, the Crown’s Treasurer, telling a very succinct version of the adventure.
This last letter, better known as ‘La Carta de Colón’ was translated and published in Barcelona, Antwerp, Rome, Paris and Florence: that’s how the discovery was made known to Europe.
Now, why would the Castilian Crown let the rest of Europe know about the discovery of America? Well, first, it was not the ‘discovery of America’, but a new route to the Indies: the islands found by Columbus were a Castilian claim, not much different than the claim over the Canary Islands.
And that’s why it wasn’t kept a secret. Not only because something of that magnitude could never be a secret, but because in order to make a claim over any new land, the whole idea was to assert and demand the recognition of the Castilian Crown’s rights over them publicly. There was nothing like a ‘secret claim’, please.
It was rather easy to get the Pope to solve the dispute with the Portuguese, since the Treaty of Alcaçobas-Toledo did not contemplate the claim over the Indies. So, the Catholic Monarchs asked Pope Alexander VI to equate the Portuguese claims over Africa with the Castilian ones over the Indies, knowing well the Portuguese had no legal recourse to dispute the same principle they used to claim Africa for themselves.
And, contrary to what Anon consider ‘almost embarrassing’ (◔_◔), the Castilians were very lucky they arrived very early to two heavily populated and economically developed regions that were the perfect springboards for further advance: central Mexico and the central Andean mountains, where they just decapitated the hegemonic local powers and took over the administration of the Aztec and Incan ‘empires’.
There are good reasons the colonization of the rest of the continent started much later and was so slow.
And so little, Anon? The total claim of the Spanish Empire in the Western Hemisphere was of 31 500 000 km² by 1640. True, they just had not enough forces to occupy all that area, but what they actually occupied was much much more than the British, Dutch and French competing empires there.

While I cannot imagine how anyone would not see the relationship between the two, I will help you out.

The presence of any religious symbols, quotations and doctrines in any courthouse lends preferential authority to those symbols. It makes an association of the law and specific religions that anyone with any sense of understanding can see is prohibited by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

If the 10 Commandments can be there, then why not quotations from The Qur'an, or a statue of Buddha or Shiva?

It would perhaps be more appropriate to place a statue of Hammurabi, whose code was among the first to establish the presumption of innocence of the accused. But I do not see anyone clamoring for that.