Moore is a judge no longer

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Ugg, Nov 13, 2003.

  1. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #1
    Link

    Unrepentant as ever and he seems to have some trick up his sleeve, he's starting to sound like the mirror image of Larry Flynt!
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    alter the course of this country? i can't wait.
     
  3. question fear macrumors 68020

    question fear

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    The "Garden" state
    #3
    this case is...odd. in more ways than one.
    for one thing, the separation of church and state is rightfully in place and has been for a very long time. unless this judge has an amendment to the constitution up his sleeve, hes not getting far.
    further, his actions in both installing and refusing to remove the monument pressed the issue to the point it did. he violated the constitution, and his subsequent objections makes any appeals to his removal from office seem that much more irrational.
    --Carly
     
  4. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #4
    I did not agree that the monument had to be removed, but i do recognize that moore did not follow the higher court decision. I do how ever find it ironic that the supreme court has the 10 comandments displayed in its court room. I dont know if it is hypocritical or what. I have mixed feelings about if the monument was rightfully there or not. Couldnt the state put in muslem and other important documents on a sort of history of law display? Maybe an attempt at an amendment is due? And what article of the constitution did they use to ban the ten comandments?
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Moore will be governor or junior senator from Alabama soon.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    My faith in God is now restored... Moore is a judge no longer!!!! I feel so happy, I'm going to have a party.

    Justice has been done!
     
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #7
    At least you agree that he violated the rules of his office. Regardless of his personal convictions, he refused to stand down, which is unprofessional at best.

    What kind of amendment? If you show 2 religious symbols you can pick the first one? It's either "all" or "none" when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."

    First Amendment. Simple and clearcut violation.

    And, by the way, they did not "ban" the Ten Commandments, they simply barred the display of them in a public building.
     
  8. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #8
    I am not sure the first amendment says that the 10 comandment could not be displayed.

    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..

    Displaying comandments is not passing a law in favor of them. But the issue i have is that could not the very passage you pointed out be used to ensure their display. "the free exercise thereof". This part of the 1st amendment could be used to do just that. The amendment i am in favor of would allow the display of religious articles in public places(all religions). If the public voted in favor or against the issue would be settled on what the constitution meant or did not mean.

    The constitution is a tricky document, it can be read any way one wants to read it. this is a problem.

    I saw we let the people decide in a national amendment vote.
     
  9. Ugg thread starter macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #9
    Ok, my issue is, where in the bible does it say that it is necessary or essential for a christian to display a granite monument of the 10C in a public courthouse.

    My understanding of christianity is that there should be no idols nor should a christian force his religion on other people.

    By taking this issue to such extremes, Moore only has proven that US christian fundamentalism is only interested in furthering its own goals, not christian values.

    I agree with you wholeheartedly but as pb stated, you're not going to be able to find your way around government buildings because they will be so cluttered up with religious idols, icons, bibles, mummies, caskets, dead chickens, that govt. will be essentially hamstrung. Religion has no place in government. It is a private and personal issue that needs to be dealt with in mosques, synagogues, and churches. The US was settled by people who were escaping religious totalitarianism in Europe and yet people like Moore want to recreate it. What is up with that!
     
  10. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #10
    Not to get lost debating the minutiae of this, but the monument had more than just the ten comandments on it. There were other biblical passages on the sides.
    I don't see what the fuss was all about on this one...clearly by putting an unauthorized block of biblical scripture in the courthouse lobby moore was trying to infer a leaning to a particular religion, thereby violating the seperation of church and state.
    The guy is a fundamentalist of the highest order who let his religion (and his stubborness and his pride) get in the way of his duties and I for one am glad that it got him kicked out on the street.
    My message for Roy is if you're that fired up for religion go to seminary and become a priest.
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    Moore said that he was displaying the Ten Commandments monument by way of promoting what he sees as his religion's connection to the law and the nation. He left no doubt that he was challenging church-state separation. This was decidedly not a neutral display, and wasn't intended as such.
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #12
    it does?
     
  13. Frohickey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    PRK
    #13
    Sometimes, you have to stick to your guns and fight for what you believe in...

    Other times, you have to know when to back down...
     
  14. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #14
  15. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #15
    well, how 'bout that. thanks for the link.

    when you'd mentioned it originally, i was picturing something on the order of the alabama monument. i now see that it's reliefs and friezes built into the building (and a door).

    this doesn't concern me nearly as much as the Moore monument. in that case, it was the man himself that worried me. the current Supreme Court justices had nothing to do w/ the placement of the images in their building, afaik.
     
  16. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #16
    The supreme court refused to take the cases regarding the ten comandments. When this issue was in the news originally with moore, many said that if they supreme court took the case and ruled against moore they would have to modify the supreme court house to come into line with their ruling.

    But still it is odd that obvious conections with the 10 comandments is ok for the supreme court of the US, but not ok for the lower courts in the nation. Now that smacks of hypocracy.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    No, it doesn't. Moore was making an explicitly religious statement with his monument, and he did it intentionally.
     
  18. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #18
    This is kind of a long meandering post, please bear with me.

    So what if he is making a religious statement. You dont think that having the 10 comandments in the supreme court and not having them in lower courts, by judicial mandate, is hypocrtical. If the comandments have to be removed from one court then why not all.

    Here is a real mind bender for you all of you guys to think about.

    pseudobrit said this further up the thread.

    "...when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."

    IF athiesm is a religion(some say it is not, I say that it is.) If "none" is the religion of athiesim then can one who believes in "one or some" rather than "none" be outraged at the display of "none" in a court house. The religion of "none" is opressing the religion of "one or some". this is why i think possible all (the "none" the "one" and the "some" religions should be represented.

    More simply if nothing is the religious identifcation of athiests, then couldn't nothing in the courthouse be interpreted as a supportive move in favor in the believers of nothing, the athiests?

    Also someone pointed out before in the thread that the original settlers of the US were escaping religios tyrany in the UK. This was true, but once they got here, if you study early amerian history, you find that they set up their own form of religious tyranny. Look at American money, it says "In god we trust".Their is no seperation, and it says that no where in the constitution.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Link
    As far as the 10 Commandments in the SC, the courts have ruled that historical references, particularly when they are accompanied by other images, are to be left alone, and I agree with them to the extent that I don't want to see a historical building torn down or otherwise modified just to remove the 10 Cs. But as far as money and the pledge go, Congress made laws that allowed those words into those places. I know the establichment clause has been posted here a number of times so I will only quote the intro again...

    "Congress shall make no law...."

    That makes IGWT and UG clearly unconstitutional. One day the courts will have the courage to say so.
     
  20. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #20
    I see what you're grasping at but you're off target. The absense of religion is not automatically an endorsement of atheism.

    Isn't it just a lot simpler to ignore the whole concept of religion when dealing with matters of law?
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    No religion is oppressed in the United States. All are free to worship as they please, as a fundamental right. The Constitutional prohibition is against using the levers of state power to promote any one religion over another. I'm amazed at how often this simple principle is misunderstood.

    The legal history of the establishment clause is extremely complicated, and does not lend itself to neat, clean interpretations. This is why intent is important. The former judge Moore made clear his intent to use the courthouse as an advertisement for his religion. The entanglement was deliberate and brazenly formulated to attack the entire concept of church-state separation. It should be clear to everyone now that some people, even those who sit on the bench, do no believe in church-state separations, and Moore (and his supporters) are of that mind. The Alabama case created Constitutional issues if for no other reason then this is what Moore intended.
     
  22. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #22
    What the religion of atheism opressing the religion of others. If athiesim wants nothing represented in teh building is it not then the government who is bending to the will of atheists. The establishment clause could equally used against athesism. Does no one see this.
     
  23. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    No, the courts don't see that because that is not correct. The courts have specifically said that they will not allow the government or agents of the government to actively promote any religion. The absense of religion is not the same as advocating no religion.
     
  24. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #24
    Right. Another critical fact is frequently missed: It is not the case that all people of faith believe that their religion should be endorsed and promoted by the government. As nearly as I can tell, only Christians have this desire, and then only some of them.
     
  25. jonapete2001 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    #25
    Right and the islamic governments of the middle east do not endorse any religion?

    You are still ignoring the fact that athiests want their beliefs endorsed by the government. The reason it seems like only christians want their religion endorsed is because you live in a country with a huge majority of christians. ALso the 10 comandments is a jewish and christian symbol.
     

Share This Page