PDA

View Full Version : Justice Roy Moore and the 10 Commandments


Pages : [1] 2

mactastic
Aug 15, 2003, 10:28 AM
I'm wondering what you all think about this guy and whether he is trying to do the dreaded "legislating from the bench" that conservatives accuse liberal judges of doing. Bill O'Reilly was raking him over the coals last night for putting himself above the law, even though Bill himself isn't against the idea of displaying religious motifs in government buildings as "historical documents".

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/14/alabama.tencommandments/index.html)

In a fiery speech given just six days before a federal deadline to remove the monument, Chief Justice Roy Moore said he would take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of our law," he said. "To do so would, in effect, be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state.

"The question is not whether I will remove the monument," Moore added. "It is not a question of whether I will disobey or obey a court order. The real question is whether or not I will deny the God that created us."

I don't recall anyone asking him to deny his god, just to remove that monument from the courthouse. (Which is a beautiful rotunda IMHO)

mcrain
Aug 15, 2003, 04:23 PM
I can't stand these right wing bible thumpers who not only assume they are right all the time, but feel it is their right, no, more than that, their duty to make everyone else think and believe the way they do.

I only have one thing to say to that jerk, "Keep your nose out of my beliefs."

Moral foundation? Idiot, the laws were designed to be applied fairly and equally regardless of religion, beliefs, race, and everything else. He's sitting up there on the bench basically telling people that the laws are Christian, and if you aren't Christian, you're immoral.

I'm sure everyone who is not Christian feels like they are going to get a fair trial when they walk into his courtroom. :rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Aug 15, 2003, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I can't stand these right wing bible thumpers who not only assume they are right all the time, but feel it is their right, no, more than that, their duty to make everyone else think and believe the way they do.

I only have one thing to say to that jerk, "Keep your nose out of my beliefs."

Moral foundation? Idiot, the laws were designed to be applied fairly and equally regardless of religion, beliefs, race, and everything else. He's sitting up there on the bench basically telling people that the laws are Christian, and if you aren't Christian, you're immoral.

I'm sure everyone who is not Christian feels like they are going to get a fair trial when they walk into his courtroom. :rolleyes:

Well, I know the man, so let me shed some light on this. 1st he isn't legislating from the bench. He had a monument in the rotundra. He doesn't quote the 10 commandments while sentencing people, and he hasn't offened anyone that I know. If you know the law, and mcrain I know you do, there are many laws that exist that were based on the 10 commandments. Roy isn't saying what you accuse him of. He believes that the commandments of God are a fundamental basis of the laws of our State. That is all.

It has been so blown out of propotion. And remember. He is a Chief Justice of a court. Not a single Judge. Also, as far as people in Alabama that are not Christian. There aren't a lot my friend. Hell, even the name Alabama means God's land.

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 08:42 PM
I've been around this argument since before Madalyn Murray became Mrs. O'Hair. 1950s?

About all I've seen is more hostility from those taking her view of the separation of church and state, and more shrillness in their arguments. The arguments themselves are the same now as they were then.

Those opposed to her view are gritting their teeth more and getting more set in their own views.

Me'n th' Lord get along pretty good. I try not to bother Him, and I generally hope He doesn't see fit to bother me. I generally ignore the self-anointed representatives here on earth who claim to know what He wants.

And I generally ignore those who get their shorts all in a bind over something that seems to please multitudes more folks than it hurts--and I've never noticed the Word of the Lord ever hurting anybody.

But the morality of our entire body of law is rooted in the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

'Rat

Ugg
Aug 15, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
But the morality of our entire body of law is rooted in the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

'Rat

Nay, 'Rat, it is rooted in pagan, pre-christian societies. Christianity embraced a great deal of it along the way, it was the only way to get the natives to change their ways. One need only look to the Caribbean, South America and Africa to realize that the Catholic Church still gains converts through such tactics.

Methinks the world would be a much better place if those holier than thou types would embrace the true moral precepts of society rather than merely the Judeo-Christian ones.

Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...But the morality of our entire body of law is rooted in the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

'Rat

'Rat, there is a huge difference between acknowledging the roots of law in many different traditions, including Judeo-Christian ones, and saying those traditions are our laws. Seems to me the Justice does the latter when he says,

"I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of our law," he said. "To do so would, in effect, be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state.

I have no problems in acknowleging the importance of such codes of conduct from the ancient world as the Ten Commandments or Hammurabi's Code or the legal systems of pagan worshipping Greeks and Romans, but please don't tell me that to remove a monument to one tradition is going to bring about the "disestablishment of the justice system of this state." There is a reason for the seperation of church and state clause in the constitution and this kind of thinking is it.

Desertrat
Aug 15, 2003, 11:56 PM
No, removing the monument isn't going to destroy the rule of law/justice/whatever.

I'm just fed up with the shrill jawjacking over the issue.

I'm not offended by the symbols of any religion being displayed in any government's buildings in any country, anywhere. Fine by me. The real issue is whether or not that religion is codified into the law--and that is something to which objections seem to me to be legitimate.

I don't object to a tablet of the 10 Commandments, nor would I object to any or all other religions having some equivalent right alongside. (Well, maybeso a blatant fertility god in fullblown priapism. :D ) Equal time, if you will. Seems to me that most folks going into a courthouse either need all the help they can get, or they need reminding they're not the biggest studhoss in the known universe.

Folks are just raising hell over something that doesn't amount to a teaspoon of warm spit.

Folks always yowling about "Democracy!" Okay. If folks in a town mostly want the Big Ten on display. fine. Some other town, they don't, that's fine also...

'Rat

pseudobrit
Aug 16, 2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Folks always yowling about "Democracy!" Okay. If folks in a town mostly want the Big Ten on display. fine. Some other town, they don't, that's fine also...

No, folks yowling about their right not to be preached to from the state.

How about this: your town wants to put Buddhist images and such all over its school buildings and have "historic lessons" about Buddha.

You gonna move or let your kids be raised (or at least influenced) Buddhist?

pseudobrit
Aug 16, 2003, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
But the morality of our entire body of law is rooted in the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic.

No, I'd say the morality of out entire body of law is rooted in English Common Law, which had more to do with property than morality.

pseudobrit
Aug 16, 2003, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Also, as far as people in Alabama that are not Christian. There aren't a lot my friend. Hell, even the name Alabama means God's land.

Wow. That's a hell of a statement.

Are you suggesting that because there aren't that many non-Christians that everyone else should just accept a religious Christian government?

zimv20
Aug 16, 2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

How about this: your town wants to put Buddhist images and such all over its school buildings and have "historic lessons" about Buddha.


go for the throat, pbrit. let's pick some random schools and teach the koran, then in some random courthouses in alabama make plaques, in arabic, of some koran scripture.

then maybe we'll hear about separation of church and state?

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
No, removing the monument isn't going to destroy the rule of law/justice/whatever.

I'm just fed up with the shrill jawjacking over the issue.

I'm not offended by the symbols of any religion being displayed in any government's buildings in any country, anywhere. Fine by me. The real issue is whether or not that religion is codified into the law--and that is something to which objections seem to me to be legitimate.

I don't object to a tablet of the 10 Commandments, nor would I object to any or all other religions having some equivalent right alongside. (Well, maybeso a blatant fertility god in fullblown priapism. :D ) Equal time, if you will. Seems to me that most folks going into a courthouse either need all the help they can get, or they need reminding they're not the biggest studhoss in the known universe.

Folks are just raising hell over something that doesn't amount to a teaspoon of warm spit.

Folks always yowling about "Democracy!" Okay. If folks in a town mostly want the Big Ten on display. fine. Some other town, they don't, that's fine also...

'Rat

The importance of the monument is that no religion should be promoted by government. 'Rat, I take it by this statement:

Me'n th' Lord get along pretty good. I try not to bother Him, and I generally hope He doesn't see fit to bother me. I generally ignore the self-anointed representatives here on earth who claim to know what He wants.



that you're a religious man and my guess that your belief is in a Christian god. Those symbols that are constantly fought over in public buildings are also Christian - so your generosity, if my guess is correct, in not being distrubed by any religious symbols is purely on a theoretical level. For those non-religious or non-christian members of our society it sends a powerful signal that their participation in our government is only on a second-class basis.

But in many ways the monument itself is secondary in importance to the attitude of the Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court who could make such statements. Religious symbols are powerful things and people of all faiths have a right to expect they are dealt with in a respectful manner, but they have no place in a public building and a Justice who believes that he can decide a case based on his religious beliefs rather than well established law has no place on the bench.

Now the good citizens of Alabama are unlikely to take my advice in this matter, so I think Chief Justice Moore is fairly safe. I don't think his ruling is however.

pseudobrit
Aug 16, 2003, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
go for the throat, pbrit. let's pick some random schools and teach the koran, then in some random courthouses in alabama make plaques, in arabic, of some koran scripture.

then maybe we'll hear about separation of church and state?

Or about how Allah is just a terrorist god and my God can KICK HIS ****ING ASS!!! YEAH BABY!! look at my arsenal!! Your god sucks!!

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 01:26 AM
Guys,

the sarcasm may not be evident to everyone.

zimv20
Aug 16, 2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Guys,

the sarcasm may not be evident to everyone.

actually, i'm serious. wherever a civil servant's refusing to take christian icons down in a public building, let's get some non-christian icons going. buddhism, paganism, hinduism, vodoun, etc.

then let's make individual judgements on hypocrisy and irony.

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
actually, i'm serious. wherever a civil servant's refusing to take christian icons down in a public building, let's get some non-christian icons going. buddhism, paganism, hinduism, vodoun, etc.

then let's make individual judgements on hypocrisy and irony.

Ok, my mistake. The problem with your proposal is that for many of us who don't believe in any religion including more icons doesn't solve anything. When I go into public buildings I don't want to be confronted with symbols that tell me I have to believe in any god.

zimv20
Aug 16, 2003, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
When I go into public buildings I don't want to be confronted with symbols that tell me I have to believe in any god.

same here. i'd want to put them up to cause the stir, point out the hypocrisy to all the newly enlightened people, then take down _everything_.

Q: how many newly enlightened people does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: two

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
same here. i'd want to put them up to cause the stir, point out the hypocrisy to all the newly enlightened people, then take down _everything_.

Q: how many newly enlightened people does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: two

zimv20,

if the US Supreme Court is fool enough to not overrule the Alabama Court then I'm with you.

The answer to your riddle should also say that it takes three to do a bang up job. ;)

Desertrat
Aug 16, 2003, 10:07 AM
I don't know that I'm particularly religious. ABout the only time I'm in church is for a funeral. I sure don't have a lot of use for the churchy/preachy sort. I think I'm pretty moral, from the standpoint of ethics and honor. Put it this way: I know dirtier limericks than anybody else on this board, but I won't tell them around women and children. :)

When I'm out meddling around at night in the desert, looking at the stars and listening to a panther scream or a yodel dog singing...or exploring a canyon and finding signs of those who were around some thousands of years ago...or watching a thunderstorm cell sweep across the land: I just feel there's something a helluva lot bigger than people. I don't care if you say God or Gaia or Big Hodad In The Sky. If you don't think there's anybody at all, IMO you're missing out, 'cause you got nobody to talk to. And the possibility of our having Budweiser just can't be accidental!

I do know as certainty that the desert doesn't give a hoot if I live or die. When I'm 20 miles from any other people, there's only me and The Boss to get me home. A time or two it's been a long, hot walk...

Sayhey, religious symbols in a public building don't tell you what you ought to believe. They tell you what other people believe. What others believe doesn't define your own reality for you. If you know who you are and what you are, those symbols are as little raindrops bouncing off the umbrella of your self confidence.

And I'm back to the teaspoon of warm spit...

:), 'Rat

zimv20
Aug 16, 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
the possibility of our having Budweiser just can't be accidental!


so you believe in a vengeful god.

;-)

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
if the US Supreme Court is fool enough to not overrule the Alabama Court then I'm with you.

Just a point of order: The courts have already ordered Moore to take down the monument and Moore is in defiance of that order. As it stands, if the Supreme Court overruled, it would be a victory for Moore.

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Just a point of order: The courts have already ordered Moore to take down the monument and Moore is in defiance of that order. As it stands, if the Supreme Court overruled, it would be a victory for Moore.

Thanks for the correction, IJ.

'Rat, first, it sounds like you have a great life in West Texas. But, back to that "teaspoon of warm spit" for a moment, it's not that I'm afraid of others defining my view of reality. It is that the persecution and denial of liberty of those who don't conform to the dominant religious viewpoint has far too many precedents in history. Although I think the monument itself is unlikely to lead to such dire consequences, the view of the Chief Justice is dangerous because he places his religious views above the law - indeed he substitutes them for the law. What might be laudable as a position of conscience in a private citizen placing themselves subject to a "higher" law is outrageous in the head of a State Supreme Court.

'Rat, when I see fundamentalists who try to supplant the laws of the land with religious dogma, my reaction is to fight back. I don't look at it as getting upset about a "teaspoon of warm spit." All one has to do is look around the world to see what has happened to other societies where fundamentalism of other religions has taken control and you can see my point.

Desertrat
Aug 16, 2003, 02:43 PM
"'Rat, when I see fundamentalists who try to supplant the laws of the land with religious dogma, my reaction is to fight back."

I agree 100%. I just never have made the connection between seeing the 10Com in a public building and "supplanting". Same for the Christmas stuff.

"All one has to do is look around the world to see what has happened to other societies where fundamentalism of other religions has taken control and you can see my point."

Amen. :)

Thing is, I remember when "Blue Laws" precluded sales of almost everything on Sundays. Now, it's pretty much down to no sale of booze, most states. Even when the Blue Laws weren't part of codification of law in general, "Christian Principles" affected a lot of what was decided in a court of law. That's much, much less the case nowadays.

To me, then, such things as the 10Com and the Christmas displays on public property are pretty much vestiges instead of symbols of resurgence of a repressive public attitude or religion-based repressive laws.

The 10Com are reminders of morality. As I look at Clintonian behavior or EnronExec behavior or porno in general, it seems to me that morality isn't getting "equal time".

I will say that if I really thought that religion was moving toward an ascendency in the law, I'd be hair, teeth and eyeballs into raising hell in all directions. Right now, IMO, it's in decline.

'Rat

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...I will say that if I really thought that religion was moving toward an ascendency in the law, I'd be hair, teeth and eyeballs into raising hell in all directions. Right now, IMO, it's in decline.

'Rat

'Rat, I hope you're right. When I look around and see Ashcroft's actions, Pat Robertson's prayer for the Lord to "takeaway" Supreme Court Justices, the recent Vatican position on Gay marriage, and the like, combined with Justice Moore's statement; I don't have your optimism.

Desertrat
Aug 16, 2003, 03:24 PM
I don't see an overall public mood supporting any of those people. If public people of importance in California or New York or Texas started emoting in such fashion, I'd worry. We've always had individuals here and there offering their versions of reality to the public.

These sorts of efforts were of a much greater extent in the 1920s and 1930s, but their efforts came to naught. Today's world, with TV and the Internet make it much more difficult. Lexis-nexus adds to their problems.

Ashcroft seems to be digging his own political grave with his mouth; Pat Robertson already has. The Pope's comments are to be expected as a matter of course. For now, Moore is just one little judge in not-very-influential Alabama, and is more an object of derision (nationwide) than anything else. Derision does not generally lead toward having great influence.

What worries me more is the polarization engendered by efforts at removing vestiges. It creates hostility. I am reminded of the intro to Ruark's "Something of Value": "When you take away a man's gods, you must replace them with something of value."

'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 16, 2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Wow. That's a hell of a statement.

Are you suggesting that because there aren't that many non-Christians that everyone else should just accept a religious Christian government?

No, I am saying that I am tired of a really small group of people deciding what 98% of the people want. That is what I am saying. If it offends someone, then they don't have to read it. But the Justice is right, our laws are based on those 10 laws.

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, I am saying that I am tired of a really small group of people deciding what 98% of the people want. That is what I am saying. If it offends someone, then they don't have to read it. But the Justice is right, our laws are based on those 10 laws.

No, the Justice is wrong. Our laws are based in the English Common Law, which is "an evolving body of principles built by accretion from judicial decisions rendered in the context of countless individual disputes." My source for this definition is Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon. (Her books are terrific. If you're interested in the law, I can highly recommend them.)

Last I checked, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contained any reference to coveting one's neighbor's wife, but they did contain language specifically separating church from state. Your 98-2 argument is precisely why we need to abide by this stated principle, because without the 98 in the majority respecting the rights of the 2 in the minority, justice is simply a fiction.

Backtothemac
Aug 16, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, the Justice is wrong. Our laws are based in the English Common Law, which is "an evolving body of principles built by accretion from judicial decisions rendered in the context of countless individual disputes." My source for this definition is Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon. (Her books are terrific. If you're interested in the law, I can highly recommend them.)

Last I checked, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contained any reference to coveting one's neighbor's wife, but they did contain language specifically separating church from state. Your 98-2 argument is precisely why we need to abide by this stated principle, because without the 98 in the majority respecting the rights of the 2 in the minority, justice is simply a fiction.

Actually, in the US in the past, if you crossed state lines with a woman that was married and you were not, it was a felony. So, yes the notion of coveting thy neighbor was in fact law at one time in this country. As for justice. Justice is the 2% getting to practice whatever religion that they choose without repression from the 98%. Justice is being given a fair trial. They get that in his court. And it should be the 2% respecting the majority enough to not make them take down every item that relates to God. What if the Judge wore a Turben in his court. Should he have to remove it because of someone being offended? What if it were a monument to Allah? It would not offend me. Why do people have to be so petty, and always look for something to bitch about?

Desertrat
Aug 16, 2003, 06:36 PM
"Our laws are based in the English Common Law."

Yup, predominantly.

But laws have their basis in morality--the notions of right and wrong. These ideas in general stem from religion, which in ECL and in the U.S. come primarily from Judeo-Christian writings on the subject of right and wrong.

I don't doubt we all believe in separating church from state, insofar as the writing and enforcement of laws. The state doesn't establish any one religion above another, but treats them all equally. The ideas of any one particular church play no part in the writing of law, except as any other member of the public.

The twisting of personal morality into the law disturbs me, which is why the porno decision in Dallas is far more dangerous (IMO) than any mere plaque on a wall.

'Rat

shadowfax
Aug 16, 2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Actually, in the US in the past, if you crossed state lines with a woman that was married and you were not, it was a felony. So, yes the notion of coveting thy neighbor was in fact law at one time in this country. As for justice. Justice is the 2% getting to practice whatever religion that they choose without repression from the 98%. Justice is being given a fair trial. They get that in his court. And it should be the 2% respecting the majority enough to not make them take down every item that relates to God. What if the Judge wore a Turben in his court. Should he have to remove it because of someone being offended? What if it were a monument to Allah? It would not offend me. Why do people have to be so petty, and always look for something to bitch about? why do we have to bitch? i mean, seriously, take a bite out of objective value, and stop subjecting things to your own emotion. do the ten commandments threaten you? of course not! if anything, they protect you. that you feel threatened is not innately in the commandments. that's subjective. the fact that the judge there wants to have them in the court is fine. i mean, the principle on which a person would have them removed is not an anticlerical sentiment, make no mistake. it has nothing to do with "the separation of church and state" at its root. the root is that someone is doing something you don't like. every man who sits in a seat of judgment has his own particular take on justice, his own politcal views. his responsibility is to execute justice as it is defined by the law. if he were to make judgments in accordance with the ten commandments that were inconsistent with american law, we might have something going here.

when that man said that he wouldn't take down the ten commandments because doing so would mark the disestablishment of the justice system of the state, i think he may have meant something more subtle. actually, he probably didn't, but it's there. it's not that taking the ten commandments away destroys justice because you've removed the ten commandments, it's that you've walked on him because you felt he was walking on you. was he? from an objective standpoint, hell no. the ten commandments there symbolize his own views, not yours. and to take them down because they threaten you... what does that do? he's still a product of the judeo christian heritage. he still adheres to them just the same, and here you've gone and committed an injustice against him.

the most discomforting thing about this PC stuff is that it's subjective in the extreme. instead of making people think in terms of, "what will it mean if i say/this this?" you get them thinking, "what will everyone else think if i do/say this?" and then later "what will a very small minority of people think if i do/say this?" you cease to think of the objective value of your actions, and think of how everyone else, and then anyone else, might view it, what spins they could possibly put on it.

on this path of adherence to subjectivism, suddenly people will find themselves clamoring that, no, that judge can't be a judge! he's a christian/hindu/buddhist/muslim! what if his views clout our justice system? justice is devoid of religion, and therefore our justices have to be devoid of it to execute justice.

it's a sad world that has no problem with the kind of corruption that politicians practice, but goes around trying to eliminate the decency of them. make no mistake, you're attacking the best in that man by doing this.

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
why do we have to bitch?...

...it has nothing to do with "the separation of church and state" at its root...

...the most discomforting thing about this PC stuff is that it's subjective in the extreme...

...it's a sad world that has no problem with the kind of corruption that politicians practice, but goes around trying to eliminate the decency of them. make no mistake, you're attacking the best in that man by doing this.

Why do we have to bitch? Well, I think seperation of Church and State is a very important principle that guards the freedoms of everyone. If trying to make sure that the wall between Church and State is not broken down is uncomfortable - well so be it.

To me, the most important part of this case is who is making these statements. This is pretty much settled law. Religious symbols are not supposed to be displayed in public buildings. There are some exceptions to this general rule, but in this instance the US Supreme Court has already refused to hear (and thereby upholding the lower court judgement) an appeal to a case around the display of a monument to the Ten Commandments in Indiana. Look it up; it is O'Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties et al. Does anyone seriously think that the Chief Justice of the Alabama State Supreme Court is ignorant of this fact? He is making a choice to supplant his religious beliefs for what he knows is the law of the land. If anyone else was doing so it would be at least possible to say that it is a crisis of conscience, but coming from a Justice it is totally unacceptable.

Shadowfax, none of this has anything to do with political correctness. I, for one, consider myself very un-PC. I don't like anyone telling me what I can think or say. However, when it comes to the liberties guaranteed by those other 10 rules we call the Bill of Rights, I get very cranky when public officials take it upon themselves to ignore them.

Now it you disagree, fine, but I would ask you at least look at the law in question and the arguments of folks on the other side. Here is a link to some of those folks:http://www.au.org/press/pr022502.htm

shadowfax
Aug 16, 2003, 08:50 PM
i suppose i am mostly suspicious that anyone is making such a big deal out of this, in light of what else we could make a big deal out of. i clamor for the separation of church and state as well, but have a certain knowledge that removing those commandments does nothing objectively to change the separation of the 2 entities--hence my suspicion about the big deal. my fear is more, as i have mentioned, what this will eventually turn to, because the only place the church and state can truly be separated (to some factual, meaningful end) is in the minds of men. of course, i must and willingly do admit that the law must be upheld, and that as a justice he should can it or resign, but i can't help but wonder how much further this can and will logically go--in the distant future.

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 08:58 PM
A little bit of healthy "paranoia" about where things can go is always good. This is a very religious nation and if the State steps over the line in intruding on the right of people to practice religion then many, many folks (including the folks I posted a link to) will not allow it to happen easily. IMO, this case doesn't even come close.

Backtothemac
Aug 16, 2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
why do we have to bitch? i mean, seriously, take a bite out of objective value, and stop subjecting things to your own emotion. do the ten commandments threaten you? of course not! if anything, they protect you. that you feel threatened is not innately in the commandments. that's subjective. the fact that the judge there wants to have them in the court is fine. i mean, the principle on which a person would have them removed is not an anticlerical sentiment, make no mistake. it has nothing to do with "the separation of church and state" at its root. the root is that someone is doing something you don't like. every man who sits in a seat of judgment has his own particular take on justice, his own politcal views. his responsibility is to execute justice as it is defined by the law. if he were to make judgments in accordance with the ten commandments that were inconsistent with american law, we might have something going here.

when that man said that he wouldn't take down the ten commandments because doing so would mark the disestablishment of the justice system of the state, i think he may have meant something more subtle. actually, he probably didn't, but it's there. it's not that taking the ten commandments away destroys justice because you've removed the ten commandments, it's that you've walked on him because you felt he was walking on you. was he? from an objective standpoint, hell no. the ten commandments there symbolize his own views, not yours. and to take them down because they threaten you... what does that do? he's still a product of the judeo christian heritage. he still adheres to them just the same, and here you've gone and committed an injustice against him.

the most discomforting thing about this PC stuff is that it's subjective in the extreme. instead of making people think in terms of, "what will it mean if i say/this this?" you get them thinking, "what will everyone else think if i do/say this?" and then later "what will a very small minority of people think if i do/say this?" you cease to think of the objective value of your actions, and think of how everyone else, and then anyone else, might view it, what spins they could possibly put on it.

on this path of adherence to subjectivism, suddenly people will find themselves clamoring that, no, that judge can't be a judge! he's a christian/hindu/buddhist/muslim! what if his views clout our justice system? justice is devoid of religion, and therefore our justices have to be devoid of it to execute justice.

it's a sad world that has no problem with the kind of corruption that politicians practice, but goes around trying to eliminate the decency of them. make no mistake, you're attacking the best in that man by doing this.

Shaddow, you missed my point. I agree with you 100%. Reread my post.

shadowfax
Aug 16, 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Shadow, you missed my point. I agree with you 100%. Reread my post. nah, i didn't miss your point, B2TM. i was making a different comment. i mostly just used your last comment as a jumping point for my own "rant." i believe i understood your point fully, and don't think i needed to extend it or disagree with it.

Backtothemac
Aug 16, 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
nah, i didn't miss your point, B2TM. i was making a different comment. i mostly just used your last comment as a jumping point for my own "rant." i believe i understood your point fully, and don't think i needed to extend it or disagree with it.

Ok, I missed your point then. Were you agreeing with me that it is absurd to even bring to a case the notion of making him remove the commandments, or do you think he should?

shadowfax
Aug 16, 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, I missed your point then. Were you agreeing with me that it is absurd to even bring to a case the notion of making him remove the commandments, or do you think he should? i don't think that his having the commandments there are a valid issue, thus, yes, i do think this whole issue is absurd at that level, but obviously it is not so looked on by the courts of this country, who have required by a law passed against religious symbols in public building that he take them down. i do side with them in that he must now take them down. failing to does not serve justice at all. i do think it's ludicrous to assume that submitting to the legal system of the country is denying the existence of god. not categorically, but at least in this case that is not true.

of course, as an overture to this, the post you called me on was about how i see the justice system collapsing, not by denying the existence of god, but of objective value (which has not been completely done, because if that were true, there would be no law)... that and people just do not know how to pick battles. but things that threaten people's freedom have changed from physical oppression and corruption to smoking in restaurants and a list of ancient, but rather universal (for the most part) religious laws placed in a courtroom. my fear is the question of "where do we go from this? how much further can you take it?"

XnavxeMiyyep
Aug 17, 2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
...The twisting of personal morality into the law disturbs me, which is why the porno decision in Dallas is far more dangerous (IMO) than any mere plaque on a wall... What is the "porno decision" in Dallas?

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 01:23 AM
These responses are full of so many logical and factual flaws, I hardly know where to begin. First I would urge anyone who'd make an argument about the basis of our legal system to spend some time reading about the English Common Law, which is in fact the basis for American law. There you will find references to precedence, consistency, fairness and adherence to facts and logic, but nary a mention of a deity in any form. The law is not about religion. Second, this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with "offense" or "insult" or being "threatened." It has everything to do with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Defending these principles is not "petty," but attacking them certainly seems suspect to me.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
What is the "porno decision" in Dallas?

He's talking about a decision that is the subject of another thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35013

XnavxeMiyyep
Aug 17, 2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
He's talking about a decision that is the subject of another thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35013 Thanks for the link.

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
These responses are full of so many logical and factual flaws, I hardly know where to begin. First I would urge anyone who'd make an argument about the basis of our legal system to spend some time reading about the English Common Law, which is in fact the basis for American law. There you will find references to precedence, consistency, fairness and adherence to facts and logic, but nary a mention of a deity in any form. The law is not about religion. no, the law is not about religion. i definitely agree with that. the law is a reflection of values, constructed by reason (one hopes). reason does indeed consist of precedence, consistency, and fairness, the latter of which is more or less a redundant term to reason/rationality. however, reason requires axioms, so the question goes, where did you derive english common law? the spirit of the law is not english common law. that "dao," or truth, or natural law from which the law is derived, finds its base in pretty much every organized religion in history. you will find traces of it, alternate statements of it, in judaism, christianity, islam, chinese culture, and so on. now granted, "love the lord your god with all your heart, mind, and soul," is not an expression of a universally accepted axiom. however, the last six very much are--don't lie, steal, murder, covet, and so on. the ten commandments are a derivative of the notion that you are to esteem your neighbor as highly as yourself--that you have no rights above him--thus the law of the land. not english common law. that's a step along the way. he is a fool that calls the next to last step the bottom of the staircase.

and don't go on about the enlightenment, locke, and natural law, either, because it only builds on axioms previously "discovered."

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 01:56 AM
Im not a christian, or a republican. But.. um.. arent most of our *big* laws pretty much based on the ten commandments anyways? Does anyone really dispute that its a pretty damn good set of rules?

XnavxeMiyyep
Aug 17, 2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
Im not a christian, or a republican. But.. um.. arent most of our *big* laws pretty much based on the ten commandments anyways? Does anyone really dispute that its a pretty damn good set of rules? All of them are fundamental, except for 1 through 4, which only affect Christians.

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 02:02 AM
I wasn't planning on "going on" about any of those things (dontcha just love those preemptive strikes?).

In any case, I believe you've only added weight to my point. That all religions have ethical points of view, and different source materials for supporting those views (certainly not all monotheistic, or based on revealed texts, let alone the same revealed text), then it seems clear to me that the claim that one particular religious text informs our law to be even more apparently incorrect.

It is perfectly fine and in fact expected that individuals will possess internal guidance about what is right and what is wrong, whether it be informed by religion or something else of their choosing. But the courtroom is a place where secular law must reign supreme. It is a place intentionally designed to transcend and in fact bridge peoples of different beliefs and to bind them to an overarching rule of law.

This is the reason why Judge Moore's grandstanding with the Ten Commandments is so wrong, and so damaging to our legal system (overlooking for the moment his defiance of a court order). It is because he very conspicuously placing the articles of his faith over the articles of the faith of others. The clear implication, and I think intentionally, is to communicate to all in attendance in his courtroom, the superiority of his religious faith. We have church-state separation built into our national secular sacred texts for the purpose of preventing this very thing from occurring.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 02:10 AM
There are certainly legal codes that predate the Ten Commandments; the most famous of these is Hammurabi's Code. The prohibition against murder and theft are very much a part of his code. There is little doubt that this earlier code influenced the ancient Israelis, so following this argument we should be putting up monuments to Marduk in our civic buildings.

Seriously, many traditions contributed to the basis of both English Common Law and through that the American legal tradition. The ancient Romans and Greeks had much more influence in the structure of our legal system than the ancient Israelis did. All should be honored in our teaching of their contributions, but in keeping with the establishment clause of the constitution no religious tradition should be honored with monuments in our public buildings.

By the way, if you haven't looked at the Code of Hammurabi for a while take a peek at:

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

believe me it's not a code of laws for the squeamish. Check out #196 and #200 for the origins of an old "biblical" standby.

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
In any case, I believe you've only added weight to my point. That all religions have ethical points of view, and different source materials for supporting those views (certainly not all monotheistic, or based on revealed texts, let alone the same revealed text), then it seems clear to me that the claim that one particular religious text informs our law to be even more apparently incorrect.
...
This is the reason why Judge Moore's grandstanding with the Ten Commandments is so wrong, and so damaging to our legal system (overlooking for the moment his defiance of a court order). It is because he very conspicuously placing the articles of his faith over the articles of the faith of others. The clear implication, and I think intentionally, is to communicate to all in attendance in his courtroom, the superiority of his religious faith. We have church-state separation built into our national secular sacred texts for the purpose of preventing this very thing from occurring. and you think, intentionally... subjectively, that is. well, well. suppose i said that all religion as a function of society, bears with it a code of conduct based on the same axioms of human reality, for example, the ten commandments. would you then say, hah! damn you! you're trying to say by example that christianity is better than anyone else's religion! when in fact, christianity is simply moore's religion, which he does adhere to, ten commandments in his court or no, and their presence in his court is a reflection of a heritage that he is proud of, a heritage that, whether or not it is better than any other heritage, is in objective fact a heritage of the law. now you can blow it up, and call him an arrogant bastard, and it may be that he is, but that the presence of those commandments is not the causality of his arrogance, and arrogance of faith is not the only motive that would drive him to put them up in his court. i don't think that you are guaranteed the right not to look at a religious symbol in public places, not by the bill of rights. i'm having a lot of trouble figuring which right on that bill this idea is derived from, and incidentally, why it hasn't gotten the balls to take "in god we trust" off my currency, not to mention that damned masonic symbol. what cultural heritage?

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
There are certainly legal codes that predate the Ten Commandments; the most famous of these is Hammurabi's Code. The prohibition against murder and theft are very much a part of his code. There is little doubt that this earlier code influenced the ancient Israelis, so following this argument we should be putting up monuments to Marduk in our civic buildings. the only logical flaw i see in this comment is that we aren't discussing a requirement to display religious "icons" of legal heritage, but a prohibition from doing so. my point is that the ten commandments should be no more prohibited from display than John Locke's "Spirit of Laws" or this said code you refer to. none of these constitutes the basic truth/axiom on which practical reason and hence the law are based, but that does nothing to detract from the undeniable fact that they are all a part of our legal heritage, which is not something to be ashamed of, or "protected from."

Zion Grail
Aug 17, 2003, 02:31 AM
I personally don't have a huge problem with the monument. I have a problem with the judge. He's a Class-A Jerk. He should not be a judge. Period. I'm sorry, but using the Bible as a legal reference JUST DOESN'T WORK. And he did that. I remember, it was reported on morons.org.

The monument? pffft. Who cares? Get rid of the judge!

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't think that you are guaranteed the right not to look at a religious symbol in public places, not by the bill of rights. i'm having a lot of trouble figuring which right on that bill this idea is derived from, and incidentally, why it hasn't gotten the balls to take "in god we trust" off my currency, not to mention that damned masonic symbol. what cultural heritage?

If you mean by "in public places" any place viewable by the public, there is obviously no prohibition. If you mean in public buildings and on public property (i.e. government owned places) it is prohibited by the establishment clause of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion..." I'm sure you already know this, but just in case I'm trying to answer the question. This is the section of the constitution that is cited in all the cases pertaining to these types of cases.

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 02:37 AM
So while im Anti-government, Anti-Religion, and will fight tooth and toenail over almost everything that comes out of BacktotheMac's mouth, im even more anti-self-righteous-preachers who think they have the right to tell you want can and cant be on every wall in the universe.

I dont think the ten commandments belong in school, But if some judge wants to hang them over his law school diploma than he has every right to do so. Morals are always going to legislated weither you belive in them or not. And if i want to hang a sign over my desk that says "Thou shall get upon thy knees and sucketh upon thine all mighty scholong" than im going to put it there, and your either going to like it or get over it.

Freedom of speech is just as important as freedom of religion~

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 02:42 AM
...but that does nothing to detract from the undeniable fact that they are all a part of our legal heritage, which is not something to be ashamed of, or "protected from."

It is not a question of shame, but rather by stopping the government from giving its stamp of approval for one religious tradition over another tradition we protect the rights of all.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
So while im Anti-government, Anti-Religion, and will fight tooth and toenail over almost everything that comes out of BacktotheMac's mouth, im even more anti-self-righteous-preachers who think they have the right to tell you want can and cant be on every wall in the universe.

I dont think the ten commandments belong in school, But if some judge wants to hang them over his law school diploma than he has every right to do so. Morals are always going to legislated weither you belive in them or not. And if i want to hang a sign over my desk that says "Thou shall get upon thy knees and sucketh upon thine all mighty scholong" than im going to put it there, and your either going to like it or get over it.

Freedom of speech is just as important as freedom of religion~

You should read the case. This is a judge who decided to put a monument in a state building just a few years ago. It has nothing to do with what he hangs on his chamber walls. He made a career as the "Ten Commandments" judge and when he was elected he decided to shove it down anybody's throat who didn't agree with his melding of religious tradition and the law. He now refuses to follow the judgement of a federal court to remove the monument. Freedom of Speech was never at issue.

In the original post for this thread there is a link to the story and at the site you can access a pdf file of the court case. Here is the link again:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/14/alabama.tencommandments/index.html

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
If you mean by "in public places" any place viewable by the public, there is obviously no prohibition. If you mean in public buildings and on public property (i.e. government owned places) it is prohibited by the establishment clause of the first amendment, "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion..." I'm sure you already know this, but just in case I'm trying to answer the question. This is the section of the constitution that is cited in all the cases pertaining to these types of cases. i see that law, and that it does not prohibit a judge placing a religious symbol in his court, especially one of a legal nature. this is not a cross, which is a symbol of anything but justice. the ten commandments represent, apart from just religion, the legal system of a culture which has influenced ours, legally as well as any other aspect. for moore to put them in his court is not to say that his god is better than yours. it's a sign that he values justice. his sign. not yours. the wording of the bill of rights is perfect. congress is not to show favoritism to any religion. that would be dastardly, of course. but this does not mean that congress is to prevent individuals--civil servants like judges from publically, in the courtrooms, acknowledging that yes, the ten commandments are a part of our heritage, christian, jew, or no. the idea behind which i base this is that in moral law, a positive is not a negative: a "thou shalt not do this" is not a "thou shalt do this other thing instead," and a "thou shalt do this" is not a "thou shalt not do anything but this." in the same token, while that law can and rightfully should prevent the government from giving money to churches, making court rulings in favor of a religious sect, and so on, it should not be used to prevent individuals, even civic servants, from showing their cultural heritage in a public place (your def. of public there). really, this is simply because having the ten commandments does not represent a favoritism by the state, the government, whatever, toward that or any religion. that part at least seems really basic.

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
It is not a question of shame, but rather by stopping the government from giving its stamp of approval for one religious tradition over another tradition we protect the rights of all. that's the other thing i was talking about--"protection" from it. i don't think that by one judge, or all of the judges, approving of the ten commandments and displaying them in court, shows that the government values them over the legal documents of another religion. it's a free-rein situation which allows the judge to judge which symbol to display, or whether or not he displays one. now if the court were to specifically forbid any monument but the ten commandments, that would show favoritism. but i don't agree that leaving the field open for the judges to decide implies that the government favors what he does.


on the other hand, it must be admitted that the man is rather arrogant about this, at least at this point. he's so insistent that it's disgusting. the reason that i don't take the other side because of that, though, is that i don't feel he should have ever been pushed to this point.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 03:11 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i see that law, and that it does not prohibit a judge placing a religious symbol in his court, especially one of a legal nature. this is not a cross, which is a symbol of anything but justice. the ten commandments represent, apart from just religion, the legal system of a culture which has influenced ours, legally as well as any other aspect. for moore to put them in his court is not to say that his god is better than yours. it's a sign that he values justice. his sign. not yours. the wording of the bill of rights is perfect. congress is not to show favoritism to any religion. that would be dastardly, of course. but this does not mean that congress is to prevent individuals--civil servants like judges from publically, in the courtrooms, acknowledging that yes, the ten commandments are a part of our heritage, christian, jew, or no. the idea behind which i base this is that in moral law, a positive is not a negative: a "thou shalt not do this" is not a "thou shalt do this other thing instead," and a "thou shalt do this" is not a "thou shalt not do anything but this." in the same token, while that law can and rightfully should prevent the government from giving money to churches, making court rulings in favor of a religious sect, and so on, it should not be used to prevent individuals, even civic servants, from showing their cultural heritage in a public place (your def. of public there). really, this is simply because having the ten commandments does not represent a favoritism by the state, the government, whatever, toward that or any religion. that part at least seems really basic.

The Ten Commandments are in Judeo-Christian tradition supposed to be the word of god delivered to humanity through Moses. I don't see how you can get more religious than that. This is not a passing comment by a judge about following the "golden rule." This is an attempt by this judge to say that the basis of our legal system is the divine word of a Christian god. It doesn't get any clearer than that in an attempt to have the state establish one religious view over another. The monument is his symbol for that. Read his comments, read the case history and then tell me that this is benign. Even if it was this is well settled law. Check out the Indiana case I cited earlier and see that he had no business even thinking his conduct would be acceptable.

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 03:22 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
The Ten Commandments are in Judeo-Christian tradition supposed to be the word of god delivered to humanity through Moses. I don't see how you can get more religious than that. This is not a passing comment by a judge about following the "golden rule." This is an attempt by this judge to say that the basis of our legal system is the divine word of a Christian god. It doesn't get any clearer than that in an attempt to have the state establish one religious view over another. The monument is his symbol for that. Read his comments, read the case history and then tell me that this is benign. Even if it was this is well settled law. Check out the Indiana case I cited earlier and see that he had no business even thinking his conduct would be acceptable. yes, they are said to be handed down by god, as is the ground we are standing on, but the fact remains they comprise much of the essence of the law, and are one of the earliest set of laws to do so. i don't think that it is fundamentallyt wrong to have them in a courtroom, which is the point i have been making throughout this.

however, i have to admit that in my discussion of objective values and what not, i have drifted into the realm of the hypothetical analogy and drifted from the case in hand. this guy, i must admit, is being an ass about this, as signified by the excess of making such a massive monument (at whose expense?), and defying superior courts, in addition to using language that makes this into a much bigger issue than it should be, chiefly because,m while turning the issue into a religious one is the last thing i would like to do, he has certainly done so. and it is rightfully the death of his case.

sorry for not paying more attention to his actions. you're right about him. but i stick by my arguments as guidelines for an entity who simply means to display them as a foundation (albeit rather indirectly) for our modern legal system, not to be superseded or venerated above others, but at least to be respected as what it is to our legal system--objectively :) ...such a stance should not be repressed. moore's, though... yes... ;)

edit: i do see this drawing to a decent close soon (though i could be wrong), but i definitely want to say that this is my first time to really be in here, and i think it's rather stimulating. i do enjoy arguing with you guys, especially you, sayhey :)

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
yes, they are said to be handed down by god, as is the ground we are standing on, but the fact remains they comprise much of the essence of the law, and are one of the earliest set of laws to do so. i don't think that it is fundamentallyt wrong to have them in a courtroom, which is the point i have been making throughout this.

however, i have to admit that in my discussion of objective values and what not, i have drifted into the realm of the hypothetical analogy and drifted from the case in hand. this guy, i must admit, is being an ass about this, as signified by the excess of making such a massive monument (at whose expense?), and defying superior courts, in addition to using language that makes this into a much bigger issue than it should be, chiefly because,m while turning the issue into a religious one is the last thing i would like to do, he has certainly done so. and it is rightfully the death of his case.

sorry for not paying more attention to his actions. you're right about him. but i stick by my arguments as guidelines for an entity who simply means to display them as a foundation (albeit rather indirectly) for our modern legal system, not to be superseded or venerated above others, but at least to be respected as what it is to our legal system--objectively :) ...such a stance should not be repressed. moore's, though... yes... ;)

edit: i do see this drawing to a decent close soon (though i could be wrong), but i definitely want to say that this is my first time to really be in here, and i think it's rather stimulating. i do enjoy arguing with you guys, especially you, sayhey :)

Sorry, had to run out for a few minutes.
It seems that though we may have some differences about the role of religion in the legal system we agree on the specific case. It has been a pleasure, Shadowfax. By the way, love the name, I've been a fan of JRR Tolkien for a long time. The avatar is great as well, I hope I can do as well when I hit 500 posts.

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 04:49 AM
Your right Sayhey, i didnt really read the article. i just felt like bitching. Your also right, **** this guy he is a bad example.

But the truth still is that mostly American law = Neo Christian morals. Pretending that the ten commandmens has nothing to do with it is a little ridiculous considering that its 2003 and we just finally got around to legalizing sex in the "naughty places" lol

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 05:20 AM
With so much heated debate over the ten commandments in schools, court houses, and whatnot it occurs to me that the arguement of Morals vs. Religion is a rather moot point.

If people really wanted to share the message of the ten commandments, they could just take out the "oh god is great" crap, change the wording, and call it "The Seven Rules" or whatever knocks your socks off. And you could basically put this list anywhere you wanted and not here a single peep from nay-sayers. Infact, you would probably get cheers by some of the most vocal protesters.

That shows to me when it boils down to it, behind all of the rehtoric and catchy protest signs its still really all about what invisable man you belive in. GZA said it better than i could even hope to in B.I.B.L.E.(basic instructions before leaving earth). Its too bad that the people that should really hear that knowledge layed out so elequently would simply ignore Wutang as hollow plastic "boom boom boom hos guns boom boom" ************.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
Your right Sayhey, i didnt really read the article. i just felt like bitching. Your also right, **** this guy he is a bad example.

But the truth still is that mostly American law = Neo Christian morals. Pretending that the ten commandmens has nothing to do with it is a little ridiculous considering that its 2003 and we just finally got around to legalizing sex in the "naughty places" lol

ThoughtKriminal,

You're an honest man (assuming gender, by your "all mighty scholong" comment - only another man would think in such terms :p )! While I don't agree with the equal sign, because of the many traditions that have contributed, I do agree that neo Christian morals have dominated our society - legal system included. It doesn't mean the judge's comments about the Ten Commandments and US law is correct.

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
But the truth still is that mostly American law = Neo Christian morals. Pretending that the ten commandmens has nothing to do with it is a little ridiculous considering that its 2003 and we just finally got around to legalizing sex in the "naughty places" lol

It isn't ridiculous because it is true. I've pointed out several times that American law is based in the English Common Law. I would very strongly suggest reading up on this before trying to connect Christianity to our legal system, because that is what is ridiculous. What's more, the bloody persistence of this ridiculousness in the face of facts points out the crying need to enforce church-state separation because it's clear that without constant vigilance on this front, they would be merged. Make no mistake, this is what people like Justice Moore are after.

While we're at it, it's worth reviewing the first four commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

They are purely religious directives. A person should expect to obtain justice in an American courtroom without believing in any of them.

Ugg
Aug 17, 2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
While we're at it, it's worth reviewing the first four commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

They are purely religious directives. A person should expect to obtain justice in an American courtroom without believing in any of them.

Whoa!!! I'm guilty on four counts and we haven't even gotten to the good bits yet!

I've no problem with Moore posting his ten commandments in his own office but they have no right in a secular court of law. If you're not Christian, these first four are insulting as all hell. Or is it that justice in America is only for Christians?

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 11:41 AM
I agree, this guy can go to hell for all i care. To me he only seems interested in being a half-assed martyr for his cause and using religion to divide and conquer.

But there is a more interesting arguement involved here. These rules, no matter what you want to label them as are good rules, and basically the same philosphies we have embraced since we starting piling up mud by the rivers of Babylon. Now i agree that religion is a very scary thing, and an even more touchy subject when you mix it up with politics and law. However, minus the midevil translation and preachiness of the whole setup Its really just a long winded way of saying "treat people how you want to be treated". Which in my honest(you gave me that one, i dont claim it heh), agnostic, and morally vacant opinion should be the ultimate goal of Law and Order in any free civilization. I personally love RC, you may like Pepsi, and shadowfax might pledge her eternal devotion to Coke. But when you get down to it, we're all drinking COLA.

George Carlin cut it down to the Two commandments(always be honest and faithful/dont kill people unless they belive in a different invisable man in the cloud), But i will give the squares a little credit and stick with "The Seven Groovy Rules(remix)". If you think of it like that, than its a good damn momument to put there. Its not like its John 3:16 or something.

But Its probably not as 2-dimensional as i like to pretend. Its pretty hard to shovel through all the blood, gold, glitter, vices, and ************ of organized religion and just pick out the knowledge and wisdom in any "holy" book. esspecially when 95% of the worlds population are idiots or tools. Which is probably why good rules go bad when you tack religion on them, while the fundemantalists wont settle for the same rules without the religious context.

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 12:23 PM
1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

I swear... If people started calling crack "sunshine snowflakes" people would eat it for ******** breakfast.

When i think of "God", even the judeo-christan god, I do not see a giant white man in sandals and a toga. And dont think im on some new-age Chi crap either. What I see in these commandments is...

1)Drop the jewel like solomon, but never follow men. If you do your head is more hollow then space obliva, or the abyss. With no trace of trivia left with the HISS. Does it pay to be deaf, dumb, or blind? As a slave he was kept from the mind. And from the caves, he crept from behind. And what he gave, was the sect of the swine. When the bible, that condemned the pig. I don't mean to pull your hems or flip your wigs. But we used to wear a turban, but now were in the urban. No more wearin' beanies or dress like the genies. No hocus pocus cuz I focus on the facts(I knew i was gonna figure out a way to quote that GZA song somewhere before this thread was over.) Basically, stick to the philosophy of freedom and love and you wont be enslaved by false gods with alligator heads again.

2) If you choose your own idols, chances are you will worship nothing but greed and material.

3) keep serious **** serious.

4)You deserve a day off!

The only people who should be offended by this is children and whiners.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
I agree, this guy can go to hell for all i care. To me he only seems interested in being a half-assed martyr for his cause and using religion to divide and conquer.

But there is a more interesting arguement involved here. These rules, no matter what you want to label them as are good rules, and basically the same philosphies we have embraced since we starting piling up mud by the rivers of Babylon. Now i agree that religion is a very scary thing, and an even more touchy subject when you mix it up with politics and law. However, minus the midevil translation and preachiness of the whole setup Its really just a long winded way of saying "treat people how you want to be treated". Which in my honest(you gave me that one, i dont claim it heh), agnostic, and morally vacant opinion should be the ultimate goal of Law and Order in any free civilization. I personally love RC, you may like Pepsi, and shadowfax might pledge her eternal devotion to Coke. But when you get down to it, we're all drinking COLA.

George Carlin cut it down to the Two commandments(always be honest and faithful/dont kill people unless they belive in a different invisable man in the cloud), But i will give the squares a little credit and stick with "The Seven Groovy Rules(remix)". If you think of it like that, than its a good damn momument to put there. Its not like its John 3:16 or something.

But Its probably not as 2-dimensional as i like to pretend. Its pretty hard to shovel through all the blood, gold, glitter, vices, and ************ of organized religion and just pick out the knowledge and wisdom in any "holy" book. esspecially when 95% of the worlds population are idiots or tools. Which is probably why good rules go bad when you tack religion on them, while the fundemantalists wont settle for the same rules without the religious context.

I don't have a problem with a monument to the Ten Commandments. I don't believe in all of them, but I do think they have had a powerful impact on society. If somebody wants to put up a monument to them - go for it. I have to say there seems to be a contradiction with one of the commandments saying as IJ so kindly posted, "You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them" and a monument. Isn't that a graven image? But aside from the hypocrisy, the problem is it just has no place in our government buildings. In such places we can play no favorites in the area of people's religious beliefs or the lack of the same.

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 12:30 PM
And yes, our system of law IS based on english common law. However, its important that you dont forget that we are the puritan rejects kicked out of england for being too uptight in the first place.

Ambrose Chapel
Aug 17, 2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
And yes, our system of law IS based on english common law. However, its important that you dont forget that we are the puritan rejects kicked out of england for being too uptight in the first place.

I think about this a lot...all the immigration to this country and still the Puritan ethic seems to be the dominant one (at least in public...). Does that say something about the lack of influence of immigrants over time (who I will assume are, on the whole, less uptight than the Puritans)?

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 12:49 PM
I dont think our culture is very puritan anymore, mostly just the elected officals. But i think that is more of the systems fault than the voters. People are pretty much stuck in a position where they only get to choose between the lesser evils of TWO old, out of touch, rich, courrpt old men or think they are just "throwing their vote away" on someone who doesnt have a chance of winning. Not even to mention all the people who dont vote because they are tired of this ************ or are felons.

also, the biggest influx of immigrants over the past 100 years has been catholics(Irish, Mexican, Italian, ect) and catholics tend to be pretty uptight compared to anglicans as well.

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It isn't ridiculous because it is true. I've pointed out several times that American law is based in the English Common Law. I would very strongly suggest reading up on this before trying to connect Christianity to our legal system, because that is what is ridiculous. What's more, the bloody persistence of this ridiculousness in the face of facts points out the crying need to enforce church-state separation because it's clear that without constant vigilance on this front, they would be merged. Make no mistake, this is what people like Justice Moore are after. for someone so insistent about logic and vigilant about logical flaws, you sure get confused about where to begin, for one, and the meaning of multicausality. yes, aws i said, the law of this country derives from english common law, in large part. but what does that derive from? surely you don't think the english made up their own morality, from scratch, tabula rasa, right there. oh, did you? well, it's completely impossible. the judeo-christian heritage is inseparable from american law as it exists. you can deny it all you want, but the fact remains. i am not suggesting that american law promotes christianity, i am saying that, hey, why don't you read the other 6 commandments and see if they don't comprise the principles put into our own law, as well as english common law? the moral basis from which it is derived goes back to things like greek philosophy and the legal systems of the israelites, and others. the ten commandments contain foundational, fundamental values that our law is based on. now just because it also includes moral principles that are specific to christianity and judaism, doesn't mean that our law hasn't inherited a great deal from it.

i do advocate the separation of church and state, but not because the state hasn't gained anything from the church. denying such simply places you in a false reality.

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
for someone so insistent about logic and vigilant about logical flaws, you sure get confused about where to begin, for one, and the meaning of

etc.

No, I'm not insisting on this at all -- I have simply pointed out that logic and factuality are in the foundations of English Common Law, on which our legal system was in turn based. I thought I was pretty clear about that. And no, the system of English Common Law does not depend on a deity for its authority. I've taken the trouble to look it up. You can too.

The "other six" commandments are not relevant to my point, which was that the first four are strictly religious directives, and do not belong in an American court of law.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
etc.

No, I'm not insisting on this at all -- I have simply pointed out that logic and factuality are in the foundations of English Common Law, on which our legal system was in turn based. I thought I was pretty clear about that. And no, the system of English Common Law does not depend on a deity for its authority. I've taken the trouble to look it up. You can too.

For those who are interested in the discussion of English Common Law and Christianity a quick google search turns up this informative site:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/joestor4.htm

For the case at hand one doesn't have to go back that far. The First Amendment and Supreme Court rulings on point to the case make it clear Judge Moore doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It will be interesting what he will do if and when the US Supreme Court turns down a hearing on his appeal. I think his point has been already made for those citizens of Alabama who would replace the Bill of Rights with religious dogma. Question for B2TM or anyone else in Alabama; is the good Justice Moore running for another office or is this just part of a reelection campaign?

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 07:20 PM
I think his point has been already made for those citizens of Alabama who would replace the Bill of Rights with religious dogma. Question for B2TM or anyone else in Alabama; is the good Justice Moore running for another office or is this just part of a reelection campaign?

hahaha sooo pwned. :D

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
hahaha sooo pwned. :D

Sorry, what??

Edit: ok so I had to look it up.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned

Now my question is did you really like my post, ThoughtKriminal, or did you think it was that bad? ;)

shadowfax
Aug 17, 2003, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
etc.

No, I'm not insisting on this at all -- I have simply pointed out that logic and factuality are in the foundations of English Common Law, on which our legal system was in turn based. I thought I was pretty clear about that. And no, the system of English Common Law does not depend on a deity for its authority. I've taken the trouble to look it up. You can too.

The "other six" commandments are not relevant to my point, which was that the first four are strictly religious directives, and do not belong in an American court of law. still picking and choosing. i wasn't talking about the source of the ten commandments, i was talking about the ten commandments, and if you don't think that humans can take ideas from places without taking every single idea from that place, i think you'd better reexamine the history of ideas, or rather, just a history of, say, a country's literature. take britain for example. it's authors use material that was inspired by other, previous writing. however, it is not inspired by all of it. a writer may say, for instance, that he despises shakespeare's vocabulary, but not his sentence structure, and adapt his own style to the latter, but not the former. shakespeare would have to be credited with influence on that writer's style, but his vocabulary would certainly not. for a more concrete example, ayn rand's favorite philosopher was aristotle; however, she fiercely disagreed with many things he said. it is possible to support something with qualifications; you don't have to agree with the first 4 commandments to admit that the other 6 represent a basis on which the law of any secular country could, and really should be based.

pseudobrit
Aug 17, 2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, I am saying that I am tired of a really small group of people deciding what 98% of the people want. That is what I am saying. If it offends someone, then they don't have to read it. But the Justice is right, our laws are based on those 10 laws.

Sweet! So if I want Satanic worship to be the law of the land, all I have to do is gather up a few hundred like-minded people to one locality, declare us a local majority and tell the remaining 2% that they're going to play by our rules now?

Sorry, folks, little Billy will be praying to the Prince of Darkness today!! Don't like it? Too bad, you're a minority! Move!

Ugg
Aug 17, 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
you don't have to agree with the first 4 commandments to admit that the other 6 represent a basis on which the law of any secular country could, and really should be based.

The other 6 are very broad societal laws that in all likelihood predate Christianity. They certainly aren't unique in their message and are found in many other cultures and religions.

Personally, I would have no problem with the last 6 being displayed as their message is universal. I do have a problem with the first 4. Why should we be forced to accept the chaff with the wheat?

ThoughtKriminal
Aug 17, 2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Sorry, what??

Edit: ok so I had to look it up.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned

Now my question is did you really like my post, ThoughtKriminal, or did you think it was that bad? ;)

You f-ckin ripped Moore a new one and a half. But seriously, i dont really give a crap about this guy or the ten commandments. I just hopped in because you guys had a good arguement going.

And even if i belived strongly in whatever side, i still wouldnt waste my time debating it if you didnt put up a decent counterpoint. And considering that shadowfax is as sharp as a straight edge Id bet the same goes for her(?).

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
... you don't have to agree with the first 4 commandments to admit that the other 6 represent a basis on which the law of any secular country could, and really should be based.

shadowfax,

don't disagree that one can have an eclectic apprecitation for a given tradition's contributions to society, but do you really want to base a secular society on these?

5. Honor thy father and thy mother:
that thy days may be long upon the
land which the Lord thy God giveth
thee.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s
house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbor’s.

Now I think everyone can agree to #6 and #8, but do you want a legal system that makes adultery and coveting what others have illegal? Number 9 should be illegal in a court of law, but no matter how disgusting spreading lies about another is, the question of penalties must be balanced between slander and freedom of speech. As to honoring ones mother and father we can all agree in general - it's in the specific it's not so easy. Seems to be something the state should stay out of. ;)

By the way, I would again point out they come from earlier pagan systems.

Sayhey
Aug 17, 2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
You f-ckin ripped Moore a new one and a half. But seriously, i dont really give a crap about this guy or the ten commandments. I just hopped in because you guys had a good arguement going.

And even if i belived strongly in whatever side, i still wouldnt waste my time debating it if you didnt put up a decent counterpoint. And considering that shadowfax is as sharp as a straight edge Id bet the same goes for her(?).

Then, I guess, a thank you is in order. And yes, about Shadowfax, he does seem sharp.

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
still picking and choosing. i wasn't talking about the source of the ten commandments, i was talking about the ten commandments, and if you don't think that humans can take ideas from places without taking every single idea from that place, i think you'd better reexamine the history of ideas, or rather, just a history of, say, a country's literature. take britain for example. it's authors use material that was inspired by other, previous writing. however, it is not inspired by all of it. a writer may say, for instance, that he despises shakespeare's vocabulary, but not his sentence structure, and adapt his own style to the latter, but not the former. shakespeare would have to be credited with influence on that writer's style, but his vocabulary would certainly not. for a more concrete example, ayn rand's favorite philosopher was aristotle; however, she fiercely disagreed with many things he said. it is possible to support something with qualifications; you don't have to agree with the first 4 commandments to admit that the other 6 represent a basis on which the law of any secular country could, and really should be based.

I'm sure I don't know what this debate is about any more if this is what it's become. The question that was on the floor was whether it was appropriate for Justice Roy Moore to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, based on the claim that they are the foundation of US law. I have provided abundant evidence that they are not in fact the foundation of US law, points which it seems to me haven't been refuted. Judge Moore has continued his efforts to introduce religious doctrine into his court, because he believes his religious doctrine belongs there. He is in contempt of the federal courts on this account.

IJ Reilly
Aug 17, 2003, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
The other 6 are very broad societal laws that in all likelihood predate Christianity. They certainly aren't unique in their message and are found in many other cultures and religions.

Good grief, I hope they predate Christianity since they're part of the Old Testament.

shadowfax
Aug 18, 2003, 06:40 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
shadowfax,

don't disagree that one can have an eclectic apprecitation for a given tradition's contributions to society, but do you really want to base a secular society on these?
...
By the way, I would again point out they come from earlier pagan systems. yeah, i know. i think that they really point to a universal set of axioms that must be held by all men (these are the last 6), not necessarily in that specific form, but at least in the spirit of what they say, for men to live together in a society. they aren't the most basic principle on which men exist (which is, esteem all men as valuable as yourself), and they certainly aren't the first time that those laws have been put down, but they are an important step along the way, IMO, just as important as all that moral stuff they came out with as new in the enlightenment.

IJ: the discussion about whether moore should have them in court is over; i already agreed that he shouldn't. i was saying that nevertheless, the commandments do constitute as much of a foundation for the law as English Common Law, as one of the best-known (in our culture) expressions of some of the most basic moral values necessary for society to exist. once again, that's the last 6 there.

not an especially important argument, but you seemed to be arguing broadly that they didn't have anything at all to do with it. and that, i believe, is wrong.

shadowfax
Aug 18, 2003, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by ThoughtKriminal
And even if i belived strongly in whatever side, i still wouldnt waste my time debating it if you didnt put up a decent counterpoint. And considering that shadowfax is as sharp as a straight edge Id bet the same goes for her(?). hah, thanks man. i'm a guy... my avatar is sort of my idol... oh, broke one of the commandments, dang! ...she's an attractive female model whom i respect... physically... a lot... ;)

Desertrat
Aug 18, 2003, 08:32 AM
"1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.

2. You shall not make for yourself a graven image. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

If you leave out the Egypt/bondage bit, ain't this sorta Islamic?

:D, 'Rat

mactastic
Aug 18, 2003, 09:35 AM
The same groups that support this monument are more than likely some of the same ones that object to the Harry Potter books because they promote witchcraft. How can someone like Justice Moore expect acceptance in this case when many fundamentalists have called for banning something as innocuous as Harry Potter? Or condemned Tinky Winky for carrying a purse? People like Moore seem to miss the point that if they were to get their religious symbol erected, others that they disagree with would have a right to do the same. How would Moore feel about a monument to Odin being placed next to his tablets? Or anywhere for that matter. For instance, religious groups were recently up in arms because a teacher was not allowed to display her cross that she wears around her neck at school. Yet I doubt those same people would sit silent while a teacher wore a pentagram (with the point up it is not a symbol of the devil, rather a symbol of paganism) but if they want crosses to be allowed they have to allow any other religious symbol as well. The school board realized this and took the (wise IMHO) step of not allowing any of them rather than allowing them all. I just wonder what everyone would be saying if the situation was reversed and there was some kind of symbol they disagreed with there. How would all you Christians feel if you had to walk into a courtroom with a pentagram displayed outside? Would you be OK with it? I wouldn't.

Desertrat
Aug 18, 2003, 10:58 AM
"The school board realized this and took the (wise IMHO) step of not allowing any of them rather than allowing them all.

Well, you're probably right, from the standpoint of folks getting their knickers knotted, but I'd allow them all. My focus is more on the competency of the teacher.

Maybe a bit far-fetched, but do we avoid hiring a Jewish guy who wears that little black cap? Or an Islamic woman who believes in wearing a veil?

I dunno. Maybe I'm too thick-skinned. Maybe I don't feel threatened enough. I must be, perchance, "fear-challenged".

'Rat

IJ Reilly
Aug 18, 2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax

IJ: the discussion about whether moore should have them in court is over; i already agreed that he shouldn't. i was saying that nevertheless, the commandments do constitute as much of a foundation for the law as English Common Law, as one of the best-known (in our culture) expressions of some of the most basic moral values necessary for society to exist. once again, that's the last 6 there.

So you keep saying, but at the same time, offer no evidence to support the claim. As I have pointed out numerous times now, the first four commandments are purely religious directives; and as others have pointed out, the other six are principles found throughout human law-making and not at all exclusive to the Hebrew text.

This incidentally raises the issue of the three quite different versions of Ten Commandments: the Hebrew, the Roman Catholic and the King James Protestant. I wonder which one of these Justice Moore decided was the correct foundation for our legal system?

mactastic
Aug 18, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat
"The school board realized this and took the (wise IMHO) step of not allowing any of them rather than allowing them all.

Well, you're probably right, from the standpoint of folks getting their knickers knotted, but I'd allow them all. My focus is more on the competency of the teacher.

Maybe a bit far-fetched, but do we avoid hiring a Jewish guy who wears that little black cap? Or an Islamic woman who believes in wearing a veil?

I dunno. Maybe I'm too thick-skinned. Maybe I don't feel threatened enough. I must be, perchance, "fear-challenged".

'Rat

If everyone would play nice with each other, you could theoretically allow them all, but sooner or later some bozo would decide their religion's symbol would be a representation of male potency worn on a cord around their neck. Or some other similarly inappropriate thing that would be a disruption. It is much easier to tell everyone no then to start saying yes, then have to change it later, or only allow certain ones (showing favoritism) to one or another. It just begs for abuse.

As for hiring, if it is a public sector job like a teacher (or a judge) the person taking the job should have it clearly explained that displays of religion such as a veil or a yalmuka (sp?) are innappropriate in schools and if their religion doesn't permit them to come into compliance with certain standards of neutrality that they need to be looking for work in a different environment. No veils, no crosses, no yalmukas etc. I don't see why schools (and courts) shouldn't be able to require this of their employees. Same with the woman in Florida I think it is, who wants the religious right to wear her veil in her driver's license photo. Come on. You don't have to drive if you don't like the rules. If your religion is so inflexible as to not be able to adapt to society, there is a problem.

IJ Reilly
Aug 18, 2003, 12:00 PM
Well now I'm going to have to take issue with this a bit. I don't see a problem with a person wearing a symbol of their religious devotion in a job like teaching. I think we have to take intent into account here. I hadn't heard about the suit involving the teacher wearing a cross in Florida, but I'm willing to bet wearing the cross wasn't the only way she expressed her religion in the classroom, or it hardly would have come to anyone's attention. I don't want the state to become hostile to religious expression in public places or to suppress diversity of thought and ideas. Where some people cross the line (pun intended) is when they use their religious symbols as way of communicating the supremacy of their religious notions in secular places, like schools or courtrooms. Unfortunately some people cannot resist doing so, and they are the ones causing these issues to be raised over and over again.

mactastic
Aug 18, 2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Well now I'm going to have to take issue with this a bit. I don't see a problem with a person wearing a symbol of their religious devotion in a job like teaching. I think we have to take intent into account here. I hadn't heard about the suit involving the teacher wearing a cross in Florida, but I'm willing to bet wearing the cross wasn't the only way she expressed her religion in the classroom, or it hardly would have come to anyone's attention. I don't want the state to become hostile to religious expression in public places or to suppress diversity of thought and ideas. Where some people cross the line (pun intended) is when they use their religious symbols as way of communicating the supremacy of their religious notions in secular places, like schools or courtrooms. Unfortunately some people cannot resist doing so, and they are the ones causing these issues to be raised over and over again.

I actually don't have a problem with religious displays either, but if schools can prohibit gang colors, alcoholic or drug related shirts, why not religious imagery as well? It just seems a matter of prudence, we can't have them all co-exist in harmony (not the way I feel, just an observation of how things tend to play out) so none of them can. It's just one more example of a small minority of radicals ruining something for the rest of us.

BTW, the woman with the drivers license was from Florida (I think), the cross case I believe was in Michigan. I'll try to find relative links for you.

Ok, my bad, the teacher thing was from Pennsylvania, and the only place I could find with the story was the good ole' CBN so here. (http://cbn.org/cbnnews/cwn/052303cross%2Easp)

Here's a link to a story referencing the Florida case in regard to another similar situation. (http://www.lincolncourier.com/news/03/08/16/e.asp)

shadowfax
Aug 18, 2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
I actually don't have a problem with religious displays either, but if schools can prohibit gang colors, alcoholic or drug related shirts, why not religious imagery as well? It just seems a matter of prudence, we can't have them all co-exist in harmony (not the way I feel, just an observation of how things tend to play out) so none of them can. It's just one more example of a small minority of radicals ruining something for the rest of us.[/URL] [/COLOR] i'm extremely uncomfortable with your comparison of religious symbols to gang symbols within this context. i furthermore don't see the logic that gets you from the government prohibiting students from advertising lawless activity (gangs, drugs, alcohol) to prohibiting teachers from showing their personal beliefs. this is not to be construed with promoting their personal beliefs and trying to influence students, but not allowing a woman to wear something her beliefs require... will lose you a teacher, possibly a damned good one, and for no reason.

people definitely need to learn a thing or two about the independence of the human mind. come here to the capitol of texas, and don't be surprised when you find the ten commandments here. or how about the LBJ library, which has a gutenberg bible (a bible, oh no!) on display. this is not shoving beliefs down people's throats. that's what i object to, in this ray moore case, and in any other. but to suggest that expressing them is shoving them down people's throat will not give you more freedom; try less.

mactastic
Aug 18, 2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i'm extremely uncomfortable with your comparison of religious symbols to gang symbols within this context. i furthermore don't see the logic that gets you from the government prohibiting students from advertising lawless activity (gangs, drugs, alcohol) to prohibiting teachers from showing their personal beliefs. this is not to be construed with promoting their personal beliefs and trying to influence students, but not allowing a woman to wear something her beliefs require... will lose you a teacher, possibly a damned good one, and for no reason.

people definitely need to learn a thing or two about the independence of the human mind. come here to the capitol of texas, and don't be surprised when you find the ten commandments here. or how about the LBJ library, which has a gutenberg bible (a bible, oh no!) on display. this is not shoving beliefs down people's throats. that's what i object to, in this ray moore case, and in any other. but to suggest that expressing them is shoving them down people's throat will not give you more freedom; try less.

The law has given schools the power to regulate speech (ie. gang colors) in order to maintain education as the highest priority at school. If religious symbols cause trouble (and they do) then shouldn't schools have the right to limit them? I am not trying to compare Christianity to a gang or anything like that, just showing the logical path I was on. The teacher in question signed a contract with the provision in it that religious symbols were not to be displayed. She could have tucked it into her shirt and been fine. If I take a job, I expect to have to conform to some kind of dress code, and if I can't handle the suit and tie thing every day, I don't take a job like that, even if I am one hell of a suit and tie kinda guy. Roy Moore should take his monument and put it outside the church that he goes to, I don't see why he has to thumb his nose at everyone and put it where he knew it would cause a big stink, unless he's looking to get elected/reelected somewhere.

shadowfax
Aug 18, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
The law has given schools the power to regulate speech (ie. gang colors) in order to maintain education as the highest priority at school. If religious symbols cause trouble (and they do) then shouldn't schools have the right to limit them? I am not trying to compare Christianity to a gang or anything like that, just showing the logical path I was on. The teacher in question signed a contract with the provision in it that religious symbols were not to be displayed. She could have tucked it into her shirt and been fine. If I take a job, I expect to have to conform to some kind of dress code, and if I can't handle the suit and tie thing every day, I don't take a job like that, even if I am one hell of a suit and tie kinda guy. Roy Moore should take his monument and put it outside the church that he goes to, I don't see why he has to thumb his nose at everyone and put it where he knew it would cause a big stink, unless he's looking to get elected/reelected somewhere. that's all well and good for a man like ray, but how for a muslim woman who must cover her head? must she be disgraced in order to "not cause trouble?" what does that even mean? i understand that there are cases when people use symbols to shove their views down people's throats, and this ray guy is an example of that. do you really think the symbol has anything to do with that? that's just part of one person's strategy to shove his views down people's throats. take it away... damn, he's still doing it. anyone who believes that he can shove his views down others' throats will be that way, symbols or no. and to restrict people from following their religion on public property/in public office turns the tide of the government not favoring any religion to the government harassing and oppressing religion. motive is an important factor in any case. it's a mistake to take motive out and broadly prohibit such activities, a mistake that curtails freedom very unnecessarily.

if education is the highest priority, why make rules that curtail the freedom of teachers? that's only going to drive intelligent, sensible teachers away, in my opinion.

when you find someone who is a controlling arse, why do you have to prosecute him for something petty like wearing religious symbols? why not prosecute him for being a controlling arse? that's too difficult in our legal system? does that make it a good idea to make laws such that you can get him on minor things? how when such laws start turning against decent people?

themadchemist
Aug 18, 2003, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I know the man, so let me shed some light on this. 1st he isn't legislating from the bench. He had a monument in the rotundra. He doesn't quote the 10 commandments while sentencing people, and he hasn't offened anyone that I know. If you know the law, and mcrain I know you do, there are many laws that exist that were based on the 10 commandments. Roy isn't saying what you accuse him of. He believes that the commandments of God are a fundamental basis of the laws of our State. That is all.

It has been so blown out of propotion. And remember. He is a Chief Justice of a court. Not a single Judge. Also, as far as people in Alabama that are not Christian. There aren't a lot my friend. Hell, even the name Alabama means God's land.

Jeez...The fact that the 10 Commandments have had an influence on American government does not eliminate the fact that they are inexorably tied to established religion. And to place them in a courtroom is then inexorably tying that courtroom to the same religion.

Moreover, the 10 Commandments aren't unique to Christianity. Christianity did not even declare most of them first. The same statements can found in Hinduism and Judaism, which both preceded Christianity by a long shot. Thus, by placing those tenets in the context of Christianity alone, the government of Alabama is showing a distinct predilection for the Christian religion.

But how about the one that states that man shall not worship any other god? That certainly suggests that God in the Christian interpretation is the only proper God, which alienates those who are not Christian. It also suggests that one must worship God, which alienates atheists.

I probably would not have responded to your statement, however, were it not for that last little bit about there not being too many non-Christians in Alabama. So at what level is it o.k. to oppress people? When they constitute 1/100th of the population? 1/1000? 1/1000000? Because I am Hindu, should I be told by the state of Alabama were I to move there that my religion is not the preferred one of the state? If even one person's constitutional rights are being violated, then that which causes the violation must be eliminated. That is the basis for our Bill of Rights. It is not a document that affords proportional rights to a collective group, but one that affords equal rights to every individual.

Whatever arbitrary title this man has had plopped upon his mighty crown, his rights do not override those of any others. Whether he be a homeless panhandler or the very President of the United States, he is protected by the Constitution, but never greater than it.

mactastic
Aug 18, 2003, 06:37 PM
From the administrators point of view, I can allow you to wear your dead guy nailed to a tree, but then I have to let the next guy wear his goat head pendant. Its just easier to enforce a dress code that promotes harmony. I wish I didn't have to advocate going this far, but the rules will be abused for political points any other way. Unless and until you are willing to allow someone with a pentagram to teach your kid, you can't allow anything on that level. It just goes to show how intolerant people are. A teacher around here was almost fired because a kid, basically setting her up because he knew she'd been to a peace rally, asked her what she though of the war after class was over. When she said she thought the war was wrong, he went and told his parents, and she was reprimanded and told not to say anything like that again or she would be removed.

shadowfax
Aug 18, 2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
A teacher around here was almost fired because a kid, basically setting her up because he knew she'd been to a peace rally, asked her what she though of the war after class was over. When she said she thought the war was wrong, he went and told his parents, and she was reprimanded and told not to say anything like that again or she would be removed. it's funny how law is twisted to favor the tattle-tale child. i don't see that legal direction as a good one; those parents should have been reprimanded. i don't see the commonality between a man wearing a tv on his head blairing porno and a teacher with a cross on a chain. there is a difference in value between someone who wears religious garb to observe a respected tradition and the man who does something vile under the guise of its being a "religious observance." just because the system is abused, doesn't mean you should make it unjust. it will still be abused, and you will end up as ********* as when you started making adendums ad infinitum. you've just gone to the point of preventing teachers from expressing their own opinions. is it wrong for a teacher to say, "i think war is wrong. not everyone does, but i do"? NO! but of course it's wrong for him to say, "listen up, you little s***s! war is the devil, you better believe it. if i see you write anything otherwise in your essays, i'm gonna dock you 20 points on your grade. understand?" he is a fool that looks on both with the same attitude and judgment. that fool is the one that would threaten that woman with her job.

IJ Reilly
Aug 18, 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by themadchemist
Moreover, the 10 Commandments aren't unique to Christianity. Christianity did not even declare most of them first.

Please don't be scaring me like this. I thought everybody knew that the Ten Commandments are found in the Old Testament, the pre-Christian books of the Hebrew Bible written around 900 BCE.

shadowfax
Aug 18, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Please don't be scaring me like this. I thought everybody knew that the Ten Commandments are found in the Old Testament, the pre-Christian books of the Hebrew Bible written around 900 BCE. yes, a short study of christianity reveals that Jesus Christ is supposed to be the fulfillment of hebrew prophecies predating christ by hundreds of years. his death was foretold countless times by the old testament, and the modern-day jews, correct me if i am wrong, are still, by and large, awaiting "the real" messiah. as such, judaism and christianity do share a common core inasmuch as the "old" testament (as opposed to the new testament, which begins with the account of christ in several books) is a text which both faiths hold to.

IJ Reilly
Aug 18, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
yes, a short study of christianity reveals that Jesus Christ is supposed to be the fulfillment of hebrew prophecies predating christ by hundreds of years. his death was foretold countless times by the old testament, and the modern-day jews, correct me if i am wrong, are still, by and large, awaiting "the real" messiah. as such, judaism and christianity do share a common core inasmuch as the "old" testament (as opposed to the new testament, which begins with the account of christ in several books) is a text which both faiths hold to.

"Modern day" Jews are not awaiting the "real" Messiah, they are awaiting the Messiah, which is what the faith calls them to do. People who believe Jesus to be the Messiah are called Christians. The "old" testament is not opposed to the "new" testament. The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible and the Old and New testaments combined form the Christian Bible.

mactastic
Aug 19, 2003, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't see the commonality between a man wearing a tv on his head blairing porno and a teacher with a cross on a chain.

Huh? Where'd that come from? The porno on the head bit I mean.

shadowfax
Aug 19, 2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
"Modern day" Jews are not awaiting the "real" Messiah, they are awaiting the Messiah, which is what the faith calls them to do. People who believe Jesus to be the Messiah are called Christians. The "old" testament is not opposed to the "new" testament. The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible and the Old and New testaments combined form the Christian Bible. wait, isn't that the same thing i said, only with a different spin?

IJ Reilly
Aug 19, 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
wait, isn't that the same thing i said, only with a different spin?

Yes and no. I restated what you said minus the spin you'd added. A Jew would be a least a bit insulted by the implication that he was awaiting the "real" Messiah because by definition devout Jews believe that no Messiah has yet arrived.

Ugg
Aug 19, 2003, 07:29 PM
Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3047293,00.html)

By BOB JOHNSON

Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - A federal appeals court twice rejected requests Tuesday from the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to lift an order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building by midnight Wednesday.

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.

Moore, who installed the 5,300-pound monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago, contends it represents the moral foundation of American law and that a federal judge has no authority to make him remove it.

The 11th Circuit earlier this year agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who held the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

Moore's supporters announced plans for a series of protests that an organizer promised would be ``Christ centered, peaceful and prayerful.''

Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said the protests would begin with a prayer vigil on the steps of the court building at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday.

``Every minute that monument stays in the building after Aug. 20 is a victory,'' Mahoney said.

Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end of the day Wednesday. He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office.




I wonder who paid for it in the first place?

Backtothemac
Aug 19, 2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Ugg


I wonder who paid for it in the first place?

The people of the State of Alabama did. They should put it to a referendum and let the people decide.

Besides the whole seperation of Church and State is crap.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress did not pass a law about religion. A Chief Justice put up a monument to the 10 commandments. Congress did not mandate that the people of Alabama be Christian. It is stup. Nor, did Roy Moore prohibit the free exercise of ones religion, nor abridge free speech, or the press, or the right of people to assemble, nor remove the right of petition.

The interpretation of the 1st ammendment is so bastardized that it hardly has meaning any longer.

Vector
Aug 19, 2003, 09:43 PM
I live in Birmingham, Alabama and i think Moore is an egotistical idiot subverting the law that he is sworn to uphold. He is audacious enough to defy the court's ruling, but still expects his rulings to have meaning. So according to Moore it is fine to ignore court rulings if it is in conflict with your interpretation of the law.

My problem is not with Moore wanting the Ten Commandments statue in the courthouse as it does not personally bother me, but once a higher court has spoken it should be removed. Moore will be costing the state $5000 a day (i think thats right but coorect me if i am wrong) in fines for defying the ruling and it will increase if he does not adhere to the ruling. This is what angers me as Alabama is already in a poor financial situation which is further stressed by this situation.

Ugg: Moore commisioned the statue and had it moved in during the night without asking anyone about it.

I am glad that the christian coalition is holding that vigil maybe it will keep them off the streets for a while.

pseudobrit
Aug 19, 2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Didn't Alabama's Congress write the budget, out of which the monument was paid for? That's a law.

Doesn't the federal government -- Congress -- oversee and approve the spending for his court? Those items are laws, too.

Backtothemac
Aug 19, 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Didn't Alabama's Congress write the budget, out of which the monument was paid for? That's a law.

Doesn't the federal government -- Congress -- oversee and approve the spending for his court? Those items are laws, too.

Actually, to tell you the truth, I think that Roy paid for it himself.

And frankly, that is a real stretch. That would be a conspiracy. That the State Congress put money in the Judicial Budget so that Roy could buy a monument to the commandments.

That is absurd. And no, the last time that I checked, the federal government doesn't approve state budgets. It is none of their damn business how we spend our money here in the state of Alabama.

shadowfax
Aug 19, 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Yes and no. I restated what you said minus the spin you'd added. A Jew would be a least a bit insulted by the implication that he was awaiting the "real" Messiah because by definition devout Jews believe that no Messiah has yet arrived. i don't think so. a fake messiah would constitute an impostor claiming to be the messiah. this has occurred before. they are not waiting for the fake messiah, they are waiting for the real messiah, as they see him (obviously it's not the way the christians, atheists, muslims, etc. would see it). i was not putting a negative spin on it; you're just trying to be snotty or something, and it's annoying. my original statement was more than adequate, and i think you're being presumptuous.

mactastic
Aug 20, 2003, 08:59 AM
I thought I heard that Moore paid for the monument himself, I should hope the taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill. If they did I would expect some of those good people who speak up against having their tax dollars support things they don't agree with would speak up now.

Here's an article with this little tidbit.

Link (http://www.westernrecorder.org/wr/wrsite.nsf/stories/200327-monument)

Moore had the monument placed in the building without the knowledge or consent of his fellow justices in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001. It stands by itself at the center of the building’s main public space.

Inscribed across the top of the monument is the King James translation of the commandments. The court’s opinion took special note that different religious traditions—including different traditions within Christianity itself—have different ways of translating and arranging the Exodus passages from which the commandments are drawn. Therefore, the court said, it was difficult to view the sculpture as anything but an endorsement of Protestant Christianity.

Privately raised funds paid for the sculpture, but Moore allowed a film crew from Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida to tape footage of the monument’s construction and installation. Coral Ridge later sold the videotape as a fundraiser and has paid for Moore’s legal defense.

Backtothemac
Aug 20, 2003, 09:49 AM
Yea, he did pay for it. SO no state funds paid for it, it doesn't violate any part of the Constitution, except for a very liberal reading of the 1st ammendment.

mactastic
Aug 20, 2003, 10:11 AM
I guess Judge Myron H. Thompson of Federal District Court in Montgomery is a flaming liberal then.

IJ Reilly
Aug 20, 2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
i don't think so. a fake messiah would constitute an impostor claiming to be the messiah. this has occurred before. they are not waiting for the fake messiah, they are waiting for the real messiah, as they see him (obviously it's not the way the christians, atheists, muslims, etc. would see it). i was not putting a negative spin on it; you're just trying to be snotty or something, and it's annoying. my original statement was more than adequate, and i think you're being presumptuous.

This is double-talk. There's no need to be so defensive. I am simply trying to explain what Jews actually believe, which is something many people don't understand. You asked to be corrected if you were wrong, and that's what I did.

Ugg
Aug 20, 2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
I thought I heard that Moore paid for the monument himself, I should hope the taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill. If they did I would expect some of those good people who speak up against having their tax dollars support things they don't agree with would speak up now.

Here's an article with this little tidbit.

Link (http://www.westernrecorder.org/wr/wrsite.nsf/stories/200327-monument)

It's pretty disturbing that a judge allowed a private religious group to film the installation and then use if for fundraising purposes.

By placing it in the middle of the rotunda, and at 2.5 tons it was obviously a substantial monument, he was obviously interested in making a political statement. Where is the Magna Carta? IMHO, a much more substantial declaration of morality as the basis of law in regards to a country's rulers.

I pity the state of Alabama for having a judge who is more interested in politics and religion than the law.

mcrain
Aug 20, 2003, 11:05 AM
If the judge paid for it himself and abandoned it in a public building, a place where the government could not put it itself, then why can't I walk into the building and take it out? I mean, I can't leave my property laying around in public without it being taken. For that matter, why hasn't the judge been arrested for littering? Or vandalism of the courthouse for leaving junk in the lobby? Why hasn't anyone taken a sledgehammer to the big rock and broken it into pieces and removed it?

What would prevent anyone from doing that?

mactastic
Aug 20, 2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by mcrain
If the judge paid for it himself and abandoned it in a public building, a place where the government could not put it itself, then why can't I walk into the building and take it out? I mean, I can't leave my property laying around in public without it being taken. For that matter, why hasn't the judge been arrested for littering? Or vandalism of the courthouse for leaving junk in the lobby? Why hasn't anyone taken a sledgehammer to the big rock and broken it into pieces and removed it?

What would prevent anyone from doing that?

Probably the fear that you would be tried in that very courthouse. Besides, I can just hear Moore sayin something like "From my cold dead hands!" In addition, he has asked the citizenry to surround the building to prevent its removal. Scary reminders of the way integration was forced down the throats of the good people of Alabama all those many years ago.

mcrain
Aug 20, 2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Scary reminders of the way integration was forced down the throats of the good people of Alabama all those many years ago.

Yes, remember that integration was designed to help end the bigotry, persecution and discrimination of a minority, where here, again a minority of people will or may lose access to the rule of law due to their different religious beliefs, or lack of any such beliefs.

The first amendment, as orginally written, had protections designed to allow all to freely speak their minds and suffer no religious persecution. It was written in reaction to the religious antics in Europe.

Now, the same antics that lead the pilgrims away from Europe, have crept into our lives. Religion is an individual choice. Government is a collective good (or it is intended to be good). The two should not mix, not only because the Constitution intended that they not mix, but also because the government's power, and its character as a collective will, leads it to the potential of dictating religious choices to individuals, which is against the very religions that the government might endorse.

(edit) Somewhere back in Bible class, I remember the Lord saying that his believes should come to him as the little children. That statement seems to indicate that we are to choose God of our own free will, and accept him with the innocence of a child. A far cry from being forced to believe by an oppresive government.

$.02

actripxl
Aug 20, 2003, 02:45 PM
First this Judge is full of crap for disobeying the higher courts ruling. The higher circuit is also full of crap because there is no clear distinction that any particular religion is being promoted, though that can be debated because of the 1st 2 commendments. McRain Im not saying your full of crap per se, but if you think what is going on now the same as when and why the pilgrims came over than you REALLY need to review your history. And that vandalism remark was uterlly moronic and childish come up with something better. Now personally I think it should be moved unless the people of Alabama really want it there. Those two SLABS are not infringing on anyones right, to freedom of expresion, Im so sick of this PC crap where we have to try and appease EVERYONE. Reality check people, there will always be someone who disagrees no matter what topic. Yes we should try and help smaller groups, but at the expense of the Majority? That is what is wrong with this country, everyone trying to get what is good for them without any consideration for others, there is such a thing called comprimise.

IJ Reilly
Aug 20, 2003, 03:12 PM
Freedom of expression is not the issue here, it is church-state separation. If this episode proves anything, it's that "PC" goes both ways.

simX
Aug 20, 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by actripxl
Yes we should try and help smaller groups, but at the expense of the Majority? That is what is wrong with this country, everyone trying to get what is good for them without any consideration for others, there is such a thing called comprimise.

So, basically, what you're saying is: if you're in the majority, there's no reason for you to compromise, but if you're in the minority, you definitely should compromise? Your two statements here seem to be contradicting each other. The "compromise" in this case would be to not force anybody to accept or reject religion, which would mean not putting up a religious symbol such as the ten commandments in a courthouse.

I think that putting this monument in is essentially forcing people who enter that courthouse to accept the ten commandments, which is totally wrong. Our justice system should not be based upon any one religion. If this judge wants to display a large monument dedicated to one religion, then he needs a similar monument dedicated to each and every other religion. That, or he can opt to put in no monument at all. There is a CLEAR distinction that one religion is being promoted: these are taken directly out of the holy scripture of one religion, in which others do not necessarily put their faith.

These arguments, however, are not the main one which I want to emphasize.

I, personally, have another beef to pick with this monument's installation. I consider myself an atheist -- I don't believe in any god at all. Whether or not this monument is promoting a single issue is dwarfed by the fact that the monument is claiming that to uphold morals and values means that one must put faith in some religion. By saying that this monument signifies the moral foundation upon which our country is founded implies that without some religion, human morals and values would not exist.

I resent that. My moral beliefs do not extend from some higher power that dictates what I should and should not do. My moral beliefs come from within -- I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to kill another person, and that it is fundamentally wrong to steal from another person. There are shades of gray, yes, but my morals do not come from some higher power. Whether or not the monument dictates that people follow a certain religion, it NECESSARILY dictates that people follow SOME religion in order to have moral values. This is the biggest problem with the monument and the biggest reason why it should be removed (and never should have been installed in the first place).

If the judge had decided to post 10 statements of morality that were not bound to any particular religion, I would have no problem with it. But the judge knowingly installed 10 statements from a certain religion, which, when taken with his statement that they form the moral fabric of our country, implies that I necessarily need to follow a religion. That breaches my right to be able to not follow any religion at all.

actripxl
Aug 20, 2003, 04:20 PM
I didn't say that the majority shouldn't comprimise, but that all should learn to give and take, not just take all the time. If you consider having the display of any symbol not just religous to be forcing you to accept that way of ideology or doctrine, then my friend you have some serious problems. I have a lot of muslim friends and I've been to their mosque plenty of times without thinking twice about it being FORCED upon me. Secondly lets face the reality of the situation and that is our enviorment plays a huge role in the people that we turn out to be. Well buddy you are moral because the foundation of our laws have a religious basis. You may not belive in a god but it is the belief in a god by those around you that helped you form your "Identity" as a "Moral" person. I'll be the first to admit that there are a lot of things I haven't done because of that belief. Laws themselves do not worry me as much as the belief that my actions have a consequence regardless if I get caught or not.

Ugg
Aug 20, 2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by actripxl
I have a lot of muslim friends and I've been to their mosque plenty of times without thinking twice about it being FORCED upon me.

Voluntarily visiting a privately funded religious institution is a lot different than walking into a courthouse paid for by the state. A courthouse in which the jurors and judges and those to be judged come from all kinds of differing religious and social backgrounds. Why should one religion be promoted over all others? One version of the ten commandments be given prominence over the other, sometimes conflicting versions?

Where's Buddha, Confucius, Jahweh, the angel Moroni, the gods of the local Indian tribes, the Pantheon of the Mayan and Aztec tribes, the Norse Gods? Why aren't they represented?

Isn't Justice typically portrayed as a woman with a blindfold? A blindfold that doesn't take into account the gender, age, religion, color, sexuality of those being judged. Or, has she been blinded to all but those who practice Christianity?

simX
Aug 20, 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Voluntarily visiting a privately funded religious institution is a lot different than walking into a courthouse paid for by the state. A courthouse in which the jurors and judges and those to be judged come from all kinds of differing religious and social backgrounds. Why should one religion be promoted over all others? One version of the ten commandments be given prominence over the other, sometimes conflicting versions?

Where's Buddha, Confucius, Jahweh, the angel Moroni, the gods of the local Indian tribes, the Pantheon of the Mayan and Aztec tribes, the Norse Gods? Why aren't they represented?

Isn't Justice typically portrayed as a woman with a blindfold? A blindfold that doesn't take into account the gender, age, religion, color, sexuality of those being judged. Or, has she been blinded to all but those who practice Christianity?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

As for your statement, actripxl, about the belief in God by others shaping my moral identity: that is just ridiculous. Basically you're saying that if religion didn't exist in this world, morality wouldn't either? Pretty powerful (and ludicrous) statement, if you ask me. My moral identity could have been partly shaped by the views of my grandparents (who are the closest relatives who actively practice religion), but they have had relatively little to do with it. My parents (who are a much greater influence in my life) don't practice any religion, and I haven't grown up immoral because of it.

actripxl
Aug 20, 2003, 06:31 PM
You know what sim im not gonna argue with you cause its obvious to me you have never taken any psycholgy courses (more that just 101 and 102). Reread your history all over again, cause all civilizations that I rember seem to have some sort of belief in a deity or more in some cases as a foundation of their beginings, laws, and rituals. And I wasn't just talking about going as far back as your grandparents, because it takes a lot longer for societies to for than just 3 generations. As for the a mosque not being the same as a courthouse your right I'll give you that, you are correct in that they are not the same but I did say it should be up to the people in Alabama to decide if they consider that as a promotion of a specific religion, mind you who know how many protestant denominations are being practiced in Alabama. Now you might say well what about hindus, muslims, etc. Well I tell them to grow the hell up. Yes I said it, Im sick of everyone being so damn whinny these days. I'd have more respect for a person if they told me what they really felt to my face, than give me some ************ with a smile and say stuff behind my back. I sick of the PC crap being shoved down our throats all the time. You know what if you don't like some thing don't look at it, buy it, read it, touch it, etc. Just don't come and tell me to put it away because YOU don't like it. In this case it its I who is having his rights abused cause if im not putting a gun to your head and telling you to believe in eveyword I say then Im not imposing my views on you simply by puttting up X symbol to represent Y idea. Now I did say our gov.(federal level) shouldn't promote any religion but the locals should decide(local level) what is appropriate for their state buildings. Problem is our legislative branch should update our bill of rights and better define the rights for todays standards.

mactastic
Aug 20, 2003, 06:36 PM
If you had put the issue of school integration to the voters of Alabama in the '60's what do you think they would have voted for? Sometimes the supreme court has to step in and do things that local politicians are unwilling to do themselves.

Ugg
Aug 20, 2003, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by actripxl
Now I did say our gov.(federal level) shouldn't promote any religion but the locals should decide(local level) what is appropriate for their state buildings. Problem is our legislative branch should update our bill of rights and better define the rights for todays standards.

Ok, that's fine maybe, but this is a case where an individual acted alone without the express consent of the citizens of the state. Government by fiat has never worked yet that is what Moore has done. The US Supreme Court has spoken and they've denied Moore's request for an appeal. It needs to be taken down and if the citizens of Alabama want it to be put back up then they need to speak up. Rules and laws are there for a reason. Personally, I wouldn't have much faith in a judge who places his religious beliefs above his duty to the state.

I agree that the bill of rights could use a few amendments. However, given the current nature of politics in America, it aint' gonna happen. All the amending in the world isn't going to change the basic fact that Americans have less in common than we would like to think. We are made up of phenomenally diverse groups of religions, ethnicities, languages and cultures. There will always be those who disagree and being Americans they will do so as loudly and as stridently as possible. Get used to it because that's the way it has always been and will always be until our government decides to take away the ability to do so.

actripxl
Aug 20, 2003, 07:03 PM
I agree we are all different but we should face those facts and move on to things of importance like the economy. Most countries acknowledge some form of offical religion and no real problems occur so other than those who at the same time have an extremly politically hostile enviorment. Since he did act alone yes he should take it down and convince the public to back him up, the law is the law. Im not talking about taking our rights away to express ourselves just that the concerns of a few (not this case in particual just a hypothetical) shouldn't out weigh the overwhelming majority for the sake of the 1st ammendment since that is the one that is always in dispute

Backtothemac
Aug 20, 2003, 08:45 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95203,00.html

The supreme court denied the stay request of Judge Moore.

You know, you have to really ask yourself. It is really such a bad thing to have the commandments in the rotundra? They aren't in the courtroom. They are the moral foundation of the law in Alabama. They are part of who we are in this state. They do not infringe upon anyones rights at all. They are not a violation of the false notion of "seperation of church and state". They are not a problem to the majority of the people in the state, only to a few that challenge everything, and want the world they way they, a minority with a whim want it.

This is a sad day in the History of my great state. Sad indeed.

Backtothemac
Aug 20, 2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Ok, that's fine maybe, but this is a case where an individual acted alone without the express consent of the citizens of the state.

Um, no. Roy Moore is an elected offical. When he ran for the position, he said he would restore the moral foundation of the law into our courtrooms. The people of Alabama voted. They wanted him in office, and we trust his decisions.

Ugg
Aug 20, 2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Um, no. Roy Moore is an elected offical. When he ran for the position, he said he would restore the moral foundation of the law into our courtrooms. The people of Alabama voted. They wanted him in office, and we trust his decisions.

Yes, but he knew that when he did this that he would eventually be up against the US Supreme Court. It is one thing for a state to make a conscious, collective decision by voting for public displays of religious icons and another entirely for an elected official to act alone. While it can be argued that elected officials should push the envelope, he is a judge, not a governor nor a legislator. Judges are elected to uphold the law, not make it. That is why there are three separate bodies of government in the US.

Restoring the moral foundation of law should include the foundations of all those that the law is designed to serve not just a select few. Where is the icon or monument representing the moral underpinnings of the non-Christians in the state of Alabama? Where is the icon representing the religion of African-Americans? Certainly they contributed as much if not more to the state of Alabama than the white Christians did. Their morals and beliefs should not be passed over just because some white Christian feels that the ten commandments are the penultimate in moral beliefs. They are important but they are not the only underpinnings of morality. Self serving Christians do a disfavor to religion and to America when their beliefs are represented at the expense of others in a court of law.

It's time to move on. Get the dang thing out of the rotunda and if you want it back in there then take it up with your legislator. Do it the legal and American way this time, not through some back door shenanigans that try to make martyrs out of those who would impose their religion on others.

Backtothemac
Aug 20, 2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
Yes, but he knew that when he did this that he would eventually be up against the US Supreme Court. It is one thing for a state to make a conscious, collective decision by voting for public displays of religious icons and another entirely for an elected official to act alone. While it can be argued that elected officials should push the envelope, he is a judge, not a governor nor a legislator. Judges are elected to uphold the law, not make it. That is why there are three separate bodies of government in the US.

Restoring the moral foundation of law should include the foundations of all those that the law is designed to serve not just a select few. Where is the icon or monument representing the moral underpinnings of the non-Christians in the state of Alabama? Where is the icon representing the religion of African-Americans? Certainly they contributed as much if not more to the state of Alabama than the white Christians did. Their morals and beliefs should not be passed over just because some white Christian feels that the ten commandments are the penultimate in moral beliefs. They are important but they are not the only underpinnings of morality. Self serving Christians do a disfavor to religion and to America when their beliefs are represented at the expense of others in a court of law.

It's time to move on. Get the dang thing out of the rotunda and if you want it back in there then take it up with your legislator. Do it the legal and American way this time, not through some back door shenanigans that try to make martyrs out of those who would impose their religion on others.

nice, and I can agree with you to some degree, except the people of Alabama did not have a problem, it was people outside of the state.

shadowfax
Aug 20, 2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
just because some white Christian feels that the ten commandments are the penultimate in moral beliefs. just to pick on you a bit (no offense, seriously ;)), but why did you say that some christians believe the ten commandments are the penultimate moral code? if a christian believes that god is the ultimate determiner of morality, and that the ten commandments were handed down by god, wouldn't they believe them to be the ultimate moral code? but if not, what code would they be penultimate to for these christians you are talking about?

or do you just like saying "penultimate?" (i do) :p

Ugg
Aug 21, 2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
just to pick on you a bit (no offense, seriously ;)), but why did you say that some christians believe the ten commandments are the penultimate moral code? if a christian believes that god is the ultimate determiner of morality, and that the ten commandments were handed down by god, wouldn't they believe them to be the ultimate moral code? but if not, what code would they be penultimate to for these christians you are talking about?

or do you just like saying "penultimate?" (i do) :p

Mea culpa! Another favorite of mine!

I thought God himself was the ultimate and the word of God followed. I may be mistaken in that, isn't God and his word one and the same? If so, my mistake and thanks for calling me on it, thanks too for the gibe. This forum gets a little heavy at times.

I think I got caught up in my inner moral outrage and just let it flow without thinking it through. Perhaps a better wording would be, just because somebody thinks that the ten commandments are the ultimate in morality, doesn't mean that, blah, blah, blah...

I was just reading an article in The Washington Post about Moore and awhile back some local black church leaders asked Moore if they could mount an exhibit in the Rotunda in honor of MLK (the 40th anniversary of his I have a dream speech is 28 August) Moore refused them permission. The article didn't give any details so it could well be nothing more than rumor mongering but.... The article also stated that support for Moore amongst local church leaders is tepid at best and the majority of those protesting are from out of state. Although, in all fairness, there is a lot of local support for him and the religiosity of Alabama is striking.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 09:20 AM
I wonder how the people who think Moore is right in what he is doing feel about the 9th Circuit cout's decision to remove "under God" from the pledge out here in the west. Will you complain too much if you choose to acknowledge God in your area and we choose to reject him in ours? Or were you part of the massive outcry saying oh how dare they, they can't take God out of the pledge!? Both have been accused of ruling out of their own personal viewpoints.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
I wonder how the people who think Moore is right in what he is doing feel about the 9th Circuit cout's decision to remove "under God" from the pledge out here in the west. Will you complain too much if you choose to acknowledge God in your area and we choose to reject him in ours? Or were you part of the massive outcry saying oh how dare they, they can't take God out of the pledge!? Both have been accused of ruling out of their own personal viewpoints.

Look, personally, I could give a damn is someone believes in God. That is there soul, and I will testify to them, but they have to make the decision to open their heart to the lord. So, that being said, I don't look down on someone, or judge them for their beliefs, they are their beliefs.

As for the word God. Mandating a state religion in law is what the 1st ammendment meant to keep from happening. It hasn't. The 1st ammendment has become a bastardized document for every person's whim. It is sad, and disgusting to me personally. I say kudos to Roy for keeping the monument there. Anyone that says that this country wasn't founded with God in mind, has never read the Constitution, nor a dollar bill for that matter. I am just happy as a lark that they still pray before Nascar races. At least somethings will never change.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Look, personally, I could give a damn is someone believes in God. That is there soul, and I will testify to them, but they have to make the decision to open their heart to the lord. So, that being said, I don't look down on someone, or judge them for their beliefs, they are their beliefs.

As for the word God. Mandating a state religion in law is what the 1st ammendment meant to keep from happening. It hasn't. The 1st ammendment has become a bastardized document for every person's whim. It is sad, and disgusting to me personally. I say kudos to Roy for keeping the monument there. Anyone that says that this country wasn't founded with God in mind, has never read the Constitution, nor a dollar bill for that matter. I am just happy as a lark that they still pray before Nascar races. At least somethings will never change.

But didn't it gall you that a panel of 3 judges would dare to strip the word God from the pledge?

Edit:
Just as an aside, If I was about to strap myself into a car that would soon be going close to 200mph 6 inches off someone's bumper, I'd probably be praying too! As the saying goes, there are no atheists in a foxhole.

actripxl
Aug 21, 2003, 10:41 AM
Back to the Mac said it perfectly in what the 1st ammendment was placed for, the problem is we got these elected officals with any real ba*** to say anything for fear of saying something unpopular.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
But didn't it gall you that a panel of 3 judges would dare to strip the word God from the pledge?

Edit:
Just as an aside, If I was about to strap myself into a car that would soon be going close to 200mph 6 inches off someone's bumper, I'd probably be praying too! As the saying goes, there are no atheists in a foxhole.

LOL. Yea, I was outraged that 3 very, very liberal judges from the most overturned court in the country would try to remove what the majority wants. No one should be forced to say the pledge, but it is what it is.

And your right about Nascar ;)

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by actripxl
Back to the Mac said it perfectly in what the 1st ammendment was placed for, the problem is we got these elected officals with any real ba*** to say anything for fear of saying something unpopular.

You are dead right. The 1st ammendment has become the posterchild for every extremist minority viewpoint in the country.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You are dead right. The 1st ammendment has become the posterchild for every extremist minority viewpoint in the country.

Including the Right-to-Life crowd. Would you take away their right to protest and speak up for what they think is right?

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Including the Right-to-Life crowd. Would you take away their right to protest and speak up for what they think is right?

No, I am talking about the right to protest. I am talking about the minority in this country having absoulte rule. For example. At a Mississippi high school there was 1 muslim student, 1! They said they were offended before the football games because they had a prayer which invoked God and Christ. Now the population of that county is over 98% Christian. The 1 muslim student sued, and they had to stop the prayer because they said that it violated "Church and State" (which again, is never said in the Constitution anywhere).

So, the people of that city decided upon their own that before the game, all of the people in the stands would stand and say the lords prayer. I wonder how the kid feels now, and you know it wasn't the kid but his parents.

The 1st ammendment is a blanket for all extreme viewpoints. The freedom of speech is not absolute, no right is. But as far as right to life people protesting, that is a free assembly rule. Totally different. If the kid in Mississippi had protested, so be it. But to change the law to fit the whim of the minority is wrong.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 11:36 AM
Isn't freedom to assemble part of the 1st amendment too? Along with freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and speech?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

mcrain
Aug 21, 2003, 12:11 PM
What part of the first amendment do you not understand BTTM? What part of the Constitution do you not understand?

The WHOLE ***** point was that the one person would have a voice and NOT be trampled by the majority.

The WHOLE ***** point was that the people who came here were persecuted for their religious and other beliefs, and they decided that never again would that happen in this new country they decided to form.

Now, we have people like you who say that because the people who wrote the Constitution were Christians, you're allowed to persecute the religious minority.

Talk about a complete misreading of what the founding fathers intended. :rolleyes:

ANYTHING that can be construed as a 'state' or 'government' activity is closely watched because when a state of government either directly, or indirectly, supports or validates a religion, everyone who is not a part of that religion is suddenly, and completely, screwed!

Oh, BTTM, the reason you can't have Alabama decide by its majority whether to have religious icons in its state offices, courts especially, is because those courts have jurisdiction over everyone from other states who happens to be in Alabama, doing business there, or involved in some activity that gives the state's long arm statute effect. Do you really want a state that businesses stay away from for fear of the legal system? What will that do for your economy? How will that effect car companies decisions from places like Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.?

You may believe what you believe, but the rule of law and its far reaching effects are supposed to be beyond your beliefs, my beliefs, the majority's beliefs, and even the minority's beliefs.

Saying no to ALL religious intrusions into government is NOT putting the minority in control of anything, it merely keeps the majority from oppressing the minority. If that isn't a worthy goal in your mind, then I am deeply disappointed.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 12:19 PM
Wait a sec. I understand the 1st ammendment perfectly.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Has Congress passed a law that references a national religion? Was anyone in the Alabama court denied a fair appeal? Was anyone forced to convert to Christianity when walking into the court? No.

The Alabama State Constitution states that the laws of the state of Alabama are based on God. And the Constitution invokes God. So, by putting the monument there, all he did was what the state constitution says. It was his right to free speech to put it there right? No. So, free speech only applies to minorities? That is the bastardization of the ammendment that is at fault.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 12:25 PM
Well the whole reason that started was because I asked about pro-life protesters having their unpopular voice silenced, and you said they were only assembling which wasn't first amendment or something.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Well the whole reason that started was because I asked about pro-life protesters having their unpopular voice silenced, and you said they were only assembling which wasn't first amendment or something.

No, I am sorry, you misunderstood. 1st ammendment does cover the freedom of assembly. I have no problem with Pro-Choice people having an assembly, but I did not understand how that related to this case.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait a sec. I understand the 1st ammendment perfectly.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Has Congress passed a law that references a national religion? Was anyone in the Alabama court denied a fair appeal? Was anyone forced to convert to Christianity when walking into the court? No.

The Alabama State Constitution states that the laws of the state of Alabama are based on God. And the Constitution invokes God. So, by putting the monument there, all he did was what the state constitution says. It was his right to free speech to put it there right? No. So, free speech only applies to minorities? That is the bastardization of the ammendment that is at fault.

Well, as you so eloquently stated earlier, rights are not absolute. Moore has the right to commision that statue. He has the right to display it in his chambers. He could put it in his church. He just can't put it in the public rotunda of the courthouse. Rights are not absolute.

IJ Reilly
Aug 21, 2003, 12:27 PM
mcrain,

I was about to respond in detail, when I realized that you'd pretty much spoken my mind. We have to be constantly vigalent against efforts by the majority to exert their wills over the minority in areas where the Constitution was clearly designed to protect the rights of the minority. This will never stop I suppose, but has taken on a new character of late -- complaints by the majority that not being allowed to exert their wills over the minority constitutes a redaction of their rights. And as we're seeing here, in this context, even the rule of law can be regarded as a bad thing. It's at times like these that I can hear the distant sound of jackboots.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by mcrain

Oh, BTTM, the reason you can't have Alabama decide by its majority whether to have religious icons in its state offices, courts especially, is because those courts have jurisdiction over everyone from other states who happens to be in Alabama, doing business there, or involved in some activity that gives the state's long arm statute effect. Do you really want a state that businesses stay away from for fear of the legal system? What will that do for your economy? How will that effect car companies decisions from places like Japan, Korea, Germany, etc.?


Well, the monument have been there for over two years, and in that time Mercedes has doubled the size of its plant. Hundei (sp) has come into the state with a plant, as has Honda, and Toyota is looking for a plant here as well.

Alabama isn't having a problem with buisness staying away, so it really is a slippery slope arguement that doesn't hold water ;)

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Well, as you so eloquently stated earlier, rights are not absolute. Moore has the right to commision that statue. He has the right to display it in his chambers. He could put it in his church. He just can't put it in the public rotunda of the courthouse. Rights are not absolute.

Do you really think that if it was in his chambers that the same legal group would not sue to get it out of there?

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 12:31 PM
I believe he was told that by the judge that ruled against him. It was one of the ways he could have avoided a controversial fight, if that had been his goal.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
mcrain,

I was about to respond in detail, when I realized that you'd pretty much spoken my mind. We have to be constantly vigalent against efforts by the majority to exert their wills over the minority in areas where the Constitution was clearly designed to protect the rights of the minority. This will never stop I suppose, but has taken on a new character of late -- complaints by the majority that not being allowed to exert their wills over the minority constitutes a redaction of their rights. And as we're seeing here, in this context, even the rule of law can be regarded as a bad thing. It's at times like these that I can hear the distant sound of jackboots.

Your right Reilly, praying before a football game, putting up the 10 commandments in a courtroom rotundra. Saying the pledge, doing those things are exerting the will of the majority. And I am sorry, but you are wrong the Constitution was designed for Majority rule, with minority right.

So that the minority would not be oppressed. But it is the majority that is oppressed in this country. The minority is exerting their beliefs and the majority because they tell the majority what they can and cannot do. The majority has NEVER tried to force the minority into anything. Don't want to pray at a game. Don't. But don't tell me that I cannot. That is a minority whim overiding the majorities right.

mcrain
Aug 21, 2003, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
So that the minority would not be oppressed. But it is the majority that is oppressed in this country. The minority is exerting their beliefs and the majority because they tell the majority what they can and cannot do. The majority has NEVER tried to force the minority into anything. Don't want to pray at a game. Don't. But don't tell me that I cannot. That is a minority whim overiding the majorities right.

1. I would sue if the 10 commandments thing was a huge part of the judge's chambers. An attorney involved in either a criminal or civil case, spends a lot of time in the courtroom. There, the judge often leans on one side or the other. If I was an attorney there, and was against a Christian attorney, (assuming I was not Christian, or the judge thought I was not a christian), do you think I would feel as though I were being singled out b/c of my religion rather than because my case was weaker? If that happens, do you think an attorney could practice before that judge ethically knowing that by representing the client before that judge, the attorney is hurting the client's case?

2. Telling the majority it can't put religious icons in a state building is NOT telling the majority what it can or can not do. It is ONLY telling the majority what no one can or can not do! HUGE DIFFERENCE.

mcrain
Aug 21, 2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
And I am sorry, but you are wrong the Constitution was designed for Majority rule, with minority right.

Sorry, but that is what they had in England with the King and the various lords who could provide the king "insight" into things. However, the King had absolute right over the Lords and their subjects, and could do things that oppressed them. The Constitution was designed to prevent this type of absolute majority rule with only minority right. The constitution was designed for everyone to be equal, with equal rights, and not be persecuted, and so long as everyone was treated equally, a goverment representing everyone, consisting of representatives elected by the majority of their constituants, could provide a government for the people.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
1. I would sue if the 10 commandments thing was a huge part of the judge's chambers. An attorney involved in either a criminal or civil case, spends a lot of time in the courtroom. There, the judge often leans on one side or the other. If I was an attorney there, and was against a Christian attorney, (assuming I was not Christian, or the judge thought I was not a christian), do you think I would feel as though I were being singled out b/c of my religion rather than because my case was weaker? If that happens, do you think an attorney could practice before that judge ethically knowing that by representing the client before that judge, the attorney is hurting the client's case?

2. Telling the majority it can't put religious icons in a state building is NOT telling the majority what it can or can not do. It is ONLY telling the majority what no one can or can not do! HUGE DIFFERENCE.

1. I knew you would sue ;)

2. Yes, it is. It is telling the majority what they can do. Read the state Constitution, and tell me if he is breaking the law?

As for the 1st ammendment. Again, it forbades Congress from establishing a national religion. They did not want us to end up like the Church of England. Not that no reference to God can be made by the Government. Hell, there are plenty of references to God in the Constitution.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
1. I would sue if the 10 commandments thing was a huge part of the judge's chambers. An attorney involved in either a criminal or civil case, spends a lot of time in the courtroom. There, the judge often leans on one side or the other. If I was an attorney there, and was against a Christian attorney, (assuming I was not Christian, or the judge thought I was not a christian), do you think I would feel as though I were being singled out b/c of my religion rather than because my case was weaker? If that happens, do you think an attorney could practice before that judge ethically knowing that by representing the client before that judge, the attorney is hurting the client's case?

2. Telling the majority it can't put religious icons in a state building is NOT telling the majority what it can or can not do. It is ONLY telling the majority what no one can or can not do! HUGE DIFFERENCE.

About #1, don't you face the same problem whether the judge has "hung 10" or not? The only difference would be that you as an attorney wouldn't be tipped off the the judge's possible predjudice, right?

#2, Agreed. Moore has tried to frame this debate as one where he is being asked to renounce his god, when in fact he is simply being asked to proclaim his Christianity outside the courthouse. And not on its steps either.:D

mcrain
Aug 21, 2003, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
1. I knew you would sue ;)

2. Yes, it is. It is telling the majority what they can do. Read the state Constitution, and tell me if he is breaking the law?

As for the 1st ammendment. Again, it forbades Congress from establishing a national religion. They did not want us to end up like the Church of England. Not that no reference to God can be made by the Government. Hell, there are plenty of references to God in the Constitution.

1. B/C I'm right! :D
2. It is telling the majority what both it, and the minority, can not do. Nobody can do it, even if you are the majority. A rule is supposed to apply to everyone, that's the point.

The intent of the founding fathers, and their inclusion of the word God in the Constitution and other documents, has been interpreted by smarter and more wise men and women than us, and they have interpreted their intent as prohibiting the state, government, or state actor from establishing or promoting a religion, which includes speach or conduct that by referencing a religion, can be deemed to be a promotion or acceptance of a specific religion. (I think I just confused myself :) )

mcrain
Aug 21, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
About #1, don't you face the same problem whether the judge has "hung 10" or not? The only difference would be that you as an attorney wouldn't be tipped off the the judge's possible predjudice, right?

Of course a judge can have secret prejudices. However, if a judge had his KKK robe, a charred cross, and some pictures of burning crosses, do you think that would be, from the point of view of a black attorney, different from if the judge never revealed his secret prejudices?

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Of course a judge can have secret prejudices. However, if a judge had his KKK robe, a charred cross, and some pictures of burning crosses, do you think that would be, from the point of view of a black attorney, different from if the judge never revealed his secret prejudices?

Yeah, I get your point, but you do have to give people some freedom to express themselves. Plus I'd rather know I was up against a bigot if I was a black attorney. Might be able to find a way to use that to my advantage somehow.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but aren't their certain organizations that judges aren't allowed to be involved with to prevent certain conflicts of interest?

IJ Reilly
Aug 21, 2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, I get your point, but you do have to give people some freedom to express themselves.

People have almost unlimited freedom of self-expression in the United States. Only a very few things can they not do, and one of them is use the government to promote their religion. They can express their religious faith in just about any other way imaginable. The fact that some people chafe at that minor restriction, and go so far as to call it "oppression," tells you something about what they hope to accomplish.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
People have almost unlimited freedom of self-expression in the United States. Only a very few things can they not do, and one of them is use the government to promote their religion. They can express their religious faith in just about any other way imaginable. The fact that some people chafe at that minor restriction, and go so far as to call it "oppression," tells you something about what they hope to accomplish.

You guys are missing the point. The State Constitution says that the laws of Alabama will be founded on the principls of God. Thus, he is upholding the State Constitution.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
People have almost unlimited freedom of self-expression in the United States. Only a very few things can they not do, and one of them is use the government to promote their religion. They can express their religious faith in just about any other way imaginable. The fact that some people chafe at that minor restriction, and go so far as to call it "oppression," tells you something about what they hope to accomplish.

Ok sure. It's all a matter of intent. I feel Moore has an objective other than just showing everyone how great he thinks God is. He has ridden that issue to the top judicial position in the state. Someone with the 10 commandments on their wall to remind them to be humble, kind, selfless etc. doesn't bother me a bit. I wish there was a way to distinguish between the two, but it has proven just as hard to know who really needs help via social programs and who is just scamming the taxpayers.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You guys are missing the point. The State Constitution says that the laws of Alabama will be founded on the principls of God. Thus, he is upholding the State Constitution.

Your constitution may turn out to be unconstitutional then.

IJ Reilly
Aug 21, 2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
You guys are missing the point. The State Constitution says that the laws of Alabama will be founded on the principls of God. Thus, he is upholding the State Constitution.

No, it is you who are missing the point. The court with the jurisdiction to rule on this matter says both you and Justice Moore are wrong on the law. Apparently the United States Supreme Court does as well, having refused to take the appeal. Game, set and match. It's time for people who believe in the rule of law to comply with the law.

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, it is you who are missing the point. The court with the jurisdiction to rule on this matter says both you and Justice Moore are wrong on the law. Apparently the United States Supreme Court does as well, having refused to take the appeal. Game, set and match. It's time for people who believe in the rule of law to comply with the law.

Ok, then the United States Federal Judicial system needs to rule that the Constitution of the state of Alabama is unconstitutional. That would cause quite an uproar in these parts. The man put up a monument that equates to the laws of this state. The laws of the state of Alabama are the laws of this state.

They come 1st. They are not prohibiting anyone from doing what they want. At all. Period. It is absure that some group could come into this state, and tell the people of this what they HAVE to do. That is absurd. Imagine people from Alabama telling people from California what they have to do with their State.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, then the United States Federal Judicial system needs to rule that the Constitution of the state of Alabama is unconstitutional. That would cause quite an uproar in these parts. The man put up a monument that equates to the laws of this state. The laws of the state of Alabama are the laws of this state.

They come 1st. They are not prohibiting anyone from doing what they want. At all. Period. It is absure that some group could come into this state, and tell the people of this what they HAVE to do. That is absurd. Imagine people from Alabama telling people from California what they have to do with their State.

Then why is the Bush administration so involved with telling California how to behave? We have a medicinal marijuana law here and now the feds are saying they don't like it and they take precedence. Which way would you like it?

Backtothemac
Aug 21, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Then why is the Bush administration so involved with telling California how to behave? We have a medicinal marijuana law here and now the feds are saying they don't like it and they take precedence. Which way would you like it?

Your right, the fed should get the hell out of that situation.

mactastic
Aug 21, 2003, 03:01 PM
Oh and speaking of people from outside Alabama telling you guys what to do, it appears that quite a few of the protestors there came on busses from other states as part of an evangelical groudswell of support. I suppose you don't mind them coming to tell Alabamans what to do though right?

IJ Reilly
Aug 21, 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok, then the United States Federal Judicial system needs to rule that the Constitution of the state of Alabama is unconstitutional. That would cause quite an uproar in these parts. The man put up a monument that equates to the laws of this state. The laws of the state of Alabama are the laws of this state.

You are still wrong on the law. I don't know what else needs to be said about that, except that some people have always considering themselves to be above the law. Incidentally, yours is the identical argument made 40-50 years ago in a futile effort to preserve Jim Crow. I surely do remember George Wallace saying that the federal government had no a-thority in the State of Alabama.

simX
Aug 21, 2003, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Your right Reilly, praying before a football game, putting up the 10 commandments in a courtroom rotundra. Saying the pledge, doing those things are exerting the will of the majority. And I am sorry, but you are wrong the Constitution was designed for Majority rule, with minority right.

So that the minority would not be oppressed. But it is the majority that is oppressed in this country. The minority is exerting their beliefs and the majority because they tell the majority what they can and cannot do. The majority has NEVER tried to force the minority into anything. Don't want to pray at a game. Don't. But don't tell me that I cannot. That is a minority whim overiding the majorities right.

There's a difference between forcing someone to not do something, and forcing *ALL* people not to do something.

In this case, the issue is that praying in a public place at a public event is not right. Because it is open to all people and all people can attend, nobody has a right to use the event for prayer and other activities that could be contrary to someone else's beliefs. Your prayers are restricted to private and public matters where you are not forcing your beliefs upon others. By praying at a football game, you are forcing your beliefs upon others because there could be players on one of the teams that does not believe in prayer or in your style of prayer.

You can do what you want when you want, but only when it's on your own time. If someone who doesn't believe in your religion is actively seeking a curiosity in it and wants to participate, that is one thing. But when someone does not want to participate in a religious activity at a public place/event, there is no right for even the majority to participate in that religious activity.

This is not about the majority being opressed. It is about respecting the rights and beliefs of others.

Let me ask you a question: would you swear in front of your grandparents if they believed that it was a sin if you swore? Would you complain to them because they are "imposing their beliefs" on you? If you would, that's ridiculous. It's just a matter of common sense and respect, not a ludicrous "opression of the majority". You can swear on your own time, but you should respect your grandparents' beliefs, just as you should respect anyone else's beliefs, minority or not.

mcrain
Aug 21, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by simX
quote removed

Well said.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 09:38 AM
It looks to me as if Moore's ego is simply to big for the state of Alabama. He seems to be either not understanding some very basic things, or is deliberatly twisting words around to further his ends. For instance, he keeps saying that he is being asked to deny his god, when that is simply untrue. No one wants him to do that (although the Christian faith has some experience with asking people to deny other gods) all they want is for him to proclaim his love for Jesus somewhere other than the courthouse. He also seems to be confusing himself with the state. He says things like "this is about whether the state can acknowledge God", when it is really him wanting to acknowledge God. He is not the state, no matter how important he thinks he is. Roy Moore, private citizen, can acknowledge God all he wants, but Roy Moore, chief justice, cannot.

Reading this guy's bio makes me think he is a stubborn as a mule, with an ego bigger than 10 Frank Lloyd Wrights. He isn't doing this because he believes he is right, he's doing this because someone told him he can't, and he's going to do his damnedest to prove them all wrong. Sadly, all he's accomplishing is to drag Christianity through the mud, and cost the state a bunch of money.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 09:46 AM
And another thing!

Remember how upset republicans got when Dan Rather did some stuff for the democratic party? "He's supposed to be impartial" they said. "He's obviously biased and can't be trusted to give a balanced viewpoint on anything" they said. They came down on him like the Hammer of Thor, yet IMHO a judge, espescially a chief justice, should be even more impartial than a journalist. But do the conservatives cry foul when Moore chooses sides? Noooooo!

patrick0brien
Aug 22, 2003, 11:18 AM
-All

Moore's beliefs are his own, and he has the perfect right to them. However, by installing such a monument at a governmental facility adds a lot of controversy - look at this thread.

There is a simple solution to this, and pointer to who's at fault.

As a judge, Moore needs to uphold the constituion - which states a very clear deliniation between Church and State. Any professional act that casts even the whiff of doubt on this should be avoided.

This judge should be removed - not for his beliefs, but for his ability to uphold the law and constituion - he's done neither.

IJ Reilly
Aug 22, 2003, 11:43 AM
Yesterday the other eight justices of the Alabama Supreme Court voted to remove the monument, but Moore remains defiant, again pledging to take the case to the US Supreme Court, which has already refused to review it. Meanwhile, Christian evangelists, streaming into Alabama from from all over the country, are staging a 24-hour vigil at the courthouse. They are promising to block any efforts by the state to comply with the court's order. If anyone questioned what this was all about, no doubt should now remain.

mcrain
Aug 22, 2003, 03:17 PM
At least they don't have to worry about some nut-job with a bomb, those usually come from the right-wing, anti-government, crowd. Protests and sit-ins and a lot of speeches are about the worst they have to worry about.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
At least they don't have to worry about some nut-job with a bomb, those usually come from the right-wing, anti-government, crowd. Protests and sit-ins and a lot of speeches are about the worst they have to worry about.

Well, they are not always right wing. But anti-government. Yep.

mcrain
Aug 22, 2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, they are not always right wing. But anti-government. Yep.

I posted that and later worried that it might offend some republicans, but you and I are both right. The anti-government crowd is usually the ones who do bombings and other untoward things, however, I am right in saying that most of those who are willing to resort to that sort of action are usually right-wing extremists. Worse yet, many of them justify their actions with their religion.

mcrain
Aug 22, 2003, 06:15 PM
That leads me to a thought I heard once. That the surest and best way to end most violence is to remove the word and concept of God from society.

I personally can't imagine such a thing, but it is an interesting statement. How many deaths have been caused in the name of God?

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
I posted that and later worried that it might offend some republicans, but you and I are both right. The anti-government crowd is usually the ones who do bombings and other untoward things, however, I am right in saying that most of those who are willing to resort to that sort of action are usually right-wing extremists. Worse yet, many of them justify their actions with their religion.

Well to be fair, lets not forget about ELF and PETA and EarthFirst! who all have used violence to advance a left wing agenda.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 06:44 PM
Well, they suspended him.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 06:48 PM
Good. Someone finally decided enough was enough.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Good. Someone finally decided enough was enough.

Not good. He is an elected official that was fullfiling a campaign promise to the people of my great state.

Sad day in Alabama history.

RobVanDam
Aug 22, 2003, 08:13 PM
I'm just glad to see a politican promising something, then following through, even though it is unpopular with some people.

Ugg
Aug 22, 2003, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Not good. He is an elected official that was fullfiling a campaign promise to the people of my great state.

Sad day in Alabama history.

No, he wasn't fulfilling a campaign promise, he was forcing his religious beliefs on the people of Alabama. Had he been fulfilling a campaign promise, he would have led a legal challenge to existing laws. Certainly neither he nor those who voted for him condone illegal actions on the part of elected officials, or????

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
No, he wasn't fulfilling a campaign promise, he was forcing his religious beliefs on the people of Alabama. Had he been fulfilling a campaign promise, he would have led a legal challenge to existing laws. Certainly neither he nor those who voted for him condone illegal actions on the part of elected officials, or???? When the man says that he will restore God to the law of Alabama in his campaign ads, and is elected by the people of Alabama. The people of Alabama have spoken.

At this point their protection under the 14th ammendment is being violated.

The Alabama Congress did not pass a law establishing a state religion. The Chief Justice of the court put up the 10 commandments stating that they are the basis of law in Alabama. Which they are.

Thus, the Supreme Court will have to declare the law of Alabama unconstitutional. See, there is a bigger picture to this. The people that wanted it out want God out of everything in this country. Out of the pledge, off of the dollar bill, etc. The Declaration, and the Constitution reference God. Where does the maddness stop?

When God is removed from our society. That's when. The founding fathers signed the Constitution "the year of our lord". Congress opens their sessions with prayer, courts make you take an oath "so help you God". It is sick, sad, and wrong that they are making them tak it out.

job
Aug 22, 2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
No, he wasn't fulfilling a campaign promise, he was forcing his religious beliefs on the people of Alabama.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, but:

a) Read it, don't read it; but in the end it's up to you to make that choice. No one is forcing anyone to read the Commandments when they go to the Courthouse. You decide what you want to read. Edit: Sure, you may see them as you go to the Courthouse, and you may read them, but no one is forcing anyone to believe in something they don't want to. It might be offensive, yes. But then, wouldn't seeing a church cross on the way to the Courthouse have a similar affect on an atheist/non-Christian? Would someone go so far as to recommend removing any and all public images of faith, including churches from main roads as to not offend anyone?

b) Re Belief: Again, same thing. You have the choice to believe in whatever you want to believe in. No one is forcing you to read and live by the Commandments. As a sentient individual, regardless of race, creed, or color, you can decide to believe in whatever you want to.

pseudobrit
Aug 22, 2003, 11:16 PM
I'm wondering if he had a building permit to put the monument in.

If it's his junk and he dumped it on public property, why would the state treat it any differently than if he had abandoned an old car in the parking lot?

The Ten Commandments are not the basis of Christianity. That's just ludicrous and anyone who claims they're the cornerstone of Jesus' message is either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting the word of Christ.

RobVanDam
Aug 22, 2003, 11:40 PM
Not to mention, more than half are actually illegal activites. Stealing, Murder, using God's name in vain, all against the law.

IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by RobVanDam
using God's name in vain, all against the law.

Oh?

Boy am I sick of this discussion.

Backtothemac
Aug 23, 2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'm wondering if he had a building permit to put the monument in.

If it's his junk and he dumped it on public property, why would the state treat it any differently than if he had abandoned an old car in the parking lot?

The Ten Commandments are not the basis of Christianity. That's just ludicrous and anyone who claims they're the cornerstone of Jesus' message is either uninformed or deliberately misrepresenting the word of Christ.

EXACTLY! They are the foundation of morality in the bible. Old Testament anyway.

Ugg
Aug 23, 2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
I'm wondering if he had a building permit to put the monument in.

If it's his junk and he dumped it on public property, why would the state treat it any differently than if he had abandoned an old car in the parking lot?



I keep seeing a sledge hammer and a chisel in the hands of a graffiti artist. Would it be illegal to deface an illegal monument that was illegally placed on state property? Probably better not to know the answer but I can't get the thought out of my head.

simX
Aug 23, 2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
When the man says that he will restore God to the law of Alabama in his campaign ads, and is elected by the people of Alabama. The people of Alabama have spoken.

At this point their protection under the 14th ammendment is being violated.

The Alabama Congress did not pass a law establishing a state religion. The Chief Justice of the court put up the 10 commandments stating that they are the basis of law in Alabama. Which they are.

Thus, the Supreme Court will have to declare the law of Alabama unconstitutional. See, there is a bigger picture to this. The people that wanted it out want God out of everything in this country. Out of the pledge, off of the dollar bill, etc. The Declaration, and the Constitution reference God. Where does the maddness stop?

When God is removed from our society. That's when. The founding fathers signed the Constitution "the year of our lord". Congress opens their sessions with prayer, courts make you take an oath "so help you God". It is sick, sad, and wrong that they are making them tak it out.

Just because people elected an official that says he will "restore God to the law of Alabama", doesn't mean it's right. If Alabama elected a justice that would uphold slavery, it wouldn't be right, and I really hope that you would agree with me in that last statement.

Displaying a monument that is derived directly from a specific religion, no matter the intent, is not right. The justice system exists to be impartial, to ignore race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual preference, etc. when judging people. A monument such as this shows that this judge, no matter his intentions, is not willing to be impartial with regards to religious affiliation, which is why it should be removed. (It also casts doubt on the ability of the judge to be impartial himself, especially when he goes against a higher court order.)

If a justice in Alabama installed a 3-ton monument dedicated to gay rights, I'm sure there would be an uproar. And rightly so, in this case as well. The justice would be showing that he would not be impartial with regards to sexual preference.

For a judge to be impartial, he cannot show that he is inclined in any way towards any group. So to remain impartial, you either have to install no monument at all, or install a monument for every possible choice with regards to that criterion; in Justice Roy Moore's case, that would mean installing a monument dedicated to each and every religion.

Whether or not our government was founded on the principles of the Bible is moot. Our justice system should be and remain impartial, and this monument goes against that.

Backtothemac
Aug 23, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by simX
Just because people elected an official that says he will "restore God to the law of Alabama", doesn't mean it's right. If Alabama elected a justice that would uphold slavery, it wouldn't be right, and I really hope that you would agree with me in that last statement.

Displaying a monument that is derived directly from a specific religion, no matter the intent, is not right. The justice system exists to be impartial, to ignore race, gender, religious affiliation, sexual preference, etc. when judging people. A monument such as this shows that this judge, no matter his intentions, is not willing to be impartial with regards to religious affiliation, which is why it should be removed. (It also casts doubt on the ability of the judge to be impartial himself, especially when he goes against a higher court order.)

If a justice in Alabama installed a 3-ton monument dedicated to gay rights, I'm sure there would be an uproar. And rightly so, in this case as well. The justice would be showing that he would not be impartial with regards to sexual preference.

For a judge to be impartial, he cannot show that he is inclined in any way towards any group. So to remain impartial, you either have to install no monument at all, or install a monument for every possible choice with regards to that criterion; in Justice Roy Moore's case, that would mean installing a monument dedicated to each and every religion.

Whether or not our government was founded on the principles of the Bible is moot. Our justice system should be and remain impartial, and this monument goes against that.

Then as I said earlier, the SC must rule the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional then because it says that God is the foundation of the law in Alabama.

Ugg
Aug 23, 2003, 10:16 AM
BTTM, you keep claiming that the law in AL is based on God, so I took a look at the AL state constitution of 1901. It is the sixth and final constitution of the state and takes precedence over the preceding 5.


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:

SECTION 3

Religious freedom.

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.

'


Now the preamble does invoke "Almighty God" but it doesn't state that (s)he is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan or whatever.

Section 3 makes it quite clear, even clearer than the US Constitution that no preference shall be shown to any particular religion. It can be further argued that by placing a religious monument in a public building, even if it has been donated, still requires public money for its maintenance and care. That would clearly violate Section 3.

Have I missed something or does the AL Constitution speak differently to you?

Those who wrote the AL Constitution were Christian but they were wise enough to realize that no religion shall be given preference. By using the word sect they are also stating that no particular Christian religion is to be preferred over another. Moore's ten Commandments represent only one Christian sect, not all.

Backtothemac
Aug 23, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
BTTM, you keep claiming that the law in AL is based on God, so I took a look at the AL state constitution of 1901. It is the sixth and final constitution of the state and takes precedence over the preceding 5.


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:

SECTION 3

Religious freedom.

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.

'


Now the preamble does invoke "Almighty God" but it doesn't state that (s)he is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagan or whatever.

Section 3 makes it quite clear, even clearer than the US Constitution that no preference shall be shown to any particular religion. It can be further argued that by placing a religious monument in a public building, even if it has been donated, still requires public money for its maintenance and care. That would clearly violate Section 3.

Have I missed something or does the AL Constitution speak differently to you?

Those who wrote the AL Constitution were Christian but they were wise enough to realize that no religion shall be given preference. By using the word sect they are also stating that no particular Christian religion is to be preferred over another. Moore's ten Commandments represent only one Christian sect, not all.

There are other sections as well, but it is the longest Constitution in the world, so I don't know exactly where they are, but no one passed a law. No one is mandating that anyone attend a Church, no one is demanding taxes be paid etc. All it is is a monument.

It also says in one of the ammendments that the people have a right at any time to display their faith in any way they choose without reprecussion. That they can do anything they choose.

Seperation of Church and state is a flawed concept, because our entire system of law is based on God's laws. In addition, all the 1st ammendment does is say that the Federal Congress can pass no law establishing a religion. That's it.

IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Seperation of Church and state is a flawed concept, because our entire system of law is based on God's laws. In addition, all the 1st ammendment does is say that the Federal Congress can pass no law establishing a religion. That's it.

It is only a "flawed concept" for people who don't want church-state separation. And no, the First Amendment clearly says much more then what you assume from reading the words of the Constitution, and so the courts have decided over decades of detailed and scholarly argument and the careful establishment of precedence. You cannot dismiss all of this with simply a wave of your hand -- unless, like Justice Moore, you think you are above the law.

Your statement that "our entire system of law is based on God's laws" is what a lawyer would call a "rebuttable presumption," which is to say, it isn't true just because you say so. In fact, I'd ask you what you'd say to people who don't worship God in the way you do, or don't have a monotheistic religion at all. Is the law not their law just as much as it is your law?

The English Common Law (on which our legal system is actually based), says the law is everyone's law, not just for believers in a Christian God. You, and Justice Moore, seem to be arguing otherwise. You are both wrong, morally, ethically, and on the basis of the law itself.

mactastic
Aug 23, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

It also says in one of the ammendments that the people have a right at any time to display their faith in any way they choose without reprecussion. That they can do anything they choose.



Does that go up to and include murdering say, doctors who provide abortions? Is that a valid display of faith?

How about supporting the bombing of the WTC if some choose that as a way to display their faith?

That was a very dangerous thing you just said my friend.

Backtothemac
Aug 23, 2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
It is only a "flawed concept" for people who don't want church-state separation. And no, the First Amendment clearly says much more then what you assume from reading the words of the Constitution, and so the courts have decided over decades of detailed and scholarly argument and the careful establishment of precedence. You cannot dismiss all of this with simply a wave of your hand -- unless, like Justice Moore, you think you are above the law.

Your statement that "our entire system of law is based on God's laws" is what a lawyer would call a "rebuttable presumption," which is to say, it isn't true just because you say so. In fact, I'd ask you what you'd say to people who don't worship God in the way you do, or don't have a monotheistic religion at all. Is the law not their law just as much as it is your law?

The English Common Law (on which our legal system is actually based), says the law is everyone's law, not just for believers in a Christian God. You, and Justice Moore, seem to be arguing otherwise. You are both wrong, morally, ethically, and on the basis of the law itself.

My friend you could not be more wrong. Just becuase the 1st ammendment has been pounded over by the courts for the last two centuries doesn't mean it was right. The court also ruled one time that segregation was right. But it wasn't. Our laws are based on the rule of law from God. How can you not see that? This wasn't the state of Alabama invoking God, which, as a state, they have the right to do, as long as it isn't mandated. It was an indivudial showing that the rule of law in Alabama was based on ancient law. That is it. He was an individual acting as an individual. Not a state mandating a religion. Therefore the 1st ammendment is not applicable. Hidden meaning is not what the founders of our country were looking for, but actual statements were what they were.

I personally don't care what religon someone is. But don't tell me how I can and cannot express mine.

simX
Aug 23, 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
There are other sections as well, but it is the longest Constitution in the world, so I don't know exactly where they are, but no one passed a law. No one is mandating that anyone attend a Church, no one is demanding taxes be paid etc. All it is is a monument.

It also says in one of the ammendments that the people have a right at any time to display their faith in any way they choose without reprecussion. That they can do anything they choose.

Seperation of Church and state is a flawed concept, because our entire system of law is based on God's laws. In addition, all the 1st ammendment does is say that the Federal Congress can pass no law establishing a religion. That's it.

Separation of church and state is not a flawed concept. It exists necessarily to promote the 1st Amendment that establishes that anyone is free to practice his own religion. If government allows elected officials and other office-holders to openly practice their religion while they are doing their government duties, then that is openly favoring one religion which is not deemed right according to the 1st Amendment.

The point is twofold, here. First, a government official is not barred from practicing religion. He is barred from practicing religion when he is in a governmental capacity. When he is off-duty, he can practice whatever religion he wants, and people have no right to say that he cannot do that when he is off-duty.

The second part of the point is that whether or not our government is based on God's laws is moot. It does not matter. The 1st Amendment clearly states that no religion shall be favored. So whether or not Alabama's State Constitution invokes "almighty God" makes no difference. Government is still barred from openly favoring one religion, and this monument is favoring one religion, necessarily, as I have established previously.

The higher court does not need to strike down Alabama's State Constitution. They're just saying that it is not right to openly favor one religion, which Justice Roy Moore is clearly doing. The two are not mutually exclusive.

IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by simX
The higher court does not need to strike down Alabama's State Constitution. They're just saying that it is not right to openly favor one religion, which Justice Roy Moore is clearly doing. The two are not mutually exclusive.

It is a mutually exclusive proposition for those who believe in the superiority of their faith over all others, and in their duty proselytize to and convert non-believers. The First Amendment was designed to prevent the mechanisms of government from being used for these purposes, which is why some are so vehemently opposed to its enforcement.

Ugg
Aug 23, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
There are other sections as well, but it is the longest Constitution in the world, so I don't know exactly where they are, but no one passed a law. No one is mandating that anyone attend a Church, no one is demanding taxes be paid etc. All it is is a monument.

It also says in one of the ammendments that the people have a right at any time to display their faith in any way they choose without reprecussion. That they can do anything they choose.

Seperation of Church and state is a flawed concept, because our entire system of law is based on God's laws. In addition, all the 1st ammendment does is say that the Federal Congress can pass no law establishing a religion. That's it.

It is a mighty long Const. and has a lot of amendments. I paged through them until I found this (http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-170364.htm) one. Amendment 622, the Alabama religious freedom amendment. It is pretty interesting and basically says that government neutrality towards religion can be as burdensome as government condoning or suppressing relgion. Therefore, government will do nothing to burden a person's practice of religion unless there is a compelling state interest to do so. In this amendment there is no reference to God or Christianity.

No other amendments that I found, I didn't read them all as it would take a full day to do so, had any reference to God or religion or Christianity.

Now I'm not that up on all religions and religious sects but I sincerely doubt that it is a requirement by any Christian religion to build monuments to any specific bible passages. Under amendment 622, that would be the only justifiable reason for Moore's installation of the monument in the rotunda. Even then, there is no allowance for display of religious symbols or idols on government property. The only possible exception to that would be for temporary displays of historical and artistic value. Remember that Moore refused to allow black church leaders to mount a display of MLK's life in the Rotunda.

I wasn't able to find the bit about people being allowed to display symbols of their religious beliefs without repercussion. I would really like to read it so if you can find it, I would appreciate the link. I'm sure it must be governed by all the other laws of the State of Alabama and question the "in any way they choose" bit.

There were some very clear amendments concerning judicial recall and punishment and it is very obvious that Moore overstepped his duties as a judge. It's nice to know that the other 8 members of the State Supreme Court have taken him to task for his violation of state and federal law.

Ugg
Aug 24, 2003, 10:28 PM
A brit's view of Moore and religion in America. Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1028758,00.html)

The second is that America's religiosity is not something it shares with even its few western allies, let alone the many countries that oppose its current path. Yet another poll shows that among countries where people believe religion to be very important, America's views are closer to Pakistan's and Nigeria's than to France's or Germany's.

That scares the heck out of me. The last time I looked Pakistan and Nigeria were about the worst places in the world to be if relgion is important to you. Is that what we've become, an intolerant nation like the ones many of our ancestors left?

pseudobrit
Aug 25, 2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
There are other sections as well, but it is the longest Constitution in the world, so I don't know exactly where they are, but no one passed a law. No one is mandating that anyone attend a Church, no one is demanding taxes be paid etc. All it is is a monument.

So if I break a law in Alabama and don't want to attend Moore's Church, er... Courthouse... for trial, there's no law passed in Alabama that can make me go?

Interesting...

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So if I break a law in Alabama and don't want to attend Moore's Church, er... Courthouse... for trial, there's no law passed in Alabama that can make me go?

Interesting...

Not if you claim your religion prevents it apparently. So how do you charge someone with a killing motivated by religious beliefs by that logic either? If you went before Moore with an arguement like "God told me to do it." would he buy that line of bull?

Backtothemac
Aug 25, 2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
So if I break a law in Alabama and don't want to attend Moore's Church, er... Courthouse... for trial, there's no law passed in Alabama that can make me go?

Interesting...

Phuleze.

Yea, they are having services there at the monument every morning.:rolleyes:

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Phuleze.

Yea, they are having services there at the monument every morning.:rolleyes:

They seem to be having them 'round the clock at the moment.:rolleyes:

IJ Reilly
Aug 25, 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
They seem to be having them 'round the clock at the moment.:rolleyes:

But it's not about state sponsorship of religion, though. :rolleyes:

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
But it's not about state sponsorship of religion, though. :rolleyes:

On no, they are playing this as if they are being asked to deny their god. Rubbish.

Taft
Aug 25, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
My friend you could not be more wrong. Just becuase the 1st ammendment has been pounded over by the courts for the last two centuries doesn't mean it was right. The court also ruled one time that segregation was right.

You are arguing two seperate concepts and treating it as one. First, is the existance of the law. Second is the concept of judicial rulings on the law.

The first concept is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Their IS a law saying there will be a seperation between church and state. You may argue about how far reaching the law is, or whether or not it is constituational or "right" all you want, but the law exists.

On top of that, there have been centuries of rulings on this law that have re-enforced the seperation of church and state. This is what really gives the ammendment its power. It has been upheld time and time again by courts in this country.

For the law or ammendment to be overturned, you would need a court to declare the law unconstitutional (on what grounds? infringing on rights?) or have legislators ammend the constitution again. Both are exceedingly unlikely becuase unlike you, MOST people in this country believe this separation to be a good thing.

But it wasn't. Our laws are based on the rule of law from God. How can you not see that?

Just because you say this over and OVER AND OVER again, doesn't make it any more true. What proof do you have? You just say it like we're crazy not to believe it.

Sure there are many historical documents which have influenced our laws and culture, but that in no way says that our entire system of government is based on God's law. What is God's law anyway? The ten commandments? All of the collective lessons of the Bible? Or do you have some document that is a collection of "God's Law"?

Christian morals play a big part in how our country developed. But those values also came from historical religions pre-dating the Jews. In fact, most of the ten commandments ARE JUST COMMON SENSE. People knew the basic tenent of thou shalt not kill before Moses came down from the mountain and handed the Jews the tablets of God. In fact, civil laws to that effect had existed in one form or another for centuries. From a non-believer's perspective (not that I am one), Moses could have copped the idea from some monarch's set of laws and forged the whole set of tablets.

The problem with what you are saying is that the original source of our morals, laws, and ideas of right is far more complicated than you make it. We are a civilization that has existed for millions of years (approximately, by most scientists estimates), and while we haven't been talking or writing for that long, certain societal rules have likely been in place for a VERY long time. It would be highly arrogant for a Christian to believe that God's gift of tablets to Moses was the original codification of those societal rules into law. It would be even more arrogant to believe that our laws in this country were a direct descendant of Christian laws.

Did the founding father believe divine inspiration led them to form our system of government and republic? Nope. The impetus behind many of our laws was a reaction to what our founding fathers believed to be overbearing, unfair and unsuitable laws under the King of England. Sure, the founding fathers were all (at least close to it?) raised Christian and that fact means that Christian law had some amount of influence over how the laws were constructed, but thats a far cry from "based on Christianity."

I mean, is "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" a law in the US. I sure as hell hope not. MY god doesn't care.

This wasn't the state of Alabama invoking God, which, as a state, they have the right to do, as long as it isn't mandated. It was an indivudial showing that the rule of law in Alabama was based on ancient law. That is it. He was an individual acting as an individual.

Wrong. If he had not been Cheif Justice of the state's supreme court, sould he have been able to install the monument? Could a random American citizen who happened to be Buddist erect a monument showing Buddist contributions to US law in the supreme court's office?

He erected a monument widely perceived as religious in a completely public area. He was only able to do this as a result of his office as Cheif Justice. Therefore, the Cheif Justice of Alabama installed a monument in full public view on the grounds of the supreme court of Amabama. Not his office. Not his home. In a public area of the court.

What you and Justice Moore miss is that it has nothing to do with intentions. I dont' care what Moore intended to do. Rather, all that matters is the consequences of that action. As a result of that action, people felt the state court was promoting Christianity and that it violated their right to be free of a government endorsed/created/enforeced religion. THAT is what matters. Intentions don't enter into it.

I personally don't care what religon someone is. But don't tell me how I can and cannot express mine.

You are absolutely right. Except for that fact that you are completely wrong, at the very same time. Why, because you are applying your PERSONAL right to freedom of religion and how to practice that religion to a governmental official and office. PERSONS are able to express their religion any way they want to (up to the point where they are infringing on other people's rights). Governmental agencies and officials don't have that luxury when on the job.

Many view what Justice Moore is doing as a governmental endorsement of a particular religion. Why? Because while the Justice's job is to weigh and decide on the laws of Alabama and the US, he erected a monument which depicts laws which are NOT of Alabama and the US. He not only displays these, but also blurs the lines between the commandments being "historical laws" and being the laws he must enforce. He comes close to asserting that "God's law" and the commandments ARE our laws. And even if he doesn't intend to say that, he shows an obvious bias towards the religion and would make non-Christians attending his courtroom unsure of the impartiality of the justices.

In short, he is taking HIS views and using his office to promote those views. He is promoting Christianity on the tax-payers time and money. I see that as a violation of the first ammendment. The Supreme Court of the US and of Alabama (excluding Moore, of course) also see it that way.

And this is not a case of discrimination against Christians. Christians are free to express their religion however they see fit. They can pray and worship at the office, at home, anywhere they want. The only time it becomes a problem is when they are infringing on the rights of others (say brainwashing, or "praying" through a bullhorn to your co-workers) or using a governmental position to promote their religion or evangelize. Its very clear cut. Moore can do whatever he wants with his private office and private home. He cannot, however, use his position or office to promote Christianity.

Taft

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 05:13 PM
the ten commandments are in many many religions including the jewish and muslim faith so please taft dont associate the 10 with just christianity. also is not the 10 the basis of are laws that were formed here? I see nothing wrong with having this displayed telling people how to behave. if we all followed these basic 10 the world would be a much better place Taft. This does not enforce any 1 faith but enforces PROPER BEHAVIOR. Do you want everyone to lie,cheat,steal,murder, taft? Think about this.

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the ten commandments are in many many religions including the jewish and muslim faith so please taft dont associate the 10 with just christianity. also is not the 10 the basis of are laws that were formed here? I see nothing wrong with having this displayed telling people how to behave. if we all followed these basic 10 the world would be a much better place Taft. This does not enforce any 1 faith but enforces PROPER BEHAVIOR. Do you want everyone to lie,cheat,steal,murder, taft? Think about this.

The alternative to having the 10 commandments is NOT murder, theft, lying and general chaos. Were there extraordinary problems with these things in Alabama that have stopped since Moore put his monument up? I don't think so. And I doubt it will get worse if he removes them. I don't buy that arguement.

simX
Aug 25, 2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the ten commandments are in many many religions including the jewish and muslim faith so please taft dont associate the 10 with just christianity. also is not the 10 the basis of are laws that were formed here? I see nothing wrong with having this displayed telling people how to behave. if we all followed these basic 10 the world would be a much better place Taft. This does not enforce any 1 faith but enforces PROPER BEHAVIOR. Do you want everyone to lie,cheat,steal,murder, taft? Think about this.

Um, forgive me for being naive or something, but don't we already have laws that prohibit stealing and killing? I guess not. :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 05:25 PM
sure we have laws but where are you going to see them?? also we have a million laws on the books but the big ones are in the 10. why not have these posted for everyone to see?

simX
Aug 25, 2003, 05:31 PM
sure we have laws but where are you going to see them?? also we have a million laws on the books but the big ones are in the 10. why not have these posted for everyone to see?

So putting the 10 commandments that come from "many many [sic] religions" for everyone to see will magically make people not do anything bad?

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 05:35 PM
So far we've heard a lot of reasons why the commandments should not be there. But I think the burden of proof should be on those who say they should be there. What reasons can you give that are compelling enough to flirt with the church state seperation we pride ourselves on in this country?

So far I've heard:
Moore has a right to express his religion any way he wants.

and

Everyone will immediatly murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, take the name of the lord in vain etc. if we remove the monument.

Neither of those IMHO are compelling reasons to have the monument there. Moore expressing his religious views is not a reason that particular item should be there; and I don't think you can argue that a monument to the 10 commandments will change anyone's behaviour, for good or ill. Any others?

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 05:38 PM
no it wont but they will be there for everyone to see and i see nothing wrong with this posted instructing people not cheat, not to lie, not to murder, etc etc. is it so wrong to have how to live and behave posted???this is simply a guidline for living.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 05:44 PM
i didnt say that but you would rather we dont tell people in one way or another not to cheat,lie,murder,etc?? i think its better to have this out there then not to. I dont want any religion forced on us but remember god never made religion man did. these were simply gods ways to behave or higher values and ideas that many decide to fall short on including me.

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 05:45 PM
Just because you don't see anything wrong with it doesn't mean its legal or OK. Others do see something wrong. What you are saying is that you are more correct than other.If Moore had put up a secular version of "how to live" we would not be having this discussion.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 05:49 PM
historicly speaking can you think of a better bunch of rules to live by??what is the basis for our laws untill recent can you say the bible i dont car if you are using a jewish,catholic or muslim version they all have these basic truths on how to live and treat each other.

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 05:54 PM
As has been noted several times already in this discussion, the 10 commandments were hardly the invention of the Christian faith. Most were around Christ, so if we want to really talk historical, maybe we should look beyond them. Of course then we might be talking about a pagan monument in the rotunda. Would that be ok with you?

simX
Aug 25, 2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
i didnt say that but you would rather we dont tell people in one way or another not to cheat,lie,murder,etc?? i think its better to have this out there then not to. I dont want any religion forced on us but remember god never made religion man did. these were simply gods ways to behave or higher values and ideas that many decide to fall short on including me.

I don't get it. Why do you advocate the posting of the ten commandments when Justice Roy Moore could have just as easily posted a few statements about morality that were NOT CONNECTED TO ANY RELIGION? (You know, there are people who actively DON'T believe in god.)

Why wouldn't that have accomplished the same thing that he was trying to do with the ten commandments?

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by simX
I don't get it. Why do you advocate the posting of the ten commandments when Justice Roy Moore could have just as easily posted a few statements about morality that were NOT CONNECTED TO ANY RELIGION? (You know, there are people who actively DON'T believe in god.)

Why wouldn't that have accomplished the same thing that he was trying to do with the ten commandments?

While on the surface you would think so, it doesn't meet the goals he has. It just shows the hipocrasy involved here. If this really was about setting a good moral example, Moore would not be following the path he is. His goal is to push Christianity into every aspect of our lives. This is all about seeing if he can get away with it, and setting himself up for a run at a senate seat soon.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 06:05 PM
i think the ten have bigger impact simple as that since 90% of our population probably fall into jewish,christian,muslim etc these are good rules and i brake them everyday but i would rather they be out there then not. why should people be offended by these unless they are braking them?

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 06:13 PM
Then put them somewhere else! Buy a billboard and post them. Buy a plot of land across from the courthouse and put them there. Pay a skywriter to post them in the clouds. I don't care. Don't put them in a publicly funded place!

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 06:20 PM
that is the best argument yet,very good mactastic they are spending our tax dollars like there is no tomorrow.

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 06:24 PM
Thanks. I'm not actually opposed to the 10 commandments themselves, just using them for political purposes.

Dont Hurt Me
Aug 25, 2003, 06:29 PM
really this why seperation it dont matter if you are muslim,jewish,christian or druid public funds shouldnt pay for none of it. now with that said what about the pledge of allegiance? just kidding.

mactastic
Aug 25, 2003, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
really this why seperation it dont matter if you are muslim,jewish,christian or druid public funds shouldnt pay for none of it. now with that said what about the pledge of allegiance? just kidding.

Oh man, lets not go there!:p

IJ Reilly
Aug 25, 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
The alternative to having the 10 commandments is NOT murder, theft, lying and general chaos. Were there extraordinary problems with these things in Alabama that have stopped since Moore put his monument up? I don't think so. And I doubt it will get worse if he removes them. I don't buy that arguement.

This "Judeo-Christian" nonsense is nothing more then a fig-leaf for Christian evangelists. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that no Jews are to be found camping outside of the Alabama Supreme Court holding prayer vigils for Justice Moore. And there's no Muslim Ten Commandments, but there are Hebrew, Catholic and Protestant versions. Come to that, I wonder which one of those Justice Moore thinks is the basis for Alabama law?

pseudobrit
Aug 25, 2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the ten commandments are in many many religions including the jewish and muslim faith so please taft dont associate the 10 with just christianity. also is not the 10 the basis of are laws that were formed here? I see nothing wrong with having this displayed telling people how to behave. if we all followed these basic 10 the world would be a much better place Taft. This does not enforce any 1 faith but enforces PROPER BEHAVIOR. Do you want everyone to lie,cheat,steal,murder, taft? Think about this.

You logic is terribly flawed. They may not endorse any one faith but they sure as hell exclude many faiths.

The First Commandment says "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me."

That Commandment and the other two of the first three exclude certain faiths and are on display right now with the "social" Commandments.

To be specific, polytheistic and atheistic faiths are excluded.
Do you see nothing wrong with a display "telling people" who believe in multiple deities that they should "behave" (believe) differently?

Wow...

mactastic
Aug 26, 2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This "Judeo-Christian" nonsense is nothing more then a fig-leaf for Christian evangelists. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that no Jews are to be found camping outside of the Alabama Supreme Court holding prayer vigils for Justice Moore. And there's no Muslim Ten Commandments, but there are Hebrew, Catholic and Protestant versions. Come to that, I wonder which one of those Justice Moore thinks is the basis for Alabama law?

Moore is of the opinion that the Protestant version is the word of God.

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This "Judeo-Christian" nonsense is nothing more then a fig-leaf for Christian evangelists. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that no Jews are to be found camping outside of the Alabama Supreme Court holding prayer vigils for Justice Moore. And there's no Muslim Ten Commandments, but there are Hebrew, Catholic and Protestant versions. Come to that, I wonder which one of those Justice Moore thinks is the basis for Alabama law?

IJ,

the story says the monument is to the King James version of the Ten Commandments, so in Judge Moore's view obviously the Protestant version reigns supreme. Could it really be anything else?

shadowfax
Aug 26, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
This "Judeo-Christian" nonsense is nothing more then a fig-leaf for Christian evangelists. I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that no Jews are to be found camping outside of the Alabama Supreme Court holding prayer vigils for Justice Moore. And there's no Muslim Ten Commandments, but there are Hebrew, Catholic and Protestant versions. Come to that, I wonder which one of those Justice Moore thinks is the basis for Alabama law? suppose there is a movie that comes in 3 versions: the french dubbed, the english dubbed, and the german dubbed. the original language is, of course, spanish. there are 3 people watching the movie, each in the dubbed version of french, english, and german, respectively. which one is watching the "right" or "correct" version? is it too much to think that they may all be watching essentially the same thing, with different translations? aren't all the translations based on the same source? yes. likewise, when moore claims these as the basis of law, it's not his translation that he is esteeming, but the actual original one. the fact that he believes that the new king james version is the "proper" or "best" translation does not mean that he thinks it is as exact as the true original, the hebrew version.

why would you expect a protestant to pick a roman catholic or jewish translation? because you expect him to think like you? because you expect him to think like... someone who's neutral about the whole thing?

i really don't see that that is necessary in this issue; in fact, from a spiritual standpoint, it's more than likely very wrong. the fact remains though, that all hermeneutical and exegetical elitism aside, jews, catholics, and protestants are all talking about the same ten commandments.

moore is quite a pr***. i don't see why you need to try to make him more of one (no pun intended).

shadowfax
Aug 26, 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
IJ,

the story says the monument is to the King James version of the Ten Commandments, so in Judge Moore's view obviously the Protestant version reigns supreme. Could it really be anything else? you do realize his last question was rhetorical and sarcastic, right?

Taft
Aug 26, 2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
the ten commandments are in many many religions including the jewish and muslim faith so please taft dont associate the 10 with just christianity. also is not the 10 the basis of are laws that were formed here? I see nothing wrong with having this displayed telling people how to behave. if we all followed these basic 10 the world would be a much better place Taft. This does not enforce any 1 faith but enforces PROPER BEHAVIOR. Do you want everyone to lie,cheat,steal,murder, taft? Think about this.

Wow did you miss my points...

Your statements above only support what I was saying. You are right: the Ten Commandments are part of a lot of major religions. Not just Christianity. That was the friggin' point: that our laws decend not only from Christian "laws" and values, but from a diverse set of societal morals which predate Judaism and Christianity.

BTTM kept saying that the very foundation of our legal system was based on Christianity (and is, in fact, inseperable from Christian values). I was disputing that.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

And you are right: society is better for following the ten commandments or something like them. But my point is that even without a religion telling people what is right, most people know what is right. Their parents teach them. Their teachers teach them. Societal standards teach them. In this country all of those things are dominated by Christian values in most cases, but that doesn't mean the sorce of these morals is Christianity.

This is a clearcut case of a judge promoting a single religion. He put up the ten comandments (which are not NECESSARILY a Christian artifact) and then envokes God's name in defending them, saying that God's law is where our law gets its authority. That is, to me, many others, and the Supreme court of Alabama and the US, a violation of the seperation of church and state.

I have nothing against Christianity. In fact, I am a Christian. But I see the value in maintaining a seperation. I want all people to be free to practice their religion with getting a bias from our court system, police force or governmental officials.

Taft

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by shadowfax
you do realize his last question was rhetorical and sarcastic, right?

Yes, I got it the first time. Hope mine came through as well.

Shadowfax, the choice of the King James is not inconsequential. These different versions are not just different translations, but obviously reflect different religious traditions. Moore's pick of the King James version might have historical validity from the point of view of the power of this version on the founders, but it also betrays a bias. Funny how that word, bias, keeps coming up relative to Judge Moore's actions in this case. Sarcasm intended.

Taft
Aug 26, 2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
sure we have laws but where are you going to see them?? also we have a million laws on the books but the big ones are in the 10. why not have these posted for everyone to see?

Because "thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain" is not a US law. Nor is infidelity. While the commandments contain some very valuable moral lessons and laws to live by, they also contain a very large dose of Christian/Jewish/religious-in-general morals. These morals are often very disconnected from our laws in this country.

If Moore wanted to accurately display the major historical base for our laws, he would've included many other documents. The republic you live in was not an invention of the Bible, of the Ten Commandments' author, or any other religious document. It was an invention of ordinary men who wanted to make government better and to live more freely. They based many of our laws off of the system of law they were used to: English common law. Most local and state laws were also based off this system. As for the structuring of the federal government, they used many new and novel ideas as well as works by other governments and authors.

Most of this had nothing to do with religion or the support of a single God or faith.

Taft

Desertrat
Aug 26, 2003, 10:29 AM
Taft said, in part, "The republic you live in was not an invention of the Bible, of the Ten Commandments' author, or any other religious document. It was an invention of ordinary men who wanted to make government better and to live more freely."

:) "Ordinary" with extra-ordinary ideas...

But they did have a belief in a Creator, and in "natural law" stemming therefrom. What they saw as rights were rights common to all people, even in the total absence of any government.

I guess where I have a problem with today's views is that while it's obvious the government should have no say as to what religion--if any--one follows, the existence of a Creator is recognized within the traditions of our government.

I dunno. I get as griped at a Judge Moore making a big deal of Christianity as I do at those who get all bent out of shape at a mere plaque on a wall or a Nativity scene at Christmas time.

'Rat

mactastic
Aug 26, 2003, 10:33 AM
It's not about what's posted 'Rat, rather where it is posted. As stated before, I have no problem with seeing the 10 commandments. Nor with a nativity scene, or any other religious texts or images. It's just not appropriate to have them on public or government property.

Taft
Aug 26, 2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Desertrat

:) "Ordinary" with extra-ordinary ideas...


No arguments there. :)

But they did have a belief in a Creator, and in "natural law" stemming therefrom. What they saw as rights were rights common to all people, even in the total absence of any government.

True, but again, I must emphasize that the "natural law" you speak of does not inherit solely from Christian or religious values. They play a part, but morality was not an invention of a particular religion. A sense of morality has existed for a very long time (see my post above for more detail).

I guess where I have a problem with today's views is that while it's obvious the government should have no say as to what religion--if any--one follows, the existence of a Creator is recognized within the traditions of our government.

Again, I agree. But I think we need to make sure that those passages you refer to are treated as tradition and history and not as sponsorship or endorsement of a religion.

I think Moore is being really stupid and hard-headed and blurring that line. But...

I dunno. I get as griped at a Judge Moore making a big deal of Christianity as I do at those who get all bent out of shape at a mere plaque on a wall or a Nativity scene at Christmas time.

'Rat

I agree with you here as well. There have definitely been cases of people going overboard with seperation of Church and state issues. But there are also legitimate complaints. Teacher-led prayer in a classroom, is a valid complaint in my book. Changing the Pledge of Allegence, is not.

I do think wee need to be careful, however, and not let the dumb cases desensitize us from all cases on the issue. We must recognize that a minority religion shouldn't be stepped on in favor of the more popular religions.

Taft

Taft
Aug 26, 2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
It's not about what's posted 'Rat, rather where it is posted. As stated before, I have no problem with seeing the 10 commandments. Nor with a nativity scene, or any other religious texts or images. It's just not appropriate to have them on public or government property.

Or paid for by public funds. Where did Moore get the money to do this, anyway? Was this monument erected by the purse of the Supreme Court of Alabama? That would be a shame...

Taft

mactastic
Aug 26, 2003, 10:54 AM
No it was privately paid for. I put some stuff earlier on in this thread about that, and how Moore let an evangelical Christian group film the making and installation of the monument, which they also later sold.

IJ Reilly
Aug 26, 2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Yes, I got it the first time. Hope mine came through as well.

Shadowfax, the choice of the King James is not inconsequential. These different versions are not just different translations, but obviously reflect different religious traditions. Moore's pick of the King James version might have historical validity from the point of view of the power of this version on the founders, but it also betrays a bias. Funny how that word, bias, keeps coming up relative to Judge Moore's actions in this case. Sarcasm intended.

They certainly do. For instance the Catholic version doesn't include the graven images prohibitions contained in the Hebrew or Protestant texts. It seems the more the defenders of Moore's action try to prove the religous neutrality of placing the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, the more evidently biased (there's that word again!) it becomes.

No sarcasm intended. This time.

shadowfax
Aug 26, 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
They certainly do. For instance the Catholic version doesn't include the graven images prohibitions contained in the Hebrew or Protestant texts. It seems the more the defenders of Moore's action try to prove the religous neutrality of placing the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, the more evidently biased (there's that word again!) it becomes.

No sarcasm intended. This time. Sayhey & IJ:
funny how bias is a requirement, a fact of human existence. that's what i basically said, in different words, in the post that sayhey commented on. this is not an issue of bias at all. this is an issue of you resenting his bias. as you pointed out again, there are differences in all these translations, and political/religious agendas literally thousands of years old ingendered into all the texts. that doesn't mean that all don't recall the original, at least in essence. does moore have an agenda? yes. everyone does. disinterest is a foolish myth. has he given into it much more than he should? obviously. does that make the ten commandments totally unrelated to our law, any law? no. his idiocy is irrelevant, for one thing, and that doesn't negate the validity of every single thing he has said/done.

IJ Reilly
Aug 26, 2003, 01:58 PM
Just so we're completely clear about this, I don't think the justice should use the lobby of the courthouse to promote any religion, so it makes no matter to me on that point whether he'd chosen the Hebrew, Catholic or Protestant texts. The only purpose in bringing up which one he did choose was to further hammer home the point that he'd deliberately selected a text that was consistent with his particular faith, not some universally accepted thing in which every American believes. I think we should be able to get past the question of whether Moore was trying to make a blatantly religious statement here. I mean, if it isn't obvious now, I have to wonder when it ever will be.

shadowfax
Aug 26, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Just so we're completely clear about this, I don't think the justice should use the lobby of the courthouse to promote any religion, so it makes no matter to me on that point whether he'd chosen the Hebrew, Catholic or Protestant texts. The only purpose in bringing up which one he did choose was to further hammer home the point that he'd deliberately selected a text that was consistent with his particular faith, not some universally accepted thing in which every American believes. I think we should be able to get past the question of whether Moore was trying to make a blatantly religious statement here. I mean, if it isn't obvious now, I have to wonder when it ever will be. yes. i agree with you that he shouldn't be allowed to have it there, but my point is that you're taking it much further than you need to, and this further point is moot and useless. there is no other text that he could put there that would be less "exclusive," and only an elitist pr*** would miss the essence of what the ten commandments are intended to represent and hone in only on that he's chosen a denominational translation. every translation is denominational/sectarian/whatever. there is no way to avoid this. calling someone a biased jerk gets nothing; it's as foolish as thinking there's such a thing as unbiased knowledge. so please, stop driving this protestant crap. had it been any other translation, it would't be any more universal to americans, it would just be geared toward a different sect. big surprise, whooo. that's not an added point. you don't need one. the guy is clearly in violation of the law without that.

i'm making a big deal out of this, because i agree with you to the extent that he is in violation of law, but think that you're taking this too far on a tangent that's not valid. just to be clear.

Sayhey
Aug 26, 2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
Sayhey & IJ:
funny how bias is a requirement, a fact of human existence. that's what i basically said, in different words, in the post that sayhey commented on. this is not an issue of bias at all. this is an issue of you resenting his bias. as you pointed out again, there are differences in all these translations, and political/religious agendas literally thousands of years old ingendered into all the texts. that doesn't mean that all don't recall the original, at least in essence. does moore have an agenda? yes. everyone does. disinterest is a foolish myth. has he given into it much more than he should? obviously. does that make the ten commandments totally unrelated to our law, any law? no. his idiocy is irrelevant, for one thing, and that doesn't negate the validity of every single thing he has said/done.

Shadowfax,
I don't have a clue about "the validity of every single thing he has said/done." I don't disagree that we all have our own bias. That basic fact doesn't invalidate the need to, as much as possible, eliminate religious bias from our government institutions. It seems from previous posts we don't have a disagreement on this question, so I hope that somebody in authority in Alabama will make sure the monument is removed to a place, not on public land, where those who wish to view it can do so and we all don't have to hear Justice Moore's pious pronouncements.

IJ Reilly
Aug 26, 2003, 03:05 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you just called me, but I'm pretty sure I don't like it.

Overlooking that for the moment, what you call a "tangent" is in fact the crux of the entire debate. Moore is using his judicial office to promote his religious faith. Maybe this is obvious to you and I, but clearly it isn't to everyone. Many still seem to insist on calling his monument symbolic of universal principles. Well, it certainly is not, and IMO his choice of a text that is specifically endorsed by his faith simply slams the lid on the question.

I also have to admit to bringing up the "Protestant c***" in part because one of the characteristics of Moore's evangelical brand of Christianity is to get into the faces of people of other faiths and stay there until they convert. If a person did not believe this to be their religious duty, they would not be erecting two-ton monuments to their faiths in public buildings.

Incidentally, if the justice wanted to make a public statement about underlying American values, why didn't he erect a 3,000 pound granite monument of the Declaration of Independence in the courthouse lobby? We both know the answer to that question, don't we?

Taft
Aug 26, 2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by shadowfax
yes. i agree with you that he shouldn't be allowed to have it there, but my point is that you're taking it much further than you need to, and this further point is moot and useless. there is no other text that he could put there that would be less "exclusive," and only an elitist pr*** would miss the essence of what the ten commandments are intended to represent and hone in only on that he's chosen a denominational translation. every translation is denominational/sectarian/whatever. there is no way to avoid this. calling someone a biased jerk gets nothing; it's as foolish as thinking there's such a thing as unbiased knowledge. so please, stop driving this protestant crap. had it been any other translation, it would't be any more universal to americans, it would just be geared toward a different sect. big surprise, whooo. that's not an added point. you don't need one. the guy is clearly in violation of the law without that.

i'm making a big deal out of this, because i agree with you to the extent that he is in violation of law, but think that you're taking this too far on a tangent that's not valid. just to be clear.

I agree with IJ on this one.

The fact that Moore IS biased is the reason this statue should come down. If Moore actually wanted to make an historical display of the origins of our laws, he could have done so without drawing the ire of anyone. He could have put the commandments into an historical context. He could have included other "artifacts" or historical documents in the display. The fact is, Moore didn't want to do that.

Moore wanted to put Christianity on display at the supreme court of Alabama. It is clear not only from his choice of the commandments' translation, but also from his accompanying statements. He is trying to promote and endorse Christianity. He doesn't believe his actions are wrong. Fortunately for America, his peers and the Supreme Court do think his actions are wrong because of their bias.

If he were unbiased, there might not even be a debate going on right now: he might have acted in a way less intentionally confrontational.

Taft