Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

[renata]

Just caught a snippet of the press conference.

He refused to remove the monument, and is appealing to the Supreme Court. His main point seemed to be that he was entrusted to protect the laws of Alabama, that federal courts undermine the foundation of the country, and that as God was the basis for laws, he will not remove the 10 commandments.

Waiting for a news story and a transcript.


Edited to add the story

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=3&u=/ap/20030814/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments

The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court said Thursday he will not remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building, defying a federal court order to remove the granite monument.

"I have no intention of removing the monument," Roy Moore said at a news conference. "This I cannot and will not do."

Moore said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to stop any removal.

His decision came six days before the Aug. 20 deadline for the 5,300-pound monument to be removed from the building's rotunda, where it is in clear sight of visitors coming in the main entrance.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, had said fines of about $5,000 a day would have been imposed against the state if the monument were not removed.

......

He said the "acknowledgment of almighty god" is the foundation of the country and its legal system and referred to Alabama's motto: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

Moore said he would file his first pleading with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

When elected chief justice three years ago, Moore was already known nationally as the "Ten Commandments judge" for his legal fight to keep a hand-carved Ten Commandments display posted on the wall of his courtroom in Gadsden, where he was a circuit judge.

In office as chief justice, he had the gray granite Ten Commandments monument moved into the judicial building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001, without announcing the event to the public or to the news media. He did inform a Christian television ministry, which filmed the installation and used it on the TV program.
.....

Moore said he had the monument installed because he believes the Ten Commandments to be the moral foundation of American law.

....

Moore had testified during the trial that one reason he became interested in the public display of the Ten Commandments was because of what he called a decline of moral values in America, which he blamed on federal court rulings concerning prayer in school and other issues.

He also contended the federal judge had no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.

Moore appealed Thompson's order, but a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against Moore, saying in part that his argument echoed state's rights claims of segregationists such as Alabama's Gov. George C. Wallace in the 1960s.


.....

[Tmy]

Cheese n crackers!!! The whole reason we have such a big controling Fed Govt is because of the actions of these loser hick states. Somebody has to regulate Cletus n' company cause they cant control themsleves.

[Upchurch]

I don't understand how a man could get to be a Chief Justice and have such little understanding of what this country is all about.

[Marc]

Originally posted by renata
Just caught a snippet of the press conference.

He refused to remove the monument, and is appealing to the Supreme Court. His main point seemed to be that he was entrusted to protect the laws of Alabama, that federal courts undermine the foundation of the country, and that as God was the basis for laws, he will not remove the 10 commandments.

Waiting for a news story and a transcript.

Pretty much as everyone expected.

So federal courts, in upholding federal law, are undermining the foundation of the country? :rolleyes:

One of his fellow judges had a very good question for him
That was the question on the mind of some of the state's trial court judges at a recent meeting in Gulf Shores. "If you refuse to obey a lawful court order, what do you expect will happen to those orders we issue," one judge asked Moore. "Well, this is different," Moore is said to have answered.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't understand how a man could get to be a Chief Justice and have such little understanding of what this country is all about.

See what happens when you have affirmative action! You get unqualified people placed in these jobs.

[Richard G]

I applaud the man. The Federal court order is an unlawfull one. Alabamas Constitution explicitly acknowledges God, and so does the U.S. Constitution. You may not like that, but its a fact.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Richard G
I applaud the man. The Federal court order is an unlawfull one. Alabamas Constitution explicitly acknowledges God, and so does the U.S. Constitution. You may not like that, but its a fact. ???

The only reference to God in the U.S. Constitution is the phrase "In the year of our lord", which was just their way of saying "AD". The Constitution doesn't acknowledge God.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Richard G
Alabamas Constitution explicitly acknowledges God, and so does the U.S. Constitution. You may not like that, but its a fact.

Where in the US constitution does it acknowledge God?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Richard G
I applaud the man. The Federal court order is an unlawfull one. I'm sorry to double post this one, but this is bugging me. What law did the federal court break with this order?

I don't know about Alabama, but one of the main founding principles of this country was that religion cannot be mandated by the state. at all. ever. The founding fathers put that in the first clause of the first ammendment to protect the country from this very kind of thing.

[arcticpenguin]

USA/Today Op/Ed: Alabama monument mocks Supreme Court's authority (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=1&u=/usatoday/20030814/cm_usatoday/11589548)

It's nice to see a reasonable point of view in the mainstream press.

[Tmy]

Why is a Fed judge making decisons about a new courthouses decore??? More examples of silly Fed spending. How much did this thing cost.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Richard G
I applaud the man. The Federal court order is an unlawfull one. Alabamas Constitution explicitly acknowledges God, and so does the U.S. Constitution. You may not like that, but its a fact.
Richard G is correct that the most recent Alabama Constitution (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/Constitution1901_toc.htm) (written in 1901) does in fact mention God in the preamble.
We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:
No mention of the Christian God. It could be any god. In fact, in section 3 it specifically states:
That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
It seems that the original framers quite specifically wanted to guard against actions such as Judge Moore's

Of course, in addition to being 102 years old, the Alabama Constitution has more than 700 amendments. That anyone can claim to glean a clear purpose out of such a document is beyond belief.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is a Fed judge making decisons about a new courthouses decore??? More examples of silly Fed spending. How much did this thing cost. It wasn't about court house decore, it's about establishment of state-backed religion.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is a Fed judge making decisons about a new courthouses decore??? More examples of silly Fed spending. How much did this thing cost.

The monument? I'll guess it cost quite a bit.

[pgwenthold]

I just don't understand how anyone can espouse the "ten commandments" and not see that they are establishing a preferred religion. Who's version will you chose, protestant or catholic? Since they are different, chosing one over the other indicates a preference for one religion over another. It is trivially so.

A lot of times people defend the government support of religious stuff on the grounds that the constitution only forbids favoring one religion over another, as opposed to religion in general. Although this is not really a justified claim (the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law establishing religion ..." not "establishing _a_ religion..."), this doesn't even survive that test. This is obviously a case of the government chosing one religion over another.

FWIW, if anything the Catholic version of the TC, which skips the commandment against worshiping graven images, is more consistent with our legal system than the protestant version. I mean, the US? Outlawing the worship of idols? Yeah, right. We friggin _live_ for idol worship here! Cars, money, Britney Spears...

[blackadder65738]

I believe Moore bought the monument himself.

He was elected to his office, despite being unqualified according to most legal authorities. Wasn't there a huge thread on this already, or are we starting again so it doesn't get crapped all over by Jedi Knight?

[Richard G]

The Founding Fathers intent was to prohibit the goverment from controlling, or preventing the people from excercising religion. The opposite is occuring today, with courts trying to squash, and ban any display of faith or religious belief.

The Declaration of Independence, the foundation of the Constitution, clearly mentions God.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Amendment 1 of the Constitution also says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Excercising religion, or the free expression of it cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Goverment.

The people of Alabama have made it clear in their states constitution that they recognize, and affirm God. That cannot be denied, infringed, or trampled on by the Federal Goverment. It is against the Federal, and State constitution to do so.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Richard G
The Founding Fathers intent was to prohibit the goverment from controlling, or preventing the people from excercising religion. The opposite is occuring today, with courts trying to squash, and ban any display of faith or religious belief.

Bullcookies. They are only trying to ban those displays which entangle religion with the government. You, and Judge Moore, are free to pray in your own homes at any time. Also please tell me if I would be free to put up religious displays of my choosing in the Alabama supreme court building.

The Declaration of Independence, the foundation of the Constitution, clearly mentions God.


Nature and nature's God
Unusual wording, what? You really should retract your claim until you know something about Thomas Jefferson's brand of Deism.

Also, why do you consider the Declaration of Independence to be "the foundation of the Constitution"?


Amendment 1 of the Constitution also says

Excercising religion, or the free expression of it cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Goverment.

The people of Alabama have made it clear in their states constitution that they recognize, and affirm God. That cannot be denied, infringed, or trampled on by the Federal Goverment. It is against the Federal, and State constitution to do so.
Your interpretation is at odds with 200+ years of American history and judicial rulings.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Richard G
Excercising religion, or the free expression of it cannot be infringed upon by the Federal Goverment.

I would agree with you that is the meaning of the actual text, but it is at odds which the way the first amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court for decades.

The people of Alabama have made it clear in their states constitution that they recognize, and affirm God. That cannot be denied, infringed, or trampled on by the Federal Goverment. It is against the Federal, and State constitution to do so.

Here's where you're wrong. The Alabama state constitution forbids things like the monument. Even ignoring the first amendment, take a look:

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

The monument is clearly in violation of the "no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect" and "no one shall be compelled...to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship" clauses.

Jeremy

[Tricky]

Apologies for reposting an old post, but I made a few points here that I don't want to have to rewrite.

It is obvious to anyone that studies The Bible that the Ten Commandments are not the basis of our legal system at all. In fact, the ones Judge Moore posted are not even the Ten Commandments. Look it up in the bible. Here's a summary I made earlier.
*********
Many Chrstians are unaware that the famous Ten Commandments they see on leaflets all the time are not the ones on the tablets. Most people refer to this little speech by God in Exodus 20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) as the "Ten Commandments"
1 And God spoke all these words:

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [1] me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 "You shall not murder.
14 "You shall not commit adultery.
15 "You shall not steal.
16 "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

In actuality the Ten Commandments were the covenant with Israel given to Moses on the mountain as described in Exodus 34:28 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+34&language=english&version=NIV) That is where the words "Ten Commandments" are actually used, and they are considerably different from the list above. There is some overlap, though, and it still looks like God is only speaking to the Israelites. Does this mean that the "popular" Ten Commandments are only for Jews?

14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD , whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.


Sounds to me like God is forbidding dealings with people of other faiths and also forbidding interreligious marriages. Do you subscribe to this "commandment"?

17 Do not make cast idols.

Never says don't worship them. Just don't make them. (but I'll let this one slide;))

18 "Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.
20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.


Whole lot of rules here. Lots of animal sacrifices. Also, it sounds like only firstborn sons need to be baptized. What did YOU do for the month of Abib this year. I hope you didn't appear in front of God empty-handed.


21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

You are expressly forbidden to work on your garden on the Sabbath.


22 "Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD , the God of Israel.
24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.

Um... I hope you have marked all those things on your calendar.

25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."


Lots of dietary stuff here. It appears that God is yeast intolerant.

27 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."
28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments.


As you can easily see, the popular version of the Ten Commandments is almost unrecognizable from the actual Ten Commandments in The Bible.

**********
So okay, let's look at the popular version of the Ten Commandments.
1. I am the Lord your God,
You Shall have no Other gods Before Me.
But we can have others after? Is he condemning all other religions? Certainly he is at least saying all other religions are wrong. Do you do this?
2. You Shall Not Make for Yourself Graven Images
Probably the most widely disregarded commandment of all time. Go to any church and see if there are any graven images. Is Michaelangelo going to hell for this?
edited to add:
How about graven images of the Ten Commandments? Oops.
3. Do Not Take God's Name in Vain.
Of course, the words "in vain" are somewhat ambiguous. Most people think this means "do not use God's name in a curse", but it could also apply to adding "in the name of God" to anything. Some pretty horrible things have been earnestly asked for "in the name of God".
4. Keep Holy the Lord's Day
Um... which one is the Lord's Day? The one that is named after the pagan Sun god? Or the one that is named for the pagan god Saturn? And what does it mean to keep it "holy". If you stop by a convenience store on the Sabbath, then you are breaking God's commandment. Also working in your garden is forbidden (see above). Truly, only Orthodox Jews are really sincere about this one.

5. Honor your Father and Mother
Always? Even if your father is a pedophile, you shold honor him by succumbing to his wishes? Generally a good rule, but LOTS of exceptions to this.

6. Do Not Kill
Another one that tends to cause lots of arguments. Also, I can't find it anywhere in the bible. Lots of people mean it to say, "thou shalt not murder", but the concept of murder is fuzzy. If you kill a complete stranger simply because your countries are at war, is that not murder? Most Christians give lots of exceptions to this rule.

7. Do Not Commit Adultery
Another one that causes a lot of confusion, technically adultry is "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse. " If unmarried couples do it, it is fornication, which is apparently less bothersome in the eyes of the Lord. Along with the "graven images" one, this ranks very high as one of the commandments most frequently violated by Christians.

8. Do Not Steal
This one I can pretty much agree with wholeheartedly. That's why I get so upset when televangelests wheedle money out of the most vulnerable members of society. In my mind, lying to get money from someone is the same as stealing. Oh yeah. Cheating on your income taxes is stealing too.

9. Do Not Lie
Another usually good one. But do you ever tell a "little white lie" to avoid hurting someone's feelings? ("Your veggie loaf is delicious, Honey"). I feel this one has some very important exceptions.
("So, Yankee dog, do you know the location of your troops?")

10. Don't covet your neighbor's property
(Lots of people just say "wife" but the Bible mentions oxen, donkeys, and yes, even slaves.)
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+20&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)

(Obviously if a manservent "belongs" to your neighbor, then your neighbor is a slaveowner).

[American]

Commandment 11: Don't be a damn putz, judge.

[Lemastre]

The fact that Mr. Moore installed in a public courthouse a two-and-a-half-ton granite block decorated with stuff cribbed from a religious scripture is an event bound to invoke the separation of church and state. I mean, how much more blatant a violation need the guy dream up? The fact that the cribbed material is the "ten commandments" is really irrelevant. It could as well be passages from the Torah or Koran in languages unreadable by any who might see it. I'm sure that if Mr. Moore paid for the thing, he will enjoy having it parked next to the plot he has reserved in the local graveyard. So he hasn't entirely wasted his money.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Richard G


The Declaration of Independence, the foundation of the Constitution, clearly mentions God.



You've not answered the question. Where does the U.S. Constitution acknowledge the existence of God?

[Brown]

I expect this point has been brought up elsewhere, but the references in the Declaration to "Nature's God," "Creator" and "divine Providence" are inconsistent with, and are not an endorsement of, Christianity.

It is always startling to learn how many people think otherwise. Apparently the thinking is that, "If the Declaration refers to any divine power, it MUST be referring to the God that I worship." This notion is seriously flawed.

The very idea of Independence was contrary to established Christian religious doctrine, which held that the king ruled by divine right. The Declaration asserted, however, that it is "the Right of the People to alter or abolish" government, and government is not a matter of divine right at all. The power of government does not come from the Almighty, but comes "from the consent of the governed."

The rights endowed by the Creator -- "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- are not Biblically based.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by renata
He refused to remove the monument, and is appealing to the Supreme Court.

Oh, I hope he does!! The Supreme Court will slap this loser back to his trailer park so fast he won't know what hit him.

[Brown]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Oh, I hope he does!! The Supreme Court will slap this loser back to his trailer park so fast he won't know what hit him. Very likely. But it is also possible that he might get some sympathic words from at least one Justice on the Court...

... whose name shall remain ...

... Scalia.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Brown
Very likely. But it is also possible that he might get some sympathic words from at least one Justice on the Court...

... whose name shall remain ...

... Scalia.

And his butt boy Clarence, who always votes the way daddy does!

[a_unique_person]

Could we just compromise and let him put up five commandments?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Could we just compromise and let him put up five commandments?

If he also drops the "commandment" part, sure.

[Marc]

At least one article pointed out that he could have applied for another stay, so he would not have to move the monument untill his next appeal is settled. But he didn't do that, which means he wants the confrontation between christians and the law. Most likely to help elivate his political/religious career.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Could we just compromise and let him put up five commandments? As someone else on this board mentioned, I don't see why we couldn't compromise and let him put up all ten commandments, as long as those commandments were the Bill of Rights.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron


If he also drops the "commandment" part, sure.
"They're really more like loose guidelines"
--- from Pirates of the Carribean (discussing "The Pirate Code").

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky

"They're really more like loose guidelines"
--- from Pirates of the Carribean (discussing "The Pirate Code").

OK, so we're all agreed, he can put up "the five suggestions" and we'll leave it at that.

[Upchurch]

Okay, so how do the Feds enforce this ruling? Send in the national guard to remove the monument? Throw Moore in jail for being in contempt of court? What are the options?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Okay, so how do the Feds enforce this ruling? Send in the national guard to remove the monument? Throw Moore in jail for being in contempt of court? What are the options?

That's a great question, and one I was wondering about. What happens if everyone remains intractable?

JK would tell us that it would end up in a pitched battle (literally) at the courthouse, but is it more likely that the Feds will just forget the whole thing?

[Crossbow]

In Alabama judges are elected, not appointed (as in some states), therefore, I would say that Moore has created this crisis in order to lay the ground work for future campaigns.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by richardm

That's a great question, and one I was wondering about. What happens if everyone remains intractable?

JK would tell us that it would end up in a pitched battle (literally) at the courthouse, but is it more likely that the Feds will just forget the whole thing?
Advice for those wise enough to heed it: Don't mess with the Feds.

[Ricomise]

Richard G,

You are only paying attention to half of the "religion" portion of the first amendment. There are two clauses, the "establishment clause" and the "free excercise clause." It is the former, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..." that is in play here. As has been pointed out, the Alabama Constitution contains similar language, but even if it didn't, this clause does apply to the State of Alabama through this section of the fourteenth amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

There is a tension between the "free excercise" and "establishment" clauses, but it is fairly clear that a line has been crossed here. As pointed out earlier, Judge Moore can pray at home, he can pray at church, he can pray in the street (a "traditional public forum"), he can even pray at work, in chambers.

He can not, however, allow his official duties or the government facilities to be entangled with religion. The large granite monument of a specific set of religious rules in the entryway of a public building most certainly fits this description.

By the way, the Declaration of Independence is, in no way, shape or form the "foundation" of the Constitution. They are both important in a historical and political context, however, only the Constitution has legal effect, and the documents have little to do with each other.

Upchruch,

I doubt highly that this administration is going to "federalize" anything top enforce this particular federal order. It is also unlikely that Judge Moore will face jail time for civil contempt. The Federal Court order will likely be enforced by the leveling of fines against Judge Moore in his official capacity, which will be payable, I believe, by the State of Alabama.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ricomise
Upchruch,

I doubt highly that this administration is going to "federalize" anything top enforce this particular federal order. It is also unlikely that Judge Moore will face jail time for civil contempt. The Federal Court order will likely be enforced by the leveling of fines against Judge Moore in his official capacity, which will be payable, I believe, by the State of Alabama. Ah, that was the other punishment I was thinking of. Could they not only level fines but also with hold federal funding?

[richardm]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Advice for those wise enough to heed it: Don't mess with the Feds.

Well, yes. But still, what could they do if he refused to play ball? Keep fining Alabama until they vote him out? I can't believe that they would remove the sculpture forcibly!

Er... Would they?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by richardm

I can't believe that they would remove the sculpture forcibly!

Er... Would they? Well, if Moore continues to defy the government and the law, what is the alternative? One the presedence is set that you don't have to obey the Supreme Court, where does that leave us?

For the good of the country, Moore needs to comply. He can still fight it to the fullest extent possible, but he needs to obey the judicial system.

[Richard G]

Bible thumping or not the foundation was laid by the founding fathers. Congress also authorized a chaplain which to this day offers prayers before the opening of the session. This position is paid by government. In practice this does not violate the separation clause or it would have been abolished years ago. THAT is why government can exercise religion without establishing it. Websters defines "Establish" to institute as law permanently by enactment or agreement, Posting a set of the Ten Commandments on a building doesn't make them "The Law," rather it is a way of exercising it by display. Free exercise thereof, IS in the bill of rights. It is called the First Amendment, and it was manifested to provide for free expression of religion.

Elected officials do not cease to be citizens because they are in office. And they may excercise and express their religious beliefs while there.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Displaying the Ten Commandments does not violate any of this law you have quoted.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Richard G
Elected officials do not cease to be citizens because they are in office. And they may excercise and express their religious beliefs while there.

Sure they can. As individuals. I have no problem with Moore being a Christian. If he wants a granite monument of the ten commandments, he can go ahead and put it on his lawn, like any other citizen could. He doesn't own the Alabama courthouse, nor his office -- what gives him the right to put a two-ton granite monument on state property? Would any other citizen be able to do this? Would a Muslim or Wiccan person be free to put an equivalent monument of their choice on the courtroom floor?

Of course not. It is Moore's position as an agent of the government which he is using to maintain this object of religious expression, not his rights as an individual citizen. Once he decided to use government funds and government property -- and the laws which give him the authority to do so -- it stopped being about his personal rights.

Displaying the Ten Commandments does not violate any of this law you have quoted.

The monument is sitting on government property. It is being maintained with government (= tax) dollars. Read the religious freedom clause of the Alabama constitution again.

Jeremy

[Brown]

This report from CNN (and AP), (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/16/ten.commandments.ap/index.html) if accurate, is rather disturbing:Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told thousands of supporters Saturday that he would be guilty of treason if he didn't fight to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state judicial building.
"Treason?" Perhaps the honorable judge doesn't know the meaning of the word. At best, he overstates his case... to the point of absurdity. Or perhaps he uses the word "treason" in the "Ann Coulter sense," i.e., as descriptive of a thing with which he personally disagrees."Let's get this straight. It's about the acknowledgment of God," Moore said in front of the Alabama Capitol.If that's the case, your honor, I don't want to hear your lawyers making any arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court that the commandments monument is about some sort of "historical" basis or that it has a secular purpose. Also, your honor, you know damn well that what is at issue is not merely an acknowledgment of a deity in general, but acknolwedgment of a particular deity, along with commandments specifying how and when this specific deity is to be worshipped.Falwell said Moore is right to defy Thompson's order if he believes he is obeying God.Falwell should have added, but probably did not, that Moore should also resign from the judicial branch, because he is unwilling to carry out the duties of a judge."Civil disobedience is the right of all men when we believe breaking man's law is needed to preserve God's law," Falwell said. Civil disobediance also involves being willing to accept the consequences of your acts, such as being willing to go to jail and having a criminal record for the rest of your life. Sounds like the reverend Jerry is urging this course for others, rather than for himself.

CNN mentioned a counter protest that included "about 35 atheists." Whether the "atheist" label was self-assigned or whether the label was assigned by those who supported Justice Moore was unclear from the report.

[schplurg]

From the article:
Moore had appealed Thompson's order, but a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against Moore, saying in part that his argument echoed state's rights claims of segregationists such as Alabama's Gov. George C. Wallace in the 1960s.
Yeah no kidding! First we get the bible in the courthouse, then we start to dip into it every now and then for advice on how to keep "them" away from "us". Oh yeah, don't forget about the Union Jack up on the roof too! We wanna keep everyone guessing!

I guess if he still has legal options he is free to exercise them, although, judging by his own comments, he seems happy to publicly defy the law and authority. Thumbing his nose at the feds in such a way is pretty poor behavior for a judge, even one from 'Bama...DOH! ;) What a maroon!

[hammegk]

Oh, this looks like fun! Can anyone spell "Civil War II"?

[Cinorjer]

Moore is doing nothing but playing good old Southern Populist Politics. My psychic prediction is that the man will eventually be running for a higher elected office such as Governer. Take a Southern Fundamentalist population, get them worked up over state's rights versus the Feds, mix in a big dose of that Old Time Religion, and you have a winning ticket.

Moore knows he's going to lose the legal battle, unless he's truely deranged and incompetent. But, he wins either way where it counts. He's either the hero who put Christ back in the courts, or he's the hero who fought a valient but losing battle against those Godless Humanist Federal courts.

Just one more reason why I'll never visit Alabama.

Jerry

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Cinorjer


Just one more reason why I'll never visit Alabama.

Jerry

You should at least visit us sometime. The countryside is beautiful and the beaches are gorgeous!

You are spot on with the win win situation Judge Moore has created. :)

[gnome]

Originally posted by Richard G
The Founding Fathers intent was to prohibit the goverment from controlling, or preventing the people from excercising religion. The opposite is occuring today, with courts trying to squash, and ban any display of faith or religious belief.


Ok, Richard... if you're really willing to stand behind your words, I want you to answer two simple questions with a yes or a no answer.

Question 1: Do you recognize a distinction between "any display of faith or religious belief" and displays on public property created by someone using their official capacity?

Question 2: If your answer to question 1 is "Yes." do you feel that distinction is irrelevant to the legal problem here?

If you really want to convince us, you have to answer the tough questions and not evade them.

[Peach Jr.]

Sort of on the subject:

Did anyone watch "Saturday Final with Lawrence O'Donnell" yesterday? Penn Jillette is one of their panelists. When they got to the segment of the "winners and losers of the week", Mr. J. picked Judge Moore as his winner of the week. The transcript isn't up on MSNBC yet - I'll try to get on and post it tomorrow when it does - but the gist of his statement was this.

Since the judge said he was following god's law and not man's, he should feel free to step down so he can continue to follow god's law instead. Merely my sad recollection of the discussion...:)

[NoZed Avenger]

Even if the judge (to use the term loosely) were right on the substantive legal issue, a judge willfully disobeying a court order is wrong, stupid, and harmful to the rule of law and the authority of judges everywhere.

The position that placing the ten commandments is not enough to show official sponsorship of a state religion is not, per se, an unreasonable one (though in this case, in context, he appears to be wrong), but that is all beside the point.

A judge should not - cannot - simply refuse to follow a court order because he disagrees with it, any more than any other citizen. If he believes the decision to be wrong, he needs to fight it in the courts. He can fight it in the papers and court of popular opinion. He has a number of avenues with which to fight, and plenty of chances for publicity.

His refusal to follow the very laws that he swore to uphold when taking his position is a breach of trust. He has failed to follow the most basic tenets of what is still an honorable profession and calling. I hope that even those who might agree with him on the ten commandments strongly condemn his refusal to follow the law.

NA

Edited to fix typos - left some in to provide amusement

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by hammegk
Oh, this looks like fun! Can anyone spell "Civil War II"? :rolleyes: Yes, just what mankind needs, another war over religion.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

His refusal to follow the very laws that he swore to uphold when taking his position is a breach of trust. He has failed to follow the most basic tenets of what is still an honorable profession and calling. I hope that even those who might agree with him on the ten commandments strongly condemn his refusal to follow the law.

NA

Edited to fix typos - left some in to provide amusement


I wonder if that oath he took included something about "so help me God" and a hand placed on a Bible? If so, then his refusal to obey the law might be considered an affront to God as well.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Scorpy


I wonder if that oath he took included something about "so help me God" and a hand placed on a Bible? If so, then his refusal to obey the law might be considered an affront to God as well.

One article also comented on the possibility that his fighting over this monument might be a form of idolarity.

[ssibal]

The deadline is Wendsday, I hope every idiot trying to 'protect' the 10 commandments from being removed is arrested, especially Moore.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
:rolleyes: Yes, just what mankind needs, another war over religion.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Nah, think States Rights vs Federal Rights. Just like the last US Civil War. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[NightG1]

Originally posted by hammegk


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Nah, think States Rights vs Federal Rights. Just like the last US Civil War. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What makes you think this anything to do with "States Rights" Is Moore the State of Alabama?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by NightG1


What makes you think this anything to do with "States Rights" Is Moore the State of Alabama?

He is certainly representing States Rights in this case, which imo clash with Federal Rights -- Federal rights as currently expressed by SCOTUS opinions. And "opinions" have been known to change.

[Tricky]

I for one am quite glad that Moore is taking this to the Supreme Court, even though it is a tremendous embarassment to me as a native Alabamian.

A clear cut case like this will provide a precedent that will go a long way towards the separation of church and state. If the issue were "fuzzy" then it would not do so. If Moore backed down and let the lower court ruling stand, no national precedent would be set. Moore is the greatest friend we secular people have ever had.

Alabama has a history of helping good causes by providing bad examples. The extremism of George Wallace did more to combat racism than anything short of Martin Luther King.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Tricky
A clear cut case like this will provide a precedent that will go a long way towards the separation of church and state. I am not so sure that the case is clear cut.

Legally, Justice Moore's case is rotten, but politically, it is not. Does anyone think that John Ashcroft or his designated appellate advocate is going to criticize Justice Moore before the Supreme Court? (I'll bet Moore thinks of Ashcroft as an ally, and I'll also bet that Moore thinks he's got at least three Supreme Court votes in the bag.) Does anyone think that John Ashcroft will take an active part in the removal of the monument? (I'll bet Moore thinks Ashcroft will find some excuse for not carrying out the court's decision.)

The case will be painted as an example of a vocal minority trying to ram its will down the gullet of the majority. This sort of thing is always politically unpopular.

The case will also be painted as an example of government trying to destroy the Almighty.

Of course, the case involves no such thing. Private individuals and churches can display whatever version of the Ten Commandments they wish. On their own property. Maintained with their own funds. Insured with their own money.

However, too many people (and I'm not restricting this to Alabamians) appear to lack the intellectual capacity to draw a simple distinction between a private display and a public display. They seem to think that if the majority agrees with the religious message, then the minority ought to shut up.

[Brown]

From an editorial in the Montgomery Advertiser: (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryOpinionedten812web.htm)But if Moore insists on forcing this confrontation by refusing to remove the monument, the state Judicial Inquiry Commission and Court of the Judiciary should begin proceedings against him for violating judicial canons of behavior.

In addition, it is time for the remaining eight members of the Alabama Supreme Court to show some backbone on this issue. Moore is chief justice, but he is still just one among nine.Two very good points. The federal vs. state contest is the one that is receiving the spotlight, but there may be state-based checks and balances, too.

[Upchurch]

I'm still very interested in how they enforce this ruling. When Moore looses, I'm assuming that he will still refuse to remove the monument. What'll happen to him?

[Brown]

From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/20/ten.commandments.ap/index.html)The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Chief Justice Roy Moore's request for a stay Tuesday morning, and Moore immediately asked the panel to reconsider. Tuesday afternoon, the appeals court turned him down once more, saying he had failed to ask for a stay within the legal time frame after it ruled against him July 1.The judge missed a deadline? Oops.

Note: The headline on the main CNN page, "Ten Commandments shall be moved," is a poor headline. It suggests that there has been some capitulation on this matter, when there appears to have been none. (Grammatical purists might use this headline to demonstrate the distinction between "shall" and "will.")Nine pastors led about 30 worshippers from across the country in prayer just after midnight, the date by which a federal judge ordered Moore to remove the 5,300-pound monument.

"Even if they should remove this monument -- and God forbid they do -- they'll never be able to remove it from our hearts," said the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis Baptist Church. Well, Reverend, should God not forbid it, what lesson ought we learn from that experience? (How dare this guy presume to tell the Almighty what to do?)

[Upchurch]

NPR mentioned today was the deadline to remove the monument (which Brown's article confirms). I think it's fairly obvious that Moore won't comply. This story may be far more interesting this time tomorrow.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Brown

Note: The headline on the main CNN page, "Ten Commandments shall be moved," is a poor headline. It suggests that there has been some capitulation on this matter, when there appears to have been none. (Grammatical purists might use this headline to demonstrate the distinction between "shall" and "will.")Well, Reverend, should God not forbid it, what lesson ought we learn from that experience? (How dare this guy presume to tell the Almighty what to do?)

I think it's more of a play on the Ten Commandments themselves; in CNN's tendency to try and come up with cutesy or clever headlines fitting the particular article, they decided to make this article's title sound like a commandment.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


I think it's more of a play on the Ten Commandments themselves; in CNN's tendency to try and come up with cutesy or clever headlines fitting the particular article, they decided to make this article's title sound like a commandment.

Ugh. I think you're right.

[Checkmite]

Nine pastors led about 30 worshippers from across the country in prayer just after midnight...

30 worshippers from across the country? They're coming out in droves!

[DrChinese]

Considering:

1. This judge was elected;
2. The posting of the 10 commandments was to fulfill a campaign promise;
3. The display was essentially intended to endorse the Christian religion;
4. And a poll on MSNBC is running 2 to 1 in favor of letting the 10 commandments remain in place;

My conclusion is that it is a good thing that the first amendment is in place. I don't want the majority to tell me what my religion will be. I wonder if it would be possible to repeal the first amendment? Yikes, there's a scary thought!

[Upchurch]

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?0cv=CB10)
“This case is not about a monument, it’s not about politics or religion, it’s about the acknowledgment of God,” he said on CBS’ “The Early Show.”
“We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God. For (the judge) to say ’I can’t say who God is’ is to disestablish the justice system of this state.”
How is acknowledgement of God not a religious matter?
Originally posted by DrChinese

2. The posting of the 10 commandments was to fulfill a campaign promise;
Actually, Moore's campaign promise was "to restore the moral foundation of law.” (as said in the above link) I wonder if the people of Alabama knew that this is what he meant when he made that promise.
Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end Wednesday.Which answers my question about consequences.
He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore’s office. Which would be fine by me as well. How is this not an acceptable compromise?

[Brown]

Newest update, from CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/20/ten.commandments/index.html)The appeal was assigned to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has the power to decide the matter himself or take it to the other eight justices for consideration. Kennedy handles appeals from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Alabama, Georgia and Florida. According to CNN, the issue is whether the high court should temporarily to block enforcement of the lower courts' rulings, pending further appeals. If so, Justice Kennedy's decision would not be a decision on the merits of the case. And, it's fair to say, that there may be legitimate reasons for temporarily staying enforcement of the lower courts' orders.

[zakur]

Here is an example of how politically-charged this issue is, and how enmeshed it is with religion. From this article (http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16524):Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor told the Mobile Register that he expects the monument "to be removed very soon." Pryor has said that while he supports the monument and believes it is constitutional he is bound to uphold the law.

"I don't want to speculate on how or exactly when it is going to happen," Pryor told the newspaper. "I will be advising the appropriate state officials on how to proceed, and I expect they will do so."

Pryor, a pro-life Catholic, has been nominated for a seat on the federal court of appeals and has gained the support of pro-family voters nationwide, although his position on the monument has drawn the scorn of some pro-family activists.

Vision America co-chairman Rick Scarborough criticized Pryor.

"The Attorney General of Alabama says he personally agrees with ... Moore, but must uphold the law, sounding very much like Pontius Pilate as he found no fault in our Lord, then gave him over to be crucified," Scarborough wrote in a statement on the Vision America website Aug. 19.Whoever has made the argument that this stink is bordering on idolatry hit the nail on the head. Here we have a guy comparing the Alabama AG's position on removal of the monument to Pilate's crucifixion of Christ. :rolleyes:

Also from the same article:The monument is about the size of a washing machine.I've said it here before. This oft-used size comparison tickles me. I don't know why.

[arcticpenguin]

Supreme Court rejects 10 commandments appeal (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/20/ten.commandments.ap/index.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block the removal of a Ten Commandments monument from an Alabama judicial building, rejecting a last-minute appeal from the judge who installed the display.

The justices said they would not be drawn, at least for now, into a dispute over whether the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

The high court was Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's last hope to avoid a federal judge's midnight deadline to remove the display. It was unclear if Moore would comply. Other state officials have said the monument would be moved.

[Regnad Kcin]

Sounds like the Supreme Court's decision was fair and balanced!

[WildCat]

This monument to Moore's stupidity should be removed as cheaply as possible for the taxpayers of Alabama. You know, w/ a jackhammer so it can be carted away in small pieces. Or maybe those 30 protestors and the 9 pastors would donate the money to take it away in one piece?
Moore is the worst thing to happen to Alabama since George Wallace. (http://www.drivebytruckers.com/lyrics-rockopera.html#threealabamaicons)

[Brown]

The latest, from Yahoo and Reuters: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20030821/ts_nm/religion_alabama_dc)Tom Parker, Moore's spokesman, said Alabama's top judge had "no intention" of removing the monument and that it would be guarded by security personnel on Thursday.
...
Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor has vowed to obey the court order, but Moore's supporters have shown equal determination to prevent any effort to move the monument.It's time for the ethics board in Alabama to review the canons of judicial ethics. I do not know what ethical code applies in Alabama, but judical ethics codes typically require a judge to uphold the integrity of the judicial branch and to carry out all judicial duties. A flat refusal to obey properly entered orders is no longer a matter of honest disagreement about the law, but it is a matter of fitness to hold office.

Moore has not obtained a stay, but this is not unusual. Stays are supposed to be hard to get. (I say "supposed to be" because there is one famous case in which the Supreme Court granted a stay quite improvidently. That case involved the stay of recounting of the Florida vote, which effectively decided the presidential election of 2000.) Even though he has failed to obtain a stay, Moore may be entitled to try to get the Supreme Court to hear his case and get a decision on the merits. This entitlement, however, does not give him the right to refuse to follow duly entered judicial orders, no matter how much he may disagree with them.

[Brown]

From the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics: (http://www.alalinc.net/jic/)CANON 1.
A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.The judges that I know hold this principle, which is not unique to Alabama, in the highest regard.CANON 2.
A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL HIS ACTIVITIES.
A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
...
C. A judge should not allow his family, social, or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct or judgment. He should not lend the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; nor should he convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him.The circumstances under which the monument was erected are suspect. It was erected with deliberate stealth, with only a religious group being given notice of its erection.CANON 3.
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM THE DUTIES
OF HIS OFFICE IMPARTIALLY AND DILIGENTLY.
The judicial activities of a judge take precedence over his other activities. His judicial duties include all the duties of his office prescribed by law.There does not appear to be any rule that specifically says that a judge shall not be willfully in contempt of court, but neither is does there appear to be a rule that specifically says that a judge shall not commit a serious crime. Refusal to carry out legal orders may result in contempt of court, and I doubt that there is any judge in this country (with the possible exception of Moore) who would consider a contempt citation as irrelevant to the question of judical fitness.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch

For the good of the country, Moore needs to comply.

I disagree, for the good of the country he should NOT comply, the ACLU and the Supreme Court are engaging in judicial tyranny. There needs to be another civil war, the un-constitutional elements of America have to be eliminated if our country is going to be the free country that it was intended to be.

[Cinorjer]

I disagree, for the good of the country he should NOT comply, the ACLU and the Supreme Court are engaging in judicial tyranny. There needs to be another civil war, the un-constitutional elements of America have to be eliminated if our country is going to be the free country that it was intended to be.

For "the good of the country" there needs to be a civil war? Certain "elements" have to be eliminated so this can be a free country? Wecome to Fanaticism 101, folks.
Jerry

[Mr Manifesto]

JIHAD!

Oops... Wrong religion. Uhm, what's X-ian for 'Jihad'?


FOR THE GLOOOORY OF RONALD REAGAN!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Tony
There needs to be another civil war, the un-constitutional elements of America have to be eliminated if our country is going to be the free country that it was intended to be.
Gosh Tony. We'll miss you.;)

[Lurker]

The deadline was last night. Anyone arrested? What happened? I am sure the monument is still there.

Anyone in the know?

Lurker

[repairman]

The Monument is still there. Judge Moore has still refused to remove it. Twenty one people were arrested yesterday for trespasing when they refused to leave the building when it closed. They were released right afterward.

[a_unique_person]

Time to bring in the National Guard.

[sackett]

It's scary sometimes, the kind of guys who get to be judges.

[Mr Manifesto]

Do you think there's something in the water in Alabama? (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/national/21JUDG.html?th)

(and Austin, TA for that matter)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Time to bring in the National Guard.

Oh yeah. Now you become a fan of the military! Gee AUP, aren't these the same evil troops used to kill zillions of babies in 'Nam? And you want to use their planes tanks and automatic weapons to sweep 20-odd unarmed and peaceful religious nuts from a public bldg? :D :D You and Janet Reno have alot in common.

Gimme a break. Ignore them. Turn off the cameras. When they get bored and leave, bring in a truck and cart the offensive thing to a prison yard where the hard-labor inmates can use it as sledgehamer practice. ;) See how easy it all could be? :rolleyes:

-z

[Brown]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think there's something in the water in Alabama? (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/national/21JUDG.html?th)This link takes you to an article at the New York Times web site. It's a pretty good article, but you might have to register to read it.Associate Justice Tom Woodall of the Alabama Supreme Court said a majority of judges could vote to remove Justice Moore's administrative power over the building and have the monument carted away.

"That has been discussed," Justice Woodall said. "A lot."Perhaps the time has come to stop discussing and to start acting. The Alabama Supreme Court has the power to rescue the situation and to preserve the state judiciary's prestige. Will it exercise that power? One of the risks of being a judge is that sometimes a judge has to make a decision that is politically unpopular. If the other members of the Court are willing to risk the political backlash associated with making an unpopular (but legally sound) decision, then they are courageous indeed.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by repairman
The Monument is still there. Judge Moore has still refused to remove it. Twenty one people were arrested yesterday for trespasing when they refused to leave the building when it closed. They were released right afterward.

ahh yes...witness the creation of latter-day Biblical heroes!
Some, earlier on Wednesday, had even been arrested, including 66-year-old Karen Kennedy, who was handcuffed in her wheelchair.

By midnight, Ms. Kennedy was back. And a hero.

"Let's hear it for this woman," yelled the Rev. Pat Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition.

"That's right," Ms. Kennedy said from the courthouse steps. "I was cuffed for God."

[Shinytop]

We are a nation of laws or we are not. Moore should be arrested and held every day until the monument is removed and then fined a gazillion dollars.

What is really scary about this fool and the state of Alabama is he was very vocal about handing down decisions based on the Bible rather than law.

[reprise]

What really confuses me about the CSS in the US is that people are allowed to swear their oath to the court on the Bible in the US - I don't understand why that is allowed.

[Brown]

Text of the Supreme Court's order, from the Court's web site:WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2003
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
03A143 (03-258) IN RE ROY S. MOORE
The application to recall mandate and to stay enforcement of final judgment presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied.

[diddidit]

17 Do not make cast idols.

Good thing most of my idols are forged. I've got a couple that I machined from billett stock, too.

Mr. Moore's monument would make lovely countertops were it properly sliced...

did

[Shinytop]

Originally posted by reprise
What really confuses me about the CSS in the US is that people are allowed to swear their oath to the court on the Bible in the US - I don't understand why that is allowed.

Allowing an individual to swear an oath with their hand on the Bible is allowing that individual to exercise his freedom of religion, it is not an endorsement of religion by the government.

[Brown]

Breaking news, from the Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25417-2003Aug21.html)State Supreme Court justices overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore on Thursday and directed that his Ten Commandments monument be removed from its public site in the Alabama Judicial Building.

The senior associate justice, Gorman Houston, said the eight associate justices instructed the building's manager to "take all steps necessary to comply ... as soon as practicable."

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
I disagree, for the good of the country he should NOT comply, the ACLU and the Supreme Court are engaging in judicial tyranny. There needs to be another civil war, the un-constitutional elements of America have to be eliminated if our country is going to be the free country that it was intended to be.

For "the good of the country" there needs to be a civil war? Certain "elements" have to be eliminated so this can be a free country? Wecome to Fanaticism 101, folks.


State's rights is fanaticism?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
JIHAD!

Oops... Wrong religion. Uhm, what's X-ian for 'Jihad'?


[/B]

That's what id expect from a bigot like you, but really, this has nothing to do with religion.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


State's rights is fanaticism?

It depends on how far you push it. I'm sure one can be a moderate state's rightist. Wanting to start a (another?) civil war over it could quality it as fanaticism, but I guess one person's fanaticism is another's well reasoned response.

[Brown]

Further info from the Post article:The associate justices wrote that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."
...
Their seven-page order, signed by all eight, was issued about 10 a.m.
...
The monument has not bee [sic] viewed as a partisan issue. Moore is a Republican; seven of the eight associate justices also are Republicans.Partisan or not, the political backlash is expected to be considerable. One can probably expect demands for recalls, impeachments, constitutional amendments, and the like. Surely the eight members of the Court were aware that many people would be upset, but they acted anyway. Courageous.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by reprise
What really confuses me about the CSS in the US is that people are allowed to swear their oath to the court on the Bible in the US - I don't understand why that is allowed.

It isn't required. At least, I can say for sure it isn't in West Virginia. I tried a lot of cases in a rural county and I've never seen anyone get sworn in with a bible, or any other book.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Shinytop


Allowing an individual to swear an oath with their hand on the Bible is allowing that individual to exercise his freedom of religion, it is not an endorsement of religion by the government.

My concern about swearing oaths on a religious doctrine is that it conveys the impression that the person's duty to tell the truth to the deity that doctrine represents is superior to their allegiance to tell the truth to the court - otherwise, why not simply take an affirmation to tell the truth without involving the deity.

For similar reasons, I dislike political leaders swearing their oath of office on the Bible - their oath is to the people of their nation and therefore the appropriate document on which it should be sword is the constitution of that nation.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


State's rights is fanaticism?

So, a state has a right to recognize religion in its justice system, you're saying?

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize race?

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize sex (in terms of civil rights)?

Does that mean that the state has the right to recognize 1% "mud blood"?

Really?

[c0rbin]

If the citizens of the state of Alabama want to spend state money to put a monument to the Christian Bible on state property, it should be their right.

Our laws come from the constitution, not the bible, not God. However, it is medieval and backward for the State Constitution to credit the Bible as the source of their laws and morals.

For one thing, IMO, a big feature of democracy is the ability to re-examine the effectiveness or pertenence of Laws. Can this be done if the Laws have a supernatural origin?

Secondly, people will spout moral relativism nonsense, you know, Athiest have no morals and crap like that, or liberals have some sort of moral gray area that they want to push as an agenda--well, doesn't the state of Alabama employ the death penaly?

Seems a little contradictory to me; seems like moral relativism after all.

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


So, a state has a right to recognize religion in its justice system, you're saying?


Unfortunately, yes.

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize race?

You mean like affirmative action? Yeah I guess a state does have the right to recognize race and discriminate accordingly.

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize sex (in terms of civil rights)?

See above.

[Cinorjer]

State's rights is fanaticism?

Fanaticism is calling for a civil war over an issue like religious symbols in government buildings or even "state's rights", which is always trotted out whenever the South has to be reminded they lost the last civil war, and like it or not, are part of the United States of America.

So there needs to be another civil war? Tens of thousands of people would be killed, our nation would collapse into anarchy, and the last superpower would end up like Russia, with starving people waiting for the cold of winter to finish them off. But that's all right with you, isn't it? Because it's for "a good cause", and you'd be able to post your Ten Commandments anywhere you'd like. That's fanaticism. If you can't have it your way, then you'll burn it to the ground.

[diddidit]

Moore's been overruled by his associates now as well:

http://msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?0cv=CB10

I'd have to agree that Moore's stance is ultimately electioneering.

did

[reprise]

Just out of interest, if a US state did reach the point where it's citizens were totally fed up with federal government "interference", how difficult would it be for that state to secede from the union? What proportion of that state's voters would have to vote for secession and over what time frame would the transition occur?

[repairman]

Well the eight associat justices have now overruled chief justice Moore and have started the process of removing the monument. They have now covered over the monument with plywood.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cinorjer


Fanaticism is calling for a civil war over an issue like religious symbols in government buildings or even "state's rights", which is always trotted out whenever the South has to be reminded they lost the last civil war, and like it or not, are part of the United States of America.


I'll remember that when this country is a police state.

Because it's for "a good cause", and you'd be able to post your Ten Commandments anywhere you'd like.

This isn’t about the 10 commandments; I could care less about the issue itself. It's the fact that the government, in an act of tyranny, is unconstitutionally imposing its will on a state.

I hold the same opinion on abortion, euthanasia in Oregon and medical weed in California.

That's fanaticism. If you can't have it your way, then you'll burn it to the ground.

And that's a strawman.

[diddidit]

Originally posted by repairman
Well the eight associat justices have now overruled chief justice Moore and have started the process of removing the monument. They have now covered over the monument with plywood.

Apparently the plywood went up this morning, then came back down shortly before the 8 associate justices released their ruling. Dunno if that's significant or not. I haven't heard if anyone's fired up a jackhammer yet...

did

[Tony]

Originally posted by reprise
Just out of interest, if a US state did reach the point where it's citizens were totally fed up with federal government "interference", how difficult would it be for that state to secede from the union? What proportion of that state's voters would have to vote for secession and over what time frame would the transition occur?

ASFIK, the only state that can legally secede is Texas, because it was once a country.

[repairman]

Sorry Brown beat me to the post.

Should have read the entire thread.:p

[reprise]

Originally posted by Tony
ASFIK, the only state that can legally secede is Texas, because it was once a country.

Wow.

I assumed that at the very least the original colonies would have retained the right of secession.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by c0rbin
If the citizens of the state of Alabama want to spend state money to put a monument to the Christian Bible on state property, it should be their right.



Only if they do not impose upon the rights of citizens of the United States. The majority _cannot_ vote to establish religion in any state, regardless of how much they want to. The vote today could be 100% to 0, and it is still against the constitution for the state to establish religion.

One of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority against the will of the majority. As long as Alabama is part of the US, they are subject to the constitution of the US. The state constitution cannot remove a right that is protected by the federal constitution.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by reprise


Wow.

I assumed that at the very least the original colonies would have retained the right of secession.

That's what the whole Civil War was about.

[Tony]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Only if they do not impose upon the rights of citizens of the United States. The majority _cannot_ vote to establish religion in any state, regardless of how much they want to. The vote today could be 100% to 0, and it is still against the constitution for the state to establish religion.



The first amendment says" the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Tony


The first amendment says" the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So, do you think that means that the state of Alabama has the right, hypothetically, to establish "Christianity," or anything else, as the official religion of Alabama?

[repairman]

There are very few courts around the country where they will swear you in on a bible. I also find it sad that political offices still use the bible for swearing in.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


ASFIK, the only state that can legally secede is Texas, because it was once a country.

Not really. Texas has the right to divide itself into five states, (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp) but not the right to secede.

Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas' annexation contain no such provision.

[Cinorjer]

This isn’t about the 10 commandments; I could care less about the issue itself. It's the fact that the government, in an act of tyranny, is unconstitutionally imposing its will on a state

Neither you nor I nor some idiot state judge has the right to decide what is and is not constitutional. That right belongs to the Federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. We DO have the right to elect government representatives who will pass laws we want them to pass and who will then appoint Federal judges that will make decisions we agree with.

The great strength of our democracy is that we acknowledge the rule of law. It's not perfect, in that privilage and prestige still allow people to get away with quite a bit. However, the heart of our civilized society is the fact that no one - not even the richest or most powerful - is above the law or can decide what court orders they don't have to obey.

If you feel that our courts and government are behaving in an unconstitutional way, do what I do and join groups working to elect new representatives in government. You also have the right to peaceful protest in order to bring your message to the rest of the people.

The people protesting at the courthouse and being arrested while trying to keep the Ten Commandments in place are not fanatics. They're citizens exercising their right to protest, as much as I might disagree with them. Judge Moore is a traitor to his robe by refusing to obey the very legal system he has sworn to defend. He's the fanatic in the picture.

[gnome]

Originally posted by reprise
My concern about swearing oaths on a religious doctrine is that it conveys the impression that the person's duty to tell the truth to the deity that doctrine represents is superior to their allegiance to tell the truth to the court - otherwise, why not simply take an affirmation to tell the truth without involving the deity.

My problem with it has always been: what possible relevance could swearing on a bible have to a Christian? If they would go against their religion enough to bear false witness in the first place, why should swearing on the bible make a difference?

[c0rbin]

Originally posted by Tony


The first amendment says" the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, do you think that means that the state of Alabama has the right, hypothetically, to establish "Christianity," or anything else, as the official religion of Alabama?


Pedantically, Tony is correct. The gray area here is that by placing a monument on state propert, on is not necessarily establishing a religion.

Actions in the court do not discriminate based on religion--as can be inferred by his collegues request for removal.

I do however think it send the wrong message to erect such a monument and creates an atmosphere of intollerance. I would vote to remove it, if asked, and make all the same arguments against it that have been made by myself and others in this thread.

But--hypothetically now--at what point does a community give up its identity or culture to satisfy everyone in the country?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by c0rbin
But--hypothetically now--at what point does a community give up its identity or culture to satisfy everyone in the country?

You're conflating the government with the community. No one's asking any community to give up its identity. It's just that the place for expressions of religion is churches and homes, not state buildings.

I see no reason why getting religion entirely out of government has any effect whatsoever on the community or society at large. They can go ahead and pray, erect monuments, and generally do whatever they want on their own time and with their own money.

Jeremy

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by c0rbin

But--hypothetically now--at what point does a community give up its identity or culture to satisfy everyone in the country?

The "community" can do whatever it darn well pleases. However, the community _government_ cannot.

[zakur]

I just had someone tell me that Judge Moore is this generation's Martin Luther King, Jr.

:rolleyes:

[c0rbin]

Todd and PG, I agree.

[Checkmite]

I believe the Associate Justices' ruling to remove the monuments clears up the technicalities of the case:

Article IV of the Constitution of the United States provides that the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land ... and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nonwithstanding."

Moore's Ten Commandments monument has been found unconstitutional by a Federal court, therefore, it must be removed - and the Alabama State judges are bound to obey the U.S. Constitution. Now, Moore uses his binding to the Constitution as an excuse for disobeying the Federal court order; he believes the monument is not unconstitutional. The problem is, he does not have the jurisdiction to overrule a Federal court's interpretation of the Constitution - it doesn't matter what he thinks. Therefore, all his appeals to his being "bound by the Constitution to disobey the Federal court ruling" are, in essence, excremental.

[Brown]

The associate justices also relied upon Ala. Code sec. 12-5-20, a statute passed by the Alabama legislature, to countermand a decision of the chief justice.

The justices further relied upon sec. 6.11 of Amendment 328 to the Constitution of Alabama.

[arcticpenguin]

If I went into the Alabama Supreme Court building and attempted to fasten an American Atheists symbol to the wall, do you think Judge Moore would support my right to practice my religion the same way he does?

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
If I went into the Alabama Supreme Court building and attempted to fasten an American Atheists symbol to the wall, do you think Judge Moore would support my right to practice my religion the same way he does?

This nation and its government belong to Christianity, or so these people seem to think. :(

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Scorpy

This nation and its government belong to Christianity, or so these people seem to think. :(
I trust you see my point in that if Judge Moore tried to stop me, he would be shown up as a hypocrite. If he has the right to express his religion in that public building, so do I. If not, it is not a right at all.

[Shinytop]

Precisely, if Judge Moore, and to a certain extend our president and AG have their way we will be living in a Christian version of Afghanistan with every rule being checked on by a minister of the Southern Baptists Is the Only Way religion.

[Ladewig]

I just had someone tell me that Judge Moore is this generation's Martin Luther King, Jr.


What was your response?

I would have asked what particular events or beliefs they had in common.
Willing to go to jail for one's beliefs?
Winning a Nobel Peace Prize?
Being part of the largest civil rights demonstration (as of 1963)?
Giving moving speeches that people quote and orators study 40 years after his death?
Being the target of an illegal FBI investigation?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I trust you see my point in that if Judge Moore tried to stop me, he would be shown up as a hypocrite. If he has the right to express his religion in that public building, so do I. If not, it is not a right at all.

A guy like Moore has no interest in anyone who doesn't think like him exercising their rights. He is a massive hypocrite. You can bet if another public building in their town had a monument called the "Atheists Manifesto" in front of it, he would be one of the first ones screaming that it must be removed.

This is a case where the phrase "holier than thou" has never been more appropriate.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony


That's what id expect from a bigot like you, but really, this has nothing to do with religion.

Boy, what are you smoking?

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I trust you see my point in that if Judge Moore tried to stop me, he would be shown up as a hypocrite. If he has the right to express his religion in that public building, so do I. If not, it is not a right at all.


I agree.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cinorjer

Neither you nor I nor some idiot state judge has the right to decide what is and is not constitutional. That right belongs to the Federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. We DO have the right to elect government representatives who will pass laws we want them to pass and who will then appoint Federal judges that will make decisions we agree with.


Ill ignore your appeal to authority, and just point out that you have just described the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. What's stopping the Supreme Court from declaring Islam to be illegal? What’s stopping the Supreme Court from declaring that Jews have no rights, are therefore should be killed and deported?

Nothing!!

As long as the constitution is open to extreme "interpretation", it can be perverted to mean anything. We are beginning to see this with regards to guns.


The great strength of our democracy is that we acknowledge the rule of law.

Ill ignore the fact that you mischaracterized the US as a democracy.

However, I submit to you that americans have a history of ignoring the rule of law and doing what they want. From the Boston tea party, to the whisky rebellion, to the glorification of various outlaws throughout our history, to the 60's riots and protests.

Indeed, the whole idea of the "rule of law" and respect for authority is un-american.

However, the heart of our civilized society is the fact that no one -not even the richest or most powerful - is above the law or can decide what court orders they don't have to obey.

This is just naive.

Judge Moore is a traitor to his robe by refusing to obey the very legal system he has sworn to defend.

The Supreme Court is the traitorous party by perverting the constitution.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Did anyone else notice Flip Benham was standing in the background as Judge Moore gave his "I have a monument" speech? Thankfully something's gotten that loon out of Dallas.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony



Indeed, the whole idea of the "rule of law" and respect for authority is un-american.


This would explain the disturbingly high murder rate in the US.

[Shinytop]

Tony, I find it hard to believe that you believe all the tripe you post. The SC is enforcing the Constituion. No religion has the right to be state supported. No religion should be endorsed in any shape, fashion, for form. That is protecting the right of the people to worship as they choose.

The SC swings a little left and a little right on the issues depending on who appointed different judges. But though our country's history they have been remarkably even handed.

And with reference to your lawless remarks, I will not dignify them with an answer.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


Ill ignore your appeal to authority, and just point out that you have just described the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. What's stopping the Supreme Court from declaring Islam to be illegal? What’s stopping the Supreme Court from declaring that Jews have no rights, are therefore should be killed and deported?

Nothing!!

As long as the constitution is open to extreme "interpretation", it can be perverted to mean anything. We are beginning to see this with regards to guns.



1) The Supreme Court can only speak to decide a controversy. A simple declaration other than to directly decide a case presented to it would be rightly ignored by those in the executory branch. For the court to make such a decision, there would have to be a case started where such an issue was in play. This is quite an obsticle in this regard. Also, in real life there isn't much the SC could do in this regard except declare a congressional statue valid. Their power is a negative one. They can "void" statutes, but they can't create them.

2) What's stopping Congress from doing the same? Whoops, the Supreme Court's power to find a statute contrary to the constitution and thus void. Other than that not much, plus Congress could cut the court's funding, limit it's jurisdiction, or just start impeaching people.

3) What's stopping the President from just issuing an order and telling the army to enforce it? Nothing. He has the guns.

The SC has no army, no purse power, and can only speak when spoken to. Plus they can be impeached by Congress. That they are the last speaker on issues of Constitutional import is actually quite heartening, as their power is scarcely more than just persuasive. If the President or Congress decided to, they could completely hamstring the Court.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't understand how a man could get to be a Chief Justice and have such little understanding of what this country is all about.
He was elected. Can't you appreciate the actions of a man with political aspirations?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
If I went into the Alabama Supreme Court building and attempted to fasten an American Atheists symbol to the wall, do you think Judge Moore would support my right to practice my religion the same way he does?
There's only one sure way to find out. Do it! (Wear a flak jacket.)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shinytop
The SC is enforcing the Constituion.

No, the SC is enforcing their opinion. The constitution is clear on the matter.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

No religion has the right to be state supported.

At the federal level.

No religion should be endorsed in any shape, fashion, for form.

Then I guess chaplans, rabbis and imams in the military and in prisons are unconstitutional.

That is protecting the right of the people to worship as they choose.

No its not.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DrChinese
4. And a poll on MSNBC is running 2 to 1 in favor of letting the 10 commandments remain in place;

My conclusion is that it is a good thing that the first amendment is in place. I don't want the majority to tell me what my religion will be.
That's an unscientific poll, DrChinese. A scientific poll would likely show a significantly different result. Like 4 to 1 in favor.

Your religion shall be Zoroastrism. Don't argue.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Uhm, what's X-ian for 'Jihad'?

Crusade. (http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Crusades.htm) Bigot. ;)
From 1095 until well into the 15th Century the popes regularly proclaimed a series of Crusades --"Holy Wars"-- against various enemies of the Church. The victims of such were initially non-Christians, that is Moslems and pagans, but later Crusades were preached against Christian heretics, and even against quite orthodox folks who happened to have political disputes with the current pope

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony

No, the SC is enforcing their opinion. The constitution is clear on the matter.


But their opinion is the only one that counts. Yours doesn't. And in this case their "opinion" matches the constitution exactly. Try reading it some time.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tony

The Supreme Court is the traitorous party by perverting the constitution.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States declares that

Originally posted by the Constitutional Convention

The 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...

Read the underlined portion carefully. It says, without ambiguity, that the "judicial" arm of the United States government has jurisdiction over all things dealing with (in addition to other matters) the Constitution itself. Section 1 states that

Originally posted by the Constitutional Convention

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Now, juxtapose the two previous ideas. The result you should come up with, if you're thinking correctly, is that the Supreme Court (and the subordinate Federal courts) are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. In essence, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. What I, or you, or anyone else thinks the Constitution means is irrelevant.

Well, to be fair that's not entirely true...if a judge does something out of line, his decision can be overturned by the other judges, and even the People, if there's enough dissent. But until there is that dissent, the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means.

My friend, it's becoming increasingly difficult for anybody to deny that Chief Justice Moore is a fanatic. You've read the articles...he says over and over again, "This isn't about religion, it's about God", and continuously uses biblical references to describe himself, the issue, and his opponents. He claims that all he's dedicated to is "bringing a moral base back to the law", but apparently the only way he can find to do that is mounting a big stone idol in the Judicial Building. Then, once he was legally and unanimously countermanded by the Associate Justices, he compared their action to "Judas betraying Jesus" and threatened to have them all thrown in jail! This person is not thinking clearly, can't you see that?

You say this is about "States' Rights". Well, maybe it started out that way, but it is not about States' Rights any longer. It's about a State's Chief Justice's rights and powers, and one man's superiority complex. The State Attorney-General is against him, the rest of the State Supreme Court is against him. All he has left is himself and the supporters standing outside.

States Rights may have been an argument, if the rest of the Judges stood with him; but Chief Justice Moore no longer represents the will of the Alabama State Judiciary in this case, and they have declared this publically. It is no longer the will of the State of Alabama to keep the Ten Commandments monument on display in the Judiciary Building. Thus, Chief Justice Moore is not only defying the will of the Federal courts, he is defying the will of his own State. Can it be made any clearer?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


No religion should be endorsed in any shape, fashion, for form.

Then I guess chaplans, rabbis and imams in the military and in prisons are unconstitutional.

Grey area. The "no establishment" and "freedom of religion" parts of the first amendment have a tension with one another. This is a place where the latter trumps the former. The above bold statement is not precisely correct, as the govenment must also take reasonable steps to protect freedom of religion, and this includes making clergy available to servicemen, and to a lesser extent, prisoners.

[Checkmite]

Here's another example of Moore's imbalance:

"I hear others talk of a rule of law," the chief justice said. "If the rule of law means to do everything a judge tells you to do, we would still have slavery in this country. If the rule of law means to do everything a judge tells you to do, the Declaration of Independence would be a meaningless document."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html

In other words, he's saying that if you don't agree with an order issued by a judge, you don't have to follow it. That statement, if followed, renders the entire Judicial process impotent. Who is trying to subvert the Constitution here?

His argument itself is even irrational. It was orders from judges that ended slavery, and forced (most) discrimination out of the government. And the Declaration of Independence was a political statement, but was indeed legally meaningless...that's kind of why the U.S. had to fight a war for independence. Thus, the Declaration doesn't even belong in this argument. Will you, Tony, ignore history for the sake of supporting what this man says?

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


But their opinion is the only one that counts. Yours doesn't.

Well sh*t, stupid me for daring to think for myself, I guess we should just bow to our fascist overlords. :rolleyes:

[Tony]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

....is that the Supreme Court (and the subordinate Federal courts) are responsible for interpreting the Constitution. In essence, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means. What I, or you, or anyone else thinks the Constitution means is irrelevant.



Im aware of this, and Ive already said this is the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. If the SC can pervert the constitution to mean what they want, why have a constitution and a bill of rights in the first place? It seems rather pointless if they are all subject to the whims and "interpretation" of a few robed tyrants.

My friend, it's becoming increasingly difficult for anybody to deny that Chief Justice Moore is a fanatic. You've read the articles...he says over and over again, "This isn't about religion, it's about God", and continuously uses biblical references to describe himself, the issue, and his opponents. He claims that all he's dedicated to is "bringing a moral base back to the law", but apparently the only way he can find to do that is mounting a big stone idol in the Judicial Building. Then, once he was legally and unanimously countermanded by the Associate Justices, he compared their action to "Judas betraying Jesus" and threatened to have them all thrown in jail! This person is not thinking clearly, can't you see that?

Ive already said I could care less about judge moore and the ten commandments. Personally, I think the issue is stupid. My problem is with the perversion of the constitution. Either by the SC or the congress.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Grey area. The "no establishment" and "freedom of religion" parts of the first amendment have a tension with one another. This is a place where the latter trumps the former. The above bold statement is not precisely correct, as the govenment must also take reasonable steps to protect freedom of religion, and this includes making clergy available to servicemen, and to a lesser extent, prisoners. [/B]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[DavidJames]

"Im aware of this, and Ive already said this is the fundamental flaw with the judicial system. If the SC can pervert the constitution to mean what they want, why have a constitution and a bill of rights in the first place?"

Specifically then, how would you propose to resolve constitutional questions?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Tony


Well sh*t, stupid me for daring to think for myself, I guess we should just bow to our fascist overlords. :rolleyes:

Yes, stupid you. We have already determined that. But thanks for the reminder!

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Specifically then, how would you propose to resolve constitutional questions?

Perhaps according to the way Tony thinks the Constitution should be interpreted.

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Yes, stupid you. We have already determined that. But thanks for the reminder!

We all know it take a smart lemming like yourself to obey with-out question.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Specifically then, how would you propose to resolve constitutional questions?

It depends on the issue.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Perhaps according to the way Tony thinks the Constitution should be interpreted.

What, to ensure freedom and individual rights for all?

I dont see anything wrong with that.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Roy Moore makes it clear that the Ten Commandments, and only a Christian (borrowed from Judeism) symbol would be there to acknoledge the Christian God. If that's not government violating the establishment clause, I don't know what is.

This is Moore's Waterloo. He's been building towards it for years. The question now is, is he Wellington or Napoleon?

Psst... Tony, it's "I couldn't care less." If you "could care less" then apparently you'd have some vestige of passion for the issue rather than general apathy.

[a_unique_person]

From reading the CNN biography of him, he sounds like a real Frank Burns, (the film version of MASH, not the TV series).

[DialecticMaterialist]

Tony a democracy is more then a matter of mere majority rule, its a matter of core values like freedom of conscience and rule of law. Absolute power cannot be trusted in anyone's hands: not even the majority. That is why the Founding Father set up the Supreme Court and the Constitution, to avoid mob rule. Remove those checks and you no longer have a democracy but a majoritarian tyranny.

A nation where 80 percent of the people can vote the other 20 percent as slaves, a nation where those who don't adhere to a religion can be shot.

Sorry Tony but too many people have died to secure the freedoms of this nation. The Civil War's over, and you lost. Get over it.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Tony


What, to ensure freedom and individual rights for all?

I dont see anything wrong with that.

Based upon the content of your posts thus far, it doesn't surprise me that you would advocate such dictatorship as long as you were the one doing the "ensuring".

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
From reading the CNN biography of him, he sounds like a real Frank Burns, (the film version of MASH, not the TV series).

Although there's a bit of the TV version in there as well...

Originally posted by Tony
Ive already said I could care less about judge moore and the ten commandments. Personally, I think the issue is stupid. My problem is with the perversion of the constitution. Either by the SC or the congress.

You've already had it explained to you, fifty different ways, in some cases by people who know more than you about the issue, that it isn't a perversion of the constitution. Do you have anything else to say on the topic, or are we just going to go round and round until you win out of sheer endurance?

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Psst... Tony, it's "I couldn't care less." If you "could care less" then apparently you'd have some vestige of passion for the issue rather than general apathy.

D'oh.:book:

[Tony]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Tony a democracy is more then a matter of mere majority rule, its a matter of core values like freedom of conscience and rule of law. Absolute power cannot be trusted in anyone's hands: not even the majority. That is why the Founding Father set up the Supreme Court and the Constitution, to avoid mob rule. Remove those checks and you no longer have a democracy but a majoritarian tyranny.


I don’t know where you got this from, but I am advocating nothing of the sort. If any thing, im advocating more checks, especially with the way the SC can "interpret" the constitution.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Based upon the content of your posts thus far, it doesn't surprise me that you would advocate such dictatorship as long as you were the one doing the "ensuring".


WTF?

I never advocated dictatorship.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Tony



WTF?

I never advocated dictatorship.

Well neither have any of the SC members...doesn't stop you from accusing them....

[Tony]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Well neither have any of the SC members...doesn't stop you from accusing them....


Forgive me for not trusting the government.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why don't you? They work for you. But like a lot of employees, you do have to keep an eye on them. That's not a lack of trust, that's just being cognizant of human nature.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Forgive me for trusting the government over some fanatic like you.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Forgive me for trusting the government over some fanatic like you.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Tony

Forgive me for not trusting the government.
And yet you believe Bush. :D

[Tony]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

And yet you believe Bush. :D

No i dont.

[Shinytop]

So Tony, you think the states should be allowed to pass any law they want regardless of its constitutionality? Could Alabama reinstitute slavery? Could they deny women the right to vote? Why are those examples different from allowing a state to trample the rights of citizens to worship as they please.

See, your problem is that anything that is against your beliefs is bad and nobody else has a right to believe and practice as they wish. You are the exact reason the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You could not be a batter example. Thank you.

[zakur]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Did anyone else notice Flip Benham was standing in the background as Judge Moore gave his "I have a monument" speech? Thankfully something's gotten that loon out of Dallas. Yup...someone noticed:Pro-Lifers Find Inspiration in Justice Moore's Arguments (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200308 %5CCUL20030822d.html)

Pro-life activists appear to be taking a cue from "Ten Commandments" judge Roy Moore: "No longer do we hold [the federal courts'] decisions binding upon us, upon our children, or upon our nation," said the Rev. Flip Benham, director of Operation Rescue/Operation Save America.

"The second American Revolution begins!" Benham said in a press release issued after Moore, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, said he would continue to defy a federal court order telling him to remove a Ten Commandments monument from Alabama's judicial building.

...

In his statement, Benham criticized the U.S Supreme Court and other federal courts for trying to "erase the name of Jesus from the hearts of our children, our schools our work places, and the public square."

He said believers in Jesus Christ "will resist them."Huh? Jesus' name appears in the ten commandments?

[DavidJames]

Tony:

"It depends on the issue"

This issue, how do you suggest the constitutional question surrounding this issue be resolved. Not your opinion, we know how you want it resolved. I want to know the process you suggest to resolve the issue. Would there be different processes for different types of issues?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by KelvinG


A guy like Moore has no interest in anyone who doesn't think like him exercising their rights. He is a massive hypocrite. You can bet if another public building in their town had a monument called the "Atheists Manifesto" in front of it, he would be one of the first ones screaming that it must be removed.

This is a case where the phrase "holier than thou" has never been more appropriate.

Once again, it is an issue of christians crying "discrimination" because they can't use public money/land/support and other government agencies to promote their religion.

Poor, oppressed christians, can't use the government to force their religion down everyone's throats.

[Tmy]

Whats the deal wh the argument that the 10 commandments are the basis of our legal system? You can legally break all but maybe 3 commandments. And those 3 are secular. (kill, steal, lie (somtimes illegal) .

[Brown]

Originally posted by me
It's time for the ethics board in Alabama to review the canons of judicial ethics. I do not know what ethical code applies in Alabama, but judical ethics codes typically require a judge to uphold the integrity of the judicial branch and to carry out all judicial duties. A flat refusal to obey properly entered orders is no longer a matter of honest disagreement about the law, but it is a matter of fitness to hold office.From the New York Times (registration required): (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/22/national/22JUDG.html?hp)But it may be Chief Justice Moore who pays the price. On Friday, a judicial inquiry board is scheduled to hear accusations that he violated his oath by ignoring federal court orders. If the board finds that the complaint has merit, it will forward the matter to a judicial court and Chief Justice Moore, who is an elected judge, would be automatically suspended until a decision is reached.

[Pyrrho]

What's ironic is that the version of the Ten Commandments on Moore's Monument contains this:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

What I find most frightening is that Moore's supporters would apparently be willing to conduct a civil war on religious issues.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by zakur
Yup...someone noticed

........

"The second American Revolution begins!" Benham said ....

Huh? Jesus' name appears in the ten commandments?

This is what scares me about United States. There are so many vocal, fearful, right wing fundamentalist Christian Americans.

A 2nd revolution? Stating that is not responsible.

I am told over and over that these types of people are the minority, but there are reports showing that the fundies are growing in numbers, becoming bolder with their growing numbers. They are perceived as gaining political influence, and their messages are appealing to a lot of young Americans.

Perhaps I am just being paranoid, maybe my perception is fueled by X'ian fundamentalists' savvy use of the media. Maybe they really are not in any position to influence policies, judges, governments, and create a closer church/state realtionship. My perceptions could be wrong.

[hgc]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


This is what scares me about United States. There are so many vocal, fearful, right wing fundamentalist Christian Americans.

A 2nd revolution? Stating that is not responsible.

... I think this is why Randi broke his silence about religion a few weeks ago in his commentary. The same lack of critical thinking about the nature of the universe that leads to dowsers, homeopathy and feng shui also leads to this. And the threat is real.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
I am told over and over that these types of people are the minority, but there are reports showing that the fundies are growing in numbers, becoming bolder with their growing numbers.

That's true, but it's not as bad as it seems. The number of non-religious people is likewise growing. What's happening is that the population is polarizing. The number of "salad bar Christians" is shrinking as its members join the ranks of either the rational thinkers or the fundamentalists.

Currently, Christianity is socially acceptable, while atheism is not. However, as the number of non-religious people continues to grow, that will change -- especially as the fundamentalists grow more vocal also. I expect to see a huge increase in the political influence of secularists in the next 50 years.

Jeremy

[jj]

Originally posted by hgc
I think this is why Randi broke his silence about religion a few weeks ago in his commentary. The same lack of critical thinking about the nature of the universe that leads to dowsers, homeopathy and feng shui also leads to this. And the threat is real.

Ashcroft's list of judges, for instance. He's basically keeping a list of judges that support the constitution, and threatening to hold it against them.

When people start making lists like that, it's time to get a bit worried.

[Brown]

Originally posted by hgc
I think this is why Randi broke his silence about religion a few weeks ago in his commentary. The same lack of critical thinking about the nature of the universe that leads to dowsers, homeopathy and feng shui also leads to this. And the threat is real. Similar considerations moved Steve Allen to publish his commentaries on religion and the Bible. Originally, he planned to publish them after his death, but he was so alarmed about movements to make Christianity the official religion of the United States that he decided not to publish them posthumously.

[King of the Americas]

An open letter to all of those who support having a religious monument in a State building:

I would like to start by saying that 'I' am on God's side of this issue.

Secondly, I would like to suggest that those who support having a religious monument in a State Building have been misled.

The concept of Separation of Church & State was for the benefit of the believers. 'I' don't want MY BELIEF in God to be used to garner favor and support in institutions and buildings that clearly do not support and uphold God's Law.

By placing "God" on a whore house, you aren't going to change what goes on inside, you are just going to water down that which God truly represents and would stand for.

I know, that Our Country has adopted "God" into their motto, and emblazoned the word and image of God onto almost EVERY monument, building, or wall possible but that doesn't mean God supports ANY of those who built these things, the buildings themselves, or the people who use them.

I want the State to stop using MY BELIEF in God to garner support to their ill-conceived works, institutions, and causes.

A King is the very institution of Church & State working as one. The King says, "I am God's authority here on earth. Everything I say and do is of God, and with his authority." Americans disagreed with this stance, and we figured out that the King was just a man, who was quite fallible. Therefore, we concluded that to combine a 'perfect entity in God', with a most ‘imperfect entity in government created by the hands of manâ€(tm) would be a farce.

Now, I am not saying we shouldnâ€(tm)t strive for our governments to be more Godly. We SHOULD be more loving, forgiving, and understanding. We SHOULD think of the common welfare and safety of everyone. However, to say NOW that God is working actively with, in, and around 'state ran government'...

Well, I just don't see it.

I think the believers in Montgomery and the rest of America have been doped. God is NOT in the Pentagon, and he does NOT support War. His last messenger (Jesus Christ) said NOT to use violence to achieve your goals. And yet, these believers are supporting putting "God" on things most ungodly…

Herein lies the argument that NEEDS to be put forward:

God- Perfect, Good, in need of no change

Government by the Hands of Men- NOT perfect, inefficient, and in need of much repair and revision

These two entities are NOT alike, and have completely different agendas. Never shall the two be joined, and when it happens it is never good for the believers.

Put "God" on a building, and it will serve only to disarm your ability to question the motives of those inside. All that they need do is walk over to said monument and say, "Look, God is here and supports whatever we do, can't you see the monument!?"

Personally, I find it sad that so many are willing to have their private, personal relationship with their spiritual God USED and even ABUSED by those in government to build confidence in institutions that clearly don't support God, his laws, or his commands.

"God" belongs on a church, and in your hearts. NOT in a state owned and operated building.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The concept of Separation of Church & State was for the benefit of the believers. 'I' don't want MY BELIEF in God to be used to garner favor and support in institutions and buildings that clearly do not support and uphold God's Law. :clap: This is exactly the position my fiancee has on the situation, but you phrased it much better. Bravo. :clap:

[Brown]

It just keeps getting better. From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html)Asked on CNN whether he would support an Islamic monument to the Koran in the rotunda of the federal building, Moore replied, "This nation was founded upon the laws of God, not upon the Koran. That's clear in the Declaration (of Independence), so it wouldn't fit history and it wouldn't fit law."Wow, there's a back-handed insult to Islam, stunning ignorance of history and astonishing ignorance of law, all in two short sentences!

On "Hardball" last night, the "host" (I put the word in quotation marks because he was astonishingly rude to his guests, asking them questions and then interrupting them before they could answer) asked a lawyer for Americans United for Separation of Church and State whether a statue of Venus (e.g., one holding the scales of justice) would be appropriate in a governmental building. She was interrupted before she could answer (she used to answering formally, rather than in sound bites), but she should have said, "We're not talking about a statue of Moses here." Or, she could have said, "If that monument said, 'The Ten Commandments OF VENUS,' it would still be constitutionally improper."

[hammegk]

Originally posted by jj


Ashcroft's list of judges, for instance. He's basically keeping a list of judges that support the constitution....


What do you think? Two names, maybe three? I agree there is no need for a separate list. The current crop of judiciary seems to be nothing but constitution breakers usurping legislatures.

[King of the Americas]

This letter will appear in the Mongomery Advertiser.

What amazes me is that NONE of the believers are stating this argument.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk


What do you think? Two names, maybe three? I agree there is no need for a separate list. The current crop of judiciary seems to be nothing but constitution breakers usurping legislatures. Thanks for piping in with your usual level of relevant analysis, that is to say: none. Did your magic *I* tell you to say that?

Anyway, I look forward to a reasoned explication on what "constituion break[ing]" means and a specific breakdown on the current judiciary's performance in that area. Or even a list of cogent examples.

Let's face it, people have varying interpretations of the meanings of various articles and admendments of the constitution and of written laws. The courts are here to mediate disputes arising from those variances, and to pass judgement. Does anyone know of a better way of doing this?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Brown
On "Hardball" last night, the "host" (I put the word in quotation marks because he was astonishingly rude to his guests, asking them questions and then interrupting them before they could answer) asked a lawyer for Americans United for Separation of Church and State whether a statue of Venus (e.g., one holding the scales of justice) would be appropriate in a governmental building.
Chris Matthews is such an ass that I never watch his show. It's a stupid question because it is a secular symbol that is never called Venus, but referred to as Lady Justice. (http://www.legalgifts.com/scales-justice-lady-justice-list-page2.asp)

Here is another example. (http://www.statue.com/lady-justice-statues.html)

There are plenty of other examples, but you get the point.

[Sundog]

Ya know what's shameful? To all of us?

Where's the counterdemonstration?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Sundog
Ya know what's shameful? To all of us?

Where's the counterdemonstration?

All those people have real jobs and can't afford to be counter-demonstrating, besides, the courts are on our side, we've won! Why should we rub it in? :)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Grammatron


All those people have real jobs and can't afford to be counter-demonstrating, besides, the courts are on our side, we've won! Why should we rub it in? :) I also have a job that keeps me from this important task.

But, we should rub it in because these people like to think that it's "the people" against the federal courts, or whatever this week's bugaboo is. They should see and feel the presense of other "people" who don't share their view.

[zakur]

Monument opposition says it won't seek contempt procedure against defiant chief justice (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/22/ten.commandments/index.html)

Lawyers seeking removal of a Ten Commandments monument from a judicial building's rotunda told a federal judge Friday they would not press to have the state's chief justice held in contempt for refusing to move it.

The lawyers also said they would not seek to have the state fined, telling U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson on a conference call that they were convinced the monument would be out of the state building by next week despite the resistance of Chief Justice Roy Moore.

"Our concern all along has been compliance with the constitution. Once the monument has been removed, our concerns will have been addressed," said attorney Ayesha Khan, who participated in the call.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Chris Matthews is such an ass that I never watch his show. It's a stupid question because it is a secular symbol that is never called Venus, but referred to as Lady Justice. (http://www.legalgifts.com/scales-justice-lady-justice-list-page2.asp)The Venus business caught me by surprise, too, as I had never heard of Lady Justice referred to as Venus. But even so, the irrelevance of the question and the bad analogy implied by it surprised me even more.

And Chris Matthews indeed behaved like an ass. I saw no news reporting on his show (except for the periodic interruptions for actual reports by someone else) and no intellectual discussion. It was a waste of bandwidth and not worth my time. I've played "Hardball" quite a few times in my life, but to my knowledge I've never been as ill-mannered as Matthews was.

[hgc]

This site give Chris Matthews a regular thumping for his sins: Daily Howler (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082203.shtml)

[zakur]

From The Capital Times -- Editorial: A Wallace for today (http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/55327.php)The real point of this whole discussion is that Alabama has another top official who is preaching disobedience to the law. And, just as Alabamans still must live with the dark legacy of Wallace's illegality 40 years after his stance in the schoolhouse door, so they now are saddled with Moore. Had Alabamans rejected Wallace in the 1960s, they would have preserved a measure of their state's tattered honor. They failed to do so. Now, they have a chance to reject Moore and his lawlessness. If they fail to do so this time, they will doom their sorry state to another 40 years of backwardness, decline and ridicule.

The rest of the United States should look on the spectacle of Justice Moore leading that poor state into another fool's mission as a cautionary tale. The founders of this country were wise to favor strict separation between church and state. They were protecting both church and state.

Jefferson, Madison and their comrades - many of them men of faith, although not precisely the same faith - recognized that neither religion nor government would be well served when cynical politicians like Roy Moore tried to mix the two.

[subgenius]

They are not asking for Moore to be punished, which is a big mistake, for two reasons.

It will only encourage him to further defiance.
It will send a message that people in power can disobey court orders with impunity. You and I cannot.

Big mistake not to spank him.

[Brown]

Originally posted by subgenius
Big mistake not to spank him. I disagree that it is a big mistake. The decision not to press the issue has some merit, as the folks challenging the monument have enough bad press as it is, and they don't want to appear vindictive. Also, the Court may have some authority to deliver a sanction even if one side does not urge it.

Also, if Moore fails to behave himself, the matter can be pressed once again.

In a sense, the other justices on the Alabama Supreme Court saved Moore's judicial butt, by doing what he was unwilling to do, and deflecting the punishment that he was unwilling to deflect.

Also, there is still the matter of the ethics inquiry. Moore still might be punished by the appropriate ethics body.

[Brown]

From Yahoo and the AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=14&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments)Chief Justice Roy Moore met with a judicial ethics panel Friday as it considers charges that he violated his oath of office by disobeying a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building's rotunda.
...
Leaving the inquiry commission meeting, Moore said he spoke briefly, explaining that he did not violate his oath of office by refusing to move the monument because the oath requires him to acknowledge God.The panel did not issue a decision immediately.

Moore deserves some deference and respect because of his elected post, but I just don't see that his argument can fly. If he wants to talk about what he thinks God wants, he is entitled to resign his post and become a clergyman. If he chooses to be a supreme court justice, however, he is not entitled to disregard the law.

[Pyrrho]

ABC news web site reports that Judge Moore has been suspended from the bench.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
ABC news web site reports that Judge Moore has been suspended from the bench.
By whom?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

By whom?
It doesn't say..."breaking news" and a short statement that he's been suspended.

[arcticpenguin]

Here's tomorrow's news from NewsMax:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/22/141443.shtml

Legal Scholar Says Founding Fathers Back Justice Moore on Ten Commandments

Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Saturday, Aug. 23, 2003

WASHINGTON – A leading scholar of the First Amendment says if he were Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he would "rather go to jail" than allow the Ten Commandments to be removed from his court building.

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Dr. David Lowenthal, emeritus professor of political Science at Boston College, said the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the federal court order for the removal of the Ten Commandments monument.

[Pyrrho]

Try this link:

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TEN_COMMANDMENTS?SITE=ALMOP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- Chief Justice Roy Moore was suspended by a judicial ethics panel Friday for his refusal to obey a federal court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building rotunda.

Moore was automatically suspended with pay when the nine-member Judicial Inquiry Commission referred the ethics complaint against Moore to the Court of the Judiciary, which holds trial-like proceedings and can discipline and remove judges

[Cinorjer]

WASHINGTON – A leading scholar of the First Amendment says if he were Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, he would "rather go to jail" than allow the Ten Commandments to be removed from his court building.

In an exclusive interview with NewsMax.com, Dr. David Lowenthal, emeritus professor of political Science at Boston College, said the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the federal court order for the removal of the Ten Commandments monument.

Hardly surprising. Saying Dr. Lowenthal is a "leading scholar" is misleading, but he is well known because of his unorthodox views, published books, and speaking schedule. He takes the extreme view that individual liberty was a foreign concept to our founding fathers. His views are controversial and not accepted by most leading scholars of American history.

All this begs the question, since most of our "Founding Fathers" would have also been appalled at the thought of a woman or African American voting, leave alone holding public office. We can admire the men for what they did accomplish, without worshiping them as demigods.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Shinytop
So Tony, you think the states should be allowed to pass any law they want regardless of its constitutionality?


No.

See, your problem is that anything that is against your beliefs is bad and nobody else has a right to believe and practice as they wish. You are the exact reason the Constitution protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You could not be a batter example. Thank you.

Strawman. :rolleyes:

Besides, you dont even know what my beliefs are, bigot.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Tony:

This issue, how do you suggest the constitutional question surrounding this issue be resolved.

As far as Im concerned there is no constitutional question (with this particular issue). The constitution is clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What about that do people find so hard to understand?

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames


Would there be different processes for different types of issues?

Yes there would. The constitution is ambiguous on other issues; drug laws are an example.

[crocodile deathroll]

I suggest we should erect a big golden calf, and then the chief justice will smash them himself.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tony
As far as Im concerned there is no constitutional question (with this particular issue). The constitution is clear.

What about that do people find so hard to understand?

It's not that the text is hard to understand, it's that you're ignoring the mountains of case law associated with it over two centuries. Those decisions have altered the original meaning of the first amendment.

Now, I don't necessarily like that fact either (although I like the outcome in this case), but you can't ignore court decisions without disregarding the Constitution just as much as you're accusing them of doing -- Article 3, Section 1 gives the judiciary ultimate authority to decide all Constitutional cases, whether you agree with them or not.

If you don't like it, I suggest you vote for someone who will appoint judges whose views are closer to your own. But don't try to say their decisions are unconstitutional -- they are constitutional by definition.

Jeremy

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tony


What about that do people find so hard to understand?

Actually, "most" people don't. Starting with MM O'hare, there have been a few dozen rabid activists pushing crap like is now going on in Albamania (just a worthless tit on the boar of the fed judiciary).

Even here, the rabid few -- proud members of the "majority" here in this teeny tiny sampling of the minority -- are the same half-dozen voices.

I believe it is possible to impeach judges, and perhaps "the majority" may get tired of having their asses kicked by the activists currently staffing -- in particular -- the fed courts.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Tony


As far as Im concerned there is no constitutional question (with this particular issue). The constitution is clear.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


What about that do people find so hard to understand?

You cannot read some of the provisions of the Constitution in a vacuum, because many have been modified by subsequent amendments. For instance, the Fourteenth Amendment makes many of the provisions of the Constitution applicable to the states. The establishment clause of the First Amendment is one such provision.

The modification isn't hard to follow. Look at Amendment XIV, Section 1, which states in pertinent part,

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

The privilege of citizens is this case is the privilege not to be subjected to a state religion or to suffer the effects of any laws relating to religious practice. Thus, you are simply ill-informed about the meaning and effect of the establishment clause when you imply that the First Amendment prohibits only the Congress from establishing a state religion, or from passing any laws relating to religious practice. Case law makes clear that although only Congress is mentioned in the First Amendment, the executive and judicial branches of the federal government are equally prohibited from establishing a state religion or governing religious practices.

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly extends the same prohibition to state governments as well. Constitutional law in the form of Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the First and Fourteenth Amendments have held that state and local governments, including the executive branch of each, are prohibited from establishing a state religion or governing religious practices.

I suggest you read Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) for a landmark case holding that offical classroom prayer in a public school violates the establishment clause. It is a good illustration of how the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply to local governments, including the executive branch. It also contains a short summary of the history of government imposed religious indoctrination through officially sanctioned prayer in England, about which the colonists were particularly sensitive, and which led to the inclusion of the establishment clause in the Constitution.

Here is a link to the full text of the decision, which isn't too long:


Engel v. Vitale (http://www.thisnation.com/library/engel.html)

AS

[subgenius]

Thank bob they're removing this dipstick scofflaw from any position of judgment on anyone else.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?vts=082220031935

In my view one of the best arguments against electing judges: Moore. Especially the higher up you go.
Seperation of powers is a great concept. When you politicize (elect) the judiciary it leads to this crap. Election of judges leads to them answering to their constituency rather than concepts of ordered justice.
If you were before them, and not of their constituency......bob help you.
(I have previously expressed myself on the concept of the importance of judges showing that even they are not above the law.)

[DavidJames]

Tony:
I asked: "how do you suggest the constitutional question surrounding this issue be resolved. "

You replied: "As far as Im concerned there is no constitutional question (with this particular issue). The constitution is clear"

So it's up to you? Ok, I agree the constitution is clear and you are wrong. Now how do we resolve that disagreement.

You second chance, please answer the question:

how do you suggest the constitutional question surrounding this issue be resolved?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
This letter will appear in the Mongomery Advertiser.

What amazes me is that NONE of the believers are stating this argument.

But once, a long time ago, in a similar situation, one believer delivered a speech which incorporated your argument.

It was the year 1785, in fact, in the State of Virginia. Noted revolutionary figure Patrick Henry had introduced a bill to the state legislature which would levy a 3-pence tax on the citizens of Virginia - money which would then be used to pay "Teachers of the Christian Religion". Although this drama occurred within the legislature (as opposed to the judiciary), the idea behind the motion was the same. Alabamans are taxed to help maintain the State Judicial Building; some of those funds would be used to maintain the monument whose purpose is to "teach" the Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments - designed to send a message to "all who enter, Christians and non-Christians" (as one supporter put it), that they will be judged according to the principles of the Christian religion.

Of course, the premise that the monument "only pays homage to God and the Commandments which are the foundation of all American Law" is ridiculous. Certainly the Ten Commandments played a role - that much is undeniable; but they are only one brick in a much larger foundation. That's the point of the display in the United States Supreme Court Building, which depicts Moses, equal and alongside other great Lawgivers from our world's history. Certainly, Moses is carrying his stone tablets, but the emphasis is not on them - anyone who concentrates on them has missed the message.

But back to 1785. Patrick Henry want to force all Virginians to support teachers of the Christian religion. His bill had weight - Patrick Henry was a highly esteemed man after all - but an equally esteemed Virginian, and Christian, stood up in opposition. That man, of course, was James Madison, and his Remonstrance is still held by some to be the most beautiful and powerful argument for Church/State separation ever written - and from the perspective of a Christian believer to boot. While reading it, simply mentally replace his references to the Legislature with references to the Judiciary, and references to the "bill" with ones to the "monument", and Madison may as well be writing a direct rebuttal of Alabama Chief Justice Moore's stance on the current debacle. Since it is public domain, I've decided to quote his speech here. I was originally going to quote only specific parts, but his speech is a masterpiece in its entirety, so I instead figured I would produce the entire thing. Yes, it's somewhat lengthy, but it is nearly all relevant to the discussion at hand.

Of course, in large part due to this speech, Henry's bill did not pass.

Without further ado, here is Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments.

--------------------------------------------------

To the Honorable the General Assembly

of the Commonwealth of Virginia

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due extent, may offer a more certain repose from his Troubles.

10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious discord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to so great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. "The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representation must be made equal, before the voice either of the Representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration. We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by subgenius
Thank bob they're removing this dipstick scofflaw from any position of judgment on anyone else.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?vts=082220031935

In my view one of the best arguments against electing judges: Moore. Especially the higher up you go.
Seperation of powers is a great concept. When you politicize (elect) the judiciary it leads to this crap. Election of judges leads to them answering to their constituency rather than concepts of ordered justice.
If you were before them, and not of their constituency......bob help you.
(I have previously expressed myself on the concept of the importance of judges showing that even they are not above the law.)

You are right. Judges should be above partisan politics. They should be appointed, not elected. This would thoroughly insulate the judiciary from politics, although it would also insulate them from all accountability to the people, which is something I am not sure the electorate is ready for. We have always had such a system in the federal courts, but state courts are so much more pertinent to ordinary affairs in everyday life. I am not sure Joe Sixpack understands the implications of electing vs. appointing judges.

********************

Back to the Moore matter, contrary to what so many seem to believe, I am firmly convinced that Moore has no political future in Alabama. He has succeeded only in exposing himself as the extremist he is. Although he enjoys support from many religious extremists, he does not have the support of the mainstream voter in Alabama. Not everyone in Alabama stood by the monument this past week, although so many people on this message board seem to believe they did.

Even if Moore remains in office, which could be in doubt due to his pending trial before the Court of the Judiciary, he will not be re-elected. I would be willing to bet big money on it. Practically any political hack could beat him to a pulp in a campaign by simply replaying this episode over and over and reminding voters of his foolish and extremist stance in this case. Understand this: this episode is not a proud moment for Alabama. Its citizens, by and large, are deeply embarrassed by Moore and the implication in the mass media that he represents all of Alabama.

Roy Moore got elected to the Alabama Supreme Court on a close vote due to a few factors: the Republican groundswell in the 2000 elections, the backlash against Democrats and Clintonites, and the fact that his opponent was a lesser known woman.

AS

[crocodile deathroll]

This ten commandment affair reminds me of those other two stone monuments in Afghanistan, the Bamiyan Buddhas, which were destroyed by the Taliban to send a message around the world that these objects were considered to un-Islamic.

What they have in common is that they involve two stone monuments to demonstrate religious zealotry to gain attention in the world media, and the marriage of church and state. This may be a kind of a counter measure by xtian fundies in the deep South to the old Taliban fundamentalism and going to the same extreme lengths of fundamentalism as the Taliban. It is a measure to send a message to the Arab world that they really ae on a crusade to destroy the Islamic world along with every thing that is non xtian.

If it is what I suspect, a proxy crusade then it may be setting an very danger precedent

CDR

[subgenius]

The Islamic countries are all messed up because they don't seperate church and state.
We were founded on that principle. Don't we remember history?
Do we want to be like them?

"Acting so much like the man they hate"--Kid Creole ("There's Trouble in Paradise")

"I heard we have a space program when you sing you can't hear there's no air,
Sometimes I think I'd kinda like that,
And other times I think I'm already there."
--They Might Be Giants

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

If it is what I suspect, a proxy crusade then it may be setting an very danger precedent

CDR

There is no precedent being set here. This is one man taking a very extremist position with no legal authority to support it, and a few hundred supporters of his foolish cause.

Where is the precedent in that? That's like proclaiming the Heaven's Gate nuts who wore Nikes and jogging suits and killed themselves somehow set a precedent.

There have always been extremists in society. They do not affect the mainstream in any significant way, except to alienate themselves from it.

AS

[King of the Americas]

Wow...its just Wow...

You just gotta read that thing twice to 'get all of it'.

Do you get the feeling that these people actually LIKED to hear themselves talk? No TV or Radio, I guess this is the result.

Geez, my writing today is a little long winded, but this stuff is down right abusive and pounding with retorich, be it complete and precise as it is...I still felt as though I was trudging through it.

'I' was feel'n Madison, and I see this and EVERY other example of a God embosed government entity as an 'abuse'. I don't want them using MY BELIEF in God to garner support for most ungodly places.

I wish THIS argument was a part of the National Debate.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
Wow...its just Wow...

You just gotta read that thing twice to 'get all of it'.

Do you get the feeling that these people actually LIKED to hear themselves talk? No TV or Radio, I guess this is the result.

Geez, my writing today is a little long winded, but this stuff is down right abusive and pounding with retorich, be it complete and precise as it is...I still felt as though I was trudging through it.


Well it's clear that Madison felt very deeply about the issue - but you're right, they did kind of go on and on (and on).

Oh btw, I'm not the Upchurch... :D

To condense, I suppose Madison's points 3, 5, and 6 comprise the argument that you advanced against Moore.

[HarryKeogh]

no way he'd ever back down or admit error because that would ruin his book deal and his future appearances on the lecture circuit (i'm sure both forthcoming)

[pgwenthold]

Here's a great example of how far out there the supporters of Moore really are:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-22-alabama-justice_x.htm

Sealy, a Moore supporter, believes just the opposite — that the commission has undermined the very purpose of the judicial system.

"How can we try people in court for stealing when we are not upholding the document God gave us that says, 'Thou shalt not steal,'?" he said.

Umm, probably the same way that we can arrest people for speeding without having the bible say, "Thou shalt not speed."

Are they really so clueless?

OTOH, as I have often said, if these people don't know it's wrong to steal without the 10 commandments telling them so, then I hope they keep believing in them.

[subgenius]

His own argument is fallacious.
Removing that 2 ton atrocity has nothing to do with not upholding anything. He can have whatever he wants in his chambers.
Like banning prayer in schools. As JFK said the simple solution is to pray at home and church.
So there was no justice coming out of that courthouse before he snuck his stone in? He obviously thinks he's god and knows better than anyone else.
And under his pea brained thinking you can't prosecute people without his religious icon being there. Guess a lot of people will have good grounds for appeal.
And how about his hair? Bad transplants.
If god wanted him to have hair he would have given him some.
Let's all say it together......"Hypocrite."
Bet if we knew the truth we'd find some real dirt on this self-righteous twit. That's how it always is.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Tony
As far as Im concerned there is no constitutional question (with this particular issue). The constitution is clear.

You are either deliberately avoiding the question or evidencing a severe lack of understanding of the point...

When you have two opposing parties someone must have the authority to make that distinction. Even if it is "self-evident" a formal decision is still needed.

How would you say these issues should be resolved? You say it depends, ok how about this issue?

You can't simply give your solution to the issue, because that defines no process for resolving similar issues. Unless you are setting yourself up as the official arbiter.

[Some Friggin Guy]

I have a question.

Seeing as the supporters have decided to block all exits so no one can remove the rock, the question is begged: who paid for the thing?

If Moore paid for it, that's one thing.

However, if this was paid for by the state, then the solution to getting it out is pretty simple, if callous. Since the exits are being blocked such that a 2.5 ton statue can't be removed, break it into smaller pieces. It would save the state being charged huge money for keeping it there.

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


There is no precedent being set here. This is one man taking a very extremist position with no legal authority to support it, and a few hundred supporters of his foolish cause.

Where is the precedent in that? That's like proclaiming the Heaven's Gate nuts who wore Nikes and jogging suits and killed themselves somehow set a precedent.

There have always been extremists in society. They do not affect the mainstream in any significant way, except to alienate themselves from it.

AS

The Bush administration makes no secret of is war on Islamic millitant extremists, but is a kind of crusade be fought by proxy by US fundie xtian xtremists against all Muslims. Franklin Graham leads the charge.

IMO Franklin Graham will be all for the 10 commandment stones, he would like to ones just like them erected ouside the Whitehouse. He believes Christians need to show the differences between their faith and Islam, and this ten commandment affair is only a start.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


The Bush administration makes no secret of is war on Islamic millitant extremists, but is a kind of crusade be fought by proxy by US fundie xtian xtremists against all Muslims. Franklin Graham leads the charge.

IMO Franklin Graham will be all for the 10 commandment stones, he would like to ones just like them erected ouside the Whitehouse. He believes Christians need to show the differences between their faith and Islam, and this ten commandment affair is only a start.

I don't get how Christian fundies' support of Moore's monument has anything to do with Islam or our supposed war on Islamic militant extremists. How is the Ten Commandments legal battle a crusade against radical Islam by proxy? I don't understand.

They really don't have anything to do with each other. You don't have to be a Christian to see the danger to Western civilization that Islamic militant extremists pose. Hamas and Al Queda and other Arab terrorist organizations make no secret of their hatred of the U.S. and the rest of Western civilization. They would love nothing better than to see us wiped off the face of the planet.

The Ten Commandment affair is only a start? A start of what exactly? A resurgence of Christian fundamentalism? Not really. These people are extremists, not moderates. They do not represent a broad base of support.

There is no broad based uprising of Christian fundamentalism. The fundies are a fringe subset of Christians in the U.S., albeit a large fringe subset. The broad middle is pretty tepid by comparison.

The President wasn't elected because of his deeply held faith. One could argue he was elected in spite of it. He was elected because he's the anti-Clinton.

I just don't see this Moore thing as anything but a lone ranger idiot championing a made up cause and pandering to his found supporters, who fell for the bait and behaved quite predictably. It's not indicative of anything greater.

AS

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I just don't see this Moore thing as anything but a lone ranger idiot championing a made up cause and pandering to his found supporters, who fell for the bait and behaved quite predictably. (Emphasis mine.)
And he left behind a stone monument... (http://members.tripod.com/~ClaytonMoore/)

[Brown]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I don't get how Christian fundies' support of Moore's monument has anything to do with Islam or our supposed war on Islamic militant extremists. How is the Ten Commandments legal battle a crusade against radical Islam by proxy? I don't understand.

They really don't have anything to do with each other. You don't have to be a Christian to see the danger to Western civilization that Islamic militant extremists pose. Hamas and Al Queda and other Arab terrorist organizations make no secret of their hatred of the U.S. and the rest of Western civilization. They would love nothing better than to see us wiped off the face of the planet.
To borrow a point from Bill Maher: There is a benefit to having disputes like this resolved in public, as the resolution shows that this nation is not officially a "Christian nation." Some Islamic extremists would like to paint their hatred of the USA in terms of one religion versus another... but events like this show at least an aspiration of religious neutrality in the national and local governments of the USA.

[Shinytop]

The idiot judge paid for it, or at least the state did not.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Shinytop
The idiot judge paid for it, or at least the state did not. If I remember right (and others should feel free to correct me), funds for the monument itself came from private donations, spearheaded by a religious broadcaster.

However, other costs associated with the monument were borne by taxpayers. Cleaning, repair and maintenance, for example.

Another cost (and not a small one) was insurance or liability-related cost. Children like to play on monuments of that size, whether they are roped off or not, and a fall could cause serious injury to a child (and a serious liability problem for the state). In addition, the weight of the monument was a serious concern, as there was (and still is) some question as to whether the floor can support it. Damage to the facilities due to the excessive weight could be extensive. Also, it has been suggested that the monument may impede an evacuation of the building. Risks such as these are a burden on taxpayers.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Brown
However, other costs associated with the monument were borne by taxpayers. Cleaning, repair and maintenance, for example.With respect, how much cleaning, let alone repair and maintenance, could a stone like the one in question possibly require?

[Brown]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
With respect, how much cleaning, let alone repair and maintenance, could a stone like the one in question possibly require? Well, that depends on whether people leave it alone. As courthouse janitors can tell you, not all visitors are respectful of government property. Some of them intentionally or unintentionally get dirt, chewing gum, soft drinks, food, etc., on statues, monuments, exhibits and other ornate things in the building.

This particular monument includes engraving, and it would take some work to remove material that got lodged in the engraving.

If people left the thing alone, then all the janitor would have to do would be to dust it at night, maybe wipe it to get rid of fingerprints from folks who touched it.

[Checkmite]

Late, yeah, but a headline from Friday:

Ala. Judge Relents on Monument (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33748-2003Aug22.html)


MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 22 -- After defying a federal court order and drawing hundreds of cheering Christian activists to this capital city, Alabama's crusading chief justice conceded today and said that he will not try to block the removal of his 2-ton Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Supreme Court building.

"He will not interfere," Stephen Melchior, the lead attorney for Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, said in an interview.

...

Moore's suspension and the slow realization that he is powerless to stop the monument's removal did not deter demonstrators, many of whom clung to hope that a miracle would change the outcome of a case that has ignited passionate debate for months and solidified the chief justice's iconic status among Christian conservatives.

"Maybe they can move the monument, but they can't take it out of our hearts," said Rich Kendall, 52, who stood steps from the courthouse doors with a 10-foot-tall wooden cross that read "Jesus Died For You."

It increasingly appears that the monument will be moved to a nonpublic area of the court building. Associate justices have even been investigating whether it is heavy enough to crash through the unreinforced floors in private offices and elevators. Despite those signals, activists outside the courthouse remained wary that the monument would eventually be taken out of the building. They are maintaining 24-hour watches and vowing to risk arrest to keep it inside.

"The monument is not coming out with us here," said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, which has spearheaded the demonstrations.

...

[Brown]

There may be a disturbing trend here. Some of those protesting the removal of the monument seem to be trying desperately to keep the attention of the media. I hope that the increase in inflammatory rhetoric, which seems to be intended to draw media attention, does not incite anyone to violence.

[Brown]

According to CNN and AP, (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/ten.commandments.ap/index.html) a group has filed suit to prevent removal of the monument:Attorneys prepared to ask a federal court in Mobile to block the removal of the Christian monument.

The lawsuit on behalf of a Christian talk show host and [sic] would name as defendants the eight associate justices who last week overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore and directed that the federal court order be followed, said attorney Jim Zeigler.I'm trying to be creative, but I cannot think of how such a lawsuit could be well-grounded in fact and law. I wonder what arguments will be used to try to convince a district judge that he can nullify an order from a higher court.

I also wonder whether the "talk show host" has standing to sue, or is from Alabama. This report does not say whether the "talk show host" employs television, radio or some other medium.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brown
According to CNN and AP, (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/ten.commandments.ap/index.html) a group has filed suit to prevent removal of the monument:I'm trying to be creative, but I cannot think of how such a lawsuit could be well-grounded in fact and law. I wonder what arguments will be used to try to convince a district judge that he can nullify an order from a higher court.


Hmm, sounds like me that the argument is that the justices are not allowed to intercede on behalf of Moore to remove the monument. IOW, he has a right to be in contempt of court if he choses to be.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Brown
...

This report does not say whether the "talk show host" employs television, radio or some other medium. Good question. I can picture that this guy has a little thing he does in the church basement where people gather after cake and coffee for a little "talk show" in which the "host" asks easy set-up questions of his "guests," all of which are already in lock-step agreement, because they got their opinions from the puppet-on-the-pulpit, who claims to have the puppet-master-in-the-sky pulling on his strings (exclusive of all else present), not an hour ago anyway. Oh, but it isn't hard to get this same stuff aired on AM radio or on cable TV too.

[hgc]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Hmm, sounds like me that the argument is that the justices are not allowed to intercede on behalf of Moore to remove the monument. IOW, he has a right to be in contempt of court if he choses to be. This is the great unnoticed element of this. The other 8 clearly acted on Moore's behalf! He gets to save face, as in not giving in, and yet he doesn't have to go to jail for contempt, nor be the the cause of Alabama paying huge fines. They should have left him to stew in his own juices.

[Checkmite]

There is hope...

From the CNN article

At Frazer Memorial United Methodist Church, worshippers said they want the Ten Commandments in public life but have reservations about Moore and his handling of the dispute.

"It was forced down our throats," Debbie Stack said of the marker. "This has taken the focus off of God and put it on a man."


This marks a dissenting opinion from Christians that up until now has not been very public, or has been purposefully ignored.

[Brown]

An update, from Yahoo and AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20030825/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments)The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Mobile on behalf of a Christian radio talk show host and a pastor, says the forced removal of the monument would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

U.S. District Judge William Steele — the judge who ordered the monument removed — set a hearing for Wednesday on the lawsuit.Is there a colorable argument that removal of the monument from public premises in any way affects anyone's freedom of religion? I see no such colorable argument.

Also, the plaintiffs may have serious problems with something called "standing to sue." They don't own the monument, and the monument is not on their property, so it's hard to see how they are affected in any way by the monument's removal. In general, only a person who actually has something at stake can maintain a suit.

Do not be surprised if the lawyers for the plaintiffs receive a rather unpleasant response from the court, much as Fox's lawyers did in their suit against Al Franken.

By the way, who is/are the "Christian radio talk show host and a pastor?" Are they two people or only one? Are they from Alabama? Actually, I'm glad I don't know who they are, since (if the AP reports are right) the purpose of the suit is to grandstand and to attract publicity.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
There is hope...



This marks a dissenting opinion from Christians that up until now has not been very public, or has been purposefully ignored.

That's what it'll take. Religious people standing up for seperation of Church and State.....its in the religious people's self-interests.....

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by subgenius


That's what it'll take. Religious people standing up for seperation of Church and State.....its in the religious people's self-interests.....

This is why I like to point out that many of the "prayer in high school" lawsuits have actually been brought by other religions, and not atheists.

For example, that famous case of prayer at high school football in Texas was a challenge by the catholics and mormons, who were p-o-ed that it was always the baptists leading the prayers.

In the same way, this case could have easily originated from the catholics as well, because the 10 commandments listed on the monument are not those of the catholic catechism.

[Brown]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
This is why I like to point out that many of the "prayer in high school" lawsuits have actually been brought by other religions, and not atheists.Very good points. This matter has been painted as atheists vs. Christians, but it might not really be that. Some religious groups insist upon government neutrality in matters of religion. Other groups insist on it only when they disagree with what the government wants to do.

[Brown]

The most recent story from CNN says that the new lawsuit alleges "that removing the monument would amount to a government endorsement of a 'religion of non-theistic beliefs.'"

Basically, pgwenthold's remark seems to summarize the argument: "Poor, oppressed christians, can't use the government to force their religion down everyone's throats."

One might also summarize the argument thus: "Unless the government shows special favoritism to Christianity, the government necessarily establishes atheism!"

It ain't gonna fly.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Brown
Very good points. This matter has been painted as atheists vs. Christians, but it might not really be that. Some religious groups insist upon government neutrality in matters of religion. Other groups insist on it only when they disagree with what the government wants to do.

I've noticed this too. Just today I read an article by Rev. Jerry Falwell (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34237) that refers to the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. In it he states Its leader, Barry Lynn, has admitted to me he wants all civic references to the Almighty – including "In God We Trust" on our nation's currency – permanently exterminated.

Noticed he left out that it is Rev. Berry Lynn.