This Just In: Roy "10 Commandments" Moore Removed

Great Debates
41

**

I think you’re missing my point.

Let’s use the example of Jim Crow laws. I think we’d all agree that they were morally reprehensible. But had I lived during that time, and violated one of those laws, my moral objection to them would not have saved me from punishment.

The courts may look at my character, my history, or the circumstances surrounding my case, but that comes at the *sentencing * phase. It has no bearing on my guilt or innocence. To excuse a defendant who is technically guilty for moral or philisophical reasons is called jury nullification.

There is little to no room in our system for flexibility in enforcing the law. The question for a jury is “Did he do it?” not “Were his actions wrong?” The jury does not decide whether the law is just. They are asked to decide if it was broken.

And yes, the law is black and white. It’s a very technical process. I’m sure with a quick search on these very boards you can find dozens of threads about clearly-guilty defendants walking away on a “technicality” or a seemingly unfair prosecution based on the same. Heck, to get specific, “Zero Tolerance” rules often irritate us with their apparently over-strict, but technically correct, application.

In my opinion, the law should be black and white. All persons should be held up to the same standards, and judged equally according to the letter of the law. If each judge selectively decides not to enforce laws that they find personally objectionable, the whole legal system is tossed into turmoil.

Of course, judges do have some flexibility when it comes to interpretation, but not much. A judge cannot, for example, declare that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment when the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not. Nor is an individual judge’s opinion set in stone. It can be appealed and overturned by a higher court. The judge then must obey the higher court’s ruling, despite his personal feelings.

Call me a purist, but I feel that judges must set aside their personal beliefs in the interest of impartiality. They take an oath to uphold the law, regardless of how they feel on certain matters. Judge Moore broke that oath, and should be punished accordingly.

42

Thank goodness that it can, and that is exactly what happened here. Rudy Moore decided that being elected to be a civil authority somehow conferred upon him some sort of authority to make pronouncements on religion for the rest of the people. That is, instead of understanding that we have a government that is given LIMITED authority, he assumed that his office gave him authority over all matters, including religious ones. That’s greviously arrogant: in the US, the free exercise of religion is a right left to people to exercise. If Moore wants to praise the Lord, nothing is stopping him. But the office of a judge, the office he is supposed to represent, isn’t supposed to do that because it isn’t supposed to have the POWER to do that. That power is reserved for the people: none of it is given over to the civil authorities.

43

It wasn’t a federal court it was state court but the answer to your question is that the Establishmnet clause of the First Amendment prohibits any state endorsement of religion. The monument represented such an endorsement. End of story.

44

[Nelson Muntz]HAW, haw![/Nelson Muntz]

45

Moore, acting in an official capacity attempted to endorse/promote a specific religion as a state religion. Period.

He did not have a monument depicting Muslim laws, Pagan doctrines, and Secular quotes alongside the christian ones and the comments he made throughout this ordeal made it clear that he claimed to be acting on a “higher authority” than the federal courts/State judiciary.

Can any of Moore’s supporters here imagine being, say, an atheist who had to appear before Judge Moore knowing his views and his behaviors? The second you realized he was somehow made aware of your atheism, you would have to wonder how fair a trial you would recieve and in any case if you were found guilty of something you would be virtually garuanteed of an appeal(as would anyone passing through his court claiming a non-christian beleif system).

What a mess.

These christians in AL. that support Moore are bigots. They are imbecilles and they are thankfully a dieing breed(or is that “inbreed”?).

46

He’s on television right now, speaking about the separation of church and state, something I don’t think he fully grasps. After I opened this thread the first time and read the article in the morning paper, something occurred to me.

This case is all about an ostensibly Christian judge’s desire to bring Christian standards into the courtroom, yet I am not aware of Christ being mentioned by Moore. I also find it curious that he posted the 10 Commandments, yet not Christ’s commentary on the 10 Commandments. He may have read the Pentateuch, but has he read the Gospels? If so, did he read what Christ had to say about the people who pray loud and long on street corners? Then again, he may have read it, got it, and decided to go for all he could get here.

Vanilla, love, in any movement, there are people at the extremes. Just as there are gay people who have no use for straight people, feminists who have no use for men, and Atheists who have no use for the religious, so there are Christians who certainly give the impression that they think non-Christians have no morals, therefore they should have no rights. They’re the people who I think people around here are calling “Christian Supremacists” and, having read some people opine that the United States should become an explicitly Christian nation, I think that’s justified.

How could a person who would not swear an oath on the Bible because it is not a sacred text to him or her reasonably expect justice in Judge Moore’s courtroom, especially in light of reasonable events? For that matter, as a liberal Christian, if I were involved in a case which touched on my moral character, I’d be concerned the judge would consider it tainted – after all, I’m on public record as having willfully enjoyed hanging out in a hot tub with a bunch of naked pagans, and I intend to do so every chance I get along as certain naked Wiccans are involved.

I’ll save my comments about freethinkers who believe the founders of the US intended it to be a Christian nation for another post.

CJ

47

** Diogenes** :It wasn’t a federal court it was state court but the answer to your question is that the Establishmnet clause of the First Amendment prohibits any state endorsement of religion. The monument represented such an endorsement. End of story.

_ :)_ Uh** Diogenes**, go a bit slower. It was Eleventh Court U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson who ruled that the two-ton granite sculpture of the Ten Commandments must be removed from the state Judicial Building in Montgomery.

And no one I know (including the US Supreme Court) contends that the Establishment Clause is the base clause for removing the monument. ( The clause restricts Congress.)

And although I would expect someone with the presumption to call himself “Diogenes” to be a bit haughty, it is life, and not the second comming of Diogenes, that will decide when it is time for the “End of Story”.

** David Simmons** :Way back you posted this: “We in Alabama dare defend our rights.”
I don’t know how you presume to speak for all citizens of Alabama… Your arguments tend to become tiresome.

_______ WE DARE DEFEND OUR RIGHTS____
__Alabama State Motto

You know David, your ignorance of Alabama is trying.

48

What “rights” do the Bammies “defend”?

“Segregation now, segregation forevah!”

49
  1. Moore knew this would happen when he dumped his granite paperweight in front of his courthouse.
  2. Moore has a master plan to run for office.
  3. Removal from the bench makes him the martyr he sought to become, and makes him a hero among the portion of the population that doesn’t see the obvious manipulation.

There are two parts to freedom of religion: 1) Free exercise 2) Establishment Clause. This violated the Establishment Clause.

He could have dropped his monument in a park, on private property, or on church property (no shortage of that in AL). He chose his courthouse to make a point, go down in flames, and “resurrect” himself as a “champion” of the Founding Fathers and Jesus, or something.

50

Christ, is this ever ignorant. Have you read the 11th Circuit’s opinion (warning: PDF)? On pp. 26-28, the court deals precisely with this objection. The Establishment Clause is the basis for requiring the removal of the monument, and the court cites to several Supreme Court cases holding precisely that.

Look, I’m a pretty conservative guy, and I think that much of the Supreme Court’s church-state jurisprudence is misguided. But a judge is oath-bound to respect the decisions of higher courts, even if he disagrees with them – hell, especially if he disagrees with them. He deserved to be tossed out on his ear.

If it were up to me, Alabama would take his law license, too.

51

Has anyone heard of any stories of people (maybe the SPLC) looking into cases involving non-christians that were tried in front of Judge Moore? I find it hard to believe that any non-christian could recieve a fair trial in his courtroom, given his utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law, and his belief in his own moral superiority to all others. It seems to me that a large number of mistrials may be about to be declared.

Of course, he is probably just using this as a springboard to higher elected office. This putz has been riding the 10 commandments pony for quite a while now, and it has served him well. No doubt he’ll contintue.

52

Your logic stuns me. And from what I read from other posters, it stuns them too.

And, ah yes, I remember now. You’re the poster who loves to use lots of color. I don’t see how anyone can refute a varigated post.

53

How would he have known? If the defendant isn’t wearing a burka, or isn’t dressed as an Orthodox Jew, it might be hard to tell what religion they are.

Few criminal defendants are likely to announce such a thing in the courtroom, after all.

54

Would a Muslim swear on the Bible? Or anyone but a Christian or Jew? And isn’t there an Orthodox Jewish prohibition against taking oaths?

55

Ah! Good point. Didn’t think of that.

Apparently, his religion has been affecting his rulings. I just stopped over at the Pit thread on this very subject. Over there, they’re saying that Moore removed a child from the custody of his lesbian mother, and gave it to the abusive father, because homosexuality is “evil.”

56

There are a thousand and one situations I can imagine right off the top of my head to refute this. Say for arguments sake that the president of the AL chapter of American Atheists had been engaged in some high profile activism for several months before suddenly finding himself charged with whatever and before Judge Moore.
Use your imagination a little and you can come up with a lot more yourself (I hope!).

57

*free·think·er n.

One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.*
To disagree with the majority solely because as they are the majority IS a form of dogma and would be as asinine as group-think. As the saying goes, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while; Alabama found theirs yesterday (though finding a nut in Alabama churches isn’t exactly challenging).

Milum: I’m curious- were you incensed when Guy Hunt was removed as governor, being as he was “properly elected by the people”?

58

There are some good debaters in here. May I suggest you use your skills in another thread where the other side has the remotest chance of having a good point?

59

I’m Christian and I refuse to swear to something on a bible or anything else for that matter in court or anywhere else.

60

And what bothers me about this is that it colors the perception of you in the eyes of fundie nuts who may be on the jury.