Between the thread about the Texas jury and this one, I think we ought to revote on whether or not to let some of the states stay in the Union. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He snuck in and installed a 5,300-pound monument in the judicial building in the middle of the night?!?
That is just bizarre.
[ August 14, 2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court said Thursday he will not remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building, defying a federal court order to remove the granite monument.
"I have no intention of removing the monument," Roy Moore said at a news conference. "This I cannot and will not do."
Moore said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to stop any removal.
His decision came six days before the Aug. 20 deadline for the 5,300-pound monument to be removed from the building's rotunda, where it is in clear sight of visitors coming in the main entrance.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, had said fines of about $5,000 a day would have been imposed against the state if the monument were not removed.
quote: He also contended the federal judge had no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.
Why isn't this arrogant fellow not in jail for not obeying the order of the court? Why is the state of Alabama being punished for *his* defiance?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Over 70% of Alabamans support him. He was elected on the strength of his stance on this issue.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That doesn't put him above the law or the constitution, though. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But it also doesn't make him a lone crusader. He is a representative of the state supported by a majority of the state to defend the Alabama constitution. What he has done is legal by the Alabama consititution.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
just to point out, judges aren't supposed to be representitives, they're supposed to be fair. It's moot whether Alabama supports him.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
... one of the reasons I don't think judgeships should be elected positions.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: just to point out, judges aren't supposed to be representitives, they're supposed to be fair. It's moot whether Alabama supports him.
They are supposed to judge fairly in accordaqnce with the law of the state. If this judge is acting in accordance with that law then it appears he is just forcing another sate-rights vs federal type showdown.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jacare, I doubt there is any law in Alabama that says you have to pay homage to the Ten commandments. As the article says, he snuck the monument in the building in the middle of the night.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
SS- what I meant was that if Alabama law permits the display of religious artifacts in state buildings then the judge is within his rights
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I wonder what he would do if someone snuck a 5,300 lbs Koran into the courthouse...?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"In office as chief justice, he had the gray granite Ten Commandments monument moved into the judicial building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001, without announcing the event to the public or to the news media. He did inform a Christian television ministry, which filmed the installation and used it on the TV program. "
I thik this makes it pretty clear he's trying to endorse Christianity...
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I wonder what he would do if someone snuck a 5,300 lbs Koran into the courthouse...?
As I understand it the Koran has a parallel set of commandments, so maybe he wouldn't know the difference.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
What I want to know is why can the SCOTUS have the ten commandments posted in their courtroom and this guy can't?
How can we expect the country to be unified when our first freedoms (the guarantees of the first amendment) are so inconsistently applied?
We can put "In God We Trust" on our coinage, but not allow passive displays of moral exhortation in our schools (precisely because some one *might* obey them). We have people who confuse the right to speak with the right to be heard and attended. We have people who cry "censorship" when their art isn't subsidized by tax dollars (shouldn't this be a religious issue anyhow? I don't know an artist who doesn't worship themselves). The first amendment specifically denotes "obscenity" as NOT protected, but we continuously revise the definition of obscenity till it's more confused than the rest of this whole issue.
If we can't even get our most fundamental and basic rights straight, is it any wonder the country is as confused and divided as it is?
[ August 15, 2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But even if the state had a law allowing religious artifacts in state buildings, the country has a law forbidding the official preference of one religion over another. The monument is pretty clearly emphasizing Christianity and its part in government.
From the AP story:
"The monument contains two Ten Commandments tablets cut into the top of a large stone about the size of a washing machine. Along the sides are quotes from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and other historical figures and documents concerning the influence of religion on American law.
Moore said he had the monument installed because he believes the Ten Commandments to be the moral foundation of American law."
He's more than welcome to believe that, but I do not believe he can legally promote it with a 5,300-pound monument on government property.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Moore said he had the monument installed because he believes the Ten Commandments to be the moral foundation of American law.
You know, I think this is a valid point. More than being a religious thing, couldn't it just as easily been seen as a historical one? Not to force one religion on anyone, but rather, a way to remember our "roots", as it were.
(edit: <---TwosonPaula)
[ August 15, 2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Christianity?
The ten commandments are thousands of years before Christianity. It's from Jewish law.
So maybe those against this are anti-semitic? *skips off*
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I think its pretty clearly NOT that, however.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: precisely because some one *might* obey them
You've hit the nail on the head. That is exactly why people don't want the Ten Commandments posted in schools. All that talk of seperation of church and state is a smoke screen. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Any time someone in the U.S starts wanting the Ten Commandments in a public building, you can be pretty certain he's promoting Christianity...
A Jew would want to post 613 commandments.
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
quote:As I understand it the Koran has a parallel set of commandments, so maybe he wouldn't know the difference.
As does nearly every religious text. C. S. Lewis has a chapter of the book The Abolition of Man devoted to the Ten Commandments as found in nearly all religions. Wouldn't it be great to see those posted over a school? Not endorsing a religion but saying "look, see? we *are* a brotherhood! *all* of these cultures embraced the same set of values..." It's even politically correct, see? Multiculturalism at it's finest.
You could even through some Kant in there for the atheists...
In a country where the freedom of religious expression is guaranteed, it seems the best solution would be for the government to take this more liberal and gregarious embrace of all religions than to de facto endorse atheism by disallowing the discussion and/or expression of faith in publically owned buildings.
[ August 15, 2003, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
While I sortof agree with you,
" by disallowing the discussion and/or expression of faith in publically owned buildings. "
what actually happens is that government SPONSORED discussion isn't allowed.
Its perfectly ok for you to pray in school. But its not ok for the teacher, for example, to lead a prayer.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hmmm... From the standpoint of "Is Moore out of line?" Yes he probably is. But "should the ten commandments stay in the building?" Why not? I guess that's what I was trying to get across before. To America, the commandments could just represent part of our history.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:If we can't even get our most fundamental and basic rights straight, is it any wonder the country is as confused and divided as it is?
The examples you point out are where different interest groups triumphed at different times. "In God We Trust," for example, was railroaded onto the money during a panicky time in our history. I still disagree with that choice.
quote:What I want to know is why can the SCOTUS have the ten commandments posted in their courtroom and this guy can't?
Is that all they display?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't know Paul. I had my Bible confiscated during lunch once. I had no idea that the teacher wasn't supposed to do that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't understand the desire to erase all remnants and traces of the religious past from history. It is possible to take European history courses that treat religion as a separate box - away from the "real" reasons people do what they do.
Should all statues of philosophers come down because someone doesn't agree with them? There are people who consider the soldiers in Vietnam to be traitors to morality - should the memorial come down? There were white settlers who were killed by native americans - should the statue of the Ute in front of the state capitol come down?
The ten commandments was a part of the basis for our laws now - why do you want to erase the past?
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Stormy,
I'm sure Kayla can look this up for us, but the SCOTUS descision that resulted in the removal of the Ten Commandments from schools specifically said that they wanted them removed because otherwise, they might be "venerated and obeyed".
It's been over a decade since I saw this, but it has stuck with me because of the obvious irony... "we *can't* have them OBEYING commandments not to murder and steal! this is AMERICA!"
I'll grant you that it's nothing more than an excerpt and may well be highly out of context... but you have to admit that it's a really ironic statement to make.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:In a country where the freedom of eligious expression is guaranteed, it seems the best solution would be for the government to take this more liberal and gregarious embrace of all religions than to de facto endorse atheism by disallowing the discussion and/or expression of faith in publically owned buildings.
While I disagree that eschewing public display of religion is equal to promoting atheism, I would have no problem with religious displays in government buildings provided that it was clearly a historical memorial, more than just the one religion was featured, and it wasn't a 5,300-pound rock in front.
Is it difficult to understand that as I am not a Christian, a courtroom telling me that the most important rule of the land is "There shall be no other gods before Me" is offensive in the extreme. How can I expect to be treated fairly and equally in such a place?
[ August 15, 2003, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: But even if the state had a law allowing religious artifacts in state buildings, the country has a law forbidding the official preference of one religion over another. The monument is pretty clearly emphasizing Christianity and its part in government.
True, however there is an important caveat. Government buildings are often decorated with a wide variety of art such as sculpture and paintings. There are also a fair number of government-sponsored artworks on public thoroughfares etc. Is the display of religious iconography in these locations prohibited? SHould Utah tear down the seagull statue in Salt Lake? Should the Arnold Friberg painting of George Washington praying at valley forge be banned from public buildings?
Edit- D'oh! Must learn to type faster. Chris beat me to the punch.
[ August 15, 2003, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't know Paul. I had my Bible confiscated during lunch once. I had no idea that the teacher wasn't supposed to do that. "
They aren't unless you're proselytzing from it.
" they might be "venerated and obeyed""
If we start venerating the first commandment, well... you can see how this is a problem yes?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The ten commandments was a part of the basis for our laws now - why do you want to erase the past?
Sigh. What's going on with all these attempts at twisting what's going on? No one in this thread is denying that the Ten commandments are a part of Christianity and, thus, an important part of the morality of (edit: some portions of) America. No one wants to prevent people from knowing this. No one is trying to corrupt America by suppressing religion.
What people are taking issue with is government sponsorship of religion via any elected or state official or representative, yay, down unto the dog catcher. A monument to the ten commandments is state sponsorship of religion.
[ August 15, 2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Chris,
I don't know if that is all they display, but it just stands as the type of our confusion that the ten commandments are prominently displayed in the room from which they were stricken from the rest of the government.
I realized my examples tended to lean one way (I am, after all, a conservative) but I am not nearly so much trying to take a side as to say "make up your damn minds, people!" to our erstwhile eemployees, the government.
I realize, of course, that it will never happen... I'm just in an ugly mood today, I suppose, and would rather complain than solve things Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I'm sure Kayla can look this up for us, but the SCOTUS descision that resulted in the removal of the Ten Commandments from schools specifically said that they wanted them removed because otherwise, they might be "venerated and obeyed".
Oh, I see. Pardon. I thought you were saying something else. Sorry. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough, TAK.
Reason I asked was that if it's there right along with, say, the Code of Hammurabi, the Napoleonic Code, the Magna Carta, and other codes of conduct that have had significant impact on our legal system, then their decision to remove displays of the Ten Commandments would not by hypocritical if those displays were interpreted as promotion of a specific religion.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I fail to see how a statue is the govt sponsoring religion. Was a law passed saying you must believe the 10 commandments? Where was the government trying to force its constituents to believe and adhere to the 10 commandments? Last I heard we were still pretty much free to join any church we wanted and believe what we wanted? Are Alabamans now being told to join the Christian church or face death? The Founding Fathers put the 1st amendment in to prohibit the government from founding a church and requiring us to join one ala the King in England forcing everyone to join the Church of England. It was never intended to take away someone's right of expression of religion, which is what it is being twisted into today. So what if the 10 commandments are posted or monumentalized in the court building. Ignore them like you do the advertisements on the billboards as you drive down the freeway. Give them as much notice as you do the solicitations you get in the mail. Good grief! We ignore things we don't believe in every single day. Whether or not the 10 commandments are posted in a court building, you will still have jury members that are *gasp* Christian standing in judgment of you. Besides if you don't intend to break the law chances are you won't be judged there anyway..... Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
quote:if it's there right along with, say, the Code of Hammurabi, the Napoleonic Code, the Magna Carta, and other codes of conduct that have had significant impact on our legal system, then their decision to remove displays of the Ten Commandments would not by hypocritical if those displays were interpreted as promotion of a specific religion.
Agreed. In fact, I would love to see this...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Kentucky passed a statute requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in all public schools, to be paid for by private contributiuons. This was challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court, which said in part:
"The trial court found the "avowed" purpose of the statute to be secular, even as it labeled the statutory declaration "self-serving." App. to Pet. for Cert. 37. Under this Court's rulings, however, such an "avowed" secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), this Court held unconstitutional the daily reading of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in the public schools, despite the school district's assertion of such secular purposes as "the promotion of moral values, the contradiction to the materialistic trends of our times, the perpetration of our institutions and the teaching of literature." Id., at 223.
"The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, 3 and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one's parents, killing or murder, [449 U.S. 39, 42] adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. See Exodus 20: 12-17; Deuteronomy 5: 16-21. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day. See Exodus 20: 1-11; Deuteronomy 5: 6-15.
"This is not a case in which the Ten Commandments are integrated into the school curriculum, where the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225. Posting of religious texts on the wall serves no such educational function. If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. However desirable this might be as a matter of private devotion, it is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause. "
Italics added to show the complete quote mentioned, in context.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Would it help if a scantily clad, well endowed female was holding the ten commandment? Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It might. People would ignore it, thinking it was a beer commercial.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I fail to see how a statue is the govt sponsoring religion.
I know open ended, leading questions never should be used, but honestly, how would you feel about a big statue of Marx being installed by a government official? How about Satan?
Our country is representative of people of all creeds and colors. Making a monument to one creed or religion is not just an endorsement by that state for that creed but a denouncement of other creeds.
'No, it's not. It's just a support for that belief.'
I believe that this is not true and it's why I asked my question. If you as a Christian went up before a (to use a silly for instance) satanist judge who believed so strongly in his religion that he felt the need to put up a monument to it, whose aim didn't appear to objectively enforce the state law, but to promote and enforce Satanic law, would you really believe you would get a fair trial?
I wouldn't. To refer back to my thread about the pornographic comic book, if I were that guy and I knew I was going in front of a judge that wasn't interested in being objective but in being a Christian first, I wouldn't believe I would get a fair trial. You might say that you can't infer that the judge wouldn't be objective from the fact that he is promoting Christianity--and make no mistake, that is *exactly* what he is doing--however, I think anyone who believes strongly enough to want to use their position in state government to proselytize for a religion is not someone who can be trusted to objectively weigh morality and beliefs outside of his moral system. Objectivity is the ability to equally weigh something without personal prejudice. A monument shows that that person is very prejudiced.
This isn't to say that people who are spiritual or belong to a religion shouldn't be in state. However, I believe that in a country such as ours, one of the most important qualities that state officials should have is objectivity and if they show that they can't be objective by endorsing one ideology over another(edit: while on the job. They can do whatever they want on their own time.), then they aren't the kind of person that should be in power and, likewise, to promote objectivity, our country shouldn't allow state officials to use their positions to advocate for one ideology or belief over another as that compromises their integrity and the integrity of the state.
/ramblingoff
[ August 15, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
Chris,
thanks for the citation and for the beer commercial line... both valuable contributions to this thread.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Here is the problem I have with a monument to The Ten Commandments being put in a court of law, and being placed there by the residing judge:
1) No one will disagree about the importance to society of obeying several of those commandments. Thou Shalt Not Steal. THou Shalt Not Kill. etc. These are the big ones that the Pro-Commandment people harp on. I have no problem with them.
I do have a problem with #1: There shall be no other God before ME.
Its how you define, ME that can be a problem. If a judge define's God as Jesus Christ, then anyone meeting that judge who does not will be at a disadvantage. Anyone promoting the idea of a Trinity, or of a Native American, Hindi, or Wiccan theology will be at a disadvantage.
Similarly, anyone who is a known adulterer will find bias in that courthouse, though Adultery is not against Alabama law.
How much more difficult will it be for a child to leave an abusive family, or be willing to talk to the judge about an abusive father when they look up at that monument and see, "Honor Your Parents" engraved in stone. How much more could it hurt a child who's parents are going through a rough divorce at that courthouse.
2) This is not a public display at a city museum, but at a court house where impartiality to everything but the law must be maintened. This is being enforced by a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, and pro-law. Yet the judge is defying a judgement.
3) Do you think there is no prejudice? Which set of the 10 commandments is he using? That is right, there are at least three different versions depending on your denomination
4)It is surrounded by quotes from American's in history who are promoting the idea that these commandments, and Christianity have inspired American justice. It sounds like an attempt to create a state sponsored church to me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: This is being enforced by a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, and pro-law. Yet the judge is defying a judgement.
Extremely good point, Dan. This judge does not seek to uphold the law for everyone, he is on a holy crusade for himself and others like him.
Posted by seriousfun (Member # 4732) on :
quote: Would it help if a scantily clad, well endowed female was holding the ten commandment?
No problem.
John Ashcroft would just have her draped so we wouldn't be offended.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, at least that would cover up the Commandments. Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
This is exatcly why judges should NEVER be elected. They are supposed to be students of law, impartial arbiters that don't pander to the jungle of politics merely to get elected. Alabam has problems. If they want to defy federal law maybe we should deploy some federal troops to rip down the monument and secure the federal building. As to the judge, he should be stripped of his post and never allowed to be a judge again, just like what was done with those Utah justices who refused to punish Tom Green.
And some people here don't actually believe there are 70 million evangelical christians in the south that love this kind of thing and want to see their religion politically move to do things like end abortion, allow prayer in schools forcibly led by teachers, etc.
[ August 15, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Duragon- Federal troops to solve something which will be solved in the courts? Give me a break.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, he's just looking for attention.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Thing is, I can't really bust on him for defying the rulings, since the other big judge news story is the number of judges that have been quietly and not-so-quietly defying the federal government's sentencing guidelines by purposely lowering the sentence in cases where they felt the federal guidelines were too harsh. From what I've read of the situation I approve of their actions.
If a person, even an official, believes that a rule or law is unjust, shouldn't they work against it? The fact that I think Moore is in the wrong on the Ten Commandments display doesn't mean I think he should be forbidden from speaking out, as long as he's willing to accept the consequences of his actions.
Posted by Duragon C. Mikado (Member # 2815) on :
Yeah katharina, I'm looking for attention just like those African Americans who needed federal troop help to go to school in Arkansas because the local court/legislature and mayor/governor's office was "upholding the will of the majority."
Perhaps you should stop with the nasty condescending rhetoric Katharania, if you don't agree with something I say, you can easily respond politely or not at all to it.
I don't care if a local/state majority of people support something, as long as its unconstitutional and the state is willfully disobeying the federal government's just authority, I say let the troops scatter that statue all over their Capitol steps.
After all, this is a federal building, and I refuse, as a tax payer, to fund the housing of some religious monument or the salaries of people who have to work arround such a thing.
If Alabama wants to start meshing religious icons and texts with state, I suggest they get an Amendment passed. Until then, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This is one issue where federalism is very clear that the states and the localities do not have the power to do this kind of thing, ESPECIALLY in a federal building.
[ August 15, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Duragon C. Mikado ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Chris: there are a couple crucial differences between violating federal sentencing guidelines and keeping the ten commandments up. The first is completely legal and firmly grounded in american legal tradition.
The second is a violation of a court order (though I think he may have gotten a stay, making it not illegal) and a violation of a firmly grounded legal tradition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In my old high school, a bunch of wacky religious nuts paid to put up a "historical display" that included documents like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and, front-and-center, the Ten Commandments.
No one was fooled by the "historical" crap; everyone knew it was there as a smokescreen.
Even still, a few of us lobbied successfully to get the right to put other significant religious and legal documents posted on the same board. We brought in the 12 Principles of the Baha'i Faith, the Magna Carta, and a condensed version of the Code of Hammurabi -- identified in the text as predating the Ten Commandments.
No one was surprised when, in response, the original wacky religious group took their board down and went home. Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
"They have the audacity to come into our court and say we have to remove the foundation of our law, which is the Ten Commandments." -Moore
This is the problem with electing judges. You get raving, beefwitted ideologues like this who lack any respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. This jackass actually called the Ten Commandments the foundation of American law? Perhaps he isn't familar with, oh, say, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This wingnut has no place on the bench. He must know full well that by pursuing this to the supreme court, he is seeking to overturn Lemon v. Kurtzman. This precident established the so-called "Lemon Test" for determining if something violates the establishment clause.
The US has arguably the best constitution of any nation on earth, it's a shame so many Americans are so eager to destroy its relevance to law. In Canada, our constitution is laughably weak in comparison, and barely over two decades old. However, because we have a greater degree of judicial independance and they are selected for impartiality above all else, our judges can focus on interpreting the law and constituion, and applying it fairly.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Fugu, how dare you spread those lies. Thank the Almighty Christian God you have Ashcroft there to protect you by keeping tabs on traitorous liberal judges who dare to challenge the authority of Congress with their evil downward departures toward anarchy, sin and HELL!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
:-)
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
This is a very interesting discussion. I can see validity to points on both sides. Of course being very conservative and the other religious-based beliefs I have its hard to figure out what is really the "right thing". I'll have to give it some more thought now that I've been able to read some opposing viewpoints...
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
fugu, he hasn't gotten a stay yet. He tried with the Federal Appeals Court twice yesterday and they turned him down both times. Now he's filed for an emergency stay with the SC. (Kennedy is the Justice in his district.)
[ August 20, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:------------------------------------------ What I want to know is why can the SCOTUS have the ten commandments posted in their courtroom and this guy can't? -------------------------------------------------
Is that all they display?
Found the answer to my question. On the way of the Supreme Court is a frieze, which contains the image of Moses with the ten Commandments, along with depictions of Confucius, Mohammed, Caesar Augustus, William Blackstone, Napoleon Bonaparte, and John Marshall. Justice Stevens has stated that the placement of all of these historic figures together on the frieze signals a respect for great lawgivers, not great proselytizers.
So that's why the Supreme Court can have it and still ban it elsewhere.
Wonder if Moore would be willing to put equally-sized monuments to all those other sources of law alongside his?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, it still bugs the daylights out of me that the SC has a Christmas tree. . .
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Because I know y'all are dying to know the outcome. . .
quote: WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama judicial building, rejecting a last-minute appeal from the judge who installed the display.
quote: The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such indoor and outdoor government displays. In 1980, the court barred Ten Commandments from classroom walls in public schools.
The justices' refusal to intervene was not a surprise. An appeals court had twice refused to give Moore a stay.
"It's not like somebody's about to face execution, if the court doesn't enter a stay the person will be dead and the appeal will be moot," said David Frederick, a Washington attorney who specializes in Supreme Court practice. "If the Supreme Court were to decide it's constitutional, it can always be put back."
quote: Moore has already asked the Supreme Court to consider whether the judge overstepped his bounds in the case, and a second appeal in the Ten Commandments case is expected. Those could take months to resolve.
So, the emergency stay wasn't granted, but it seems that there is another appeal in the system already. Am I reading that correctly?
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Can't we just place a Tibetan Book of the Dead next to them instead?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
On an extreme note: There is the practice of The Lords Liberation Army which has been waging a 17 year war against the secular government of Uganda.
The routinely capture childen ages 11 and up and either turn them into rewards for the officers, or soldiers.
Why? To promote thier theocracy. To create a government based on thier religious views.
What bizzare sick religious views would condone such treatment of children, war and murder, rape and destruction?
Why,they are basing it off of the 10 Commandments.
Maybe we should ship our Alabama judge to serve in Uganda.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So, what is involved in getting permission to erect a statue like this 10 commandments momument on government property?
Rather than fight these protesters and remove the existing sculpture, why not just add a whole pile of equally prominent monuments to some of the other roots of our legal code? Something like a version of the modifications Tom's classmates made to the fundamentalist Christians' board at his school, but in stone. How much would something like this cost? I'd be willing to donate toward it. Is there any kind of movement to solve the problem in this way that just hasn't been picked up by the national media?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think we should have two sets of laws in this country. For everyone who wants the country's laws to be Biblical, they can sign a paper saying so. You basically opt to be treated as outlined in Leviticus, if that's what you want. You still have to obey all the other laws in effect for your state, but if you violate one of the Levitical laws, the rest of us get to stone you, or make you go through ritual purification, or whatever that law dictates for your particular crime.
Everyone else can live their lives just under the laws passed by our elected representatives or added to our Federal and state constitutions.
Seems like a win-win situation to me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Good idea, Bob. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Bob if I sign up does that mean that I: A) Get to have slaves? B) Get to marry my brothers wife when he dies? C) Can have more than one wife and several concubines? D) If I rape a woman, but stop her from screaming, or from her screams being heard, does that mean its not rape?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You still have to obey all the other laws in effect for your state, ...
Sorry Dan.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
So that would be a big no, unless I lived in Alabama.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
BTW, Several groups have attempted to put other monuments alongside Moore's 10C, but Moore has blocked them.
Apparently, the only way to get a monument in is to do it the way Moore did: Bring it in at 2 o'clock in the morning, while no one, is looking.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Dan- One funny law of the Bible says that if you rape a virgin, you must pay her father twenty shekels and marry her or something like that. That makes excited to be a girl, let me tell you.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"20 Shekels, the same as in town"
or
Wife? I wouldn't pay 20 shekels for a good horse.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended by a judicial ethics panel Friday for his refusal to obey a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building rotunda
I'm not sure why so many Christians are so concerned that the government doesn't overtly sponsor their idealogy. Like if the nation isn't entirely about Christianty, it is doomed to burn in the apocalypse. Christianity STARTED as a rebellious upstart in a highly anti-Christian society. It thrived that way in spite of persecution. And now they think they have to BE the establishment? Aren't they concerned that they are turning into the very people who used to feed them to lions?
If the ten commandments monument had been a holdover from an earlier time, or simply an innocent gesture, I would totally be defending it. People make way too big a deal about the "harm" done by simply displaying a symbol of some particular culture or creed.
Since the dude clearly did it to be inflammatory, I think it's stupid, and should go away.
So everyone is being ridiculous, and I'd really like to live in a country where people tolerated one another, on both sides.
By the way, Christmas trees have virtually no connection with Christian doctrine or history. They're part of an older European tradition that was adopted by Christians, and there is no harm whatsoever with the government festively joining in, in harmless ways, with a holiday that involves the majority of the nation's population, either religiously or culturally, or both. Being a Christian of European descent isn't part of being an American, but at the moment, being SURROUNDED by them is. Sorry, there just happen to be LOTS of Christians here, and as a result, placing Christmas trees around in the winter is going to be a huge part of American culture. Whether you do it or not, and whether government buildings do it or not, you're going to see it freaking EVERYwhere. Can't we just pretend to be friendly about it?
And in the meantime, I wouldn't mind a few government-placed menorahs, either
[ August 22, 2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Geoffrey Card ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Oh man, if wieczorek sees that post, he's going to wet his pants.
Geoff, I agree with you, simply because of the fact that "In God We Trust" on the money has "no secular meaning." It doesn't pass the sniff test, but what the heck. That's they way they ruled. And I suppose that one could say that Christmas trees are secular, but I don't see many Jewish/Muslim homes with Christmas trees up around the holiday, so I think that argument also fails the sniff test. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Whereas: The unique features of this nation at its foundation was its establishment of a secular Constitution that separated government from religion – something never done before; and
Whereas: Our secular constitution has enabled people of all world views to coexist in harmony, undivided by sectarian strife; and
Whereas: President James Madison made clear the importance of maintaining this harmony when he said, “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”; and
Whereas: The diversity of our people requires mutual respect and equal protection for all our citizens, including minority groups, if we are to remain “One nation, indivisible”; and
Whereas: It is the unfettered diversity of ideas and world views that have made our nation the strongest and most productive in the world; and
Whereas: Eternal vigilance must be maintained to guard against those who seek to stifle ideas, establish a narrow orthodoxy, and divide our nation along arbitrary lines of race, ethnicity, and religious belief or non-belief.
Now Therefore, I, Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that Thursday July 4, 2002 shall be observed as: Indivisible Day In the State of Minnesota.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What many fail to realize is that "freedom of religion" for everyone necessarily implies "freedom from other peoples religion".
I think its worthy of note that of all the countries of European origin, the US has by far the most religious population and by far the strictest laws separating church and state. I don't think thats a coincidence. By pushing to blur the line between church and state, these people are more likely to drive the average american toward secularism than anything else.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Yet another irony, The second of the 10 commanments forbids the making of images of anything found in the sky, earth or sea. If taken literally (and I recognize that most Judeo/Christian groups don't) the supreme court is breaking the 10 commandments by displaying a statue of Moses holding the 10 commandments.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I am waiting for some someone to push for the Bible to be used as the standard for a state's legal system. I mean, that's basically the purpose of what Moore is doing, isn't it? Isn't that the goal of the Pat Robertson's and the like? To 'restore' the Bible to its 'rightful' place in the American consciousness?
Geoffrey, you speak of tolerance for what people are doing and just look at what Moore is doing as some kind of annoying tantrum, like someone farting in a crowded elevator. Yet, I think this monument represents a movement to remove secularism from government, and in its place put religious thought. I say this because this is what you hear Christian conservatives say THEY want. Put God back in schools. Put God back in society. Put God back in marriage. Put God back in government.
The monument is not just some bold statement about Moore's personal convictions. It's not a free speech issue. I thnk it represents an attempted coup de etat by Christian conservatives.
Am I wrong?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"BTW, Several groups have attempted to put other monuments alongside Moore's 10C, but Moore has blocked them. "
Can someone confirm this? I can't find a link...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Storm Saxon,
You are correct. I can't find the quotes now, but I have on several occasions read statements by christian politcal groups which state out-right that their goal is have a legal system founded on the Bible.
They don't seem to have thought very hard about what that actually means or they wouldn't say it.
Conservative Christians have never been particularly comfortable with first amendment to the constitution. They support it whole heartedly when they are in the minority and need protection from another over zealous religion, but as soon as they are in the majority, they forget their own history.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
My history of the Protestant movement is weak, but NPR had a great discussion about this issue this past week. One commentator made the point about the irony in Moore's stance. Moore is obviously part of a Protestant religion. If I remember correctly, part of the reason of the Protestant reformation was that they wanted to get AWAY from the idolotry and ritual trappings of the Church. The very thing that drove a wedge between Christian faiths AND sent them packing over to the new world is now being done in our own country by someone who supposedly calls himself a Protestant. Was this gents history in error or does this make sense? When I thought about it, it did smack of some irony.
I like with Geoff had to say and I have been thinking of it all week myself. My thought when I first read about all the attempts to keep the monument up made me wonder, "Are people's faith so tenuous that if it isn't displayed in every aspect of their life then there is no God?" My own church's philosophy is that one's relationship with God or the Divine or call it what you will is personal and unique. It shouldn't take a giant monument to fufill what one's own heart should be finding out for themselves.
I think people are afraid that God doesn't exist and those that protest the most have the least faith in their own beliefs. How else can one see it? If one has a comfortable and satisfying relationship with the Divine in the world, how would the existance of "With God All Things Are Possible" at the Ohio Statehouse or the Ten Commandments in Alabama make a difference? How does it strengthen that relationship? It doesn't, but it surely can distract one from the fact they may not have such a relationship.
In my opinion. I guess with the gobs and gobs of churches in this country, I can't understand the need to take religion out of the personal life and out of the community church and spread it where it isn't desired by everyone, such as a public building.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)