Alabama's Hindu population was fine with it. They checked with him to be sure.Originally Posted by bmulligan
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 in his honor af few days ago: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."
There's a reason the founders never penned the word 'God' in the constitution, and this guy is one of them.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.
Alabama's Hindu population was fine with it. They checked with him to be sure.Originally Posted by bmulligan
did they ask brahma, adonai, or judge roy bean himself?
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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by Rywill
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.
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?
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.Originally Posted by bmulligan
Are we actually all in agreement about this?
Maybe we should give it until tomorrow at lunchtime before we call it. :)Originally Posted by XPav
I disagree. :twisted:
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...
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.
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.Originally Posted by Tyjenks
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.Originally Posted by Jakub
And if you had a really hot cousin that you saw just once every few years, you would be tempted, too.
-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!
Jeff, how is it not state sponsorship of religion if only one religion gets to put up its stuff on the wall?
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.Originally Posted by Tyjenks
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
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!)Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
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?
Yes. The ACLU isn't picky.
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.
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.
Good to know bigotry is not dead.Originally Posted by Jakub
Oh, I agree there would be screaming by some folks. I just disagree it would be the same folks.Originally Posted by Rywill
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... ;)
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.Originally Posted by jeff lackey
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.Originally Posted by Christoph Nahr
Amusingly enough, this is what Judge Moore said about the Wallace comparison (which, you have to admit, is pretty relevant):Originally Posted by Tyjenks
As long as you're Christian or Jewish, that is."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."
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.
Originally Posted by Christoph NahrOriginally Posted by Thomas Jefferson
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?