PDA

View Full Version : 77% of Americans disagree with removal of commandments


Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 08:04 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html

Wow. That is impressive. See, that is the point that has been made. A minority of the people dictating to the majority through a bogus interpretation of the law.

If a Muslim judge had put up a statue of the Khoran, I would say kudos to that judge. And, I would probably go out and read a copy of it to learn more.

Sad that the voice of the majority is falling on deaf ears.

Sayhey
Aug 27, 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/ten.commandments/index.html

Wow. That is impressive. See, that is the point that has been made. A minority of the people dictating to the majority through a bogus interpretation of the law.

If a Muslim judge had put up a statue of the Khoran, I would say kudos to that judge. And, I would probably go out and read a copy of it to learn more.

Sad that the voice of the majority is falling on deaf ears.

B2TM,

You keep saying this is some distortion or "bogus" interpretation of the law, but what is your source for that? The doctrine of Seperation of Church and State has a very long history and is grounded in the First Amendment. The latest decisions about these types of displays in public buildings is quite clear. In short, these federal judges who told Moore to remove the monument have all the legal precedent in the world on their side and Moore has none. If you think it is wrong, that of course is your right, but unconstitutional? Not hardly.

Lastly, we don't want judges to make decisions based on polls. Many Americans, if asked to identify the words of the Declaration of Independance or the preamble to the Constitution, could not do so. Does that mean we should ignore them? I realize the deep seated feelings of many people concerning the value of their religion, but that only reinforces the need to safeguard rights of the few from the views of the many.

RobVanDam
Aug 27, 2003, 08:52 PM
The problem is, a few people make a huge deal of it.

A large majority of the public would see it and probably wouldn't think twice. Only a small amount would be offended.

The Constitution is also very flimsy. A lot of "constitutional rights" are actually not in the consitution at all, like the right to privacy.

The statue is perfectly acceptable according to the first amendment, but judges throughout the years and decided that there needs to be a separation of church and state. Part of the debate is that no one is forcing anyone to practice the religion, or even look at the statue and it complies completely with the first amendment but is still church related.

mactastic
Aug 27, 2003, 09:05 PM
Sucks that the majority had to push it to the point that they got smacked down by the courts. Being the majority doesn't automatically make you right.

Pinto
Aug 27, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


...A minority of the people dictating to the majority through a bogus interpretation of the law.

...Sad that the voice of the majority is falling on deaf ears.


Like the majority that voted for Gore for President?

Or the bogus interpretation (going against previous precedents) that saw the partisan Supreme Court uphold the Florida election results?

BTTM, remove the log from your own eye before pointing out the speck in others.

3rdpath
Aug 27, 2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Wow. That is impressive. See, that is the point that has been made. A minority of the people dictating to the majority through a bogus interpretation of the law.


so are you equally willing to condemn the election of 2000?

or is it only bogus when you disagree?

the irony is quite humorous, don't you think?

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 10:04 PM
A majority of Americans voted for Al Gore.

Sounds just like "a minority of the people dictating to the majority through a bogus interpretation of the law" to me.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 10:09 PM
77%, eh? no wonder so many people don't mind that ashcroft's religious beliefs dictate his policy.

at some point, "freedom of religion" became "freedom to persecute under the ruling powers' religion."

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 10:33 PM
77% of 1009 Americans polled......

Polls have been notorious lately for not reflecting the true American opinion as has been discussed elsewhere.

I wonder what the response to that question would have been if the people polled were told about the details of the monument's installation. "Under dark of night and with video rights sold to a right wing Christian organization, Judge Roy Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court, without prior authorization from ANYONE else." What would the response be then? My bet is that 40% would approve with the remainder disapproving.

Okay, so I'm biased but it does make me wonder about the future. Some people think it's a flash in the pan and the era of Tammy Faye Baker was the watershed point of American religious fundamentalism. Others have posited that religion has taken firm root in America and that it is a direct result of the 60's and 70's everything goes attitude.

The pendulum swings. Or is it the guillotine?

buddha
Aug 27, 2003, 10:42 PM
Couple quick comments.

First off, the whole purpose of the Constitution was to protect the most sacred rights of the minority from the flag-waving mob. I thank (insert favorite diety/object of obsession) that this is true, otherwise we would likely have a very curtailed version of civil rights.

Second, I don't quite get how the establishing of the list of moral rules of one religion on state grounds by a state actor is not seen as a form of establishing or encouraging religion. If you want to claim historical basis, then put up a second monument which describes the history of the 10 commandments and its effect on american jurisprudence. Also, I personally have nothing but rancor for any religion which needs or has state support. I find that in the end, they generally co-opt and corrupt each other.

Third, most people should be thankful the courts don't require an explicit listing of something in the Constitution for it to be protected. While the term privacy itself is never mentioned; the concept is implicit in the freedom from unreasonable searches.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 10:52 PM
Why is it that everytime a conservative has an issue with a ruling, you guys bring up the 2000 election? 1st off, the same court that you claim is so conservative has recently overturned one of the greatest injustices of our lifetime, and that is the banning of sodomy. Thus, making homosexuality legal, and it will not be long before ALL Americans are treated to equal rights under the law.

BUT that same court ruled that a State Court had violated the Constitution becuase it was legislating from the bench. That is it. Had Gore, from day one, requested a manual recount in the ENTIRE state, no one would have had a complaint at all. However, he ONLY wanted the counties that he thought he could make up a difference in because they were going to rely on HUMAN interpretation of a bunch ballot. Can you not see how rediculous that is?

Furthermore, I personally, as a historian, feel that judges have overstepped their interpretation of the Constitution. It is clear. It bans a federal religion. Congress cannot pass a law creating a federal religion. God was not removed from the society. They did not ban anyone from showing their faith. MEN have since decided the INTENT of what the founding fathers though. No different than I have. I personally believe, as have other justicies, and clearly the American people, that the 10 commandments in a state building does not violate the so called seperation of church and state. That phrase is not in the constitution. If that was what they meant. They damn sure did not say it. Curious don't you think, since the other parts of the document are very clear!

No religion should ever be forced on anyone, nowhere, not just by the government. However, NOONE was forced to attend a church, or even read the monument.

What happened to the 9th ammendment? What happened to the rule of law! I will tell you. It has been bastardized for quite a while.

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No different than I have. I personally believe, as have other justicies, and clearly the American people, that the 10 commandments in a state building does not violate the so called seperation of church and state.

Give me a break. 1,009 Americans does not the American people make. Polls can be skewed, and FOX and CNN have repeatedly done so in the past few years. I'd like to see the methodology of such a survey before I can reliably agree that that statistic is correct.

As Ugg pointed out, if the question was prefaced with "Under dark of night and with video rights sold to a right wing Christian organization, Judge Roy Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court, without prior authorization from ANYONE else," I doubt many Americans would have agreed with it.

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 10:57 PM
Ah, hell, I'm done fighting it.

Let's just give in and let the Christians usurp the power of the state to fulfil their agendas. Then we'd no longer have politicians and democracy calling the shots but preachers and theocracy instead.

Family values and holy men would rule the day and all would be well. Morality would be law.

Just like Taliban Afghanistan. Of course the reason their theocracy was evil was because it had that terrorist-worshipping religion at its core. :rolleyes:

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by simX
Give me a break. 1,009 Americans does not the American people make. Polls can be skewed, and FOX and CNN have repeatedly done so in the past few years. I'd like to see the methodology of such a survey before I can reliably agree that that statistic is correct.

As Ugg pointed out, if the question was prefaced with "Under dark of night and with video rights sold to a right wing Christian organization, Judge Roy Moore installed a monument in the Rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court, without prior authorization from ANYONE else," I doubt many Americans would have agreed with it.

What the margin of error? +/- 3%

That is standard statistics.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Ah, hell, I'm done fighting it.

Let's just give in and let the Christians usurp the power of the state to fulfil their agendas. Then we'd no longer have politicians and democracy calling the shots but preachers and theocracy instead.

Family values and holy men would rule the day and all would be well. Morality would be law.

Just like Taliban Afghanistan. Of course the reason their theocracy was evil was because it had that terrorist-worshipping religion at its core. :rolleyes:

No, you missed the entire point. It doesn't authorize a religion, how in the name of all that is right can you compare this country with the Taliban. How can you compare the state of Alabama, and Roy Moore's convictions to the taliban? That is absurd man, and you know it!

What if there was a statue of every major religion in the rotundra? I would have no problem with that.

Giaguara
Aug 27, 2003, 11:00 PM
There are 250 - 300 MILLION people, and the interviewed were a bit over 1000. A bit small sample, and no way to verify how it's composed. If you ask 1000 christians, a few disagree. But if you consider USA is a free country and NOT EVERYONE is Christian, it's more fair. We have Hindus, Buddhists, Muslems etc here. Put the 10 comandments to a Church; a Justice something should respect the laws of the country, not the laws of a religious group, any of them.

I do approve the removal. Statistically I am Catholic, in practise it is only statistics.

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What the margin of error? +/- 3%

That is standard statistics.

The margin of error has nothing to do with it. The margin of error does not take into account biased methodology. As I said before, the way that you phrase the question can have a STARTLING effect on the responses, by appealing to the emotions of humans. Quoting a single statistic is highly dubious unless you can show me the exact methodology of how it was conducted.

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
It bans a federal religion. Congress cannot pass a law creating a federal religion. God was not removed from the society. They did not ban anyone from showing their faith.

But they did ban GOVERNMENT from adopting and showing a faith.

I personally believe, as have other justicies, and clearly the American people, that the 10 commandments in a state building does not violate the so called seperation of church and state.

So government putting up religious symbols is not government adopting a faith?

No religion should ever be forced on anyone, nowhere, not just by the government. However, NOONE was forced to attend a church, or even read the monument.

Again, were people exempt from attending Moore's court because of the monument?

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by simX
The margin of error has nothing to do with it. The margin of error does not take into account biased methodology. As I said before, the way that you phrase the question can have a STARTLING effect on the responses, by appealing to the emotions of humans. Quoting a single statistic is highly dubious unless you can show me the exact methodology of how it was conducted.

13. Do you approve or disapprove of a federal court decision ordering an Alabama court to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from public display in its building?

BASED ON –495—NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B

Approve Disapprove No opinion
2003 Aug 25-26 19 77 4

That is not a biased question. Not leading at all, and statistically sound.

Results are based on telephone interviews with -1,009-National Adults, aged 18+, conducted August 25-26, 2003. For results based on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What if there was a statue of every major religion in the rotundra? I would have no problem with that.

I suppose I'd be less opposed to such a monument. But then the irony would be that many religions bar the use of statues or symbols.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:06 PM
if i were in the deep south, on trial, and i walked into the courthouse and saw a such a monument, i would be scared s***less.

"if the court finds out i'm atheist, would i even get a fair trial?" i would wonder.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

What if there was a statue of every major religion in the rotundra? I would have no problem with that.

i'd be equally opposed.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
But they did ban GOVERNMENT from adopting and showing a faith.



So government putting up religious symbols is not government adopting a faith?



Again, were people exempt from attending Moore's court because of the monument?

UGGG, the monument wasn't in the courtroom, but in the lobby of the building. No, they banned GOVERNMENT from creating, and enforcing a national religion. That is it, and no, government putting up religious symbols is not adopting a faith. ON the same building that the monument was in, there are deptictions of greek gods on the front of the building. Should they tear it down because of their religious overtones?

Should they burn the declaration of independence because it is signed "The year of Our Lord, 1776"?

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
if i were in the deep south, on trial, and i walked into the courthouse and saw a such a monument, i would be scared s***less.

"if the court finds out i'm atheist, would i even get a fair trial?" i would wonder.

Yea, you would. No one has ever said that Justice Moore was anything but fair, and good. He is an elected judge of the people of this state. If we don't believe his job is being done well, then WE remove him.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

Should they burn the declaration of independence because it is signed "The year of Our Lord, 1776"?

no, but only because of its importance.

the monument went up 2 years ago. they should have known better.

i don't like the In God We Trust on the money. that should be removed, imo.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yea, you would.

get a fair trial or wonder? ;-)

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
get a fair trial or wonder? ;-)

You would get a fair trial, because your religion is inadmissable in a court of law. It is irrelivant.

As for the dollar.

"In God We Trust" is what this country was founded on. Why deny that? Should Congress stop opening their sessions with a prayer?

What about when you testify in the court that now has no monument. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God"

That should go too? Should we remove ALL of the notion of God from our society?

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:17 PM
not the most scientific of polls, but the CNN QuickVote poll has different results and a larger sample size:

Should the Ten Commandments monument have been moved from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building?

Yes: 48% (16991)
No: 52% (18480)

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
13. Do you approve or disapprove of a federal court decision ordering an Alabama court to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from public display in its building?

BASED ON –495—NATIONAL ADULTS IN FORM B

Approve Disapprove No opinion
2003 Aug 25-26 19 77 4

That is not a biased question. Not leading at all, and statistically sound.

Results are based on telephone interviews with -1,009-National Adults, aged 18+, conducted August 25-26, 2003. For results based on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Can you provide a link? I don't see where you got that from the CNN article.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac


What about when you testify in the court that now has no monument. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God"


i've never had to testify under oath. i've often wondered what i would do, being expected to take such an oath.

i would be opposed. "swearing under god" and on a bible has zero meaning to me. i'd derive more meaning from swearing on a dictionary. "so help me webster" :-)

i'd consult my attorney first to see what would happen if i refused the oath. my guess is i'd be held in contempt until i said the words.

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Should we remove ALL of the notion of God from our society?

Wherever it is not of historical importance, insofar as government is concerned, yes.

I say keep religion out of government and government out of religion.

Each, individually, is beneficial and needed in a society. But when mixed it creates a poison and can tear apart the foundations of both.

Government -reason, logic, law

Religion - faith, hope, love

There is nothing good that can come from mixing these virtues; they are antithetical.

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
UGGG, the monument............



Yes?!? I usually only spell it with 2 gs but, oh, I guess you meant "ugh" ;)

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
What about when you testify in the court that now has no monument. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God"

That should go too? Should we remove ALL of the notion of God from our society?

I don't know if it's the same in this case, but when George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States, he added the "so help me God" statement at the end, which was never part of the original oath.

I don't think you're required to say "so help me God" when you're under oath, are you? If so, that's ridiculous -- what about us atheists?

Durandal7
Aug 27, 2003, 11:24 PM
The entire situation is absurd.

First off, being a recently erected monument they should have known that it would spark a firestorm.

Secondly, the seperation of church and state has been distorted to the point that mentioning God leads to a lynching. This was not the original intent.

Thirdly, the court ruling is over and the issue should now be irrelevant. Alabama was faced with a tricky decision but the end result was that they took the high road to avoid looking like fools.

Both sides are at fault and both sides are making an issue out of nothing. Deny it all you want but this country was founded by Christians and erecting the monument was flamebait for someone looking for a fight.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
not the most scientific of polls, but the CNN QuickVote poll has different results and a larger sample size:

Should the Ten Commandments monument have been moved from the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building?

Yes: 48% (16991)
No: 52% (18480)

Should They Put It Back?

Do you think the Ten Commandments monument should be returned to the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building?

a. Yes, it's protected by freedom of religion. (82%)

b. No, it violates separation of church and state. (16%)

c. I'm not sure (2%)

That is why internet polls mean nothing. That is from Fox News ;)

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by simX
Can you provide a link? I don't see where you got that from the CNN article.

Sorry ;)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/0827.htm

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Wherever it is not of historical importance, insofar as government is concerned, yes.

I say keep religion out of government and government out of religion.

Each, individually, is beneficial and needed in a society. But when mixed it creates a poison and can tear apart the foundations of both.

Government -reason, logic, law

Religion - faith, hope, love

There is nothing good that can come from mixing these virtues; they are antithetical.

I understand that arugement, but how would you argure what is benificial?

How can the monument be detrimental?

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by simX
I don't know if it's the same in this case, but when George Washington was sworn in as the first President of the United States, he added the "so help me God" statement at the end, which was never part of the original oath.

I don't think you're required to say "so help me God" when you're under oath, are you? If so, that's ridiculous -- what about us atheists?

No, you don't have to say it, but that is the basis of the courts. So, are they in themselves unconstitutional?

If the law is supreme, and has is blind, then the rule of law would require all or none would it not?

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
That is why internet polls mean nothing. That is from Fox News ;)

I would tend to think that it reflects the readership that each site attracts. If that is true, then FOX really isn't all that fair and balanced, are they?

Boy, I'm sure big on the rhetorical questions lately, gonna have to stop that!

RobVanDam
Aug 27, 2003, 11:29 PM
Taking God off of money would take a while because taking money out of circulation isn't exactly something that can be accomplished in a day.

As for the commandments, lets take another approach. I'm assuming everyone has walked into say a hospital, or some other large building.

The hospital where I'm as is a pretty big complex and in the main entrance there's a huge mural in there. I've been there about five times in the past two years and I can't remember anything about it.

On the building where my dad used to work there was a massive mural about 5 stories high and maybe 500 feet long. What was on it? All I remember was in the middle was I believe Da Vinchi's drawing of that one guy. That was maybe 1/5th of it, I can't remember the rest. And I saw it at least 1000 times in my life.

Now, I'm fairly observant, I have a very good memory, and I can't remember this stuff. Almost everyone I know can't agree on anything that they remember.

How is this statue any different?

pseudobrit
Aug 27, 2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I understand that arugement, but how would you argure what is benificial?

How can the monument be detrimental?

Because it mixes one with the other.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I would tend to think that it reflects the readership that each site attracts. If that is true, then FOX really isn't all that fair and balanced, are they?

Boy, I'm sure big on the rhetorical questions lately, gonna have to stop that!

I actually think that CNN and Fox have become much more middle ground, because most of America is. However, I don't think that their internet readers are ;)

XnavxeMiyyep
Aug 27, 2003, 11:31 PM
Heh, I guss us atheists don't have to tell the truth in court!;)

Speaking of things that have God that shouldn't have God, the Pledge of Allegiance should not.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit
Because it mixes one with the other.

brit, if the Alabama Congress, mandated Christianity as the official religion of the state, then yes, you are right. If a judge legislatated from the bench that such was the case, then yes. You are right. But that is not the case. It is a man, putting up a monument to God in a building. He did not use state funds, nor did the state sanction it. In Alabama, under the state Constitution, an individual can express his faith in any way that they deam, so long as it is not harmful to others in a direct way.

zimv20
Aug 27, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

That is why internet polls mean nothing. That is from Fox News ;)

the meaning i take from it is: 16% of those taking the poll are correct :-)

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, you don't have to say it, but that is the basis of the courts. So, are they in themselves unconstitutional?

If the law is supreme, and has is blind, then the rule of law would require all or none would it not?

Are you implying that the law should require that everyone says the "so help me God" phrase at the end?

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by XnavxeMiyyep
Heh, I guss us atheists don't have to tell the truth in court!;)

Speaking of things that have God that shouldn't have God, the Pledge of Allegiance should not.

That is a whole different issue that has been beaten to death here, and we have all agreed to disagree respectfully.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by simX
Are you implying that the law should require that everyone says the "so help me God" phrase at the end?

Nope, I am saying that is the default statement of a sworn affadavit, or during testimony before a Grand Jury, or a struck jury.

Should it not be is the question.

RobVanDam
Aug 27, 2003, 11:39 PM
The First Amendment of the Constitution
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.The monument is not in violation of the first amendment in any way, shape, or form.

Durandal7
Aug 27, 2003, 11:40 PM
To sum up the issue: there are ~280 million people in the United States, some of them will always be pissy about something.

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
But that is not the case. It is a man, putting up a monument to God in a building. He did not use state funds, nor did the state sanction it. In Alabama, under the state Constitution, an individual can express his faith in any way that they deam, so long as it is not harmful to others in a direct way.

So, according to your interpretation of Amendment 622, anyone can place any monument they want in any government building? Sorry but that is not what 622 is all about. It says that Government should not be a burden to religion, it does not give every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to do whatever they want, when they want. Moore also allowed a private christian group to profit from videoing the installation. That in my mind, has nothing to do with freedom of religious expression and everything to do with government officials allowing sectarian groups to profit directly from an illegal action.

As I've said before, Moore refused local black church leaders the opportunity to mount a display of MLK's life and achievements. The theme of fairness is quite clearcut in 622 and Moore is obviously not interested in it at all. Only his form of religion is relevant and the greatest peacemaker of our time is denied from the halls of justice.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:43 PM
Here are a few interesting things about the country being founded under the notion of God. Might clear up what the founding fathers actually though.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2690

AMENDMENT S 2690 EAH

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 8, 2002.

Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2690) entitled `An Act to reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance', do pass with the following AMENDMENT:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

simX
Aug 27, 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Nope, I am saying that is the default statement of a sworn affadavit, or during testimony before a Grand Jury, or a struck jury.

Should it not be is the question.

I think the responses to this question are going to fall exactly as they fell with the monument. I believe that omitting the "so help me God" phrase would make it more neutral, and people can add it if they wish.

Also, about the study -- two things:

1) "For results based on the -514-national adults in the Form A half-sample and -495-national adults in the Form B half-sample, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points."

Not that big of a deal, but the margin of error is +/- 5, rather than +/- 3 as you stated.

2) "Results are based on telephone interviews with -1,009-National Adults, aged 18+, conducted August 25-26, 2003."

THIS is a big deal. This is a great example of a hidden bias. What about the many people who have their phone numbers unlisted, or who have no phone at all?

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
So, according to your interpretation of Amendment 622, anyone can place any monument they want in any government building? Sorry but that is not what 622 is all about. It says that Government should not be a burden to religion, it does not give every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to do whatever they want, when they want. Moore also allowed a private christian group to profit from videoing the installation. That in my mind, has nothing to do with freedom of religious expression and everything to do with government officials allowing sectarian groups to profit directly from an illegal action.

As I've said before, Moore refused local black church leaders the opportunity to mount a display of MLK's life and achievements. The theme of fairness is quite clearcut in 622 and Moore is obviously not interested in it at all. Only his form of religion is relevant and the greatest peacemaker of our time is denied from the halls of justice.

Nope, not 622, but Section III.
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.

Moore's civil rights were violated ;)

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by simX
I think the responses to this question are going to fall exactly as they fell with the monument. I believe that omitting the "so help me God" phrase would make it more neutral, and people can add it if they wish.

Also, about the study -- two things:

1) "For results based on the -514-national adults in the Form A half-sample and -495-national adults in the Form B half-sample, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points."

Not that big of a deal, but the margin of error is +/- 5, rather than +/- 3 as you stated.

2) "Results are based on telephone interviews with -1,009-National Adults, aged 18+, conducted August 25-26, 2003."

THIS is a big deal. This is a great example of a hidden bias. What about the many people who have their phone numbers unlisted, or who have no phone at all?

Sorry about the sample size. Telephone interview is considered scientific, because it is random.

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
`We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.



I've always found "their Creator" to be an interesting use of words. It does seem to indicate knowledge of other religions and to passively state that Christianity is not the only religion under the sun. They struggled with the issue just as we are today.

Backtothemac
Aug 27, 2003, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by Ugg
I've always found "their Creator" to be an interesting use of words. It does seem to indicate knowledge of other religions and to passively state that Christianity is not the only religion under the sun. They struggled with the issue just as we are today.

Agreed. And take note, that I am not running around saying that Christ is the only way. All I am saying is that like it or not, God was what this country was built upon in many ways.

:D

Ugg
Aug 27, 2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Nope, not 622, but Section III.
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.

Moore's civil rights were violated ;)

How?

If anything, AL is even more clearcut in the separation of church and state. Given that the above was written in 1901 it indicates to me that the US in general and AL specifically was becoming much more secular.

Personally, when I look at the above, Moore clearly violated the AL constitution by requiring the citizens of Alabama to "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". Sorry, Moore's religious principles have in no way been violated. His religion does not require him to do what he did, it seems to me that his religion requires him to be humble and not make false gods, idols, etc. and it suggests that he should obey the law.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
How?

If anything, AL is even more clearcut in the separation of church and state. Given that the above was written in 1901 it indicates to me that the US in general and AL specifically was becoming much more secular.

Personally, when I look at the above, Moore clearly violated the AL constitution by requiring the citizens of Alabama to "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". Sorry, Moore's religious principles have in no way been violated. His religion does not require him to do what he did, it seems to me that his religion requires him to be humble and not make false gods, idols, etc. and it suggests that he should obey the law.

I don't follow the logic. No one was required to attend a place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or rate for building or repairing place of worship, etc.

Ugg
Aug 28, 2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I don't follow the logic. No one was required to attend a place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or rate for building or repairing place of worship, etc.

Somebody's gotta clean the dang thing and I'm sure if it had been defaced, the state would have had to un-deface it, insurance costs, extra guards, you name it and I'm sure the state had to pay it. The costs may seem trivial to you but in the current financial state of the Union it would seem really stupid to be paying for anything that wasn't central to government.

Given that extra guards have had to be placed around the courthouse, judicial time spent dealing with Moore's refusal to obey the US SC, the workers who had to move it into the closet, it has cost AL a lot of money. Of course, it has brought a lot of tax dollars from all those out of state protesters so I suppose the cost has been offset somewhat.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
Somebody's gotta clean the dang thing and I'm sure if it had been defaced, the state would have had to un-deface it, insurance costs, extra guards, you name it and I'm sure the state had to pay it. The costs may seem trivial to you but in the current financial state of the Union it would seem really stupid to be paying for anything that wasn't central to government.

Given that extra guards have had to be placed around the courthouse, judicial time spent dealing with Moore's refusal to obey the US SC, the workers who had to move it into the closet, it has cost AL a lot of money. Of course, it has brought a lot of tax dollars from all those out of state protesters so I suppose the cost has been offset somewhat.

But don't you have a moral obligation to do what is right. Even a good soldier knows to disobey an imorral order. The Federal Judge did what he thought based on his interpretation of the law. The SC will have a say, and whatever they decide, I will accept 100%

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 12:39 AM
B2TM,

You are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, most of the men who led the country at its founding were christian. What does their referencing God have to do with the need to seperate Church and State? These same men, time and again, talked of the dangers of mixing the two. Madison stated about the difference between the two departments each must be concerned with when he said that,

The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves. From Madison's letter on Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
at http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm

Now, he was a religious man, but as the "Father of the Constitution" he was clear about the need for separation.

Certainly, as a historian, you could find many other referances of Madison, Jefferson, and others that make it transparent that the establishment clause of the First Amendment is a reflection of the commitment to a separtation of the two spheres. If you can't I can provide them.

It is also clear that with the separation of powers in the constitutional structure of government that the interpretation of the Constitution was left to the judical branch. In short, the Constitution is not just the words in the text of the document itself it is also the entire legal history of the Supreme Court's decisions.
There is a growing body of law that is based on the text of the Constitution, the intent of the founders, and the application of that law to our changing society, that has built up the wall between Church and State which protects us all. It makes no sense even if one freverently believes in the same God as Judge Moore to destroy that protection.

Lastly, the assertion that Judge Moore's rights were violated is absurd. He can continue to practice his religion and no one has raised a hand or said a word to stop him. He just can't foist his beliefs on others in a government building.

Ugg
Aug 28, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
But don't you have a moral obligation to do what is right. Even a good soldier knows to disobey an imorral order. The Federal Judge did what he thought based on his interpretation of the law. The SC will have a say, and whatever they decide, I will accept 100%

You have a point and if the judge were interested in the religious background of our government he would have placed something to put it all into perspective. The plight of the religiously persecuted who first settled these shores, the religions of the slaves, the Jews who flooded the US after the pogroms in Russia and eastern Europe, the Muslims who have been coming in increasing numbers over the last few decades. Moore's god is not universal nor are his 10 Commandments.

It is very evident that the founding fathers were heavily influenced by the sometimes atheistic views of French philosophers and most definitely by the views of the ancient Greeks and Romans. To single out one god, one religion and to pay it homage above all others when this country has been influenced by so many who aren't Christian or don't subscribe to the myths of the old testament is to deny us all our heritage. His standing up for what he believes to be right means that the government of Alabama and the US government means to impose by stealth a state religion. I sincerely hope that the other 8 justices in AL remove him from office and send a message to those who would impose their beliefs upon the rest of us that government and religion are separate and should stay that way.

MrMacMan
Aug 28, 2003, 12:54 AM
Arg, Internet Polls are useless, seriously they can be changed, spammed or all depending on the nature of the report, who is watching, etc... If we saw a ... Fox News Report, it would be TOTALLY different...

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Should They Put It Back?

Do you think the Ten Commandments monument should be returned to the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building?

a. Yes, it's protected by freedom of religion. (82%)

b. No, it violates separation of church and state. (16%)

c. I'm not sure (2%)

That is why internet polls mean nothing. That is from Fox News ;)

MWHAHAHAHAHAHA, this proves my point!

God Bless Fox News!

I
Love
Fox!

Thanks for proving my point!!

BTW, BTTM you Posted 4 Times in a Row, is that a record? :checks if his edit button works: It works... hmm


Did anyone notice he was called the Religious Judge on TV? I find that intresting that in his courtroom he was able to keep another plaque above where he resides ... WHICH ALSO HAS THE COMMANDMENTS ON THEM!

*sigh*

They moved the statue to his private study, it is his and he Can and Will be able to see it every day.

What was with all the protesting, did people really come to the courthouse just to see the statue? :confused:

Go to a local Temple or Church and you will easily find the text.

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Sorry about the sample size. Telephone interview is considered scientific, because it is random.

Well, that "consideration" would be wrong, because omitting a whole bunch of people who have unlisted phone numbers does not make the study random.

I believe as many as 50% of Californians have their phone numbers unlisted... that's a substantial amount, and would bias any telephone poll. However, I'm not sure how accurate that statistic is and I definitely don't regard it as fact. It's just that a simple oversight like this can greatly skew a poll.

pseudobrit
Aug 28, 2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here are a few interesting things about the country being founded under the notion of God. Might clear up what the founding fathers actually though.

107th CONGRESS...

Oh those busy little beavers in the 107th...

no wonder our economy was/is in the ****ter, what with them worried about trifles such as re-writing (or misinterpreting) history and all.

Priorities anyone?

judith
Aug 28, 2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
the meaning i take from it is: 16% of those taking the poll are correct :-)

This is the second reference you have made to a minority being correct. Get a clue. We live in a society where majority rules! You may not think they are correct, but you are a smaller percentage in sharing that thought! It sucks for all of us who disagree with any situation that is ruled by the majority, but get over it, it's what the majority wants, no body is going to spoon-feed you your hearts content! Sometimes you have to understand that your thoughts/opinions are not the same as most peoples. Whether or not this makes you correct is quite another arguement- Correct in your own mind maybe.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and look-up the words schema/schemata. You might learn something about logical thinking.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by judith
This is the second reference you have made to a minority being correct. Get a clue. We live in a society where majority rules! ...

That of course is the case most of the time. However, we live in a society with constitutional protections for the rights of the minority. The majority doesn't get to vote to remove those protections, no matter how dearly held their convictions. In this case, the First Amendment protection of the Constitution against the establishment of religion makes the will of 77% or 99.999% of the people of Alabama moot.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 09:00 AM
Oh geez, are we having problems with those on the losing side of a poll accepting it as valid again? BTTM weren't you questioning my Zogby poll on the same basis like 3 days ago? I believe the first thing out of your mouth (er fingers) was that you needed to see the question and the detailed poll results? :p I love irony. And all you guys that don't believe the poll because some people have unlisted numbers... come on. Why don't you cry foul at every poll then? Like I've said before, everyone NEEDS to lie to pollsters. It's the only way we'll get politicians to stop basing their positions on which way the wind is blowing.

This is a whole lot of ado about not alot, but it has to be fought because some Christians have shown that they will push and push until they get everything their way. Those of us who aren't Christian would be much less likely to protest this kind of thing if we thought Moore really was only trying to express his sincere faith. He's not. He's ridden this whole "10 Commandments Judge" thing from relative obscurity to Supreme Justice. He has his eye on a Senate run in the near future. This is not about a man with a deep faith in God, it's a politician with an agenda who will owe much to the Christian right if/when he makes it into office. If he believed in displaying the commandments instead of causing a firestorm he would say "Oh, I'm sorry this is so divisive, I'll purchase a small plot across from the courthouse and put the monument there." Or take it into his office, or put it on his lawn or outside his church. I'm sure just about any Protestant church would be ecstatic to have such a nice monument to their faith. The question is, why did Moore put the monument where he did? Was the goal to enlighten and inspire people, or was it to boost his political career?

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
brit, if the Alabama Congress, mandated Christianity as the official religion of the state, then yes, you are right. If a judge legislatated from the bench that such was the case, then yes. You are right. But that is not the case. It is a man, putting up a monument to God in a building. He did not use state funds, nor did the state sanction it. In Alabama, under the state Constitution, an individual can express his faith in any way that they deam, so long as it is not harmful to others in a direct way.

This is the crux of the problem, I think. Moore is not an individual under the law in his capacity as a judge. He is an agent of the government during the day and a private citizen by night. Now just because he installed the monument at night doesn't mean he gets away with it. The point is, Moore is in a different catagory than most of us. If he had put this in his home, and the courts told him to remove it, I would join you in fighting for his rights. He put this in a state building on public property in his capacity as a justice of the court. That's not acceptable. If he was a private business owner and wanted to put the monument in the lobby of his building; again, I am with you that his rights would be violated. He is not a private citizen, and as such has different expectations of conduct in his official position.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 09:23 AM
The fact that he is a judge is irrelevant. The law is clear. CONGRESS shall pass no law. That is the extent. Having a monument is not passing a law. It never will be. It was an individual doing what they thought was right.

I say kudos to him. I am proud of him, and of my state for standing with him. I am ashamed of the judges who have passed judgement passed on the way they would have written the constitution.

As for the poll. The other poll question was hammered by me because they did not even list the sample margin of error correctly.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 09:38 AM
I don't agree with your narrow interpretation of the 1st amendment, but for a second pretend I do. Then how can you argue that the words "under God" should be in the pledge, since that WAS a law congress passed in the '50's to add those words to the pledge?

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
The fact that he is a judge is irrelevant. The law is clear. CONGRESS shall pass no law. That is the extent. Having a monument is not passing a law. It never will be. It was an individual doing what they thought was right.

I say kudos to him. I am proud of him, and of my state for standing with him. I am ashamed of the judges who have passed judgement passed on the way they would have written the constitution.

As for the poll. The other poll question was hammered by me because they did not even list the sample margin of error correctly.

So according to your interpretation of the First Amendment, the President, for example, could use his power in any way he saw fit to promote a certain religion and there would be no problem? B2TM, it seems to me that the distortion of the First Amendment as it has been understood for the entire history of our country, even given that that understanding has evolved, is on your side. Such a narrow interpretation of the establishment clause is counter to the spirit of the founders and certainly counter to the history of the Supreme Court decisions on this question.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
So according to your interpretation of the First Amendment, the President, for example, could use his power in any way he saw fit to promote a certain religion and there would be no problem? B2TM, it seems to me that the distortion of the First Amendment as it has been understood for the entire history of our country, even given that that understanding has evolved, is on your side. Such a narrow interpretation of the establishment clause is counter to the spirit of the founders and certainly counter to the history of the Supreme Court decisions on this question.

Yes, a person can promote a religion. But it cannot be law. The President does promote a religion.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes, a person can promote a religion. But it cannot be law. The President does promote a religion.

So you'd be ok with say, your kids teacher putting a satanic monument in the classroom? How do you feel about madrassas? Is it ok with you that the Saudis fund radical religious schools here that teach people to hate America? If you allow one, you gotta allow them all. That's why I say none. It's much easier and less discriminatory overall. Once you start saying one is ok and the other isn't you're giving state preference to a religion.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
So you'd be ok with say, your kids teacher putting a satanic monument in the classroom? How do you feel about madrassas? Is it ok with you that the Saudis fund radical religious schools here that teach people to hate America? If you allow one, you gotta allow them all. That's why I say none. It's much easier and less discriminatory overall. Once you start saying one is ok and the other isn't you're giving state preference to a religion.

No, you are misconstruding what I am saying. A person can say, God bless America, or God Bless, or thank God. But no, in a school, everything should be seperate. School is school. This is a totally different case.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, you are misconstruding what I am saying. A person can say, God bless America, or God Bless, or thank God. But no, in a school, everything should be seperate. School is school. This is a totally different case.

Oh but a courthouse is somehow different. Give me a break.:rolleyes:

zimv20
Aug 28, 2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by judith
This is the second reference you have made to a minority being correct. Get a clue. We live in a society where majority rules! You may not think they are correct, but you are a smaller percentage in sharing that thought! It sucks for all of us who disagree with any situation that is ruled by the majority, but get over it, it's what the majority wants, no body is going to spoon-feed you your hearts content! Sometimes you have to understand that your thoughts/opinions are not the same as most peoples. Whether or not this makes you correct is quite another arguement- Correct in your own mind maybe.
Why don't you do yourself a favor and look-up the words schema/schemata. You might learn something about logical thinking.

gee, thanks, mom.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh but a courthouse is somehow different. Give me a break.:rolleyes:

No it is a difference. A teacher has the obligation through the state to teach a curriculum. If they taught religion, then it would be state mandated, and that would be illegal. Putting up a monument in the rotundra of a building, no illegal.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No it is a difference. A teacher has the obligation through the state to teach a curriculum. If they taught religion, then it would be state mandated, and that would be illegal. Putting up a monument in the rotundra of a building, no illegal.

Not teaching religion, just a monument to the dark lord in the corner. How is that any different from what Moore did?

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Not teaching religion, just a monument to the dark lord in the corner. How is that any different from what Moore did?

Because of the venu. A school is school. A courthouse is not a place of learning, it is a courthouse. Huge difference man. You are comparing Apples and Dell's ;)

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Because of the venu. A school is school. A courthouse is not a place of learning, it is a courthouse. Huge difference man. You are comparing Apples and Dell's ;)

But I thought people had a right to express their religion anyway they want to? Or does that not include teachers? It's not apples and dells, it's the same thing. It's religion in the public realm. Not ok.

And you still haven't said how you feel about Congress making a law adding "under God" to the pledge.

Maclarny
Aug 28, 2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No it is a difference. A teacher has the obligation through the state to teach a curriculum. If they taught religion, then it would be state mandated, and that would be illegal. Putting up a monument in the rotundra of a building, no illegal.

There is a difference I agree but the fact still remains that it is illegal to have a religious statue in a public building. The Alabama state constitution clearly states that the state shall not endorse any religion and Moore as an employee/representative of the state is bound to that law.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 11:41 AM
The difference between the two is simply splitting hairs.

Yeah there's a difference between two things that aren't exactly identical, but the similairities are plenty to make a connection between them.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yes, a person can promote a religion. But it cannot be law. The President does promote a religion.

Then if the President uses his powers as Commander-in-Chief to mandate that every soldier wear a certain religious symbol - that would be ok? How about Crosses on every government building? It would be within his power as Chief Executive to order it to be done. Except there is this problem that every credible legal scholar would say that it violates the Constitution.

B2TM, we are not talking about a passing referance to the diety by Bush or any other public offical; we are talking about the government promoting one religious view over others by giving its stamp of approval to that religion's symbols. It that isn't a violation of the establishment clause then nothing is. You claim to be a historian, if you are please do some research into the origins of this clause of the Constitution, because my understanding of its history sure doesn't jibe with your interpretation.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
brit, if the Alabama Congress, mandated Christianity as the official religion of the state, then yes, you are right. If a judge legislatated from the bench that such was the case, then yes. You are right. But that is not the case. It is a man, putting up a monument to God in a building. He did not use state funds, nor did the state sanction it. In Alabama, under the state Constitution, an individual can express his faith in any way that they deam, so long as it is not harmful to others in a direct way.

Once again, you are wrong on the facts, wrong on the history and wrong on the law. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cannot be read in a literalist vacuum. This leads you to make erroneous interpretations of its meaning.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 12:20 PM
As a point of order, it might be worth mentioning that the motto "In God We Trust" was first placed on US coinage during the Civil War, but it didn't become standard on all coinage until the 1930s and did not appear on paper currency at all until the 1950s. I don't claim to know what can be concluded by either the presence or absence of this motto on our legal tender over time. But I know know that gradually this motto supplanted the motto previously used on our money, "E Pluribus Unum" (From the many, one), and that this motto has a much more powerful connection with American history, having been taken from the Great Seal of the United States, adopted in 1776.

Personally, I'd like to see it make a come back.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 12:24 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
As a point of order, it might be worth mentioning that the motto "In God We Trust" was first placed on US coinage during the Civil War, but it didn't become standard on all coinage until the 1930s and did not appear on paper currency at all until the 1950s. I don't claim to know what can be concluded by either the presence or absence of this motto on our legal tender over time. But I know know that gradually this motto supplanted the motto previously used on our money, "E Pluribus Unum" (From the many, one), and that this motto has a much more powerful connection with American history, having been taken from the Great Seal of the United States, adopted in 1776.

Personally, I'd like to see it make a come back.

As would I. It's a much more inclusive motto.

Backtothemac
Aug 28, 2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Once again, you are wrong on the facts, wrong on the history and wrong on the law. You seem to have a difficult time understanding that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights cannot be read in a literalist vacuum. This leads you to make erroneous interpretations of its meaning.

Wait. If a judge interprets the constitution in a conservative way and says they are legal to be there, then he is wrong and erroneous, but if the liberal judge agrees with you he is correct?

The Constitution is about interpretation. I just don't agree with the way in which it has occured, especially when you read the quotes that I offered a page or two ago.

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Oh geez, are we having problems with those on the losing side of a poll accepting it as valid again? BTTM weren't you questioning my Zogby poll on the same basis like 3 days ago? I believe the first thing out of your mouth (er fingers) was that you needed to see the question and the detailed poll results? :p I love irony. And all you guys that don't believe the poll because some people have unlisted numbers... come on. Why don't you cry foul at every poll then? Like I've said before, everyone NEEDS to lie to pollsters. It's the only way we'll get politicians to stop basing their positions on which way the wind is blowing.

I don't believe that I ever have quoted any other poll. In another thread I used statistics that were gleaned directly from CIA published facts, not a telephone poll.

If I have ever quoted a poll similar to the one that BTTM quoted, then I will gladly admit I was wrong when I quoted that poll. I simply don't trust polls at all, because there are so many factors that you have to take into account to make a fair poll.

Sayhey
Aug 28, 2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait. If a judge interprets the constitution in a conservative way and says they are legal to be there, then he is wrong and erroneous, but if the liberal judge agrees with you he is correct?

The Constitution is about interpretation. I just don't agree with the way in which it has occured, especially when you read the quotes that I offered a page or two ago.

B2TM,
The quotes you offered only show that those founders in question and Lincoln believed in God. It shows nothing about what they thought of the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State. Start with the letter by Madison I posted and go onto Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists then let's have a discussion about the interpretation of the establishment clause by the Supreme Court over the years. I'll check back after my class and see what you think.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by simX
I don't believe that I ever have quoted any other poll. In another thread I used statistics that were gleaned directly from CIA published facts, not a telephone poll.

If I have ever quoted a poll similar to the one that BTTM quoted, then I will gladly admit I was wrong when I quoted that poll. I simply don't trust polls at all, because there are so many factors that you have to take into account to make a fair poll.

Ok, if you've neve quoted a poll, than you're not included. I'm just constantly amazed at how fast people flip flop on whether to question a poll or not based on whether it agrees with them or not.

Definetly question the polling methods, but they are tools to analyze public sentiments. They will never be perfectly accurate, but they have value.

IJ Reilly
Aug 28, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Wait. If a judge interprets the constitution in a conservative way and says they are legal to be there, then he is wrong and erroneous, but if the liberal judge agrees with you he is correct?

The Constitution is about interpretation. I just don't agree with the way in which it has occured, especially when you read the quotes that I offered a page or two ago.

The federal judge ruled on the basis of established constitutional law precedent. Your interpretation hasn't held any legal water for many decades now.

simX
Aug 28, 2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Ok, if you've neve quoted a poll, than you're not included. I'm just constantly amazed at how fast people flip flop on whether to question a poll or not based on whether it agrees with them or not.

Definetly question the polling methods, but they are tools to analyze public sentiments. They will never be perfectly accurate, but they have value.

If I ever flip-flop on questioning polls, please call me on it. I just think that sometimes confounding factors such as unlisted phone numbers can have a bigger effect on poll statistics than one would initially think. It's entirely possible that most Americans disagree with the ruling, but I still remain dubious. I'd rather debate the actual decision itself, rather than just quoting poll results.

mactastic
Aug 28, 2003, 02:00 PM
Hell, the poll numbers don't even matter. The law is the law. Moore is flouting it, and deserves to be removed from his position for it. If anyone outside the political realm said he thought God's law took precedence over US law, I would be ok with that. But the fact that Moore is a representative of US law means that he needs to recognize that as supreme even to his God, or he is not fit for the position. Otherwise, what's the point of having secular laws if you can just ignore them if you don't like them.

buddha
Aug 29, 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac

=(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.
=

Thomas Jefferson was actually the source of the "wall of seperation" doctrine (which was really only relatively recently endorsed) so I'm not sure I would try to use Jefferson as a proponent of your cause in this particular case.

Taft
Aug 29, 2003, 04:54 PM
First off, the premise of this thread is asinine. WHO CARES WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT ANY SUBJECT?!?!

The opinion of the American people IS NOT LAW. It will never be law and it never should be law. We are NOT a pure democracy, we are a republic. Our system of government was setup to prevent a direct democracy. BTTM, you should know that. This poll is meaningless.

Second, I utterly disagree with you about Moores actions being constitutional. But beyond that, you seem to miss the fact that the presence of this monument in an objective court of law does, in fact, infringe on the rights of the minority in this country. The fact is that people of a religion other than Christianity could feel threatened by this monument or feel that they wouldn't be given a fair trial (or the judge wouldn't hear their case objectively).

Here's a hypothetical for you:

Lets say I'm an employer. I am also a fair employer, meaning that I follow all laws regarding hiring practices, including race. Would it be legal for me to place a monument dedicated to the KKK in my interviewing room? I am a fair and balanced (don't sue me Fox :) ) employer, so whats the harm, right?

Wrong. People coming into the office would feel intimidated and those of another race might feel that I am being discriminatory in my hiring practices, even though I'm not.

This is somewhat analogous to the situation we are dealing with now. This judge is displaying an obvious bias towards Christianity. He says that he believes God grants us our rights and that the Ten Commandments are the basis for our system of law. How would a scientologist feel walking into that courtroom? Would he feel he was receiving a fair trial/judgement?

This is why the separation of church and state has been re-enforced over the years through judicial rulings: to prevent abuse of minorities and ensure the government treats them fairly.

Your assertation that the rights of Moore and Christians are being violated is tenuous at best. How exactly are their rights being violated? Is the government preventing Moore from practicing his religion? Is Christianity outlawed? Nope.

Fact is, Moore is free to practice his religion any way he wants and anywhere he wants. The exception is that Justice Moore cannot use his post to endorse, promote or favor a particular religion. By putting this monument in the courtroom, Justice Moore was promoting his religion with the power of his office.

Whats that, you say? He isn't using his office to advance Christianity? OK, so could I erect a monument dedicated to MY religion in the Alabama supreme court house? I can't? Well, could any of the other Alabama Supreme Court justices erect such a statue? No? Then who has the authority to erect such a monument?

I'll tell you who: the cheif justice. He used his power as a supreme court justice to erect a monument dedicated to HIS religion in a public place. Its a clearcut case of endorsement.

Moore could have used less inflammatory language in promoting the monument, but he didn't. He made it clear that this monument was about religion. This case is very clear. Hence the Supreme Court of Alabama's vote against him. Hence the US Supreme Court refusing to hear his case.

This action ensures that all peoples, whatever their religion, can come into that courtroom without fear that they won't be treated fairly. Moore can erect his monument in his private office and pray there anytime he wants.

This case just makes sense. Its a pity that 77% of Americans don't see that people's rights were being infringed upon by this statue. But, then again, people didn't understand about women's rights or minorities' rights until very recently, as well. Just like in all of those instances, people will eventually come around.

Hopefully there aren't too many oppressed people by the time that happens.

Taft

mischief
Aug 29, 2003, 11:37 PM
I'll keep this short and let you get back to the brawl.;)

The key issue is neither the strict Constutionality of the presence of such a monument, nor the States Rights versus Federal Juristiction issue.

The issue is precident. This is a Judge who deals in Federal Crimes and has installed a massive monument that is very specific in it's ideological preference in the central public room of his courthouse. This monument did not come with a Plaque stating who it was installed by and what their religion is, it was placed in the assumption that those in his juristiction were Christians.

The majority of the camp defending the monument is of the "America is for christians" crowd. I Know that isn't you B... Please don't let yourself be baited into defending that position.

The Constitutional Issue is being forced by this small right-wing camp. We have here not one, but two rabid minorities. The strict "non-denominational-government" camp is being used by the "Christian America" camp to leverage a foothold on precident.

Realistically the Supreme court can have no choice but to rule for the removal or modification of this monument or otherwise be publicly cowed into "favoring" the Christian view.

I see here a tragic abuse of the Constitution by both sides. No good will come of it.

wwworry
Aug 31, 2003, 07:22 PM
Here's another situation:

Let's say that everyone is cool with the 10 comamndments being in the courthouse and in fact everyone admits that the US is a Christian nation. Then we decide that Christian statues should be in all government buildings. Then, in the interest of equality and the lack of evidence there is clammoring for the statues to reflect the many possible skin colors of the historic Jesus. Congress passes a law that statues of Jesus should reflect on a strictly percentage basis the different skin colors of jesus. Then, as Christianity has become the religion of the state, more study reveals that some of the diciples were actually women (this may be true, by the way). Now congress declares that where diciples are pictured soem must be rendered as women.
And equal access to all churches
etc.
etc.
etc.

Do you really want government involved in your religion?
[Post Edited by Moderator. Keep things civil]

Backtothemac
Aug 31, 2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by wwworry


I ask you white chauvinist freaks.

Wow, that was a tad bit uncalled for don't you think? Why stereotype all people that disagree with you like that? I am a native american and I disagree with you. My neighbor is african american and they disagree. The people of the 6th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham disagree with you, and they are ALL african american.

To call someone a name, just because they disagree is really, really wrong. I did it one time in a thread here, without knowing that the word that I was using was offensive, but I was very appologetic, and you too should be over that statement.

zimv20
Aug 31, 2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
I ask you white chauvinist freaks.

i agree w/ bttm -- that statement is uncalled for.

mactastic
Aug 31, 2003, 09:36 PM
Yeah, your post was great right up to that last line.

Sayhey
Aug 31, 2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
I ask you white chauvinist freaks.

I can't figure out where that came from, wwworry?

mcrain
Sep 2, 2003, 11:23 AM
You know BTTM, I have a question for you.

You fully advocated Clinton being impeached for committing purjury on the grounds that if you or I did it, we'd end up in jail, right?

Why aren't you yelling and screaming for Justice Moore's firing, jailing, impeachment or whatever? If you or I ignored a Court Order, wouldn't we be held in contempt and thrown in jail?

Seems that you might be a little blinded by your own politics.

Backtothemac
Sep 2, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
You know BTTM, I have a question for you.

You fully advocated Clinton being impeached for committing purjury on the grounds that if you or I did it, we'd end up in jail, right?

Why aren't you yelling and screaming for Justice Moore's firing, jailing, impeachment or whatever? If you or I ignored a Court Order, wouldn't we be held in contempt and thrown in jail?

Seems that you might be a little blinded by your own politics.

No, no, I think he should be jailed for contempt. But he has the choice as to whether or not he commits contempt. See my point. And yes, I thought that Clinton should have been tried for purjury.

mactastic
Sep 2, 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, no, I think he should be jailed for contempt. But he has the choice as to whether or not he commits contempt. See my point. And yes, I thought that Clinton should have been tried for purjury.

Just because he has the right to make the choice doesn't make the choice right. Clinton had a choice too, didn't make his right either.

bobindashadows
Sep 3, 2003, 12:55 AM
I just breezed over the posts in the past 15 minutes... it's kinda late... I'm just going to sure everybody gets this, (forgive me if it's already been posted):

The 10 Commandments do not endorse a religion.

If you think so, please tell me what religion, I'd love to hear which one, because it's been baffling me for a while.

In my opinion, the 10 commandments represent a philosophy.

As far as I see the 1st Amendment, it says that Congress may not create a law that has anything to do with a religion, not a philosophy.

The 10 Commandments were put there because with Founding Fathers who believed in the 10 Commandments, they happened to structure our nation around their beliefs. While I'm sure they tried as hard as they could, one must wonder how they created the laws of their country without letting their own religious beliefs seep through. Where do our beliefs about morality come from? Where have we gotten the ideas that taking people's things is wrong, that killing people is wrong? That cheating on your spouse is wrong... wait no... not having respect for your spouse is still a great pastime, and encouraged.

zimv20
Sep 3, 2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows

The 10 Commandments do not endorse a religion.

If you think so, please tell me what religion, I'd love to hear which one, because it's been baffling me for a while.


christianity

Sayhey
Sep 3, 2003, 01:29 AM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
I just breezed over the posts in the past 15 minutes... it's kinda late... I'm just going to sure everybody gets this, (forgive me if it's already been posted):

The 10 Commandments do not endorse a religion.

If you think so, please tell me what religion, I'd love to hear which one, because it's been baffling me for a while.

In my opinion, the 10 commandments represent a philosophy.

As far as I see the 1st Amendment, it says that Congress may not create a law that has anything to do with a religion, not a philosophy.

The 10 Commandments were put there because with Founding Fathers who believed in the 10 Commandments, they happened to structure our nation around their beliefs. While I'm sure they tried as hard as they could, one must wonder how they created the laws of their country without letting their own religious beliefs seep through. Where do our beliefs about morality come from? Where have we gotten the ideas that taking people's things is wrong, that killing people is wrong? That cheating on your spouse is wrong... wait no... not having respect for your spouse is still a great pastime, and encouraged.

The Ten Commandments are, according to Jewish and Christian tradition, the word of God given to Moses. The particular version on the monument is the King James version of those Commandments (aka a Protestant version.) The establishment clause of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court decisions since the founding of the US prohibit the promotion of one religious view over another. The statements of the Chief Justice of Alabama clearly show and the action of placing this monument in the rotunda of a government building that the promotion of his religious view is what this was all about.

As to the origins of the ideas concerning the prohibitions against killing, theft, etc. look back at my posts for the Code of Hammurabi as an earlier source of these ideas. No doubt the form in which these ideas come to most folks in the US has been through the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't make them the original source.

bobindashadows
Sep 3, 2003, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
christianity
Wow, I think you missed what I was trying to point out... I was trying point out that Judaism also uses the 10 commandments.

That's interesting, I've never known that it is a direct copy out of the King James Bible, meaning it is endorsing Protestantism. I haven't entirely made up my mind yet, but I do know that I'm sick of judges pushing their political agendas in their decisions. I don't know if that's the case here, I personally think that when he was ordered to take it down, he had to, even if he didn't agree with it, because if we have judges deciding which orders to uphold, then the system seems to break down.

I'd like to ask all the atheists here, or anybody that is "offended" (whatever that's supposed to mean - people get offended way to easily anyway) by "In God We Trust" on currency: I didn't hear you complaining on Christmas when you got paid vacation time for a national holiday called Christmas. Do you refuse to take that paid vacation time in protest of the government sponsoring Christmas? No? Think about that.

IJ Reilly
Sep 3, 2003, 11:14 AM
You really should read back more thoroughly in this thread -- every one of the issues your raise has been debated ad infinitum, and I don't think anyone really wants to start it all over again.

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 11:22 AM
Well I thought about it. And....

Of course not. But I celebrate Solstice rather than Xmas. Coincidentally enough they occur within days of each other (because Christians co-opted pagan holidays;) ) so I don't really have a problem with it.

Were all the Jews offended because they didn't get Chaunnakah off? Were you concerned that Jews would become "offended" by the fact that we don't recognize their holiday too? Or do you even care about that little tidbit?

mcrain
Sep 3, 2003, 11:44 AM
I'm assuming everyone has debated the issue that the 10 Commandments point to a single God, while many religions believe in multiple dieties? I'm also assuming everyone's debated the issue of the term "under God" being directly against the various nature religions that believe that mother Earth is a God.

While all this is interesting, the main thrust of this whole thing is that Jd. Moore knew he was doing something against a long, long line of judicial decisions, knew he was doing something directly intended to advocate his religion, and has at every turn ignored his fellow judges and even the Supreme Court. Not exactly the type of judge I'd want. I want a judge who respects the rule of law, and does not flaunt it just to push his own religious or political agenda.

After this, I don't think Jd. Moore is fit to be a judge.

Backtothemac
Sep 3, 2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by mcrain

After this, I don't think Jd. Moore is fit to be a judge.

I have to agree. He should no longer be a judge, unless the Supreme Court rules in his favor.

mcrain
Sep 3, 2003, 12:27 PM
Speaking of being fit for being a Judge, I find it hilarious that people put so much weight on how a judge might rule in certain cases. If a judicial nominee is asked how he or she would rule, and then is stupid enough to answer, that judge has just given one or both sides in the case actual cause to dismiss that judge for cause for having pre-decided the case without listening to the two sides.

I know that is off topic, but something to think about when you start hearing people talk about how a judge would rule on an issue.

IJ Reilly
Sep 3, 2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I have to agree. He should no longer be a judge, unless the Supreme Court rules in his favor.

The Supreme Court has thus far refused to review this case and that seems unlikely to change ... but nonetheless I don't see what theoretically ruling in his favor does to change Moore's fitness to be a judge. I thought you'd be against activist judges, and I can hardly imagine a judge being more activist then this one.

zimv20
Sep 3, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows

I didn't hear you complaining on Christmas when you got paid vacation time for a national holiday called Christmas. Do you refuse to take that paid vacation time in protest of the government sponsoring Christmas? No? Think about that.

wow, you've just sent me into an existential quandry about my belief system :rolleyes:

fwiw, i'm self-employed and no one pays me for my holidays. besides, since when does taking pay for a holiday indicate endorsement of the tradition behind it? i'm sure some KKK members would love to have a paid MLK day.

Backtothemac
Sep 3, 2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The Supreme Court has thus far refused to review this case and that seems unlikely to change ... but nonetheless I don't see what theoretically ruling in his favor does to change Moore's fitness to be a judge. I thought you'd be against activist judges, and I can hardly imagine a judge being more activist then this one.

Na, they refused to hear the stay of emergency.

bobindashadows
Sep 3, 2003, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
when does taking pay for a holiday indicate endorsement of the tradition behind it? i'm sure some KKK members would love to have a paid MLK day.

Because if you are wiling to fight to get "God" off of currency, then if you aren't willing to fight to eliminate Christmas as a National Holiday, it shows your hypocrisy.

Rezet
Sep 3, 2003, 02:07 PM
Doesn't matter whether you agree with monument being there or not. The key is this. what the judge in AL was doing was wrong. Obeying higher courts is what had to be done in a first place. Otherwise we have anarchy. And courts wouldn't rule otherwise. You allow one monument to slip and right away it opens a window for anything.

mactastic
Sep 3, 2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
Because if you are wiling to fight to get "God" off of currency, then if you aren't willing to fight to eliminate Christmas as a National Holiday, it shows your hypocrisy.

Do you fight equally for all of your causes simultaenously? Sheesh, if I don't fight just as hard to save the whales as I do the turtles am I a hypocrit too?

Rezet
Sep 3, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
No, no, I think he should be jailed for contempt. But he has the choice as to whether or not he commits contempt. See my point. And yes, I thought that Clinton should have been tried for purjury.

He could have resigned first and that wouldn't be a problem. But being still a judge and disobeying higher courts orders... it's simply ridicuolus and inappropriate. I'm all for putting him on trial.

IJ Reilly
Sep 3, 2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Na, they refused to hear the stay of emergency.

Which suggests that the court does not want this case. In any event, you avoided the second half of the question (the important part).

Rezet
Sep 3, 2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows
I just breezed over the posts in the past 15 minutes... it's kinda late... I'm just going to sure everybody gets this, (forgive me if it's already been posted):

The 10 Commandments do not endorse a religion.

If you think so, please tell me what religion, I'd love to hear which one, because it's been baffling me for a while.

In my opinion, the 10 commandments represent a philosophy.

As far as I see the 1st Amendment, it says that Congress may not create a law that has anything to do with a religion, not a philosophy.

The 10 Commandments were put there because with Founding Fathers who believed in the 10 Commandments, they happened to structure our nation around their beliefs. While I'm sure they tried as hard as they could, one must wonder how they created the laws of their country without letting their own religious beliefs seep through. Where do our beliefs about morality come from? Where have we gotten the ideas that taking people's things is wrong, that killing people is wrong? That cheating on your spouse is wrong... wait no... not having respect for your spouse is still a great pastime, and encouraged.

Ahh Please! you are just saying what all those campers infront of the house said. It's quite obvious what religion it encourages. Founding fathers used religion as a tool of controlling people. By telling them what's right and wrong "from gods point of view" would calm people and let them deal easier with oppression and inequality. That is why communists thought religion was unnecessary, although ofcourse they had hidden agenda also, fearing that religious views may contradict with communist views and will cause disobedience...
Listen to make this short, there are certain things that are simply inappropriate in the court house. In this case the guy was encouraging the religion, and you can see it quite obviously from the statements he made (especially when he was yelling at the building). He made it like a shrine in the middle of the court house. ANd many people can find that unnecessary.

It's kind of like If I put posters of naked women on the walls of my court and then when people say it's illegal, I'd be covering by my right to express myself... There are just certain things that have to be private. that is all. Disobeying the court order is another thing, and anyone who thinks that Moore judge was right by ignoring court order is quite ignorant.
And it was quite obvious Moore is the one who is gonna end up being a loser in this case...