Defiant Chief Justice Vows to Keep Ten Commandments Monument

[Razorsharp]

*Originally posted by stpauler *
**Acknowledge a 2 and a half ton piece of iconography stuck in a place where you can’t help but see it even if you don’t want to? Oh, ok then, I’ll just close my eyes and hope not to walk into it. **

OH, so the Ten Commandments are so offensive to you, that you don’t even want to see them? Isn’t that a bit petty? If that is the way that you truely feel, then you probably wouldn’t have any objection to a law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Hey, know what I don’t want to see? Someone burning the flag. Oh, but that is a protected form of speech, right?

Herein we find a little insight into the world of “Liberals through the Looking Glass”,

Flag-burning is speech.

Displaying the Ten Commandments is making law establishing a religion.

Yep, Orwell was right.

[Trion]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**You know what just chaps my ass about many of those who are applauding the Federal Court decision to force the state of Alabama to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from its Supreme Court Building. They seem just a wee bit too happy about it.
**

Exactly how happy am I supposed to be? 'Cause I’m a 6.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Displaying the Ten Commandments in a corthouse is a government endorsement of religion.

And just let me club your red herring about “law making.”

Congress passes laws about the collection and distribution of taxes.

Congress cannot use that legislative power to appropriate or divert public funds towards an endorsement of religion.

Government buldings are paid for with public funds collected through legislation by congress. Those buldings cannot be used to promote religion because they are paid for by taxpayer money and congress can’t use taxpayer money to promote religion.

Get it now?

[pravnik]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
This is not, is not, a constitutional issue. The people who don’t believe in God are trying to force those that do, to remove all representations of their beliefs from public places.

U.S. Constitution, Article III, Sec. 2:

“The [federal] judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–”

Article VI:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The existence or non-existence of God isn’t the issue. A state judge’s defiance of a federal court order issued pursuant to the U.S. Constitution and federal law is the issue.

[stpauler]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**OH, so the Ten Commandments are so offensive to you, that you don’t even want to see them? Isn’t that a bit petty? If that is the way that you truely feel, then you probably wouldn’t have any objection to a law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Hey, know what I don’t want to see? Someone burning the flag. Oh, but that is a protected form of speech, right?

Herein we find a little insight into the world of “Liberals through the Looking Glass”,

Flag-burning is speech.

Displaying the Ten Commandments is making law establishing a religion.

Yep, Orwell was right. **

Thanks, but I’m not a liberal. I don’t want to see someone burning a flag in the courthouses either. Burn it where you legally can, but a public building is not the place for either.

[G.O_Rielly]

As I see it, Roy Moore is displaying his ignorance of the Bible with this display. The first commandment listed on the monument is " I am the Lord thy God", and the last is “Thou shalt not covet”. This is the list of “thou shalts” from Exodus 20:2-17, but these were NOT called The Ten Commandments. In Exodus 24:12, Moses is ordered “Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.” After Moses broke the tablets that had been allegedly written by God (Exodus 31:18), he had to go back up the mountain to get another set. These commandments are listed in Exodus 34:1-28, and THEY are the ones called “The Ten Commandments”. The tenth commandment listed here is “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk”. Not quite the version favoured by Judge Roy Bean, oops, Moore.

[Blalron]

I know I will be using my vote to get people in office that respect the rights of all beliefs.

In other words, somebody who, acting in his official capacity as a state officer, stays neutral in regards to religion, and doesn’t put up an offensive monument that explicitly tells non judeo-christians that they are worshipping false God(s).

[jeevmon]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**OH, so the Ten Commandments are so offensive to you, that you don’t even want to see them? Isn’t that a bit petty? If that is the way that you truely feel, then you probably wouldn’t have any objection to a law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.
**

I don’t want the government forcing me to practice any religion or prohibiting me from practicing religion. I also want my government to be absolutely neutral as to religion and to be equally indifferent to all forms of religion and to treat all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, equally and fairly.

A big hunk of rock with a piece of Scripture on it bearing the caption “The Laws Of Nature’s God” adorned with big statements like “I am the Lord thy God”, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me”, “Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy”, and with admonitions about “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain” in a public building, especially a courthouse, does not fill me with confidence that the government representatives therein are going to be neutral, fair and even-handed. Yes, it offends me, because it is the government telling me what the government’s official line is on religion. And that line is not neutrality, but endorsement of a viewpoint. Endorsement of the viewpoint that I must remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. That I must not have any God before the God of the Ten Commandments. That I must not take the Lord’s name in vain. And guess what - I don’t believe in any of that stuff, and it offends me when the government is telling me that I have to.

I feel deeply deeply sorry for those, like Justice Moore, who are apparently so insecure in their own faith that they feel the compulsion to cram it down the throats of those that don’t agree with them. And I am angered and incensed when those zealots, like Justice Moore, get a little taste of political power, and can now use the power of the government for their prosletyzing agenda.

And I feel deeply sorry for you, Razorsharp, who are so blinded and narrow in your thinking that you can’t see the difference between a law forbidding anyone to practice religion and a state official using the power of his office to place religious symbols in a public building.

**

Hey, know what I don’t want to see? Someone burning the flag. Oh, but that is a protected form of speech, right?
**

Hey, know what I don’t want to read? Any more posts from you. Oh, but that is a protected form of speech, right?

Yes, because you are not a state actor. And as much as I violently disagree with every single thing you’ve said in here, I won’t dispute your right to say it.

And the difference between the flag burner and Justice Moore, a difference that you are apparently incapable of comprehending, is that Justice Moore is a state official using the power of his office to endorse a particular religious viewpoint. It’s always different when it’s a government official doing it.

**

Herein we find a little insight into the world of “Liberals through the Looking Glass”,

Flag-burning is speech.

Displaying the Ten Commandments is making law establishing a religion.

Yep, Orwell was right. **

Ooh, Orwell. He’s up there with Hitler as meaningless strawmen to invoke when you don’t have a supportable point.

I’m sorry for you that you can’t see the difference between a state official acting in an official capacity and a private speaker acting in a private capacity. Flag-burning is a protected form of expression, though it may violate other, content-neutral laws, such as those prohibiting public fires.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The AG of Alabama says he’s going to remove the monument "very soon"now.

It doesn’t say how or (exactly) when, though. I wonder what he’s going to do about the yahoos trying to block the courthouse. I hope the AG will not shy away from the use of violence in dealing with these hillbillies.

[Hamlet]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**OH, so the Ten Commandments are so offensive to you, that you don’t even want to see them? Isn’t that a bit petty? If that is the way that you truely feel, then you probably wouldn’t have any objection to a law that would prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Hey, know what I don’t want to see? Someone burning the flag. Oh, but that is a protected form of speech, right?

Herein we find a little insight into the world of “Liberals through the Looking Glass”,

Flag-burning is speech.

Displaying the Ten Commandments is making law establishing a religion.

Yep, Orwell was right. **

Flag burning is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. Displaying the Ten Commandments is a form of expression also protected by the First Amendment. The display of the Ten Commandments IN THIS CASE, was done under the color of State action. Roy Moore is more than able to display the Ten Commandments in his house, on his front lawn, or almost anyplace else he wants, but NOT in the State owned Supreme Court building where it is taken as a State endorsement of religion. You could all about this issue in the opinion if you want to educate yourself.

[Apos]

Well, here’s how it is, anyone who equates the displaying of the Ten Commandments to the making of law, ain’t got the faculties to explain nuthin’ to me.

I’m sorry, but you misunderstand the law. Everything the government does is empowered by the legislature, including making a system of courts and the proceedures for giving them office and power. As nearly every legal scholar will tell you, all government action rightly falls under any Constitutional position on lawmaking powers.

Yes, the First Amendment does forbid the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, but, to groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and their minions, the mere display of the Ten Commandments constitutes an establishment of religion.

For goodness sakes, the whole purpose of this momument (which, if you didn’t notice starts out with the most boldly secretarian statement imaginable) is to establish a particular religious view as dominating in that courtroom, and MOORE SAYS SO HIMSELF.

[DocCathode]

*Originally posted by Razorsharp *
**You know what just chaps my ass about many of those who are applauding the Federal Court decision to force the state of Alabama to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from its Supreme Court Building. They seem just a wee bit too happy about it.

While masquerading as honorable protectors of the Constitution, a peek behind the mask reveals an ugly hostility toward both religion and the religious.

**

I’ve said this before.

** I want the monument removed. I want all references to God removed from our currency. I object to witnesses in court and elected officials swearing on a Bible.

 I am religious.

 I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe He delivered me from slavery in Egypt and brought me to the Promised Land. I believe He loves me and watches over me. I feel His presence in each day of my life. I praise Him when I rise up and when I lie down. I praise Him in my going out and on my returning home. When I am beset with difficulties, I ask the Lord for the strength to go on. When I find my life filled with joy and abundance, I give thanks unto the Lord. I strive in all ways to do His will.**

 I'm not  attacking religion or religious people. I am attacking an act that violates another I hold  sacred, the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Spavined_Gelding]

You just knew, you had to know, that this or some other thread about Justice Moore’s religious shrine was going to be entered by the loony fringe. Let me suggest to the last few posters (especially our old friends lekatt and Razorsharp) that it is fair to think that they are simply blowing hot air, playing for attention and generally seeking to be pains in the neck and taking up band width until and unless they show some knowledge and understanding of the care and feeding of the Constitution, the historical interplay between the government and the church in English and American history and the nature of the federal edifice. A good place to start would be to read the 11th Circuit’s opinion in Justice Moore’s case, Glassroth and Howard v. Moore. Here is the link to the decision on lawfind. It is an Adobe file. Despite some literary criticism by Milum to the effect that it didn’t have much of a plot and the characters were not well developed, it is a pretty good primer on this narrow issue of First Amendment jurisprudence and can get anyone interested in discussing this thing, as opposed to bawling slogans, a good start in learning how these conflicts are resolved. If on the other hand all the gentle reader wants to do is caterwaul and howl at the moon, don’t bother.

Until our friends read the case and demonstrate that they have, their opinions can be safely disregarded. If the aim of participating here is to fight ignorance you would think that the first thing a person who thinks the 11th Circut decision is an abomination and an attack on the liberties of the citizen would do is to read the case.

[Mtgman]

*Originally posted by jeevmon *
A big hunk of rock with a piece of Scripture on it bearing the caption “The Laws Of Nature’s God” adorned with big statements like “I am the Lord thy God”, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me”, “Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy”, and with admonitions about “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain” in a public building, especially a courthouse, does not fill me with confidence that the government representatives therein are going to be neutral, fair and even-handed. Yes, it offends me, because it is the government telling me what the government’s official line is on religion. And that line is not neutrality, but endorsement of a viewpoint. Endorsement of the viewpoint that I must remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. That I must not have any God before the God of the Ten Commandments. That I must not take the Lord’s name in vain. And guess what - I don’t believe in any of that stuff, and it offends me when the government is telling me that I have to.

Does it really bear that caption about “Laws of Nature’s God”? That’s very interesting. One of the claims people have put forth as a defense of the monument is that it has quotations from other sources of “law” on it and is therefore not strictly Christian. Supposedly the sides are inscribed with quotations from the founding fathers writings and the constitution and such. I wonder if one of those quotations is from the Declaration of Independence. (emphasis mine

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Very interesting. If the caption is there, and this snippet from the Declaration of Independence is there too, then I can’t really see how the claim that this is not intended to establish Christianity as the religion of the state. The document which established the US as an independent state from Britain is clearly linked to the ten commandments through that caption. The idea that this monument is simply an acknowledgement of faith instead of an endorsement of a particular religion as the state’s position would really fall apart if those pieces are all there.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Franko]

*Originally posted by lekatt *
**This is not, is not, a constitutional issue. The people who don’t believe in God are trying to force those that do, to remove all representations of their beliefs from public places.

Since the believers outnumber the non-believers 10 to 1, this is unlikely to happen. What will happen is that liberal causes will be damaged by the fallout. I believe Bush has been guaranteed another four years by this event. The government will serve the majority of the people. If it doesn’t, the people will vote the conservatives in that will make the laws they want.

Even if you guys win, you will lose. Just haven’t figured that out yet. The majority of people believe in God, and they are correct. God does exist.

God Bless America **

[jeevmon]

*Originally posted by Mtgman *
**Does it really bear that caption about “Laws of Nature’s God”? That’s very interesting. One of the claims people have put forth as a defense of the monument is that it has quotations from other sources of “law” on it and is therefore not strictly Christian. Supposedly the sides are inscribed with quotations from the founding fathers writings and the constitution and such. I wonder if one of those quotations is from the Declaration of Independence. (emphasis mineVery interesting. If the caption is there, and this snippet from the Declaration of Independence is there too, then I can’t really see how the claim that this is not intended to establish Christianity as the religion of the state. The document which established the US as an independent state from Britain is clearly linked to the ten commandments through that caption. The idea that this monument is simply an acknowledgement of faith instead of an endorsement of a particular religion as the state’s position would really fall apart if those pieces are all there.

Enjoy,
Steven **

Yup. There’s an AP photo of it in a New York Times article, which can be seen here.

[Blalron]

To paraphrase Cecil, if ignorance were cornflakes, some of the posters here would be General Mills.

I urge those who claim that religion is being attacked to READ THE 11TH CIRCUIT DECISION, then after you have read the entire thing, get back to us.

I hope others will join me in refusing to further respond unless the aforementioned posters acknowledge that they have read the court decision.

[jpariury]

Some things I’m confused about…

Moore claims that the Ten Commandments are the moral basis for the laws that we have enacted… Its actually pretty hard to hunt up the basic “Thou Shalt Not” list… usually people want to include the entirety of the scripture from which it is drawn… Anyways, I hunted one up…

**Thou shalt have no other gods before Me

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy**

Clearly, the law makes no mention of these, and in fact specifically proscribes against the government as an entity from infringing on someone’s right to do these or not as they choose.

**Honour thy father and thy mother **

Not a law, as far as I can tell.

**Thou shalt not murder **

Good law, that.

**Thou shalt not commit adultery **

Not a law, although it is justifiable grounds for divorce.

**Thou shalt not steal **

Good law, that.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Perjury, slader, libel. Sounds good.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s

Not a law, more in line with “good advice”.

At best, four are possible moral groundworks for the law… and one of them is more suggestive rather than prohibitive: Don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t lie. How is a 3/10 or 4/10 ratio equate to being the moral groundwork???

[Franko]

Please excuse me ,but somehow I pushed the wrong button and
some else’s article got my name on it.Parish the thought! I was
trying to reply to the article.He said Christians had a 10 to 1
edge in favor of having the Ten Commandments in front of a
Federal Courthouse.Well let me say this ,the U.S. Constitution
protects us little guy’s from your large religions bullies!Seperation
of Church and state is clear,and you want to impose your Dogma
upon the rest of us.America does not belong to the Christrian!
It belongs to all of us.Take your Ten Commandments and put
them in front of your chruch,or home.But keep them out of the
public domain.

                     Have a nice day          Franko

[GodlessSkeptic]

*Originally posted by G. O’Rielly *
**As I see it, Roy Moore is displaying his ignorance of the Bible with this display. The first commandment listed on the monument is " I am the Lord thy God", and the last is “Thou shalt not covet”. This is the list of “thou shalts” from Exodus 20:2-17, but these were NOT called The Ten Commandments. In Exodus 24:12, Moses is ordered “Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them.” After Moses broke the tablets that had been allegedly written by God (Exodus 31:18), he had to go back up the mountain to get another set. These commandments are listed in Exodus 34:1-28, and THEY are the ones called “The Ten Commandments”. The tenth commandment listed here is “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk”. Not quite the version favoured by Judge Roy Bean, oops, Moore. **

I brought this up earlier but no one seemed to notice.The only correction I would offer is that neither set of commandments were called “The Ten commandments”.The number ten in nowhere mentioned in regards to the commandments.Not only are the “second set” of laws different than the ones Moses smashed(very different) but the protestant version is different from the catholic version and both are different than the hebrew version!

A question to the sething-with-rage christians here:How would you feel if a judge in your hometown had a statue of Madaline Murray O’hare smuggled into the courthouse, under the cover of darkness and then defied supreme court rulings that he removed the statue?