I believe that the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob delivered me from bondage unto freedom.
I believe that he hears my prayers and grants me strength.
I feel his guidance each day.
I also believe that the plaque should come down.
It is an endorsment of religion. These are the laws given to Moses at Mount Sinai. A US court should deal only in those laws derived from the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, and common law.
If the plaque has historical significance, move it from the courthouse to a museum.
I believe that any religious declaration should be removed from all publicly funded buildings.
For the sake of consistency, that includes the US Supreme Court, building, which has the ten commandments displayed somewhere in its precincts, I believe.
So you wouldn’t be a little hesitant about being tried in a court where the judge had “Allah is great, Allah is good” on a big banner behind him?
TVAA see rjung’s answer.
FriarTed: "I listened to the Atty Gen of Alabama speaking on how he was appealing it to the Supreme Court & (if I’m correct) filing an injunction against enforcing the federal court order & I thought ‘Rock on!’
TVAA: “You approve of this? Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, why?”
David Simmons: “Why are you surprised? Have you forgotten that a substantial fraction of the audience on the Tonight Show actually cheered when Arnold announced that he was going to run for Governor?”
TVAA: “What does that have to do with the Commandments monument and the Attorney General of Alabama?”
rjung: “It shows we don’t have a shortage of stupid people?”
Not really. The Supreme Court building includes representations of Moses, as one of many historical lawgivers. The historical figures in the Supreme Court include everyone from Hammurabi to Napoleon, including Confucius and Muhammad, not to mention Bad King John (on account of his having been forced to grant the Magna Carta). See the Architectural Information Sheets from the official web site of the Supreme Court for a discussion of all the allusions and references and allegorical representations of the Supreme Court building’s interior and exterior decorations, which are quite richly varied.
So, the first fifteen are OK, but we come down on the 16th? Ridiculous.
The Ten Commandments are an overtly religious document, and their placement in a public space constitutes an implied endorsement by the government of a particular religion. That’s the problem. Having the Ten Commandments standing alone in a courtroom says “the State of Alabama endorses this document and the statements contained therein,” including the stuff about having no God before me. Short of appointing a official State High Priest, I don’t see how you can get closer to an establishment clause problem.
It also should be noted that this is a courthouse, a place where justice is supposedly meted out. Justice is supposed to be blind. Those whose people were not led out of Egypt, and who have other gods or no God, or who make graven images, are fully justified in their fears that justice, for them, will not be blind when the state so openly endorses a particular overtly religious set of beliefs.
I’m also somewhat disturbed by december’s apparent approval of the idea that court orders should be defied, since I thought him more intelligent than that. An aggrieved litigant’s remedy for what it thinks is a wrongful decision is the appellate process, not defiance. Once the appeals are exhausted, the orderly administration of justice requires compliance with court orders. To do otherwise would fatally undermine the authority of the courts and the rule of law. One would assume that, as a conservative, december would want the rule of law upheld, but maybe as a Republican, he is only interested in upholding the rule of law when it defends those causes that he supports.
However, I don’t see how having the monument in the courthouse violates the state constitution as quoted above (with my emphasis):
I’m not trying to be thick-headed, but I don’t see how putting up a monument is the same as passing a law restricting (or establishing) religion. Can someone explain how the monument violates the letter of the law quoted? Are we saying that it constitutes “establishment of religion by law”? I can’t see how it does.
I was surprised to learn that there was actually an issue about the posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses. The Third Circuit has recently overturned a circuit court’s order that a Pennsylvania courthouse remove a plaque bearing the Ten Commandments from the courthouse. They had found that the plaque was not an Establishment, mainly because it was donated 1920’s and had historical value, it was not prominately displayed, and is hard to read by the public.
That being said, I would be simply amazed if SCOTUS did not either deny cert. or affirm the appellate court’s decision. Any of the arguments that have been successful for the display of the Ten Commandments are completely lacking in Moore’s case, and I’d be shocked if any court outside of Alabama would find that kind of display to not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Well, as I already pointed out, having an official proclamation in the middle of a courthouse–for all the jurors to contemplate each day they come to the courthouse to hear evidence or deliberate on a verdict–that one particular god is the One True God, to be worshipped in a particular time and manner, might conceivably affect “the civil rights, privileges, and capacities” of a citizen with different “religious principles” who is a defendant in a criminal case or a party to a lawsuit in that courthouse.
Appropriations bills and state budgets are law; they must be passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor. Government agency regulations, judical decrees, court opinions, etc., promulgated in accordance with constitution or statute, are deemed law.
Something I happened to come across in my work just now is a New York State Department of State policy that whenever there is an exchange of lands along the coast between the state or a political subdivision and a private owner, the state (or its county or town or city or village) is obliged to maintain public access to the shore as a part of the deal. This is a policy based on a (DEC) regulation based on a statute based on a provision of the state constitution about parklands. It’s binding because it’s authorized, step by step.
It’s much like the “pledge of allegiance” case that came up a while ago. People are fond of saying that the Ninth Circuit Court declared the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional. It specifically declined to do any such thing. What it did do was to declare unconstitutional a board of education rule that mandating the pledge be said in a public school.
If the store or the church next to the courthouse wants to display the Ten Commandments, more power to them! I rather hope they do. The question is whether the judge can use taxpayer money to erect them at state expense. And the answer is no, it’s a violation of the citizens’ rights not to have a religiously-based monument paid for with their tax dollars.
If Alabama decided to give small areas of public land not otherwise needed in every courthouse square to the Alabama Foundation for Public Display of the Ten Commandments, and extend a tax credit for every donation to that foundation, that would be entirely legal. For them to directly spend tax dollars on such a display, is not.
Polycarp, given what you’ve said…if a private citizen were to donate a 5301 lb “replica” of the Ten Commandments and said that this was to be placed in the rotunda of the state of ____'s Capitol building and the cost of the placement and upkeep would be entirely absorbed by said individual, that would be ok?
Let me know if I’m misconstruing what you’re saying, but from what I’ve read, it’s fine as long as the government doesn’t pay for it.
Perhaps not… In San Diego, CA, the City Council tried that approach, in order to maintain a cross in the middle of a public park. The courts have ruled that the sole intent of the transfer of property was to preserve the cross. A similar transfer would never have been contemplated in any other circumstances, and thus the religious purpose of the action was manifest. That, in turn, makes it illegal.
Another approach, which seems to work, is to create an inspirational area in which many codes of laws are depicted (comparable to the friezes with many different lawgivers on the walls of the Supreme Court.) The secular educational value of such a display could be argued to outweigh any specific religious message.
But, of course, the judge in Alabama doesn’t want to promote secular education; he wants to proselytize his specific religious sect.
I think a few posts have addressed this sufficiently. But, I do want to point out the First Amendent language:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
I think the word “respecting” is there for a reason lest only a formal establishment of state religion be construed as violation of the intent.
I might be hesitant about lots of things. That doesn’t make then unconstitutional. Lots of unfair, unpleasant, unjust things are done by govenment. I oppose them, but I’d rather use the democratic process to try to fix them then to have the SC usurp the power to re-write the Constitution.
MEBuckner, I suppose it is “a lot easier to stick with the principle of the separation of church and state than to try and come up with some sort of formula for what number of religious monuments in government buildings ‘adds up to a full state religion’.” I wouldn’t oppose a Constitutional Amendment specifically calling for “Separation of church and state.” However, it’s an abuse of power for the courts to choose to modify the Constitution without an amendment.
I would also quibble with your phrase “stick with.” The move to treat the 1st Amendment as if it called of separation of church and state is only a few decades old. The county managed OK for 150 years with the original interpretation.
Skammer, your point has a parallel in an SC decision of around ten years ago regarding Punitive Damages. The SC ruled that those hit with punitive damages are not entitled to the Constitutional protections against punishments specified by law. E.g., punitive damages can be assessed on an ex post facto basis, and they often are. It’s common for punitive damages to be an arbitrary fine as punishment for an action that was not prohibited at the time it was committed.
However, the current SC wanted to maintain punitive damages, so they found an excuse to do so. They want to eradicate religion from government, and I don’t see how they can be stopped.
Well, this dweeb may be appealing to the Supreme Court, but he’s not very appealing to ME! (Someone had to do it!)
It just goes to show…you don’t have to be smart to get a big job in government. Why must the christians in these incidents be such motherin’ CROSS WAVERS??? What is their obsession with broadcasting their religion and forcing it down everyone else’s throats? MUST THEY parade it around like a fucking BANNER? Why don’t they just join a club or start selling Amway or something…
Doesn’t mean that it was the right interpretation. After all, the move to treat the 14th Amendment as if it forbade segregated schools and public facilities is only a few decades old as well, and the country managed OK for 100 years with the original interpretation. Unless you were not white, that is. Just as the country survived just fine with the “original” interpretation of the 1st Amendment. Unless you were a religious minority, that is.
I also wonder what would qualify as a First Amendment violation in decemberland (which, as a non-JudeoChristian, I’m glad not to live in). Required reading of the Lord’s Prayer before court is in session? (Which is next on Moore’s list, I’m sure). Crucifixes in City Hall? Or is it only a state proclamation that henceforth Alabama is a Pentecostal Republic the only time the line is crossed?
Reading the First Amendment to only forbid the literal establishment of a state religion virtually makes it meaningless, because all it then says is that you can have government action that looks like a state religion, sounds like a state religion, smells like a state religion, but are OK so long as they aren’t actually called a state religion. If posting the overtly religious Ten Commandments prominently in a public building is not a violation because it’s not an “establishment” of a religion, why would a different rule apply for putting a big crucifix there? After all, it’s not “establishing” a religion either.
That’s the kind of thing I was looking for; I can see how spending tax money on the display might be at odds with the AL constitution. But according to Hamlet, tax money wasn’t involved.
litost, the First Amendment refers to Congress making no such law. I was specifically referring to the Alabama constitution.
I’m not saying I think the monument belongs there – I think that, by creating such fervent opposition, it does more harm than good. But I haven’t seen a convincing legal argument yet.
I find it hard to believe that it would have such an effect – I mean, jurors who would base their decisions on the Ten Commandments probably know them before entering the courthouse. I think you’ve provided the best answer to my question so far, though.
This could make for some interesting court battles on the grounds that the property where the courthouse is located has become a place of worship and no one, including those charged with crimes, could be forced to go there.
It will unquestionably become a place of worship if this happens:
Also, is Alabama really ready for Satanists to collect monies and build a large monument honoring what they believe? Fair is fair. It is still government property and belongs to all of the people, not just those of the Judeo-Christian traditions.
Frankly, I think this judge is breaking the Commandment about graven images. That has become more important to him than the teachings themselves.