It is entirely possible to take exception with someone’s principles or logic without denouncing them as “so stupid.”
Sure, but it is also entirely possibly to rightly denounce someone as stupid. People can be stupid, ya know (please spare me the “you prove that they can” comments, as those are simply too easy).
Just because there is a National Church of Christ doesn’t mean the government would be messing with religion. Few people consider finalcial support to be “messing with.” Consider it a new branch of government. There would be separation of powers. Congress could not tell the Church what to do, and the Church couldn’t … um… well, I guess it could do whatever it wants. It would be totally independent of all oversight (except from god, of course).
Of course, in reality, once the government starts handing you money, it does control you, so it would control the National Church. Few people understand this fact better than conservatives, but these are the same people who would love a national Tithe to support the national CoC. Should it be Called the American Church of Christ or the Church of America? Both have a nice ring to it. Jerry Falwell for president!
No, he’s not. At least in his view. God didn’t say anything of the sort, but Alabama did. The preamble to the Alabama Constitution:
(emphasis mine)
Judge Moore’s position is that as a judge he is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the State of Alabama. The same Constitution that, by inclusion, recognizes and implores favor from one “Almighty God”. Not Allah, not Yaweh, not The Pink Unicorn, but God. The Constitution does not specify the Christian God, though the fact it was authored in 1865 in the southern US could lead one to the assumption that the Christian God was implied. Islam wasn’t exactly big in the reconstruction South and Judaism didn’t have near enough political clout (was that understated enough?). So, in his view, what should he support? The state Constitution that he is sworn to uphold or the ruling of a Federal Judge? Can the Federal Government “overrule” a state’s legally ratified Constitution? I dunno. Good questions if you ask me.
This is a watershed debate on many levels. I’m extremely interested in how it plays out. Personally, I’m all for keeping government out of my religion. All religion. Way out. Totally out. I also understand that one cannot keep religion - any religion - out of government. Religion is something that the vast majority of Americans are either for or against on a “core of their existance” level. One can’t expect the judgement of government officials (or anyone else, FTM) not to be colored by what they believe at their core. A delicate balancing act? Not normally. Just keep government out of religion. The State of Alabama, however, did not do that. They put God right there in their Constitution. Now the debate is over who, if anyone, should take Him out.
The US Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise therof, or abridging the freedom of speech…”. How, then, can it be illegal to put anyone’s religious symbols on any public grounds? Constitutionally it can’t be. How, then, do we handle this issue? That is the question we must now answer as a country. Any answer will be far reaching in it’s consequences. Hey, nobody said our system of government would be easy.
I am no Constitutional expert, but I heard Neal Boortz on his radio show arguing that by the 14th Amendment, the states cannot deprive citizens of their rights granted under the US Constitution. Therefore, if the US Constitution provides a separation of church and state, then Alabama cannot overrule that in the state constitution. Hence the wording about God in the Alabama Constitution is unconstitutional and there is no conflict.
It’s not so easy, amarone. The US Constitution does NOT provide for separation of church and state. As quoted in my last post, The US Constitution provides only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech…”. Even if applied to Alabama’s Constitution this clause would not likely be applicable in the case at hand. Alabama made no law regarding religion, though they did acknowledge the existence of an Almighty God. So does the US Congress when they open daily with prayer. Judge Moore neither made nor interpreted a law when he installed the 10 commandments in the rotunda. It’s a sticky issue, and one that I’m not sure can be reconciled on constitutional grounds.
For instance, can I stand in the Capitol rotunda and recite the 10 commandments? Yes. Can I stand in the Capitol rotunda and recite Islamic law? Yes. But it’s unconstitutional to put up a plaque of the same recitations? I wish it were more cut and dry, but it’s not.
Big difference. If you were to recite the ten commandments, or Islamic law, or portions of the Book of Mormon, or whatever, well, you would be doing it. If the government (state, local or federal) were to post such a plaque, it might well be construed to be the government establishing, or at least favoring, a religion.
That is why I put “if the US Constitution…”. There is obviously disagreement as to whether it does or not, and I was not wanting to get into that aspect of the argument.
It is true that the federal Constitution trumps a state constitution when the two conflict; Article VI declares the federal Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, “…and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
I’m not so sure I agree that this makes the mere wording in the Alabama constitution defective. Judge Moore has gone beyond anything mentioned in the Alabama constitution, and his claim that he is merely upholding the Alabama constitution is, at best, highly suspect.
I do. Even if Moore were correct about the Alabama Constitution, he is legally bound to uphold the federal court order.
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.”
Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the position of the federal judge who issued the court order, it’s settled law that the U.S. District Judge is the authority on a disputed area of the U.S. Constitution, and Moore is not. He has no authority as a state official to violate a federal court order.
Moore was completely willing to recognize the primacy of the U.S. District Court, The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court as long as they agreed with him; as soon as the rulings didn’t go his way he started crying “states rights” and “civil disobediance”, even though he is simultaneously appealing the decisions to those same U.S. Courts he says have no authority over him and whom he will not obey if they order the monument’s removal. If he’s just going to do whatever he wants anyway, why appeal? His disrespect for the rule of law is shameful in a jurist.
Yeah, it (the first amendment to the Constitution) does. While exact phrase is not used in the constitution, the constitution says religion and government are to be kept separate. That’s what it means, and the only debate about that is among religious people who don’t like the idea of government and church not being one and the same.
It’s not about spoken vs. carved. It’s about government official and government property. You as a private citizen can go stand there and say whatever you want, but if you were an elected official you could not. It’s very simple. Has nothing to do with the format. It is cut and dry, but many people still stupidly believe it is okay for their religious symbols to be displayed on government property. Go stick it on your front law. Put it in your house or your church, but keep it off of the people’s property. There’s a huge difference between private property and public property, but unfortunately sticking jesus figures on your own private property doesn’t give one a religious hard-on. Only sticking it (no pun intended) on public property makes religious zealots horny. Why is that? Because it’s the forbidden fruit. Temptation of the devil. Something like that.
I can answer the OP in just two words. (Matter of fact, could have done it before I read it, just based on the title of the thread.)
It’s called Sturgeon’s Law. That is, to paraphrase Mr. Sturgeon, 90% of Christians are stupid because 90% of people are stupid.
Personally, as a Christian (and I hope, one of the 10%:)), I find the whole debate horribly embarrassing. Unconstitutional or not (and I rather suspect it is), a public display of the Ten Commandments doesn’t really accomplish any good purpose, spiritually speaking, and fighting for it this way does do some harm, by perpetrating the image of Christianity that’s held by people like Kalt. I wish “my side” was better at picking our battles.
I can validate his premise, Zoe – I’ve never had a problem applying reason and a sense of fair play in company with my religious faith, and defending the right of someone to disagree with me about matters religious.
But as a result of this very thread and the OP’s generalized insult, I felt that capacity slipping!
Bricker: I asked 344 random people if they are religious. if they said no, i didn’t go to question 2. if they said yes, i asked if they would approve of a plaque, statue, or other physical symbolic display representing their religion prominently displayed on US government property (yes or no). I then asked “name any religion that 1) is not yours, and 2) that you know little about?” I then took that answer and asked whether they would approve of a marble statue representing solely that religion prominently displayed at the city hall of their town (yes or no).
So if this had been posted in GD, it would be OK to disagree, but since it was posted in MSPIMS we have to accept it a face value? :eek: [sup]I didn’t know that![/sup]
I’m amazed that I’m in favor of that idea. Just this week I was complaining about the centralized hierarchy of my denomination. Of course, I’m a 100% complete moron, so who knows what lunacy I’ll be spilling forth from day to day.
