Ten Commandments Time Is Up

[bmulligan]

On Saturday, August 16, impassioned Americans gathered on the streets in front of the Alabama Capitol Building to offer their support for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. On August 5, Federal Judge Myron Thompson issued an order to Moore, giving him fifteen days to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments, which rests in the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. On August 14, Moore announced that he had "no intention of removing the monument."

I sure am glad I don't live in Alabama. Knowing that a soldier of the one true god is upholding the law wouldn't make me sleep better at night, especially if I were a hindu. Does anyone wonder how this guy got appointed to the Supreme court in Alabama? Here's what he said in a rally (http://www.reclaimamerica.org/PAGES/10Commandments/MooreTime.html) in his honor af few days ago:


One nation under God was their cry and declaration,
Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation.
For unlike mankind before them who had walked this earthen sod,
These men would never question the Sovereignty of God.
That all men were "created" was a truth "self-evident,"
To secure the rights God gave us was the role of government.
And if any form of government became destructive of this end,
It was their right, their duty, a new one to begin.



There's a reason the founders never penned the word 'God' in the constitution, and this guy is one of them.

[DennyA]

I sure am glad I don't live in Alabama. Knowing that a soldier of the one true god is upholding the law wouldn't make me sleep better at night, especially if I were a hindu.
Alabama's Hindu population was fine with it. They checked with him to be sure.

[bmulligan]

did they ask brahma, adonai, or judge roy bean himself?

[Tyjenks]

This thing has been going on here for months. He was ordered to remove it, but he had promised his zealots....uhm....supporters he would not take it down since he had it commisioned and installed. Now if he takes it down, he and his "side" are deserting their beliefs and bowing to man's rules and deserting God's. UGH! He had the Ten COmmandments behind his bench in a much more modest form when he was just a run-of-the mill judge, too. Now, he is holding out for a federal Supreme Court ruling so he can bleed the last bit of grandstanding out of it.

Him having the monument does not, personally, really bother me. I understand it is a separation of church and state issue and the letter of the law should be followed. The court has spoken and it is the same court he sends people to jail in every day. The monument needs to be moved. Now he wants to selectively pick and choose which laws should be followed and which should not. That pisses the shit outta me.

Today his supporters engaged in a bit of civil disobedience and were carted off to the pokey. I believe he should be found in contempt and be given the same treatment.

[Rywill]

I've been following this story for a while. It makes me really, really angry. I haven't posted anything about it here because it would basically just be a lot of anti-religious bile, and who needs that? But since someone else started a thread, allow me to say that this guy makes me sick. I don't know what Alabama's procedures are, but this guy should be stripped of his judgeship if that's possible.

Of course, even if it's possible, it won't happen, because it's Alabama (no offense Ty) and they love him there--he was elected to his position, is the answer to bmulligan's question (although I was happy to see other Alabama judges speaking out against him and even trying to get his decisions overturned). I'm glad the federal system is working right and guaranteeing our right to be free from government oppression, but it's scary because you know that probably 90% of the stuff, nothing is ever done about it. It makes me sad and angry.

[Tyjenks]

Of course, even if it's possible, it won't happen, because it's Alabama (no offense Ty) and they love him there--he was elected to his position, is the answer to bmulligan's question (although I was happy to see other Alabama judges speaking out against him and even trying to get his decisions overturned). .

None taken. No one wants to touch it down here. The governor is letting it run it's course as he has completely fucked up selling his tax plan and does not need any more heat on him. The A.G., Bill Pryor (who is supposed to be getting a federal position, but it is getting stonewalled by Dems. in Conngress) is a conservative and I believe religious man, but has come out against him for the most part.

As Rywill said, it is Alabama and the majority of citizens are vocally and silently behind him. Rightly or wrongly, they believe this country and government was founded under Judeo-Christian ethics and secular society is slowly stripping all of their beliefs out of every bit of their lives; prayer in school, prayer at football games, the Ten Commandments flak, et.al.

He was elected in large part due to his reputation as "The Ten Commandment" judge as he went through a smaller scaled version of this in the courtroom he presided over beforehand.

The whole thing is just a big waste of time and energy when there are matters of great import on the state and federal levels that need to be tended to. Now it is just a pissing match. Let him have the damn thing or remove him from his seat, but get the damn thing over with.

[bmulligan]

One of the arguments he used at one of the trials was that our constitution was written with the concept of the judeo-christian god as it's premise. I find it hard to believe that people like Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson believed in the christ, as such. I haven't read much about Madison's personal beliefs, but having read many biographies and writings of Jefferson, I can safely say that he was not a believer in the Christ.

What's really amusing is the line in Moore's speech "Upon the law of Nature's God they built a mighty Nation." He refers to 'Nature's God', a term used to define a god defined by locke's concept of 'Natural Law', used specifically to distinguish it from the christian god concept. Does this guy not even realize what he is saying?

[Tyjenks]

Does this guy not even realize what he is saying?

I do not believe he does know. That is moot. Church and religion does not, however, operate in the South by any logical line of reasoning. Any arguements running counter to what he says will fall on deaf ears for the most part. Sad, but true.

[XPav]

Are we actually all in agreement about this?

[Tyjenks]

Are we actually all in agreement about this?

Maybe we should give it until tomorrow at lunchtime before we call it. :)

[cyborg]

I disagree. :twisted:

[JeffL]

Well, crap. If no one else will come up with a counter argument, I will just to make it more interesting.

The Supreme Court sits under a plaque/banner that has the words "Under God" on it. So how can they say that a court has to be stripped of a monument with the 10 Commandments on it?

Other than the "serve no other God" commandment, our western laws are all pretty much in keeping with most of the commandments, and the founding fathers who wrote the constitution (I"m a hopeless history buff) were God-Fearing men, by and large. Their primary fear wasn't that God would be acknowledged, but that one state-enforced religion would be set up and all others would be persecuted and banned. I think, from reading tomes on these guys and their desires when putting the country together, they would have no problem having the ten commandments in a court room, nor would they have a problem with a photo of Joseph Smith in the court room. They were much more concerned with the government passing laws restricting religious practice and expression than they were with removing such expressions.

OK - that said - no, I said I would argue the contrary POV to keep this from being a thread that sets a precedent of harmony...

[Tyjenks]

Jeff Lackey is a disruptive influence and should be gently touched.

My point: Whether it is found unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court after Judge Moore's final appeal matters little to me. He has been ordered to remove it and should do so in accordance with the laws he supposedly stands behind and enforces on a daily basis.

The problem: He knows he is fighting a losing battle and he also knows that once that 2 ton behemoth is removed, it is not going back in. To me, he is coming off like a child who thinks if he holds on to the jungle gym bars tight enough he will not have to leave the playground and go home.

[Jakub]

The problem: He knows he is fighting a losing battle and he also knows that once that 2 ton behemoth is removed, it is not going back in. To me, he is coming off like a child who thinks if he holds on to the jungle gym bars tight enough he will not have to leave the playground and go home.
To me, it's a political scam and a great way to get attention by courting the mindless religious fruitcake masses. If I was looking to get elected Senator, that'd be my ticket in Cousinfuck, Alabama too.

[Tyjenks]

The problem: He knows he is fighting a losing battle and he also knows that once that 2 ton behemoth is removed, it is not going back in. To me, he is coming off like a child who thinks if he holds on to the jungle gym bars tight enough he will not have to leave the playground and go home.
To me, it's a political scam and a great way to get attention by courting the mindless religious fruitcake masses. If I was looking to get elected Senator, that'd be my ticket in Cousinfuck, Alabama too.

That is definitely part of the equation, IMO. I do think people, including the judge himself, believe their religion, faith, whatever is being attacked from all sides and letting this one more thing go is simply more chipping away at those beliefs. This is not something he just started recently. He had the 10 commandments behind his courtroom bench the entire time he was a local judge and no one made a big deal about it until he began to make plans to run for a higher office.

And if you had a really hot cousin that you saw just once every few years, you would be tempted, too.

[Tyjenks]

UPDATE:

-The eight associate justices overruled Judge Moore
-A temporary partition was put up to block the viewing of the monument for 3 hours.
-The judge had been out of town for a family funeral and came back to the captial when he heard of the partition and it has now been removed.
-Supporters continue to hold a vigil so they can lay down in front of anyone who attempts to remove it.

The fun never stops!

[Jason McCullough]

Jeff, how is it not state sponsorship of religion if only one religion gets to put up its stuff on the wall?

[Jakub]

-Supporters continue to hold a vigil so they can lay down in front of anyone who attempts to remove it.
This is precisely why we've developed laser-guided munitions. So we can off the supporters without destroying the monument and thus making it impossible to remove it in the legal sense of the word.

[Anders Hallin]

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

[JeffL]

Jeff, how is it not state sponsorship of religion if only one religion gets to put up its stuff on the wall?

I didn't say it was a good argument. ;) I just felt it would be more interesting if someone tried to argue the other side. (Where are the lawyers when you need them!)

I suppose the answer is that I haven't seen anyone barred from putting up a picture of Budhaa on the wall.

The other argument - we are SO free in this nation that we mistake things like this for the religious persecution that the constitution was talking about in separation of religion and state. I really doubt that anyone who has had to be tried for speeding in that court saw the monument and felt like their personal freedom to practice Islam, Shinto, Mormonism, or Atheism was in danger. What the founding fathers were trying to prevent was a state situation like many Islam nations, where wearing a cross on your neck in public can get you in big trouble, or nations where practicing certain religions can get you thrown in prison. We are so free here that we have to look for things to attack when it comes to freedom of religion. If you were forced to promise worship of God or go to jail, fine. But answer me honestly - if a judge in, say, California kept a Budhaa on his desk where everyone could see it, do you think the same people would be screaming about it? Do you think there would be a court case brought by the same people?

[Jason McCullough]

Yes. The ACLU isn't picky.

[Rywill]

Maybe not, but if he had a two-ton Buddha statue installed in the rotunda of the courthouse--overnight and in secret, no less--I'll bet you'd see some screaming. Especially if it were in Alabama.

The whole church/state thing is obviously sticky when you get to minimal intrusions, like a judge keeping a Bible on his bench or whatever. And a lot of stuff--like having "In God We Trust" on our money--is so old that people are loath to get rid of it. Should all that stuff go? My opinion is that it should, but that it's not the most pressing problem in the world.

OTOH, a huge monument in the entryway of a courthouse is a more serious transgression and should be removed immediately. You may think that nobody feels oppressed by it, but I disagree. For example, I'm an atheist. Walking by that monument might make me feel like my actions in that courthouse are going to be judged not just against the secular laws of the United States and the State of Alabama, but also against the moral laws laid down in the Old Testament. If I were a party or a witness or whatever, and one of the lawyers asked me whether I was religious, I might feel that a truthful answer was going to hurt my case.

Of course, all of those things might be true (and probably are true) even without the monument being there. But just as the existence of racism can't justify government-sponsored racism, the existence of religious prejudice can't justfy government-sponsored religious prejudice.

I agree that the First Amendment prohibits only the establishment (which includes promotion) of a particular religion. For example, I'm against laws preventing religious clubs from using public school facilities. I think they should have the same right to have the Christian Club as the Chess Club. That's fairness to everyone. But having the school or court or city hall or whatever publicly endorse one religion to the exclusion of others is unconstitutional, unrepresentative of the people of this country and the freedoms it stands for, and morally wrong.

[Chris Nahr]

While I'm not a history buff regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, I'd bet a Catholic crucifix that they weren't even thinking of non-Christian religions (except perhaps Judaism) when they were talking about "freedom of religion", but rather about various Christian denominations. Remember that the USA were founded just over a century after a devastating European civil war between Catholics and Protestants. The Europeans who emigrated to America wanted freedom to practice their private version of Christianity, not freedom to worship Allah or Buddha.

[JeffL]

To me, it's a political scam and a great way to get attention by courting the mindless religious fruitcake masses. If I was looking to get elected Senator, that'd be my ticket in Cousinfuck, Alabama too.

Good to know bigotry is not dead.

[JeffL]

Maybe not, but if he had a two-ton Buddha statue installed in the rotunda of the courthouse--overnight and in secret, no less--I'll bet you'd see some screaming. Especially if it were in Alabama.

Oh, I agree there would be screaming by some folks. I just disagree it would be the same folks.

The rest of your comment is too well reasoned for me to immediately come up with a rebuttal. Let me think about it with a double cappucino in the meeting I've got to to to... ;)

[Tyjenks]

To me, it's a political scam and a great way to get attention by courting the mindless religious fruitcake masses. If I was looking to get elected Senator, that'd be my ticket in Cousinfuck, Alabama too.

Good to know bigotry is not dead.

I am hoping we can have hoses and police dogs involved in the monument's removal. We cannot have people forgetting to bring up race riots and Gov. Wallace on the schoolhouse steps everytime Alabama comes up in the news.

[Jason McCullough]

While I'm not a history buff regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, I'd bet a Catholic crucifix that they weren't even thinking of non-Christian religions (except perhaps Judaism) when they were talking about "freedom of religion", but rather about various Christian denominations. Remember that the USA were founded just over a century after a devastating European civil war between Catholics and Protestants. The Europeans who emigrated to America wanted freedom to practice their private version of Christianity, not freedom to worship Allah or Buddha.

Oh, of course. They didn't intend for women to vote when they wrote the consitution, either, but consistent principles have a funny way of getting ahead of you as time goes by.

[Rywill]

I am hoping we can have hoses and police dogs involved in the monument's removal. We cannot have people forgetting to bring up race riots and Gov. Wallace on the schoolhouse steps everytime Alabama comes up in the news.
Amusingly enough, this is what Judge Moore said (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html) about the Wallace comparison (which, you have to admit, is pretty relevant):

"Wallace stood in the doorway to keep people out," Moore said. "We're trying to keep God in. Wallace stood for division. We're standing for unity."
As long as you're Christian or Jewish, that is.

Ty's original point is also well-taken. Whether the judge agrees with the federal courts or not, he's lawfully bound to obey their orders. This sort of civil disobedience has no place in a state courthouse.

[Andrew Mayer]

While I'm not a history buff regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, I'd bet a Catholic crucifix that they weren't even thinking of non-Christian religions (except perhaps Judaism) when they were talking about "freedom of religion", but rather about various Christian denominations. Remember that the USA were founded just over a century after a devastating European civil war between Catholics and Protestants. The Europeans who emigrated to America wanted freedom to practice their private version of Christianity, not freedom to worship Allah or Buddha.


The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

[Chris Nahr]

Very interesting. What was the assembly that rejected with "great majority" the explicit mention of Jesus Christ? Do you perhaps know who proposed this amendment?

[JeffL]

By the way - if I may step out of my devil's advocate role (perhaps quite literally in this case) for a moment, since I've accomplished my goal of ensuring we had some exchange of diverse thought in this thread ---

My true opinion is that the Judge had the right to put the 10 Commandments in the courtroom as a symbol of one of the foundational sources of western law. In the same way that other documents could be there. I also DO truly believe what I said about our nation being so free that we don't understand what a true assault on the freedom of religion and the basis for the separation of state and religion was really about, and thus have to look for things to go after. And I don't believe that the same people who are so passionate about freedom of religion in this case would be so passionate if it wasn't a Judeo-Christian item in question.

BUT - the Judge had the right to make his case, and he has been ordered by the highest courts to remove the monument. Once he moved this from a matter of the display of a document that is a foundation of Western law to an overt religious issue, he crossed the line IMO and this is what separates this from the display in the Supreme Court. And as a Judge, he should comply with the ruling, whether he likes it or not, and pursue it in whatever legal manner he wishes. He can pursue it for years, if he wishes, and try to get the replaced in the courtroom through legal means. But he has a role that he must fulfill as a Judge, a responsibility that he must fulfill while he wears those robes. Just as a Judge who thinks abortion is morally wrong (NO - do NOT make this thread an abortion thread!!!!!!!) still must fulfill the laws so pertaining. As a private citizen he can do whatever he or she wishes, but as a Judge he must fulfill the law.

Sometimes that has led to some problematic behavior, as our rulings have sometimes been wrong (Dred Scott is the easiest to pull up) but the only thing a Judge can do while wearing those robes is follow the law.

OK - putting on contrarian clothing again....

[Tyjenks]

I am hoping we can have hoses and police dogs involved in the monument's removal. We cannot have people forgetting to bring up race riots and Gov. Wallace on the schoolhouse steps everytime Alabama comes up in the news.
Amusingly enough, this is what Judge Moore said (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html) about the Wallace comparison (which, you have to admit, is pretty relevant):

"Wallace stood in the doorway to keep people out," Moore said. "We're trying to keep God in. Wallace stood for division. We're standing for unity."

I actually heard that he said that at lunch. :) That along with a tastefully done splicing of "Sweet Home Alabama" a la Skynrd playing behind a sample of Mel Brooks from History of the World:


I bring you the 15
***CRASH***
10...10 Commandments!

[Tyjenks]

Now the dumbass is comparing his fight with the fight against slavery laws. During his 2:30CST speech, Justice Moore stated that if we adhered to all laws ever created and never challenged them, we would still have slaves. Great. Lets just make every law applicable only if the individual thinks it is just.

Now that he is appearing on every radio and TV talk show locally and some nationally, he is starting to wear on me.

You made your point Judge. Now do your job.

[Gav]

Just a quick note on the founding fathers:

Thomas Paine was an atheist. Jefferson and (I think) Madison, and probably many others, were deists, which in those days was often just a more publicly acceptable way to be an atheist (deists believe that God created the universe, then essentially left, and doesn't interfere in its workings).

Not exactly people that the Judge Moores of this world would approve of.

Gav

[Andrew Mayer]

If you have to sneak it in during the middle of the night, then you probably aren't helping the glory of god.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

As much as I support separation of Church and State, as an attorney, I'm MUCH more concerned by a sitting judge ignoring the law and an Order of a higher Court than by the monument itself.

If judges do not respect the law and the system, what hope for everyone else??.

[voltaic]

...in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
Thank goodness all types of infidels were recognized! :wink:


While I'm not a history buff regarding the Founding Fathers of the United States, I'd bet a Catholic crucifix that they weren't even thinking of non-Christian religions (except perhaps Judaism) when they were talking about "freedom of religion", but rather about various Christian denominations. Remember that the USA were founded just over a century after a devastating European civil war between Catholics and Protestants. The Europeans who emigrated to America wanted freedom to practice their private version of Christianity, not freedom to worship Allah or Buddha.
You're confusing the founding fathers (late 1700s) with the pilgrims (mid-1500s). The former setup the country based on some free-wheeling ideas about freedom, the latter burned people at the stake who walked barefoot in the forest and had a mole on their chest.


Very interesting. What was the assembly that rejected with "great majority" the explicit mention of Jesus Christ? Do you perhaps know who proposed this amendment?
All 13 colonies had major problems with the original Constitution. Thus the Bill of Rights. As for who objected to what, I don't know, but I do know that for example Rhode Island was established as a non-religious settlement back in the 1500s so that "heretics" could leave the good hardworking god-fearing folks in Jamestown and elsewhere and have a place to live. Damned if I can remember the name of the woman :!: who had the balls to establish it though.

[Tyjenks]

As much as I support separation of Church and State, as an attorney, I'm MUCH more concerned by a sitting judge ignoring the law and an Order of a higher Court than by the monument itself.

If judges do not respect the law and the system, what hope for everyone else??.

My mind still boggles at the fact that his 8 associate justices and the state Attorney General have all gone against him and he continues to hold out! All I can imagine is that he wants to be led away in handcuffs to bring home his point regarding God being stripped from all segments of society, in his view.

The praying and the sweating and the handholding and the "Halleleuja" in the background is good stuff though, huh? :roll:

[Gav]

I do know that for example Rhode Island was established as a non-religious settlement back in the 1500s so that "heretics" could leave the good hardworking god-fearing folks in Jamestown and elsewhere and have a place to live. Damned if I can remember the name of the woman :!: who had the balls to establish it though.

It was a man, Roger Williams, who founded it because he was kicked out of Massachusetts (I think) owing to his radical ideas on freedom of religion. You may be thinking of Ann Hutchinson, who moved there a couple of years later, after a confrontation with the Puritans.

Gav

[voltaic]

That's the one, thanks dude. Been a couple o' years since the history classes... :wink:

[marxeil]

jeff lackey wrote -> How do I use the quote feature properly??

My true opinion is that the Judge had the right to put the 10 Commandments in the courtroom as a symbol of one of the foundational sources of western law

I thought I'd look up the ten commandments and check the religious / law ratio, so here they are (This is my translation so it might differ from what you know).

The first five are considered as between man and god:
1. I am your god - defenetly religious.
2. You shall have no other god, create no image or statue, nor will you worship it etc' - again, religious, and restrictive for some other faiths.
3. Don't use god's name in vain - I can't decide about this one.
4. Remember the seventh day to keep it. You shall work six days and rest on the seventh. You and every one else at your household (this includes servants, slaves, forein people, and work beasts) - The emphasis is a religious one, but to me it seems more a social law.
5. Respect your father and mother, so you live longer - Not religious.

The other five are between man and another man:
6. Don't commit murder.
7. Don't commit adultry.
8. Don't steal.
9. Don't give false testimony about somebody.
10. Don't covet another's house, wife, or anything else he has.

These last five seem quite innocent.

The score:
Religion - 2, Law - 7, other - 1.


Anyway, in my opinion, since this judge sees the commandments as a religious artifact, for the sake of this argument they should be seen as something representing religion.

[Jason McCullough]

"Don't use god's name in vain" is about as religious as it gets. "Thou shalt take a day off of work just to make me happy" is pretty much so, also.

[XPav]

Since when were "coveting" and "adultery" against the law?

Sure, they're things that don't have a religious motive in todays world, but they're not "law".

Agree with the "don't take god's name in vain" being religious.

So we've got 3 commandments now which are still laws.

Don't kill.
Don't steal.
Don't give false testimony (I'll expand this one to lying under oath).

[Rywill]

An overarching point, though, is that whether or not American law is partially traceable to the Old Testament (I think it is), the Ten Commandments are a purely religious icon. This is clearly about a judge saying "We're God-fearing people in this courthouse. If you're not (or if you fear a God that I don't like), consider yourself on notice." That has no place in an American courthouse.

[Dirt]

The USA was founded on religion. And it's been green and printed on paper ever since.

[Andrew Mayer]

There goes the judge (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20030822/ts_nm/religion_alabama_dc).


Roy Moore, who has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the monument in public view, was suspended pending the review of a complaint that accuses him of misconduct for not meeting a midnight Wednesday deadline to remove the display, a representative of the state Judicial Inquiry Commission said.

[Rywill]

The USA was founded on religion. And it's been green and printed on paper ever since.
The fact that the people who founded the USA were religious doesn't mean the USA was founded on religion. In fact, they made abundantly clear that the state was secular (even if the people within it were not) and that there should be a separation between religion and government.

[Jason McCullough]

The USA was founded on religion. And it's been green and printed on paper ever since.

Added in the 1950s, actually.

[Ben Sones]

The USA was founded on religion. And it's been green and printed on paper ever since.
The fact that the people who founded the USA were religious doesn't mean the USA was founded on religion. In fact, they made abundantly clear that the state was secular (even if the people within it were not) and that there should be a separation between religion and government.

Not to nitpick, but the founders were mostly concerned with the seperation between the church and the federal government. Total seperation of church and state never would have flown at the first Constitutional Convention, because a number of states had official religions (and they retained them after the signing of the Constitution). The interpretation of "serperation of church and state" that we have today--on both federal and state levels--is a result of selective incorporation and some Constitutional interpretation on the part of the US Supreme Court.

[bmulligan]

The Preamble to the Alabama State Constitution of 1901


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:


Interesting to note is the US constitution reads: " Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise therof............."

It is a limit on the US congress, not on the State of Alabama.

[Rywill]

The USA was founded on religion. And it's been green and printed on paper ever since.
The fact that the people who founded the USA were religious doesn't mean the USA was founded on religion. In fact, they made abundantly clear that the state was secular (even if the people within it were not) and that there should be a separation between religion and government.

Not to nitpick, but the founders were mostly concerned with the seperation between the church and the federal government. Total seperation of church and state never would have flown at the first Constitutional Convention, because a number of states had official religions (and they retained them after the signing of the Constitution). The interpretation of "serperation of church and state" that we have today--on both federal and state levels--is a result of selective incorporation and some Constitutional interpretation on the part of the US Supreme Court.
Good point, both of you, although nowadays the law clearly applies to both the federal government and the state governments, like almost all of the rest of the Bill of Rights.

[asspennies]

The point is not whether the country was or wasn't founded on religious terms. I prefer to think that it wasn't, but there are good cases to make on either side. The fact of the matter is, people treat the "founding fathers" like they are some nebulous all-encompasing singular entity, when in fact they were a bunch of people with vastly different views who came together to argue for days and develop a country.

The point is that the idea that the laws of the country are based in some way on the Ten Commandments is bullucks. As it's been previously stated, only two, *possibly* three of the ten commandments are actually laws, which would be statistically insignificant for any scientific stufy. The rest of them are just articles of religious promotion, which while it may make people feel good inside and give believers some structure in their life, are unrelated to today's concept of the government.

It's important that we consider today's concepts and not the concepts of 250 years ago. The big, gray blob known as the founding fathers did make every effort to realize that things change, and so the constitution is a living document, and the government and its views can change.

[JeffL]

It's important that we consider today's concepts and not the concepts of 250 years ago. The big, gray blob known as the founding fathers did make every effort to realize that things change, and so the constitution is a living document, and the government and its views can change.

Which is why they built in a process for amending the constitution. And why the laws for amending the consitution make it more than a trivial exercise. If you read the histories of the development of the country and the writing (and arguing over the writing) of the constitution, you'll see that one conflict they had was that they did not want the constitution to be unchangeable, but they also were afraid that the foundations upon which the nation was founded would be abandoned. The feeling was that if you could simply say "oh, this part is really not something we like" then you would set a precedent to abandon any part (such as freedom of the press - "Oh, well back when they wrote the constitution they didn't have all of the mass media and the like and they didn't realize the dangers that a truly unrestricted media could have in confusing and swaying people in a dangerous direction - all they had was a town crier and local newspapers. So that freedom of the press really only applied to what they meant as press back then, which was local newspapers....)

[Timemaster Tim]

As it's been previously stated, only two, *possibly* three of the ten commandments are actually laws, which would be statistically insignificant for any scientific stufy.

Not mention that the American economy is pretty much driven by the prohibited coveting thing.

[Tyjenks]

UPDATE! Live from the state of Alabama:

-Suspended with pay Judge Roy Moore compares himself to Patrick Henry (the "Give me Liberty or give me death" guy)

-A woman is suing the 8 Associate state Supreme COurt justices for infringing on her 1st Amendment rights, to prevent the monuments removal. If it gets removed, she will file a different suit.

-Contempt of Court charges are not being filed "right now" :shock:

-The Attorney General still refuses to set a deadline for the monument's removal. His words, "In a timely fashion".

-People continue to stay in front of the courthouse around the clock.

-People are calling the possible removal in the dead of night cowardly, even though that is when Judge Moore moved it in.

-If it is finally moved, the group vows to have people stand in it's place until it is put back.

These are all true and have been multi-sourced.

I think I will park my old Mazda pick-up next to the monument, refuse to move it, and see if I get suspended with pay and if I am afforded the oppurtunity to make speeches regarding my truck's location on a daily basis. :roll:

[XPav]

Sheesh. Too bad California is showing Who Wants To Be Governor. If they weren't, Alabama would win the America's Whackiest State Contest.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

UPDATE! Live from the state of Alabama:

-Suspended with pay Judge Roy Moore compares himself to Patrick Henry (the "Give me Liberty or give me death" guy)

-A woman is suing the 8 Associate state Supreme COurt justices for infringing on her 1st Amendment rights, to prevent the monuments removal. If it gets removed, she will file a different suit.

-Contempt of Court charges are not being filed "right now" :shock:

-The Attorney General still refuses to set a deadline for the monument's removal. His words, "In a timely fashion".

-People continue to stay in front of the courthouse around the clock.

-People are calling the possible removal in the dead of night cowardly, even though that is when Judge Moore moved it in.

-If it is finally moved, the group vows to have people stand in it's place until it is put back.

These are all true and have been multi-sourced.

I think I will park my old Mazda pick-up next to the monument, refuse to move it, and see if I get suspended with pay and if I am afforded the oppurtunity to make speeches regarding my truck's location on a daily basis. :roll:

Well, I think I just saw a Burning Bush. I think that means it HAS to get moved to my neighborhood, I'll put a Flamingo on it. :P

[Andrew Mayer]

4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
The needle on my irony meter has snapped.

[Rywill]

My favorite new Judge Moore quote:

"It's not about religion. It's about the acknowledgment of almighty God."
Errrrrmmmmm......yeah.

[Dirt]

The USA was founded on religion. And it's been green and printed on paper ever since.
The fact that the people who founded the USA were religious doesn't mean the USA was founded on religion. In fact, they made abundantly clear that the state was secular (even if the people within it were not) and that there should be a separation between religion and government.

Rywill,
I think you missed the jist of my comment.

[Dirt]

Sheesh. Too bad California is showing Who Wants To Be Governor. If they weren't, Alabama would win the America's Whackiest State Contest.

Texas, California and Alabama would be the top 3.

[quatoria]

My favorite new Judge Moore quote:

"It's not about religion. It's about the acknowledgment of almighty God."
Errrrrmmmmm......yeah.

Wow, that made my brain explode.

[cyborg]

I love the way your states are all screwed up in their own individual ways... either that or no one can remember them if you're asked to name all fifty.

[Dirt]

Hell, I can't even name a city in England outside of London.

[cyborg]

Name somewhere on the east coast and it's probably an English city :)

[Guido Jones]

"It's not about religion. It's about the acknowledgment of almighty God."

WTF does that even mean?

[Pjerrot]

"It's not about religion. It's about the acknowledgment of almighty God."

WTF does that even mean?

How about this:

It's not about 'what'. It's about 'how'.


Question.
Since the judge are known as the 'ten commandments' judge, aren't the monument in honor of the judge, and breaking one of the commandments?

[Dirt]

Name somewhere on the east coast and it's probably an English city :)

Tampa?

Atlanta?

Washington, D.C.?

[Machfive]

"It's not about religion. It's about the acknowledgment of almighty God."

That reminds me....


If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

[Jim F.]

Taken from http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html


Only one in five Americans approve of the federal court order under which workers removed the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building Wednesday, according to a new poll.


Gallup hasn't publically posted the poll on their site yet, so I'm not sure what the exact question was an what the breakdown of the specific answers were. 80% being opposed to the enforcement of the seperation of church and state is pretty drastic.

The number seems pretty accurate when applied to my office environment. To use completely anecdotal evidence, a good 75% of the people that I talk to here at work were opposed to the removal of the monument in one way or another. The reasons ranged from agreement with Moore to complete indifference ("Who cares if he wants the 10 Commandments displayed?").

For me, it's an issue of how I want our criminals judged. I'd prefer that we try our criminals according to the law and try to avoid applying religious reasoning to our findings and sentencing. For me, if I was to walk into a courthouse with the 10 Commandments displayed, it would seem that I'm being tried by a house of God instead of a house of law.

[Pjerrot]

For me, if I was to walk into a courthouse with the 10 Commandments displayed, it would seem that I'm being tried by a house of God instead of a house of law.

What about swearing in of witnesses? Don't you use the bible to that anymore in US courts?

[Anders Hallin]

What about swearing in of witnesses? Don't you use the bible to that anymore in US courts?
You don't have to.

[Tyjenks]

For me, if I was to walk into a courthouse with the 10 Commandments displayed, it would seem that I'm being tried by a house of God instead of a house of law.

What about swearing in of witnesses? Don't you use the bible to that anymore in US courts?

I believe the hand on the bible has been out of federal courts for years and many state and local courts have too. One of these blood-sucking lawyers can probably give you a less vague answer. :)


You shoulda seen the crying and commotion after the thing was moved 50 feet into the courthouse's media room. The vigil is still going strong. Lawsuits are being considered. Also, there is still plenty of kneeling, praying and repetition of the same pulpit blather which I have heard over and over. It ain't over.

The United Atheists of Alabama (yes we have a group, but I am pretty sure that is not the name) were out claiming victory. For some reason, they are not getting quite the coverage that the zealots were. :wink:

Most people I talk to here (and there is a wide range of ideals and beliefs in Alabama believe it or not) have the biggest problem with the Judge not adhering to the laws he was elected to uphold.

[Robert Sharp]

Did anyone see the Bill Maher show last night? They discussed this issue. Maher said that only 2 of the commandments are even relevant to law today. That's pretty accurate, though I would say that not bearing false testimony against your neighbors is a legal issue (so three then). The others, particularly the first commandment, would be abhorrent to people of other religions and goes against everything the American legal system is supposed to stand for. They need to get rid of the whole swearing people in with the Bible and/or references to God, so that even those claims would go away.

I am not a militant atheist, but I do think some of these more brain-washed Christians go too far. Clearly putting a statue like that in front of a federal building is going to be offensive to people of other religions. These commandments are not just good rules to live by, excepting the three mentioned above (stealing, killing, and perjury). But those three are present in pretty much all religions and moral systems. You don't need the ten commandments to tell you those things are wrong.

[Rywill]

Most courts out here use "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with no Bible (just raised right hand). But I have seen judges who have their clerks still use "so help you God." I've never seen anyone use a Bible, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Techincally I'm sure anyone can say they won't swear (for example, I believe it's against the religious tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses) or won't swear to God or put a hand on the Bible. But lots of people might feel intimidated saying that in court, and just go along even though they don't like it--exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to stamp out.

[Machfive]

I'd swear on the Constitution, given the chance to. If offered a Bible, to swear on, I'd politely decline.

[asspennies]

Chris Hitchens (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087621/) notes that the three "legal" commandments have been laws in virtually every society on earth, dating from well before the Isrealites left Egypt, which kind of makes the whole "our system of laws is based on the Ten Commandments" argument kind of moot.

(I'll ignore any inevitable cawing from McCullough et. al. about how Hitchens is a traitor or some such - he may be, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand)

[Gav]

I would argue that our government is based at least as much on a Roman model (a republic with a senate, and 2 elected consuls) as a biblical model (a king). I wonder if Judge Moore would allow a statue of Jupiter in the rotunda :wink:

As a more-or-less religious Jew, I also find it a bit amusing, because the Jewish understanding is that there are only 7 rules that all people (meaning Jews as well as non-Jews) should follow, and not all 7 are in the 10 commandments, which makes the overlap pretty slim. (they're derived from the rules God gave to Noah, if anyone's interested).

Gav

[Tyjenks]

As a more-or-less religious Jew, I also find it a bit amusing, because the Jewish understanding is that there are only 7 rules that all people (meaning Jews as well as non-Jews) should follow, and not all 7 are in the 10 commandments, which makes the overlap pretty slim. (they're derived from the rules God gave to Noah, if anyone's interested).

Gav

Just like a Jew to cut corners. :wink:

[Jason Levine]

Most courts out here use "Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" with no Bible (just raised right hand). But I have seen judges who have their clerks still use "so help you God." I've never seen anyone use a Bible, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Techincally I'm sure anyone can say they won't swear (for example, I believe it's against the religious tenets of Jehovah's Witnesses) or won't swear to God or put a hand on the Bible. But lots of people might feel intimidated saying that in court, and just go along even though they don't like it--exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to stamp out.

Didn't Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, say you shouldn't swear at all? That probably explains the Jehovah's Witnesses' view. Of course, a whole great lot of Western history since that time has, at its base, people who call themselves Christians doing exactly the opposite of what the Sermon on the Mount says, so why should they be any different on this point?

[Albert Woo]

Not at all surprised.

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

[bmulligan]

Some of these candle vigil nuts make me wish there were a god so he could smite them with a lightning bolt! All the chanting and crying are a shamefull display of insecurity. If you honor the commandments, fine, more power to ya, just stop wearing your religion on your sleeve. Jesus said not to preach on the street corner like the hypocrites.

These are the same types of people who dislike gays because they flaunt their sexual preferences. Why should outwardly expressive religion be so acceptable? Shouldn't these people have their own personal relationship with god and leave everyone else alone?

[Jim F.]

G.W. Bush's administration could give lessons on how not to handle domestic politics.


Asked about the president’s view of the controversy, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: “It is important that we respect our laws and our courts. In some instances, the courts have ruled that the posting of Ten Commandments is OK. In other circumstances, they have ruled that it’s not OK. In either case, there is always opportunity for appeal of courts’ decisions.”

Way to take a stand!

[Tyjenks]

Politically, he cannot come out against him or for him. More wishy-washy leadership. I wish people just one time would say what they feel. Just once.

[Mark Asher]

Yeah, I mean how hard would it be for the Bush administration to say that the judge was wrong in not complying with a court ruling?

[Sharpe]

Supporters of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore filed a new federal lawsuit Thursday asking that a monument of the Ten Commandments be returned to the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building, alleging that Moore’s eight associate justices showed hostility to religion and discriminated against Christians by removing the monument.

You know what worries me about all this? IMO, The pro-monument forces are using the freedom of religion issue to be intentionally deceptive about their real agenda.

They are trying to portray the display of the monument as an expression of religious freedom, which is NOT the issue. No one is saying that Roy Moore cannot put that monument up at his house or display it on a billboard, at a mall or whatever. No one is trying to prevent Moore from displaying that monument *as a private citizen*. The problem is that Moore is the Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, which makes him the most powerful agent of the state of Alabama in interpreting the laws. He has a tremendous amount of state power and a very important state government position. And he used that power to erect (secretively, overnight) a religious monument in a very public place in the state courthouse. The monument is positioned so that most persons seeking access to the courts have to go past it. And most importantly, when ordered by a federal court (enforcing our federal Constitution) to remove it, he refused. I personally believe he should be dismissed from his judicial position, for both abuse of his state power to promote religion, and more importantly for violation of his duty as an officer of the court to obey the orders of the court.

Instead, he and his supporters try to spin this as them being oppressed for practicing their religion. But the question in my mind is, why does their practice of religion involve state support of their religion? No one is saying Roy Moore cannot acknowledge God privately all damn day or that he cannot reflect on his biblical principals while making his decisions. We judge him by his *conduct* not his thoughts - he can think about God, Kant, sex, Freud, or Hitler for all I care, as long as his judicial conduct is within the bounds allowed by state and federal law. No one is trying to prevent Roy Moore from excercising his religion *privately*.

So the real question to me is, why are Moore and his supporters so damn fired up about excercising their religion *publicly*? Why is it such a big deal to have a *public* religious monument on state property, projecting state support for these religious principles? Either Moore is confusing public and private excercise of religion or his real agenda is in fact to impose his religious views on all persons seeking access to the state courts of Alabama.

Its the latter concern that makes this a serious issue. The actual display I could give a rat-fart about. But when Moore goes on at length about the fact that he *must* "acknowledge God" in order to do his official state duty (and remember he means acknowledge God *publicly* with the full backing of the stature of his office), I worry that Moore actually feels that the laws should be interpreted to enforce religious principles and that people who don't share Moore's views on religion are not entitled to equal protection of the law. THATS what upsets me about this.

I mean if this were just a personal religious issue, why isn't Moore satisfied with privately acknowledging his personal relationship with Jesus, and then relying on his religious principles in his daily life? Why the need to make this a national public spectacle?

Although Moore is trying to spin this as a freedom of religion issue, the reality is that Moore is simply trying to use his judicial power to impose HIS form of religion on everyone who is trying to use the state courts. And he should be fired because of it.

Dan

[Tyjenks]

Judges from the Federal SC on down are ruling based on their own idealogies rather than according to the law, IMO. Judge Moore simply has a spotlight and platform now and can build up a head of steam for his issues. He is milking it for all it's worth.

Before this reached a boiling point, he was given the option of placing it in his office or somewhere else within the building, but he said nuh-uh. This is all playing out just as the judge wanted and I guess he believes he will not be permanently removed because no one wants to take that step and take the heat it would draw.

I wonder what the Judge and his supporters think of Brittney/Madonna/Christina. I bet they TiVo'd it.

[Rywill]

Judges from the Federal SC on down are ruling based on their own idealogies rather than according to the law, IMO.
I think that's overly cynical. Some judges do that, but many judges make a conscious effort to follow the law. Obviously at the USSC level there's more of that, but that's kind of the nature of the beast--the USSC is the ultimate interpreter of what the law is or is allowed to be, so there's going to be a lot of room for philosophical disagreement (and pursuit of your own agenda) in that position.



This is all playing out just as the judge wanted and I guess he believes he will not be permanently removed because no one wants to take that step and take the heat it would draw.
I think you're absolutely right. And Judge Moore is probably correct in estimating that this is going to do him a lot more good than harm. There are apparently a LOT of very religious people in Alabama, and a lot of people who think the government should be enforcing Christianity. So he's probably giving himself a huge boost through all of this, even though it's completely immoral and unethical and wrong. Sad.

[Tyjenks]

Judges from the Federal SC on down are ruling based on their own idealogies rather than according to the law, IMO.
I think that's overly cynical.

OK, maybe I should have just said 'I am not surprised' rather than 'they all do it'. The judges correctly interpreting the law and doing their jobs properly do not make front page news while the agenda based, fruity findings do (ex.: CA judge declaring the Boy Scouts a religious organization and not allowing them to rent out a city park that they had for decades at a greatly reduced rate). So, yes that is what Moore is doing, but I am not as shocked as Sharpe (Dan not Robert) seems to be.


I think you're absolutely right.

No real comment, just thought that this needed repeating.


There are apparently a LOT of very religious people in Alabama
Noooooo, you think.

Approx. every 1/2 mile in the state there is a church. There are plenty of right-thinking folks in this state, but there are plenty of church going loons, as well. The problem is, many people, both old and young, feel peer-pressured into believing in these religious tenets. At the very least, they feel they should pay lip service to those beliefs to avoid ridicule. High level federal officials preaching them every day from up on high, does not really help to change things. Feel free to correct me on this, but I also do not think it reflects favorably on the state as a whole. :wink:

[Guido Jones]

Yeah, I mean how hard would it be for the Bush administration to say that the judge was wrong in not complying with a court ruling?



Asked about the president’s view of the controversy, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: “It is important that we respect our laws and our courts. In some instances, the courts have ruled that the posting of Ten Commandments is OK. In other circumstances, they have ruled that it’s not OK. In either case, there is always opportunity for appeal of courts’ decisions.”


Emphasis Mine. I mean they didn't come straight out and say it, but they did say it was important to respect our courts.

[bmulligan]

Hell, the administration didn't even have the balls to come out against affirmative action in the U of Michigan case. They danced around it similar to this issue. I guess they feel the less feathers they ruffle before next years election the better.