Roy Moore, 'defender of the Constitution'

[Lateralus]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/14/alabama.tencommandments/index.html

"Separation of church and state never was meant to separate God from our government. It was never meant to separate God from our law."

Hmmm... I was under the impression that this exactly what is designed to do.

"[The First Amendment's] very purpose is to allow us the freedom to worship Almighty God. That freedom is being taken from us by federal courts who misuse the First Amendment to take away our rights instead of as a shield to preserve them for us."

The freedom to worship isn't even an issue here. The issue brought up by Thompson is that by placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is essentially sponsorship of a particular religion by the state. Precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

Furthermore, no rights are being taken away here. The state has no right to favor a particular religion, and by placing the Ten Commandments in a court, it is essentially being used as a way to scare people.

"Look here Mr. Wannabe Criminal Man, our religion says right here that you aren't supposed to [blank]. Maybe you should have thought of that before you committed [blank]!" *holier-than-thou stance taken by speaker*

Does anyone take these people seriously anymore?

:rolleyes:

[booka]

Silly judge.

[iampunha]

Roy Moore is well known for his interesting and creative beliefs regarding not only the First Amendment but also what role the Ten Commandments should play in being placed in federal buildings. IIRC he's one of those famous for sneaking giant Ten Commandments thingies inside buildings and making a giant legal fuss if anyone tries to take them out.

One reason to be glad you don't live in Alabama. Then again, Virginia (my home state) isn't exactly a bastion of secular vs. religious thought, so perhaps I shouldn't be so castigatory.

[SPOOFE]

Why shouldn't the government be allowed to display items from a work of fiction?

[Airman Doors, USAF]

So your contention is that religion and belief has no place in government? People might be afraid or intimidated if a judge decides something based on religious values?

Geez. I guess that disqualifies the vast majority of all judges. We'd better get looking for some atheists toot sweet.

[iampunha]

I believe Lateralus' belief is that the government shouldn't outwardly be sponsoring/endorsing/agreeing with any specific religion.

If a judge decided something based on religious values, here are a few things we might see happen:

Jail time for "taking the name of the lord in vain"

Women's rights removed

Stoning enforced

Slavery

Judges are supposed to rely upon the secular law of their jurisdiction (the terminology and procedure here of course depending on the situation), not whatever they heard in church on Sunday.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

That's the question.

[Lateralus]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

That's the question.

When he takes office, he takes an oath to do his job to the best of his ability and to uphold the principles of the Constitution. Therefore, while at work, he has a responsibility to remain secular (within reason) when making decisions that affect the public.

When not at work, or making decisions that don't affect the public, he is free to choose as he so pleases.

Having that huge rotunda installed would cost taxpayers a considerable amount of money, therefore it is within the realm of the former. He didn't have a few choice quotes from the Q'ran put alongside the Ten Commandments, did he?

- Lat

[Voyager]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

That's the question.

He can put anything he wants in his living room. In his courtroom, which is government, not private property, it doesn't belong.

I wonder who paid for this thing? If the taxpayers did, he is using public money for a private purpose, and he's a thief also.

BTW, do you think a Jewish judge should be allowed to put people in jail for working on Saturday?

[iampunha]

Lemme make sure I understand your question, Airman. You're asking if Moore was acting as a private citizen or as a government employee when he put the commandments in?

Incidentally, I'm not sure it matters. A government entity sponsoring that religious stone work is violation of law.

The controversy over the monument stems from a lawsuit filed in October 2001 by three organizations on behalf of three Alabama lawyers who often had business at the judicial building and said the monument offended them.

...

Last year Judge Thompson ruled in favor last year of the attorneys opposed to the monument's presence on public property.

Seems to me that regardless of if Moore was acting as judge or Joe Everyman, the issue is whether or not its placement in a government building is in violation of the relevant laws and such.

Incidentally:

Moore has long been associated with the Ten Commandments. When he began his judicial career at a circuit court in Etowah County he hung a hand-carved, wooden plaque of the Ten Commandments behind the bench in his courtroom.

So I'd say it's at least possible that Moore put the stone tablets there as judge. ISTR hearing about this before and that was what Moore did, but I can't dig up anything definitive.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

That's the question.
The judicial branch happens to be one of the three branches of government, so yes, he is part of the government (that was easy).

A courthouse is a government bulding intended for government use only. If a representive of the government endorses a particular religious cod within the context of his governmental duties and on government property he is violating the establishment clause, pure and simple. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this case, you know (or do you know constitutional law better than they do?)

[Spavined Gelding]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

That's the question.


That is not the question at all.

The question is to what extent may a public official use the power of his public office to support or endorse what may be moral or ethical positions that are the tenants of a particular religious faith and to force the public to acquest or participate in the worship services of that particular faith. For example, what if the Commanding General, Flat Rock Air Force Base, put a rosary in the cockpit of all aircraft based at Flat Rock or posted the litany of the rosary behind the bar in the enlisted club, or mounted a crucifix on the face of his headquarters building. A proper exercise of his power? Somehow if he is not allowed to do this his right to worship freely is infringed? The answer to all three questions has to be no. What he is deprived of is not the free exercise his own religion but rather the ability to require others to worship and adore in the manner he approves.

The First Amendment freedom of worship clause did not spring into being in a vacuum like Venus from Jupiter's's forehead. It arose in a historical context, notably the English Civil War and the Protectorate and the rule of the Lieutenant Generals in the mid-seventeenth century, the European Wars of Religion and the colonial experience. Remember that the Pilgrim Separatists did not come to America so much to be able to worship without interference (which they could do and did do in the Netherlands) so much as to be able to force every one around them to think, believe and worship as they did. Witness the experience of Baptists, Quakers and other non-Calvinist believers in the Bay Colony. Look at the experience of Roman Catholics in England and Scotland, let alone Ireland. The Founders had a vivid demonstration of the damage the combination of State and Church could do.

It is just disingenuous to say that somehow Judge Moore's right to freedom of conscious and faith are infringed when he is not allowed to put religious symbols in a public building, let alone a public building that houses the one institution dedicated to preservation of rights and the prevention of injustice, or not permitted to require little kids to pray to his God a school where their attendance is required.

[John Carter of Mars]

Judge Moore has now vowed to defy the upper courts and leave his monument in place.
This is a man who took an oath to uphold the law.

He might like his commandments, but he's a liar by definition. He lied when he broke his oath of office.

Dipshit!

[robertliguori]

The First Amendment freedom of worship clause did not spring into being in a vacuum like Venus from Jupiter's's forehead.


Athena. Venus sprang from Cronos's severed testicles.

[pkbites]

Instead of posting the
Ten Commandments (http://www.themiracleofstjoseph.org/tencmds2.htm) , how about posting the laws which are relating to the Ten Commandments? It will be legal to do, and it will be a partial victory for both sides AND a partial loss for both sides. The atheists will get their way because the 10 Commandments will be gone, but they'll be annoyed that the laws reminding them of them are posted, and the religion kooks will be happy the laws pertaining to the Ten Commandments are up, yet they'll be annoyed that the actual Commandments aren't posted. A feeling of confusing thoughts will befall both sides of the issue, which is hilarious because folks on both sides on this issue NEED TO GET A LIFE!:mad:

*Treason 946.01
*Disorderly Conduct 947.01
*Car dealers closed on sunday 218.0145
*Anyone under 18 is a child 48.02920
*First-degree intentional homicide 940.01
*Adultry 944.15
*Theft 943.20
*Defamation 942.01
*Stalking 940.32
*Burglary 943.10

I'm using Wisconsin statutes here. Replace with your state/local laws.

[Leaper]

Originally posted by robertliguori
The First Amendment freedom of worship clause did not spring into being in a vacuum like Venus from Jupiter's's forehead.Athena. Venus sprang from Cronos's severed testicles.

And you're mixing Roman/Greek gods. You mean Minerva. :)

[TVAA]

I vote that Roy Moore's head should be placed on a pike, as a warning to the next ten generations that you can't put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse.

We can then look up into his lifeless eyes, and wave, like this.

[MEBuckner]

Hey, pkbites, I had no idea that the State of Wisconsin defined "worshipping false gods" or "making graven images" as "treason". Oh, wait, the State of Wisconsin doesn't do that (http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=66929&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=946.01&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_946.01), does it? Why, I bet the State of Wisconsin doesn't even publicly execute Pentecostals and atheists! I bet the State of Wisconsin doesn't even publicly flog Pentecostals and atheists, or even fine them or anything! I bet that silly, heretical, Godless, un-Biblical old State of Wisconsin says that Pentecostals and atheists and other nasty old idolaters have "freedom of religion", if you can believe such a thing. How the State of Wisconsin (and the other 49 states) are able to reconcile our nation's Godly Heritage of a legal system founded on the Ten Commandments and letting all those Papists, Protestants, Pentecostals, Heretics, Arians, Mormons, Trinitarians, Sabbatarians, anti-Sabbatarians, Jews, Saracens, Pagans, Idol-Worshippers, Witches, Pantheists, Atheists, Infidels, and Heathens go unstoned is beyond me, but that's lawyers for ya.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
So your contention is that religion and belief has no place in government? People might be afraid or intimidated if a judge decides something based on religious values?
Well, yeah. Like, duh.

To take an example, say you've got a judge who's a Christian fundamentalist who strongly believes that homosexuals are sinners and that it's his religious and moral duty to punish gays at all times. Now say you have this judge ruling in a case with a gay defendant accused of child molestation, and the judge does not hide his anti-homosexual bias in the courtroom. The defendant could rightly feel that, because of the judge's bias, he has no chance of receiving a fair trial -- facts be damned, the judge is gonna rule from his religious values, and the defendant's goose is cooked from square one.

Damn straight we should keep religious beliefs out of government; that whole first amendment wasn't written for giggles, you know...

[Zoff]

I hope they come down on Roy Moore down hard. His conduct is completely inexcusable. I enjoyed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216708p.pdf”) (Note: it’s a .pdf file) on this matter. Here’s the conclusion, which I think is beautiful:


The clear implication of Chief Justice Moore’s argument is that no government official who heads one of the three branches of any state or of the federal government, and takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution, as all of them do, is subject to the order of any court, at least not of any federal court below the Supreme Court. In the regime he champions, each high government official can decide whether the Constitution requires or permits a federal court order and can act accordingly. That, of course, is the same position taken by those southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era. See generally, e.g., Meredith v. Fair, 328 F.2d 586, 589-90 (5th Cir. 1962) (en banc) (enjoining Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett from interfering with the district court’s order to admit a black student to the University of Mississippi); Williams v. Wallace, 240 F. Supp. 100, 110 (M.D. Ala. 1965) (Johnson, J.) (enjoining Alabama governor George C. Wallace from interfering with and failing to provide police protection for plaintiffs’ march from Selma to Montgomery); cf. United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 84 S. Ct. 984 (1964) (holding that the Governor of Mississippi was not entitled to a jury trial on a charge of criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a temporary restraining order of a federal district court).

Any notion of high government officials being above the law did not save those governors from having to obey federal court orders, and it will not save this chief justice from having to comply with the court order in this case. See U.S. Const. A rt. III, § 1; id. Art. VI, cl. 2. What a different federal district court judge wrote forty years ago, in connection with the threat of another high state official to defy a federal court order, remains true today:

In the final analysis, the concept of law and order, the very essence of a republican form of government, embraces the notion that when the judicial process of a state or federal court, acting within the sphere of its competence, has been exhausted and has resulted in a final judgment, all persons affected thereby are obliged to obey it.

United States v. Wallace, 218 F. Supp. 290, 292 (N.D. Ala. 1963) (enjoining Governor George C. Wallace from interfering with the court-ordered desegregation of the University of Alabama); accord, e.g., Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U .S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958); Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 397-98, 53 S. Ct. 190, 195 (1932) (stating that if a state Governor could nullify a federal court order “that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise o f state power would be but impotent phrases”).
The rule of law does require that every person obey judicial orders when all available means of appealing them have been exhausted. The chief justice of a state supreme court, of all people, should be expected to abide by that principle.
We do expect that if he is unable to have the district court’s order overturned through the usual appellate processes, when the time comes Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail.

[Aries28]

For those who mentioned it...yes...you are right. Moore brought in this monument after hours. If he was so proud of it I'm trying to figure out why he did it in such a sneaky manner.

The judge over the case has given him until next Wednesday to remove it or our state will face a $5,000 a day fine.

Moore announced yesterday that he doesn't intend to remove it and is taking his case to the US Supreme Court.

Just what our state needs....$5,000 a day in fines that could go to improve our shitty school system.

Moore is being pig headed and most people in the state who have any common sense agree.

FTR I am a Christian and I believe in the TC. However, his courtroom or any government building is not the place.

[doc_miller]

At the risk of turning this into a Great Debate, here's a hypothetical for ya. Despite it's religious origins, the Ten Commandments is an ancient code of laws. What would your position be if the TC were displayed in that context, along with, say, the Code of Hammurabi, Justinian's Code, the Magna Carta, and/or whatever other historical laws you want? Is it still an establishment or religion, or does it become an appropriate part of the history of legal philosophy?

[minty green]

If it were presented in that context--and the 11th Cir. opinion makes it entirely clear that is not the case with Justice Asshat's monument--then you'd have an acceptable display of the history of legal philosophy. There's Supreme Court authority on pretty much exactly that point, by the way--the Christmas display cases.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

That's the question.

It does seem a rather simple question, however. Do you think I could waltz into the courtroom and set up an altar to Vishnu? Would I be allowed to leave it there, as an individual exercizing my freedom to practice whatever religion I want to?

If not, what separates me from the judge, that he can put up the ten commandments?

Daniel

[Sauron]

Not to mention the fact that Moore, back when he snuck the dadgum thing into the building, repeatedly emphasized that he was viewing the monument as a religious symbol, and not a historical legal display.

Moore is a self-aggrandizing publicity hound. He was a minor judge in Etowah County (where I happened to live when he started with this whole Ten Commandments thing in his courtroom) who rode this issue straight into his position in the state Supreme Court. You just watch. He's gonna run for governor in a few years.

[Sylkyn]

Originally posted by Sauron
Moore is a self-aggrandizing publicity hound. He was a minor judge in Etowah County (where I happened to live when he started with this whole Ten Commandments thing in his courtroom) who rode this issue straight into his position in the state Supreme Court. You just watch. He's gonna run for governor in a few years.

You said it, brother. I've been screaming this for the last couple of years regarding this complete ASS of a judge. It's not about the religion aspect, it's not about church and state, it's ALL about Make-Alabama-Look-More-Idiotic-If-That's-Possible Moore getting his mug plastered all over the television and papers.

I wouldn't vote for him for street cleaner, but I bet there's a whole bunch of good ol' Southern Baptists just waiting to do so.

Hell, no wonder the whole country thinks so highly of us. :rolleyes:

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by doc_miller
At the risk of turning this into a Great Debate, here's a hypothetical for ya. Despite it's religious origins, the Ten Commandments is an ancient code of laws. What would your position be if the TC were displayed in that context, along with, say, the Code of Hammurabi, Justinian's Code, the Magna Carta, and/or whatever other historical laws you want? Is it still an establishment or religion, or does it become an appropriate part of the history of legal philosophy?
Supporters of Roy Moore's nonsense and similar attempts to turn courthouses and other government buildings into Christian churches often point out that Moses is depicted in the decoration of the U.S. Supreme Court building. And Moses is depicted in the decoration of the U.S. Supreme Court building. He's right up there on the wall of the Supreme Court chamber (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf)....along with Menes (semi-legendary first pharoah of Egypt), Hammurabi (of the famed code), Solomon (another Biblical figure, of course, and a legendary figure of wisdom and judicial authority), Lycurgus (who reformed the constitution of the Greek city-state of Sparta), Solon (who did the same for Sparta's great rival Athens), Draco (who wrote the Athenian code of laws that was revised--often drastically--by Solon, and from whose name we get the adjective draconian (http://www.bartleby.com/61/45/D0374500.html)), Confucius (the famous Chinese philosopher, whose system of thought emphasizes human affairs and social relationships over concern for the supernatural or otherworldly things), Octavian (or Augustus Caesar, considered the first Emperor of Rome), Justinian (East Roman Emperor who authorized a major codification of Roman law), Muhammad (founder of Islam, and therefore of the shari'a or Islamic law), Charlemagne (the sort-of founder of the Holy Roman Empire), King John (famous in jurisprudence mainly for getting the Magna Carta screwed out of him at swordpoint by his barons), Louis IX (king of France, leader of a couple of Crusades, and creator of a court of appeals), Hugo Grotius (17th century Dutch jurist whose works were foundational to the modern idea of international law), Sir William Blackstone (the famous commentator on English law), John Marshall (Chief Justice of the United States, author of Marbury v. Madison, which established the concept of judicial review in the U.S.), and Napoleon (overthrower of the French Republic, Emperor of the French, would-be conqueror of Europe, and codifier of French law into a legal code which still forms the basis for the laws of many countries, as well as the U.S. state of Louisiana).

Somehow, I don't think that's what Roy Moore and his ilk have in mind, though.

[Mars Horizon]

Originally posted by TVAA
I vote that Roy Moore's head should be placed on a pike, as a warning to the next ten generations that you can't put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse.

We can then look up into his lifeless eyes, and wave, like this. Thank you Mr. Cotto!

[Hamlet]

This whole thing pisses me off, but the one thing that just chaps my hide and gets my goat, or gets my hide and chaps my goat, is that this arrogant, grandstanding piece of crap politician is defying the federal court and the rule of law. I'm all for hitting them in the pocketbook for $5,000 a day, but what I really want, what SHOULD happen is that the bar association should strip him of his license, and he should be impeached. There is no reason for his George Wallace-esque bullshit, and he should pay the price.

And I can't help but notice that the *ahem* fine Attorney General for the State of Alabama and Bush judicial nominee William Pryor is strangely silent about this whole debacle. Color me surprised.

[Sauron]

Oh, no, Bill Pryor isn't silent. He said in an interview he would use every means at his disposal to represent the State's interests in this issue. "State's interests," in this case, being what Roy Moore says, since he's on the state Supreme Court.

I'm a Southern Baptist, born and raised in Alabama, and I'm disgusted by this whole thing.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Hamlet
what SHOULD happen is that the bar association should strip him of his license

Amen. Moore obviously skipped school the day they taught law.

A judge openly defying a court order based on laughably flimsy arguments is completely inexcusable and it really pisses me off.

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60041-2003Aug14.html) story indicates that Pryor will act to uphold the court order. I think you might have misunderstood him, Sauron. He referred to the injunction, which is confusing. Injunctions often refer to barring somebody from acting, but an injunction can also compel somebody to do something -- removing the display in this case.

[Otto]

Why, I bet the State of Wisconsin doesn't even publicly execute Pentecostals and atheists! I bet the State of Wisconsin doesn't even publicly flog Pentecostals and atheists, or even fine them or anything! Much as we'd like to...

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Zoff
I think you might have misunderstood him, Sauron. He referred to the injunction, which is confusing. Injunctions often refer to barring somebody from acting, but an injunction can also compel somebody to do something -- removing the display in this case.

Actually, I was going by a radio newscast I heard this morning, in which the reporter indicated Pryor was solidly behind Roy Moore in this effort.

If Pryor actually is working to have the monument removed, I'm pleased and, sadly, somewhat surprised.

[Steve Wright]

Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic
If a representive of the government endorses a particular religious cod ...
:eek: Holy mackerel!

I just had to. I'm sorry. Please don't hurt me.

[seal_cleaner]

I TOTALLY SUPPORT Judge Moore.
It's time MORE ALABAMANS acted like this.


I live in Arkansas, it's nice to get the heat off us.;)

[DeVena]

And has any one actually seen this big block of marble? The 10 commandments? Written out as 11 seperated sentences but is a paraphrase. That whole bit about neighbors and wives and asses has been shortened to Thou Shalt Not Covet. And there is no cite. And why would you paraphrase but keep the Thees and Thous?

And this big block of marble is A Graven Image. Big No-No to the 2nd Commandment (3rd one on the marble block). Moore has made unto himself a graven image - conveniently ignoring that point.

And the people here in Montgomery don't see that this is wrong. That if this isn't stopped here, what's to stop the next supreme courst justice from putting up statue of Vishnu, Mary, Buddha, or a shrine to Bear Bryant. (Hey it's Alabama - it could happen.) Yes, the 10 commandments are part of the fabric of the law, but so is Hammarabi's Code and natural law and what not. But none of that is allowed! It would be blasphemous, and distract from the big block of marble that pays homage only to Moore's ego.

Besides, now it's all mute. He took an oath of office to uphold the law, which he is now breaking. So he has borne false witness. Broken yet another commandment. <sigh>

He is a pathetic clown in a bad fitting suit. His mother must be so proud.

[carrot]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
Holy mackerel![/sub] Indeed. The scales of Lady Justice should be unencumbered by salmon fishing for attention in this manner.

I was trying to work in a "flounders of this country", but I just couldn't.

[pkbites]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
Hey, pkbites, I had no idea that the State of Wisconsin defined "worshipping false gods" or "making graven images" as "treason". Oh, wait, the State of Wisconsin doesn't do that (http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=66929&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=946.01&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_946.01), does it?


Yeah, but Treason was the only law that was even remotely close to that Kommandment. I had to list something!:p

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
:eek: Holy mackerel!

I just had to. I'm sorry. Please don't hurt me. Oh for cod's hake Steve. Ah well, I suppose you did it just for the halibut.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Sauron
Actually, I was going by a radio newscast I heard this morning, in which the reporter indicated Pryor was solidly behind Roy Moore in this effort.

Well, hopefully he'll support the rule of law. My understanding is that he supports Moore in the fight, but will follow the court order. I don't agree with the horse he backed, but at least he's willing to obey the court.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

A classic case of trying to have it both ways. Basically Moore is trying to pander to the inbred vote without actually defying any court orders.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by DeVena
And why would you paraphrase but keep the Thees and Thous?

Probably for A) the pritty language and B) the imposing nature of such. "Now, don't you go killin' anyone, y'hear?" ... "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Which is more imposing?;)

...shrine to Bear Bryant. (Hey it's Alabama - it could happen.)

Surprised it hasn't yet, actually.

Besides, now it's all mute. He took an oath of office to uphold the law, which he is now breaking. So he has borne false witness. Broken yet another commandment. <sigh>

Moot. And incidentally, do you happen to know if he believes that commandment is "thou shalt not bear false witness" or "thou shalt not lie" or such? There are differences of opinion as to how that's translated.

Regardless, he's broken the oft-forgot "Thou Shalt Not Be An Asshat". Too many people forget to repent of that one.

[Balance]

Originally posted by DeVena
Besides, now it's all mute. He took an oath of office to uphold the law, which he is now breaking. So he has borne false witness. Broken yet another commandment. <sigh>
It gets better--here is the text (www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245831.htm) of the oath of office required of legislative, executive, and judicial officers in Alabama:
"I, _______, solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Alabama, so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully and honestly discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter, to the best of my ability. So help me God."

I presume that the last sentence is now optional, but I am reasonably certain Moore would have used it. Since he has violated that oath, this means that he has also taken the name of the Lord in vain in the original sense. My, my, another commandment broken.

(Steve, carrot, jjimm...consider yourselves fish-slapped. :D)

[Mars Horizon]

Originally posted by DeVena
Besides, now it's all mute.I wish Roy Moore was "all mute"! ;)

[DeVena]

<sigh> That's what I get for being uppity and not previewing.


MOOT - insert it wherever it necessary.



Still think Moore's a goober. :p


Oh and Alabama being just one big small town and all... Someone pointed out that in all the publicity of the last few years over this, exactly where Moore attends church hasn't been listed. I've spoken to who used to be his pastor in Etowah County (and who now is pastor of a methodist church here in town). According to the pastor, Moore rarely went to service before putting the TC on the wall of his courtroom. Then he was all over the place - until the furor died down. Just showed up on Easter, Christmas and Mother's day after that. Until the cameras came around again.

Goober.

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by pkbites
Originally posted by MEBuckner
Hey, pkbites, I had no idea that the State of Wisconsin defined "worshipping false gods" or "making graven images" as "treason". Oh, wait, the State of Wisconsin doesn't do that (http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=66929&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=946.01&softpage=Document#JUMPDEST_946.01), does it?


Yeah, but Treason was the only law that was even remotely close to that Kommandment. I had to list something!:p
:smack:

Gee, the fact that you can't find anything "even remotely close" to the First Commandment doesn't clue you in that maybe, just maybe, our laws don't fucking relate to the Ten Commandments?!?

"The United States is a nation based on the Ten Commandments (except for that whole bit about having laws which mandate which God you worship)."

"The United States is a Marxist-Leninist nation (except for that whole bit about the state owning the principal means of production, and being controlled by a vanguard revolutionary party)."

You don't actually "have to" post anything, you know.

[pkbites]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
You don't actually "have to" post anything, you know.


And you don't have to lighten the fuck up either, but it would be nice. Can't a drunk guy have a little fun around here?

[Apos]

So your contention is that religion and belief has no place in government? People might be afraid or intimidated if a judge decides something based on religious values?

If someone posts something that essentially says "If you're not in group X, you are violating sacred commandment number one sinner" in their courtroom, am I really supposed to think that I can get a fair trial there, or safely be a witness? When someone acting AS the government is telling me outright that I am in direct conflict with what they believe is the most basic core of the law?

What does that have to do with the business of civil justice?

Is that judge government, or is he an individual exercising his right to free speech and/or freedom to practice whatever religion he wants to?

I'm trying to find the place in the Bible where one is ordered to erect an imposing momument in the name of the people right in the middle of a public courthouse.... I'm... not.... finding it.

He can exercise any aspect of his religion anyplace he wants to in any way he, personally, wants to. But the court belongs to the PEOPLE. It's not his courthouse, no matter how much of a God-ordained ruler he thinks he is (he obviously thinks this is his own private kingdom). In this country, he is no better than anyone else in regards to religion, jsut because he has uncommon civil power: the right to have a religion is reserved exclusively to the people. Being a judge gives you certian powers, not every power you decide to appropriate for yourself. It isn't devolved off on the judges to proclaim what religious ideas are correct and which are not. So AS a judge, on PUBLIC property, he doesn't have any authority at all to make pronouncements about religion. That usurps the PEOPLE'S rightful authority. If he doesn't like that aspect of being a judge, he can quit.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
:smack:

Gee, the fact that you can't find anything "even remotely close" to the First Commandment doesn't clue you in that maybe, just maybe, our laws don't fucking relate to the Ten Commandments?!?


And here I was thinking that smack was you smacking yourself for not realizing that [b]pkbites was making a (admittedly snarky) joke. I'm pretty sure he was just grooving on the silliness of the idea of the Ten Ordinances engraved in marble.

Daniel

[NaSultainne]

A few clarifications are in order here, it seems.

First, Judge Moore solicited the funds for the monument from private sources; no taxpayer money was involved. In his comments regarding the decision to install the monument during the evening hours, he states that this was to avoid disruption of governmental business.

Second, while the Ten Commandments, in somewhat edited form, do grace the top of the stone monument, other statements are contained on the sides; examples include excerpts of the Alabama State Constitution, Declaration of Independence, national anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, our national motto, followed by personal observations of Presidents Washington and Jefferson, first chief Supreme Court justice John Jay, among others.

Third, this ongoing juggernaut by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al, in all actuality constitutes an attempt at religious cleansing in public arenas. The consensus seems to be that one can (if one has little else to do) be "religious" in private, but public declarations are taboo. This hyper-censorship is becoming more and more prevalent.

As one last point here: I see more and more dopers questioning whether a Christian* can properly maintain a private faith and hold public office with integrity. The attitude seems to be that Christians, unlike, say, atheists, are suspect when it comes to performing positions of public authority according to established law and process. As if, one hints, Christians are seeking some unfair advantage by incorporating personal beliefs into public mandates; no, no group ever does that, only those pesky Christians.

*I specify Christians for two reasons: they're an easy target on this board, and it's simply too much trouble to play along with the pretense of evading the issue using a term like "person of faith" or throwing in Jews or Muslims, as neither, in my opinion, are the target of such actions to such degree.

[MEBuckner]

Third, this ongoing juggernaut by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al, in all actuality constitutes an attempt at religious cleansing in public arenas. The consensus seems to be that one can (if one has little else to do) be "religious" in private, but public declarations are taboo. This hyper-censorship is becoming more and more prevalent.
Bullshit.

The objection isn't to public religion, it's to state religion. No one is saying that a church can't publicly proclaim the Ten Commandments--just about every church I see has a sign board out front which proclaims to the public whatever message the church wants, whether it's "Services this Sunday at 7 AM and 11 AM" or "Repent in the name of the LORD". There are billboards which contain what purport to be messages from God. There are Christian programs on broadcast TV, cable TV, and radio. There are countless Christian websites of all varieties. Christians publish books, magazines, and newspapers; there are Christian bookstores to sell those books, and just about every nondenominational bookstore has a section for religious books, including Christian books. My local newspaper has an entire section on religion every Saturday, and runs plenty of other stories on religious affairs outside of that section. And Christians are still free to "witness" to everyone else one-on-one, whether it's by organized missionary efforts--going door-to-door or standing on streetcorners passing out leaflets--or just by striking up conversations with friends and acquiantances.

But somehow this isn't enough. The courthouse and the city hall--which are paid for and belong to and exist for everyone, believers and atheists alike--also have to proclaim Christianity, or else Christians claim "hyper-censorship".

My home doesn't have the Ten Commandments posted anywhere (although there are a couple of Bibles lying around). I suppose this is another example of the cruel tyranny under which American Christians must live. I should have to put up a plaque of the Ten Commandments in my living room, or else NaSultainne is being repressed!

[Zoff]

Originally posted by NaSultainne
First, Judge Moore solicited the funds for the monument from private sources; no taxpayer money was involved. In his comments regarding the decision to install the monument during the evening hours, he states that this was to avoid disruption of governmental business.

The source of the funding is irrelevant. He is the Chief Justice and has the responsibility of maintaining the rotunda. He chose to put the Ten Commandments to show that we are subject to God's law. Whether he got the money from donations, gambling or prostitution is irrelevant.

But it was awfully nice for him to "avoid disruption" by doing it at night. I got a bridge to sell you.

Second, while the Ten Commandments, in somewhat edited form, do grace the top of the stone monument, other statements are contained on the sides; examples include excerpts of the Alabama State Constitution, Declaration of Independence, national anthem, Pledge of Allegiance, our national motto, followed by personal observations of Presidents Washington and Jefferson, first chief Supreme Court justice John Jay, among others.

So what. First, he put it up to cover his ass as the court's opinion makes quite clear. Second, none of the other displays are visible to a person standing at the Ten Commandments display.

"Yeah, but the other stuff I put up doesn't violate the Constitution" is not the most compelling argument.

[wring]

Oh, I don't know, Zoff, the old "Yea but" argument is a standard in debating excellence, isn't it??? ;)

[Otto]

*I specify Christians for two reasons: they're an easy target on this board, and it's simply too much trouble to play along with the pretense of evading the issue using a term like "person of faith" or throwing in Jews or Muslims, as neither, in my opinion, are the target of such actions to such degree. Maybe Jews and Muslims aren't "targets" because Jews and Muslims don't seem to be so if you'll pardon the expression hell-bent on demanding special government recognition for their religions. You just don't hear about Jews slipping into courthouses in the middle of the night and installing two-and-a-half ton menorahs.

[TVAA]

And isn't there some rather important symbolism in putting the Commandments above the other statements?

[Frank]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
Bullshit.

The objection isn't to public religion, it's to state religion. No one is saying that a church can't publicly proclaim the Ten Commandments--just about every church I see has a sign board out front which proclaims to the public whatever message the church wants, whether it's "Services this Sunday at 7 AM and 11 AM" or "Repent in the name of the LORD". There are billboards which contain what purport to be messages from God. There are Christian programs on broadcast TV, cable TV, and radio. There are countless Christian websites of all varieties. Christians publish books, magazines, and newspapers; there are Christian bookstores to sell those books, and just about every nondenominational bookstore has a section for religious books, including Christian books. My local newspaper has an entire section on religion every Saturday, and runs plenty of other stories on religious affairs outside of that section. And Christians are still free to "witness" to everyone else one-on-one, whether it's by organized missionary efforts--going door-to-door or standing on streetcorners passing out leaflets--or just by striking up conversations with friends and acquiantances.

But somehow this isn't enough. The courthouse and the city hall--which are paid for and belong to and exist for everyone, believers and atheists alike--also have to proclaim Christianity, or else Christians claim "hyper-censorship".

My home doesn't have the Ten Commandments posted anywhere (although there are a couple of Bibles lying around). I suppose this is another example of the cruel tyranny under which American Christians must live. I should have to put up a plaque of the Ten Commandments in my living room, or else NaSultainne is being repressed!

This is by far the finest response to the complaint that I have ever heard or read.

[pkbites]

Originally posted by DanielWithrow
[b]pkbites was making a (admittedly snarky) joke. I'm pretty sure he was just grooving on the silliness of the idea of the Ten Ordinances engraved in marble.



Yeah. And not only that, I'd like to show that the extremeisms on both side of the issue are ridiculous! Which why I tried coming up with something to fuck with both of their heads! It seems to me that each side gives the other side ammunition for their motivation. I think maybe (just maybe) if the anti-religion zealots would let some small things slide, maybe the religious kooks wouldn't be so hell-bent on fighting them at every turn. And maybe if the religious kooks would stop trying to stick up monuments, and the 10 commandments on every bare wall they see, the anti's might not be so hell bent on fighting them.

The Founding Fathers whom wrote the First Amendment were not all atheists, but they weren't fire and brimstone Christians either. It seems many of them were Deists or moderate Christians. Many of their words and documents were LIGHTLY sprinkled with terms like "creator", "Natures God", or "Providence". From all that I read I don't think they would have found small, occassional references to religion in a government building a violation of the 1st Amendment. But I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't like folks who try cramming their religion down everyones throats with huge plaques and monuments.

What I don't get is, why is it that the people who want to post the 10 Commandments up everywhere, always seem to be Christians? The Ten Commandments is a Jewish document. Show me a significant number of Jews who want to plaster the court house walls with it. I've never heard of any.

[Guinastasia]

Wow, I actually agree with pkbites. ;)

AND I got his joke, FWIW.

[MEBuckner]

Well, then, I guess I pretty much agree with pkbites on all the substantive issues. What I don't understand is how we get to this "extremists on both sides" thing. An "extremist" on my side of the issue would be someone who goes around protesting when churches or individual Christian citizens publicly post the Ten Commandments on private property. (That is, the godless atheistic heathen side of the "Is there a God?" issue, since such a person clearly wouldn't be on my side of the "church-state separation/religious liberty" issue.) There's no need for some "grand compromise" that avoids the "extremism" of both positions. If you want to publicly proclaim your religious faith--and note that I'm not just talking about hanging a cross on the wall of your Secret Underground Persecuted Church down in the catacombs--you can easily do so in ways that don't include any state involvement or attempt to gain state endorsement of your religious views.

Churches have front lawns, and almost all of them have those signboards out front. There are countless Christian-owned businesses across the U.S.A., which also have front lawns. Heck, I've seen ads in the phone book with Christian symbols or Bible verses--not ads for churches, ads for insurance salesmen or car dealers or lawyers. Many individual Christians have front lawns as well. They also have cars with bumpers on them (most of them do, anyway), and all of them have bodies on which may be worn T-shirts. Then there are billboards, and radio stations, and full-page advertisments in the local newspaper....

And you can use all of those things to proclaim your religious message, and if anyone tries to stop you, the "extremists" in the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State will be on your side!


This Year's Model: Thanks!

[Zoff]

In case it wasn’t clear before, Moore has reaffirmed (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/16/ten.commandments.ap/index.html) the purpose for putting the Ten Commandments in the rotunda: "Let's get this straight. It's about the acknowledgment of God," Moore said in front of the Alabama Capitol.


Originally posted by wring
Oh, I don't know, Zoff, the old "Yea but" argument is a standard in debating excellence, isn't it???

I’m reluctant to condemn this line of debate outright, since I find myself using it in arguments with my wife. Unfortunately, Mrs. Zoff goes 11th Circuit on my ass.

Speaking of debating excellence, the good Chief Justice apparently also realized that he had neglected to make absolutely every stupid argument available to him. He quickly remedied the situation by saying he would be “guilty of treason” if he removed the monument. While I’m tempted to merely note this argument without comment, I hope you’ll indulge a little editorial. This man is a judge. He should either stop making such stupid legal arguments while on the bench, or resign so he only taints himself with his stupidity instead of bringing the Alabama justice system into the picture.

I suspect Sauron is right, and Moore is campaigning for office. Could the Alabama Dopers please petition for a special election and elect him dogcatcher so he’ll get the hell off the bench?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
[B]What I don't understand is how we get to this "extremists on both sides" thing. An "extremist" on my side of the issue would be someone who goes around protesting when churches or individual Christian citizens publicly post the Ten Commandments on private property. (That is, the godless atheistic heathen side of the "Is there a God?" issue, since such a person clearly wouldn't be on my side of the "church-state separation/religious liberty" issue.)

I think this points to one of the problems with American politics, which places a value on the Moderate position without regard to whether the position in the middle is right in and of itself.

In this case, if there were atheists who were calling for the removal of religion from all public life (i.e., not just from government-sponsored life), who were trying to remove churches from the country, trying to establish a litmus test for office wherein nobody who believed in God could be elected, etc. -- if this were happening, then THAT would become one of the extreme positions. The middle ground would become the position, "Don't ban people from practicing religion privately, but don't use taxes to fund religious expressions or practices, either."

Unfortunately, the anti-God extremists don't exist (at least, not in any real numbers). The furthest anyone goes in opposing religion is to call for the no-taxes-for-religious-expression argument, above.

So people assume that's an extremist position, without regard to whether it's a rational and fair and constitutional position, and they look for the middle ground between that position and the, "Let's get God back into government!" position.

And they come up with what looks like a reasonable compromise to them: "Let's allow just a little bit of religion back into our government!" Which is the middle ground, to be sure, but which is an unreasonable position.

Looks to me like we need some anti-God extremists to counter the pro-government-religion extremists; then the reasonable position will become the middle ground, and we'll all be happy. Anyone want to volunteer?

Daniel

[Sampiro]

I'll just be glad when the 10 Commandments are out of there and Alabama can get back to arguing about important thing like how high the Confederate flag should fly.

Incidentally, Moore also didn't disrupt any other film production crews while installing the commandments. He gave exclusive video rights to Coral Ridge Ministries in exchange for their words of encouragement and a $200,000 donation to his defense fund.

[pkbites]

Let me give an example of what I consider extremism. I have no cite right now, when I find it, I'll post it.
Last spring during [public] high school graduations, an honor student was slated to sing a song during the ceromony. But when it was learned that the song had a brief reference to God, the anti-religion factions went ape. It wasn't the school administration itself promoting any religion, it was a student singing a song. it was a brief, lyrical reference to faith.
This is one of those things I think they should have let slide, rather than making such a God damn stink about it.
Had she been required by the school to sing such a song, then I feel that would be unconstitutional. Temporary references to God, faith, etc., are not the same as some zealot putting up a plaque or statute. It's not like she got up there and started preaching or anything.

[MEBuckner]

Inform the state security services! Send her to the re-education camps immediately! We must stamp out all references to these anti-humanist, counter-revolutionary superstitions!











Just trying to do my part to make American political discourse a little more enlightened.

[Zoe]

pkbites: But when it was learned that the song had a brief reference to God, the anti-religion factions went ape.

How do you know that they are anti-religion? Is it possible that they may be trying to uphold what they thought to be the law of the land -- regardless of what their own religious beliefs are? As a former teacher, I can tell you that that is far more likely to be the scenario.

Airman Doors:
So your contention is that religion and belief has no place in government? People might be afraid or intimidated if a judge decides something based on religious values?

Speaking only for myself it is my contention that religion and belief have a place in my life just as it did when I was a classroom teacher in a public school. My beliefs affected much of my teaching style. It affected my ability to forgive and to love and a hundred other things.

What my beliefs did not affect was my students' rights not to have me mess with their beliefs. I understood and appreciated why I was not to lead students in prayer or to post Scriptures around the room. Frankly, I think that it would have been unChristian to have violated that right. And certainly it would have been professionally unethical.

Meanwhile, another teacher ignored the law. She posted religious texts in her room. The last one that I remember was at Christmas: "Jesus is the reason for the season." She eventually lost her job and her license because one of her sexual liasons with her students was discovered.

Another teacher lost her job when she had a laying on of hands service to cure the headache of one of the students in her special education classes. They sat in the floor in a circle while she swayed and prayed and freaked the children out!

I contend that none of us were anti-religious.

The judge's right to his beliefs does not end simply because he is required by law to allow others the same right. His religious beliefs may affect the way he conducts much of his business. He can say a private prayer in his chambers. He can hang the Ten Commandments on the wall in his office -- where he is more likely to read them. He can treat people with kindness and love. But when he makes his judgments, they should be based on the laws of the nation and the state and not on the Biblical scripture that he has been known to quote in his decisions.

If we don't require him abide by the law, then yes, plenty of people will be intimidated by his religious beliefs and the beliefs of any judge whose religion is different from their own. And rightly so.

[pkbites]

Originally posted by Zoe
How do you know that they are anti-religion? Is it possible that they may be trying to uphold what they thought to be the law of the land?


First of all, it is not up to a bunch of zealots....be they atheist or Jesus freaks....to decide what the "law of the land" is. Secondly, the "law of the land"(:rolleyes: ) has to do with an established government religion. This kid was not ordered to sing this song, nor was it presented by any government entity. It was sung by a citizen whom just happened to be in a public building at the time she intended to sing it. By your standard someone who utterd "God Damn it!" in a school building would be guilty of violating someone elses 1st amendment rights. Absurd.

The student, by the way, after a brief legal fight, was allowed to sing the song.

[Czarcasm]

Originally posted by pkbites
Let me give an example of what I consider extremism. I have no cite right now, when I find it, I'll post it.
Last spring during [public] high school graduations, an honor student was slated to sing a song during the ceromony. But when it was learned that the song had a brief reference to God, the anti-religion factions went ape. It wasn't the school administration itself promoting any religion, it was a student singing a song. it was a brief, lyrical reference to faith.
This is one of those things I think they should have let slide, rather than making such a God damn stink about it.
Had she been required by the school to sing such a song, then I feel that would be unconstitutional. Temporary references to God, faith, etc., are not the same as some zealot putting up a plaque or statute. It's not like she got up there and started preaching or anything.

Unfortunately, until you provide a cite there's nothing to debate concerning this case. We don't know what she tried to sing, who protested, or what their protest consisted of.

[pkbites]

Hmm.this (http://www.jsonline.com/enter/tvradio/may03/144256.asp?showheadlines=all) doesn't say what the schools motivation was in trying to stop Rachel Honer from singing a song which has only 3 brief references to "God". I'm thinking that the administration of the school has been rattled in the past by antis that they no longer can think for themselves or use any common sense.


I do remember hearing people on local radio talk shows, and reading letters to the editors of local papers. Half the folks were screaming that if she sang that song if would be a horrible violation of the 1st Amendments "seperation of church & state clause":rolleyes: and the other half were ranting that a healthy dose of religion in public schools would help cure what ails them:rolleyes: :rolleyes: . Both sides, of course, are wrong.

[Czarcasm]

It seems that the school ruled in her favor in the end, though, and let her sing the song. In what way were the school officials extremists?

[pkbites]

The school did not "rule in her favor". The school BACKED DOWN. There is a difference.
In the begining they should had thought about it a little before they made a knee jerk decision.

[Apos]

"Let's get this straight. It's about the acknowledgment of God," Moore said in front of the Alabama Capitol.

What an arrogant fucksack. Who does he think he is that he needs to speak for the public in acknowledging God, that anyone gave him that authority? The public is perfectly capable of acknowledging their Gods in their own ways if they choose, rather than being led in their appreciation by a self-appointed count pope-ula with pencils for arms.

[Aries28]

Well...today's the day. Moore has until this evening to remove the thing.

AG Bill Pryor has said it will be coming down and he will obey the law.

Details (http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1061371182244780.xml)

We shall see....

[Otto]

Moore's lost two more appeals (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/08/19/ten_commandments/index.html) including one in which the learned jurist fucked up on the legal timeframe for requesting a stay.

Is it too late to reverse that "no secession" thing? Because I'd really be OK with Alabama being out of the union..

[cheddarsnax]

Originally posted by pkbites
First of all, it is not up to a bunch of zealots....be they atheist or Jesus freaks....to decide what the "law of the land" is. Secondly, the "law of the land"(:rolleyes: ) has to do with an established government religion. This kid was not ordered to sing this song, nor was it presented by any government entity. It was sung by a citizen whom just happened to be in a public building at the time she intended to sing it. By your standard someone who utterd "God Damn it!" in a school building would be guilty of violating someone elses 1st amendment rights. Absurd.
The post you reference said: "Is it possible that they may be trying to uphold what they thought to be the law of the land?" The post does not say that these are Zoe's beliefs. It also does not say they are the correct interpretation of the law. What it does say is that there are other explanations besides anti-religious zealotry for the district's actions.

[Aries28]

Originally posted by Otto
Is it too late to reverse that "no secession" thing? Because I'd really be OK with Alabama being out of the union..

I wouldn't. :(

Seriously, every state has some nutjob politician or other figure making them look bad at one point or another but I love my state and there are many good things about it.

Moore, not being one of them...

[Mtgman]

Originally posted by MEBuckner
But somehow this isn't enough. The courthouse and the city hall--which are paid for and belong to and exist for everyone, believers and atheists alike--also have to proclaim Christianity, or else Christians claim "hyper-censorship".

My home doesn't have the Ten Commandments posted anywhere (although there are a couple of Bibles lying around). I suppose this is another example of the cruel tyranny under which American Christians must live. I should have to put up a plaque of the Ten Commandments in my living room, or else NaSultainne is being repressed! For the most part I, like This Year's Model, cheered this post. I've quoted the bit I quibble with. While I have no doubt there are some who believe, as the original Puritans did, their mission is to get "everyone, believers and athiests alike" to proclaim Christianity, I'm not seeing that in NaSultainne's position. He's not saying the Ten Commandments should be posted everywhere, nor that everyone should have them in their living rooms. His position seems to be that, if a duly elected official, using private monies, and with the support of his constituents(remember, bringing the TC and Christian principles to the courtroom was one of Moore's campaign issues), decides to place religious symbols in the court they are the leader of, then it should be considered religious expression akin to a Jewish judge being allowed to wear the yarmulke while on duty. It is the difference between allowed and mandated. NaSultainne seems to think it should be allowed, whereas your post speaks against the position that it should be mandated. Different thing.

Note, I disagree with the idea that it should be allowed. This is a public place and subject to the will of the public. The will of the public is most clearly outlined in the constitutions of Alabama and the US. They are not interested in establishment of religion in the public sector in any form. A small block of voters who managed to get Mr Moore onto the bench can't override the state, or federal, constitution. Mr Moore will have to "acknowledge God" in some other way. A way which does not impact public property or government places.

Enjoy,
Steven

[MEBuckner]

Well, the second paragraph you quoted is of course hyperbole with satirical intent. In the original post I noted a number of ways in which Christians have the right to publicly proclaim their faith. NaSultainne (who I believe is actually a she) apparently finds that these are insufficient, because public officials are not allowed to put up religious monuments in public buildings which belong equally to all citizens, atheists and believers of all stripes. To quote again from the post I was responding to:
The consensus seems to be that one can (if one has little else to do) be "religious" in private, but public declarations are taboo. This hyper-censorship is becoming more and more prevalent.
This is ludicrous. Equating the separation of church and state--even SOCAS as strictly enforced as I would like it to be (no more chaplains leading invocations at the beginning of legislative sessions, no more "In God We Trust" as the national motto)--with a regime of "hyper-censorship" in which "public declarations [of religion] are taboo" is absurd.

So, my third paragraph was just taking this stance (which seems to be all too common among a certain segment of Christians in this country) to its "logical" conclusion: Christians have churches, front laws, radio stations, bookstores, bumpers, etc.; the Supreme Court still doesn't agree with me about "ceremonial deism" like IGWT on the money, prayers before opening Congress, etc.--but, there are no religious monuments in my house! Christians are being subjected to "hyper-censorship"! They're being repressed!

(You know, this stuff really falls flat when you have to explain it....)

[Mtgman]

The hyperbole and satirical intent didn't seem to transmit. The bit which made me think you actually attributed that position to NaSultainne was this bitOriginally posted by MEBuckner
I should have to put up a plaque of the Ten Commandments in my living room, or else NaSultainne is being repressed! The direct address of the previous poster here was the sticky bit. If you had said "those poor Christians" in place of NaSultainne I think it would have come across clearer as satire instead of a representation of NaSultainne's position. Even in the other paragraph I quoted, the one you didn't specifically say was hyperbole with satiricial intent, you translated the arguement from allows to mandates. No one has made the case that every court and town hall HAVE TO proclaim Christianity. Simply that it should be allowable in some circumstances. As I said earlier, I disagree that it should be allowable, but this not the same as your non-hyperbolic paragraph represented with the "have to" comment.

IMO of course and YMMV.

Enjoy,
Steven

[tat-2]

My first post.....not a good subject but, It seems to me if the *monument* violates people or persons rights......then why the hell do you have to*SWEAR to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help you GOD* The ten commandments sorta go along with that dont they?

[Gorsnak]

Originally posted by tat-2
My first post.....not a good subject but, It seems to me if the *monument* violates people or persons rights......then why the hell do you have to*SWEAR to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help you GOD* The ten commandments sorta go along with that dont they?
Ah, but you don't have to swear to tell the truth, etc etc, so help you God. There are alternative methods of swearing in witnesses that don't mention God.

[widdershins]

As much as the whole issue irritates me and reminds me why I want to move out of this damn state, I have been enjoying watching state officials like Bill Pryor and Gov. Riley trying to split hairs speaking out in favor of following Judge Thompson's order to remove the monument while saying Alabama citizens have the right to protest or that they feel there should be a place for God in government. Way to avoid endorsing contempt of court while at the same time trying not to alienate all those fundamentalist voters. Riley's going to need every vote he can get for his tax plan so he really has to watch his mouth.

I keep hoping the other eight state Supreme Court Justices will use their ability to overrule administrative decisions of the Chief Justice to have the monument removed, as has been mentioned in the local press. All but one are Republicans, so they could avoid any claims of political partisanship by acting. Between the controversy and the fines and the massive weight of Moore's ego, these are all burdens the state could do without.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

What puzzles me is this: Assuming this Commandment-spammer judge is right :eek: and there IS a big bearded angry Guy In The Sky keeping tabs on us, why hasn't Moore been struck by lightning yet?

[Zoff]

The rest of the Alabama Supreme Court has overruled (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25417-2003Aug21.html) Moore and ordered the removal of the monument.

Fortunately, only one justice shows contempt for the rule of law.

[Blalron]

Originally posted by Gorsnak
Ah, but you don't have to swear to tell the truth, etc etc, so help you God. There are alternative methods of swearing in witnesses that don't mention God.

You don't have to swear. You can "affirm" that you will tell the truth and that is just as legally valid as swearing in.

[Blalron]

Originally posted by pkbites
First of all, it is not up to a bunch of zealots....be they atheist or Jesus freaks....to decide what the "law of the land" is. Secondly, the "law of the land"(:rolleyes: ) has to do with an established government religion. This kid was not ordered to sing this song, nor was it presented by any government entity. It was sung by a citizen whom just happened to be in a public building at the time she intended to sing it. By your standard someone who utterd "God Damn it!" in a school building would be guilty of violating someone elses 1st amendment rights. Absurd.

The critical difference here is that the school does not sponsor that expression and there's an equal opportunity for everyone to express themselves in the cafeteria or the hallways during breaks.

An honor student singing in front of the entire school during a graduation ceremony, and that song just happens to "acknowledge" God? That's a horse of a different color.

Only a limited number of students get to speak at a graduation ceremony, so if the school chooses someone who spouts off about Jesus and rejects someone who wants to sing the praises of Vishnu or of Atheism, we're going to have problems.