The word “congress” is also there for a reason, but that aside…
… the faux “concern” for the Constitution’s integrity over the placement of the Ten Commandments is, in reality, a not so thinly veiled attack on religion as a whole, and Christianity in particular.
If the integrity of the Constitution and the unaruthorized expendature of tax-collars are the true motivations behind those who protest the loudest against the placement of the Ten Commandments in a state building, then why are they so silent when it comes to the un-Constitutional pouring of tax-dollars down various third-world dung-hills?
Can anyone show where the Constitution authorizes the FedGov to allocate foreign-aid expenditures?
I don’t think it’s a faux concern. I think that there’s a difference between a state sponsored statue in a place where religion shouldn’t be a direct factor. Especially since the judge in question has no apparent qualms about proselytizing, it makes one wonder how blind the justice would be.
And what about Scarecrow’s brain? Sounds like topics for another thread or two, but not this one.
Let the atheists have their way, take down the plaque, burn the bibles and the churches, whatever makes them happy. Separation of church and state is not the issue here.
Control is the issue.
It all doesn’t matter, God is Love, He is compassionate, and all will pass into His presence.
Yes, but when it deals with the OP, not when it deals with 3rd world countries, abortion, copywrite laws, or yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
And finally, I agree with Lekatt , welcome to the darkside, buddy.
That was me. Sorry. Rather than wearing my First Amendment T-Shirt, I wore my Burn the Bibles and Churchs and Bring Back the Lions for the Christians T-Shirt. Poor planning on my part.
Why all the concern regarding the establishment of religon, when men have to pay child support, but women, thanks to a Supreme Court who bought into the feminist agenda, can have an abortion at any time. What about that one, stpauler? Huh?
It’s easy to be sanguine about hypotheticals on this board. I wonder if you’d be so calm as a criminal case defendant before such a judge.
I don’t think the Court has “usurped” anything.
Even when Marbury v. Madison was decided I’m not aware that there was any big hulabaloo about the Court ruling on constitutionality, even from Thomas Jefferson who was really pissed at the courts and judges in general at the time. Legal historians are free to set me straight if I am wrong.
Believe it or not, the US is made up more than just christians and Atheists. You will find every other religion in the US, along with a large number of christians, opposed to having the commandments in the courtroom.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 provides that all those born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, and no state can make any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. One of those privileges is freedom from the types of laws prohibited by the First Amendment.
**
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. It is well within Congressional discretion to decide that aid to foreign countries serves the common defense and general welfare of the United States because, as we have learned so clearly over the last few years, things that happen in other countries can affect the security and welfare of the United States.
Then why do you think that so many Christians wanting to have the monument removed? I am one. And there are others here that have indicated they are Christian in both words and deed.
Also, do you consider the Ten Commandments to be exclusively Christian?
Finally, how can you be certain of what is in the mind of other human beings? Aren’t they the authorities on their motives?
And the Establishment Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Even Judge Moore decided not to argue this point. And, believe me, he argued some pretty damned stupid points in his appeal. You might be surprised to learn that there have been cases about the First Amendment before. Supreme Court decisions in those cases are precedent.
But I think we’re getting way off track with discussions of public expenditures. The use of public money is not the issue. Moore’s position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is the issue.
As Chief Justice, Moore is in charge of what is displayed in the rotunda. He placed the Ten Commandments there and refused requests by others to place historically significant displays (e.g., the text of the “I Have a Dream” speech) in the rotunda because they would “diminish the very purpose of the Ten Commandments monument” – that is, to acknowledge God’s law and God’s sovereignty, according to Moore’s testimony.
The monument was put there with the primary purpose of advancing a religious viewpoint. And the monument cannot be avoided by people entering the courthouse.
But the bigger issue, in my opinion, is his refusal to abide by the court’s order. It’s inexcusable for a judge, who has sworn to uphold the law, to refuse to follow a court’s order. He might be mad that the courts didn’t buy his arguments, but he should respect the rule of law.
Maybe when a muslim judge has a “Five Pillars of Islam” monument installed, conservatives like december will understand the discomfort that some of us would feel at seeing the Ten Commands in a State sponsored building, and why we have the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
There is a pretty good discussion of this issue and case going on over in the Pit. It is a fairly elevated discussion by the standards of that forum, in some respects more rational and level headed that what I am reading here—which to some limited extent involves some of the habitual blow-hards proclaiming the infallibility of their own personal judgments on matters they know precious little about.
In any event the Pit thread provides a convoluted link to the 11th Circuit decision we seem to be using as the launch platform for this debate. Here is another one that may be more direct. Note that this is a PDF file Some of us may be well advised to read the case before you go any farther with this discussion. The decision deals with the “make no law” argument, the “religious purpose” argument, and the “secular purpose” argument and pretty well demonstrates that the Chief Justice of Alabama is a demagogue and that his privately funded monument to the Sovereignty of God is an outrage. Read the case, only 50 pages, and learn something.
The Judge is right about the law and constitution being based on spiritual principles. Why would anyone object to the principles of honesty, integrity, and respect for others as taught by anyone, or any religion. What is there to feel uncomfortable about. This is not an issue of separation, just another nit-picking bash by the atheists.
Lekatt , you were able to find out the religion(s) or lack there of of the 3 people that have started this lawsuit? Please cite this as I haven’t been able to find it.
Thanks!!!