Alabama Justice Won't Remove Commandments - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Dude · 08-14-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court said Thursday he will not remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building, defying a federal court order to remove the granite monument.

"I have no intention of removing the monument," Roy Moore said at a news conference. "This I cannot and will not do."

Moore said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) to stop any removal.

His decision came six days before the Aug. 20 deadline for the 5,300-pound monument to be removed from the building's rotunda, where it is in clear sight of visitors coming in the main entrance.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, had said fines of about $5,000 a day would have been imposed against the state if the monument were not removed.

Moore accused Thompson of a "callous disregard for the people of Alabama" and their tax dollars.

In Pennsylvania on Wednesday, a federal appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that allowed a decades-old Ten Commandments plaque to remain on the facade of a courthouse in suburban Philadelphia.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) panel had ruled in June that the 1920 plaque did not constitute an official endorsement of religion because county commissioners who wanted to keep it were motivated by historic preservation. The full court on Wednesday unanimously refused to reconsider that ruling.

Moore made his announcement at the Judicial Building, where supporters cheered his stand.

He noted that Thompson had served notice of the monument removal order to the governor, attorney general and eight Supreme Court associated justices. This is an attempt "to intimidate these state officials," Moore said.

He said the "acknowledgment of almighty god" is the foundation of the country and its legal system and referred to Alabama's motto: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

Moore said he would file his first pleading with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

When elected chief justice three years ago, Moore was already known nationally as the "Ten Commandments judge" for his legal fight to keep a hand-carved Ten Commandments display posted on the wall of his courtroom in Gadsden, where he was a circuit judge.

In office as chief justice, he had the gray granite Ten Commandments monument moved into the judicial building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001, without announcing the event to the public or to the news media. He did inform a Christian television ministry, which filmed the installation and used it on the TV program.

The monument contains two Ten Commandments tablets cut into the top of a large stone about the size of a washing machine. Along the sides are quotes from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and other historical figures and documents concerning the influence of religion on American law.

Moore said he had the monument installed because he believes the Ten Commandments to be the moral foundation of American law.

In October 2001, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Alabama lawyers who said they often had business to attend to inside the judiciary building and were offended by the monument. After a weeklong trial, Thompson ruled last year that the monument was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the state.

Moore had testified during the trial that one reason he became interested in the public display of the Ten Commandments was because of what he called a decline of moral values in America, which he blamed on federal court rulings concerning prayer in school and other issues.

He also contended the federal judge had no authority to tell the state's chief justice to remove the monument.

Moore appealed Thompson's order, but a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against Moore, saying in part that his argument echoed state's rights claims of segregationists such as Alabama's Gov. George C. Wallace in the 1960s.

Moore has said he would appeal for a final ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Several religious groups have scheduled a rally on the Capitol steps for Saturday to protest Thompson's decision. Organizers have said they expect thousands to come to Montgomery from across the country for the rally. Religious groups have also said Christians would kneel in prayer in front of the monument if there is an attempt by Thompson to have it removed.

this guy is acting like the courthouse is his private residence moving things in at night and stuff.

there is no historic value to the monument, since it was smuggled in buy moore at night after he was elected into office.

and secondly, he has defied orders from a federal court. the fed court clearly has jurisdiction cuz this can go back to the 1st ammendment.

2wolves · 08-14-2003, 02:32 PM

So if I, or many of my friends, ever becomes a Federal judge we could put up "Cthulthu Rules!" chunk o' stone and piss on the Constitution?

What is it about religion that makes people lose their ability to reason?

J.T.

sixate · 08-14-2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves
What is it about religion that makes people lose their ability to reason?

I think religious people just take things way too seriously and are offended if someone doesn't believe as they do. Trust me, I know. I've had to deal with it my entire life. As far as I'm concerned, religion is just as bad as crack.

And yes, I obviously think this guy is an asshole and should be tossed in jail.

HamiC · 08-14-2003, 06:08 PM

I think religion can be a wonderful thing for some. It has been a major factor in the development of our country and is arguably the foundation of many of our laws.

Justice Moore is correct about its place in our history and its place in some people's personal lives. It (religion....and the ten commandments) just doesn't belong in the courthouse. He takes a religious view of history instead of a historical view of religion.

In the end, he is hurting two causes (religion and our legal system) that are surely near to his heart. Good intentions.......I suspect........just dead wrong.

j8ear · 08-14-2003, 06:19 PM

I am so on board with this Justice. I know nothing about him, his politics, his rulings, or his history, but I love it when some one takes on a punk ass federal blacked robed mob of psuedo-legislators/judicios.

Can't wait to see what happen's when an armed mob of bible-belters, takes on a small contingent of jack-booted Treasury Agents.

And when the lamb broke open the second seal, the crown vics rolled towards the southern court house to be greeted by....

-b

Kadath · 08-14-2003, 07:23 PM

oh, j8ear, how I miss you when I'm not exposed to you for a length of time.

Markaz · 08-14-2003, 09:12 PM

I heard about this. The guy really needs to take it down. It shouldn't be there in the first place...

Mojo_PeiPei · 08-14-2003, 11:54 PM

Good for him, he's right religion, more importantly the judeo-christian influence are at the heart of the foundation of the country. This is a clear example of quasi-Liberal Facists trying to strip America of all Religion. What is so wrong with the Ten Commandments?

Nizzle · 08-15-2003, 12:08 AM

Nothing is wrong with it, in church, or in your home. It has no place in politics. This has been established. The only people that seem to have a problem with this are the fruitcakes that think everyone else should be Christian, fully missing the fact that part of what America was founded on was religious freedom.

Sledge · 08-15-2003, 12:44 AM

What's wrong with the Ten Commandments? Well, nothing, really. They're good rules to follow. But it seems a little stupid to venerate them above all other ethical standards.

It's not an attack on "all Religion." Christians, Jews, Muslims, and followers of Baha'i could possibly construe it as an attack on their way of life, but America isn't totally comprised of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and followers of Baha'i.

As for the tradition/foundation argument - well, there are times when traditions need to be jettisoned for the sake of progress. See also: women and the right to vote, blacks and the right to vote, interracial marriage, and (still ongoing) homosexual marriage.

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 06:05 AM

aaah, thanks?

Back at ya...

Seriously though. Here is what the constitution says ~exclusively~ as far as religion is concerned. I can not find a single other mention:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's actually in the first ammendment to the Constitution.

To me that says no law can be passed which restricts (insert religious thing here) what-so-ever...

I realize that some where 'separation of church and state' became a familiar mantra, and suspect someone knows where it originated. Please enlighten.

I still thinks this mean that state stays out of church and church does what ever it wants.

I don't understand how it has EVER been interpretted otherwise.

ANY legislation or regulation from the government that SAYS anyone, anywhere, in any circumstance, can OR can't have or do ANY religious thing is unconstitutional.

I am trying to stay away from the merits or dangers of any specific religion. I'm not sure it's all that mundane. I am hoping to take this thread down the path of reasonable consitutional interpretation.

Comments,

-bear

Conclamo Ludus · 08-15-2003, 07:09 AM

They should just put a big wall in front of it with a sign that says "Ten Commandments viewing area, enter at your own risk." That way anybody who could be offended by it would know ahead of time and they wouldn't have to look at it. Problem solved, disaster averted.

archer2371 · 08-15-2003, 07:33 AM

The original phrase of Separation of Church and State came back when Thomas Jefferson was the President. Some Baptists were being persecuted against (in Virginia I believe) and either the local or state government was oppressing them. Now these Baptists wrote to Thomas Jefferson asking to be helped out. Now TJ wrote back a letter saying to the extent that he was for the separation of church and state, but, so as to protect the Church from being harmed by the State. See, the Founding Fathers didn't create the First Amendment to keep Christians, or Jews, or those of other religions from being active participators in politics and law. They did it to stop the creation of a National Church, like England had, because they were for other people practicing their own religions without having to do it secretly while out in the open paying omage to the National Church and it's Government, because that is oppression. Most of you probably know that I am a Christian. I do feel the need to spread my faith, and sometimes I get very passionate about what I speak about and go too far, then I have to calm myself down and think, and use what I deeply and truly know to help my case. Now I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, Nine of them helped to form our country's legal basis, (Thou shalt have no other God before Me, was left out, understandbly, due to our acceptance of people who didn't worship the way that Christians or Jews do.) Perhaps that is what people take offense to, is that particular Commandment. Yet the Judge is still correct in stating that the Judeo-Christian Ethics were the foundation of the legal and political system in America (their ethics, not their respective churches and synagogues). Personally I don't think he's trying to establish a national church, he is merely putting up something that he believes. That the legal system was based upon moral teachings from the Judeo-Christian Ethics. And he's right.

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
The original phrase of Separation of Church and State came back when Thomas Jeff...And he's right.

<-----------enlightened

Nizzle · 08-15-2003, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sledge
there are times when traditions need to be jettisoned for the sake of progress. See also: women and the right to vote, blacks and the right to vote, interracial marriage, and (still ongoing) homosexual marriage.

These same Christian loons don't want blacks and women to vote. Gays marry? They'd rather see them dead.

The ten commandments themself are fine by themselves, but flawed. Tolerance isn't on the list.

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
These same Christian loons don't want blacks and women to vote. Gays marry? They'd rather see them dead.

Which ones are these?

archer2371 · 08-15-2003, 09:07 AM

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa to state that all Christians are racist and sexist and completely anti-gay is unfair and inappropriate. I have no problem with any of those groups, I may disagree with what they say sometimes, but hey, no one agrees on everything, it doesn't mean I don't respect them. I disagree with the gay lifestyle but it doesn't mean I can't have a conversation with them, or even be friends with them. Sure, the Ten Commandments don't say anything about tolerance, but the Bible sure as heck does, remember the Golden Rule "Treat others the way you want to be treated" that's basically a good portion of what Christ teaches.

The_Dude · 08-15-2003, 09:15 AM

i'm sure that y'all are familiar with the lemon test

The Lemon Test
Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if:

It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose.

The practice either promotes or inhibits religion. definately promotes religion aka christianity

Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion. definately again! the guy moved this in the middle of the night notifying only a christian tv station

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
definately promotes religion aka christianity

It does? It promotes christianity? Really? I don't see it.

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
definately again! the guy moved this in the middle of the night notifying only a christian tv station [/B]

Not sure how who was notified plays into it, but personally the only way the government could get involved was by making a rule about it?

No rule, not involved. Rule, involved.

-bear

The_Dude · 08-15-2003, 09:29 AM

well, ten commandments is something that pertains only to christianity (and judaism??).
how would you feel if an insert from the quran was placed there instead?? it's insert is promoting that religion that it came from.

--------

the courthouse is public property. the chief justice shouldnt be able to move stuff in and out of public property without consulting anyone.

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 09:34 AM

Ten commandment's is in the Quran isn't it?

It would depend on what was posted? I'm sure somethings might concern me. I still don't think they would have to come down because the government says so?

-bear

The_Dude · 08-15-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Ten commandment's is in the Quran isn't it?

It would depend on what was posted? I'm sure somethings might concern me. I still don't think they would have to come down because the government says so?

-bear

well, a federal court said so. arent we still a law-based society?

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 10:21 AM

Dude....federal courts are overturned ALL THE TIME.

I think we're supposed to be a law-based society, and by and large are...however, I think everyone has a right to stand up against, and defy laws that are incorrect. In fact I propose that we even have an obligation to do so.

You?

-bear

archer2371 · 08-15-2003, 11:01 AM

Civil Disobedience my friend, a boring as hell book, but still good advice. Federal courts also stated at one time that segregation is lawful and fair, the feds aren't all knowing and they make mistakes. I'm going straight to the Constitution on this one, it does not establish a national church, nor does it restrict the practice of other religions anymore than a cross on a tombstone would, therefore I deem it to be lawful, and therefore able to be continued.

The_Dude · 08-15-2003, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by j8ear
Dude....federal courts are overturned ALL THE TIME.

I think we're supposed to be a law-based society, and by and large are...however, I think everyone has a right to stand up against, and defy laws that are incorrect. In fact I propose that we even have an obligation to do so.

You?

-bear

yes, overturned by a higher court (the supreme court).

but their decisions are not always disobeyed cuz that would just throw the whole system out.

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 11:58 AM

But what about defying the supreme court? They have in their day deemed slavery legal, prevented women from voting, interred americans of Japanese orgins...etc, etc, etc.

Would you be on board with just plain ole defying those rulings? I would. I'd like to think I'd do something about it too.

I don't know Dude...we have an ammendment that so NO restrictions on arms, yet have restrictions on arms. We have one that says you can say whatever you want, of course they're things you can't say, something exists which says the government can't pass laws concerning religion...yet they are all over the place. Where do we draw the line?

This is a Christian founded country. The Christians decided they would also tolerate each and every other religion or lack there-of that this world had to offer. And guess what...I think they have.

How a leap to where we are progressed I can't fathom.

WTF...I realize we are a nation very inconsistent with our own ideals, but it gets kind of rediculous. This is one of those very issues which makes ALL OF OUR Constitutional gaurantees very important. We can challenge the establishment and punish it for violating these gaurantees.

-bear

The_Dude · 08-15-2003, 12:33 PM

well, when was the last time an order of the supreme court as disobeyed? lincoln? (could very well be wrong on that).
well, i continue to rest my faith on the judiciary branch.

j8ear · 08-15-2003, 03:09 PM

I've no clue either...although that being a fact, I thinks it's high time for a new one. Defying that is...

Keep things from getting two stagnant ;-)

-b

TheKak · 08-16-2003, 11:41 AM

My only problem is that Christians feel that they should have more rights than everyone else, which is obviously wrong. If I was a judge and I put up a big stone plaque that said "All hail Satan" you would say it should be removed, but the 10 Commandments shouldnt? It promotes religion, and it does not belong in the court room. Im not saying that the 10 Commandments are a bad thing, they obviously have a good message to put accross, but the courtroom isnt the place to do it.

j8ear · 08-16-2003, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheKak
My only problem is that Christians feel that they should have more rights than everyone else...

Really? Care to back this up?

Quote:

Originally posted by TheKak
If I was a judge and I put up a big stone plaque that said "All hail Satan" you would say it should be removed, but the 10 Commandments shouldnt?

It wouldn't be 'I' or even 'you'...it would be 'US' That's why it wouldn't even go up...because of US.

Do you see the difference? If WE could create an atmosphere where it was acceptable to put up "all hail satan..." well then guess what...UP IT GOES.

AND the only problem I would have would be when the government told us to take it down!

archer2371 · 08-16-2003, 02:54 PM

Actually the last time a Supreme Court ruling was defied was during the internment of the Japanese American citizens during World War II. I don't know, it could be even more recent than that, but that's the first one that comes to mind. Like I keep saying, go back to the Constitution and determine if the judge is violating theses terms (Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion nor the free practices of). Does it establish a National Church?? Last time I checked, we haven't had any decrees like "In private you may be whatever you want, but in public you must pay omage to *insert whatever religion here* and to this Government." Nor does this monument restrict someone from practicing their own religion, last I checked, my Muslim friends are still worshipping Allah, my Jewish friends are still worshipping Yahweh and waiting for the Messiah to come, and my Atheist friends couldn't give a damn. If Satan had something valuable to contribute to a moral legal system (well, we do have lawyers...) then fine, put something up there where Satan supports the freedom of all peoples and a fair and just law system. So why not put up something and say "Hey, this is where we got our ideas for our legal system from, check it out, it's some good stuff, cuz it's obviously worked for the past two hundred years." The Ten Commandments and the Bible are not just religious rhetoric to be thrown at people at random times. They have a basis for a very good legal system, and that's how most of our government came into being. The three branch system comes from the book of Elijah, most of the laws of the Bible are just laws, and those that we figured out won't really work for our time period, we flushed. I see this as mainly showing and giving credit where credit is due on what values our nation was founded upon.

The_Dude · 08-16-2003, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
Actually the last time a Supreme Court ruling was defied was during the internment of the Japanese American citizens during World War II. I don't know, it could be even more recent than that, but that's the first one that comes to mind. Like I keep saying, go back to the Constitution and determine if the judge is violating theses terms (Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion nor the free practices of). Does it establish a National Church?? Last time I checked, we haven't had any decrees like "In private you may be whatever you want, but in public you must pay omage to *insert whatever religion here* and to this Government." Nor does this monument restrict someone from practicing their own religion, last I checked, my Muslim friends are still worshipping Allah, my Jewish friends are still worshipping Yahweh and waiting for the Messiah to come, and my Atheist friends couldn't give a damn. If Satan had something valuable to contribute to a moral legal system (well, we do have lawyers...) then fine, put something up there where Satan supports the freedom of all peoples and a fair and just law system. So why not put up something and say "Hey, this is where we got our ideas for our legal system from, check it out, it's some good stuff, cuz it's obviously worked for the past two hundred years." The Ten Commandments and the Bible are not just religious rhetoric to be thrown at people at random times. They have a basis for a very good legal system, and that's how most of our government came into being. The three branch system comes from the book of Elijah, most of the laws of the Bible are just laws, and those that we figured out won't really work for our time period, we flushed. I see this as mainly showing and giving credit where credit is due on what values our nation was founded upon.

come on..........how many religions do you think forbids killing? adultury? and all that stuff the 10 commandments says?

do we put them up for display in public places?

maybe the 10 commandments had something to do with the laws, but judges today dont refer to the bible to make their decisions.

archer2371 · 08-16-2003, 06:41 PM

And how many of those religions do you think had an extreme effect on the founding of the United States?

The_Dude · 08-16-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by archer2371
And how many of those religions do you think had an extreme effect on the founding of the United States?

ok, the nazi's had an extreme effect on present day germany.

do the germans plaster the swastika everywhere?

whether or not the effect was good will be different depending on whose eyes you are lookin thru.

j8ear · 08-16-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
ok, the nazi's had an extreme effect on present day germany.

You're right. Germany is one of the few countries in the western world (france is another) where ANY mention or symbol of Nazism is banned with severe penalties for even associating with it.

Germany's Nazi past is not a proud one. It is a shameful one. It seems to me it has a profound effect on Germany.

How does this relate to the subject at hand?

-bear

The_Dude · 08-16-2003, 07:47 PM

well, to me the religious involvement in the early days (especially the puritan ones where there was lil tolerance) are shameful.

j8ear · 08-16-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Dude
well, to me the religious involvement in the early days (especially the puritan ones where there was lil tolerance) are shameful.

Ever notice how often you start your posts with "WELL?"

Those puritan days were pre-constitution I believe. I suspect one of the very reasons for the first ammendments' gaurantees.

Conur on shameful.

Any subsequest one's are equally as shameful. Actually even MORE shameful since protection from such activities was gauranteed by constitutional ammendment.

Again, not sure how this relates to the question at hand.

Just to recap:

1st ammendment which says the gov CANNOT get involved in religion, versus...the governement restricting it.

-bear

snicka · 08-17-2003, 03:19 PM

The main irony of this is that the man who is sworn to uphold the law is defying it. Honestly, If you are a judge and you are handed a ruling by a higher court and you defy it, why would you expect any of YOUR rulings to be upheld?

Nizzle · 08-17-2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by snicka
The main irony of this is that the man who is sworn to uphold the law is defying it. Honestly, If you are a judge and you are handed a ruling by a higher court and you defy it, why would you expect any of YOUR rulings to be upheld?

Because Christians think that God is the highest authority, silly. Clearly a mere judge is outranked by the Allmighty.

drawerfixer · 08-17-2003, 04:14 PM

Just posting to add my support to The_Dude. I have absolutely nothing against the Ten Commandments, although I am an athiest. They are very fine 'rules', or whatnot, and ones I tend to follow morally. However, because they are tied with religion, they have no place on our courts, or any federal building for that matter. I honestly can't understand ANY arguments for this justice. Get it out of there.

08-14-2003, 06:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I am so on board with this Justice. I know nothing about him, his politics, his rulings, or his history, but I love it when some one takes on a punk ass federal blacked robed mob of psuedo-legislators/judicios. Can't wait to see what happen's when an armed mob of bible-belters, takes on a small contingent of jack-booted Treasury Agents. And when the lamb broke open the second seal, the crown vics rolled towards the southern court house to be greeted by.... -b __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-14-2003, 07:23 PM	#6 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	oh, j8ear, how I miss you when I'm not exposed to you for a length of time. __________________ it's quiet in here

08-14-2003, 09:12 PM	#7 (permalink)
Markaz Tilted	I heard about this. The guy really needs to take it down. It shouldn't be there in the first place... __________________ Tu madre está muy sabrosa

08-14-2003, 11:54 PM	#8 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Good for him, he's right religion, more importantly the judeo-christian influence are at the heart of the foundation of the country. This is a clear example of quasi-Liberal Facists trying to strip America of all Religion. What is so wrong with the Ten Commandments? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

08-15-2003, 12:08 AM	#9 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Nothing is wrong with it, in church, or in your home. It has no place in politics. This has been established. The only people that seem to have a problem with this are the fruitcakes that think everyone else should be Christian, fully missing the fact that part of what America was founded on was religious freedom. __________________ Nizzle

08-14-2003, 02:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
2wolves Psycho Location: Just outside the D.C. belt	So if I, or many of my friends, ever becomes a Federal judge we could put up "Cthulthu Rules!" chunk o' stone and piss on the Constitution? What is it about religion that makes people lose their ability to reason? J.T.

08-14-2003, 06:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
HamiC Insane Location: USA	I think religion can be a wonderful thing for some. It has been a major factor in the development of our country and is arguably the foundation of many of our laws. Justice Moore is correct about its place in our history and its place in some people's personal lives. It (religion....and the ten commandments) just doesn't belong in the courthouse. He takes a religious view of history instead of a historical view of religion. In the end, he is hurting two causes (religion and our legal system) that are surely near to his heart. Good intentions.......I suspect........just dead wrong.

08-15-2003, 12:44 AM	#10 (permalink)
Sledge Pasture Bedtime	What's wrong with the Ten Commandments? Well, nothing, really. They're good rules to follow. But it seems a little stupid to venerate them above all other ethical standards. It's not an attack on "all Religion." Christians, Jews, Muslims, and followers of Baha'i could possibly construe it as an attack on their way of life, but America isn't totally comprised of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and followers of Baha'i. As for the tradition/foundation argument - well, there are times when traditions need to be jettisoned for the sake of progress. See also: women and the right to vote, blacks and the right to vote, interracial marriage, and (still ongoing) homosexual marriage.

08-15-2003, 06:05 AM	#11 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	aaah, thanks? Back at ya... Seriously though. Here is what the constitution says ~exclusively~ as far as religion is concerned. I can not find a single other mention: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It's actually in the first ammendment to the Constitution. To me that says no law can be passed which restricts (insert religious thing here) what-so-ever... I realize that some where 'separation of church and state' became a familiar mantra, and suspect someone knows where it originated. Please enlighten. I still thinks this mean that state stays out of church and church does what ever it wants. I don't understand how it has EVER been interpretted otherwise. ANY legislation or regulation from the government that SAYS anyone, anywhere, in any circumstance, can OR can't have or do ANY religious thing is unconstitutional. I am trying to stay away from the merits or dangers of any specific religion. I'm not sure it's all that mundane. I am hoping to take this thread down the path of reasonable consitutional interpretation. Comments, -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission. Last edited by j8ear; 08-15-2003 at 06:36 AM..

08-15-2003, 07:09 AM	#12 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	They should just put a big wall in front of it with a sign that says "Ten Commandments viewing area, enter at your own risk." That way anybody who could be offended by it would know ahead of time and they wouldn't have to look at it. Problem solved, disaster averted. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

08-15-2003, 07:33 AM	#13 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	The original phrase of Separation of Church and State came back when Thomas Jefferson was the President. Some Baptists were being persecuted against (in Virginia I believe) and either the local or state government was oppressing them. Now these Baptists wrote to Thomas Jefferson asking to be helped out. Now TJ wrote back a letter saying to the extent that he was for the separation of church and state, but, so as to protect the Church from being harmed by the State. See, the Founding Fathers didn't create the First Amendment to keep Christians, or Jews, or those of other religions from being active participators in politics and law. They did it to stop the creation of a National Church, like England had, because they were for other people practicing their own religions without having to do it secretly while out in the open paying omage to the National Church and it's Government, because that is oppression. Most of you probably know that I am a Christian. I do feel the need to spread my faith, and sometimes I get very passionate about what I speak about and go too far, then I have to calm myself down and think, and use what I deeply and truly know to help my case. Now I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, Nine of them helped to form our country's legal basis, (Thou shalt have no other God before Me, was left out, understandbly, due to our acceptance of people who didn't worship the way that Christians or Jews do.) Perhaps that is what people take offense to, is that particular Commandment. Yet the Judge is still correct in stating that the Judeo-Christian Ethics were the foundation of the legal and political system in America (their ethics, not their respective churches and synagogues). Personally I don't think he's trying to establish a national church, he is merely putting up something that he believes. That the legal system was based upon moral teachings from the Judeo-Christian Ethics. And he's right. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-15-2003, 09:07 AM	#17 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa to state that all Christians are racist and sexist and completely anti-gay is unfair and inappropriate. I have no problem with any of those groups, I may disagree with what they say sometimes, but hey, no one agrees on everything, it doesn't mean I don't respect them. I disagree with the gay lifestyle but it doesn't mean I can't have a conversation with them, or even be friends with them. Sure, the Ten Commandments don't say anything about tolerance, but the Bible sure as heck does, remember the Golden Rule "Treat others the way you want to be treated" that's basically a good portion of what Christ teaches. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-15-2003, 09:15 AM	#18 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	i'm sure that y'all are familiar with the lemon test The Lemon Test Based on the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, the Court will rule a practice unconstitutional if: It lacks any secular purpose. That is, if the practice lacks any non-religious purpose. The practice either promotes or inhibits religion. definately promotes religion aka christianity Or the practice excessively (in the Court's opinion) involves government with a religion. definately again! the guy moved this in the middle of the night notifying only a christian tv station __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-15-2003, 09:29 AM	#20 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	well, ten commandments is something that pertains only to christianity (and judaism??). how would you feel if an insert from the quran was placed there instead?? it's insert is promoting that religion that it came from. -------- the courthouse is public property. the chief justice shouldnt be able to move stuff in and out of public property without consulting anyone. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-15-2003, 09:34 AM	#21 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Ten commandment's is in the Quran isn't it? It would depend on what was posted? I'm sure somethings might concern me. I still don't think they would have to come down because the government says so? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-15-2003, 10:21 AM	#23 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Dude....federal courts are overturned ALL THE TIME. I think we're supposed to be a law-based society, and by and large are...however, I think everyone has a right to stand up against, and defy laws that are incorrect. In fact I propose that we even have an obligation to do so. You? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-15-2003, 11:01 AM	#24 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Civil Disobedience my friend, a boring as hell book, but still good advice. Federal courts also stated at one time that segregation is lawful and fair, the feds aren't all knowing and they make mistakes. I'm going straight to the Constitution on this one, it does not establish a national church, nor does it restrict the practice of other religions anymore than a cross on a tombstone would, therefore I deem it to be lawful, and therefore able to be continued. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-15-2003, 11:58 AM	#26 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	But what about defying the supreme court? They have in their day deemed slavery legal, prevented women from voting, interred americans of Japanese orgins...etc, etc, etc. Would you be on board with just plain ole defying those rulings? I would. I'd like to think I'd do something about it too. I don't know Dude...we have an ammendment that so NO restrictions on arms, yet have restrictions on arms. We have one that says you can say whatever you want, of course they're things you can't say, something exists which says the government can't pass laws concerning religion...yet they are all over the place. Where do we draw the line? This is a Christian founded country. The Christians decided they would also tolerate each and every other religion or lack there-of that this world had to offer. And guess what...I think they have. How a leap to where we are progressed I can't fathom. WTF...I realize we are a nation very inconsistent with our own ideals, but it gets kind of rediculous. This is one of those very issues which makes ALL OF OUR Constitutional gaurantees very important. We can challenge the establishment and punish it for violating these gaurantees. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-15-2003, 12:33 PM	#27 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	well, when was the last time an order of the supreme court as disobeyed? lincoln? (could very well be wrong on that). well, i continue to rest my faith on the judiciary branch. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-15-2003, 03:09 PM	#28 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	I've no clue either...although that being a fact, I thinks it's high time for a new one. Defying that is... Keep things from getting two stagnant ;-) -b __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

08-16-2003, 11:41 AM	#29 (permalink)
TheKak Insane Location: Virginia	My only problem is that Christians feel that they should have more rights than everyone else, which is obviously wrong. If I was a judge and I put up a big stone plaque that said "All hail Satan" you would say it should be removed, but the 10 Commandments shouldnt? It promotes religion, and it does not belong in the court room. Im not saying that the 10 Commandments are a bad thing, they obviously have a good message to put accross, but the courtroom isnt the place to do it. __________________ Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

08-16-2003, 02:54 PM	#31 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	Actually the last time a Supreme Court ruling was defied was during the internment of the Japanese American citizens during World War II. I don't know, it could be even more recent than that, but that's the first one that comes to mind. Like I keep saying, go back to the Constitution and determine if the judge is violating theses terms (Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion nor the free practices of). Does it establish a National Church?? Last time I checked, we haven't had any decrees like "In private you may be whatever you want, but in public you must pay omage to insert whatever religion here and to this Government." Nor does this monument restrict someone from practicing their own religion, last I checked, my Muslim friends are still worshipping Allah, my Jewish friends are still worshipping Yahweh and waiting for the Messiah to come, and my Atheist friends couldn't give a damn. If Satan had something valuable to contribute to a moral legal system (well, we do have lawyers...) then fine, put something up there where Satan supports the freedom of all peoples and a fair and just law system. So why not put up something and say "Hey, this is where we got our ideas for our legal system from, check it out, it's some good stuff, cuz it's obviously worked for the past two hundred years." The Ten Commandments and the Bible are not just religious rhetoric to be thrown at people at random times. They have a basis for a very good legal system, and that's how most of our government came into being. The three branch system comes from the book of Elijah, most of the laws of the Bible are just laws, and those that we figured out won't really work for our time period, we flushed. I see this as mainly showing and giving credit where credit is due on what values our nation was founded upon. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-16-2003, 06:41 PM	#33 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	And how many of those religions do you think had an extreme effect on the founding of the United States? __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

08-16-2003, 07:47 PM	#36 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	well, to me the religious involvement in the early days (especially the puritan ones where there was lil tolerance) are shameful. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-17-2003, 03:19 PM	#38 (permalink)
snicka Crazy	The main irony of this is that the man who is sworn to uphold the law is defying it. Honestly, If you are a judge and you are handed a ruling by a higher court and you defy it, why would you expect any of YOUR rulings to be upheld?

08-17-2003, 04:14 PM	#40 (permalink)
drawerfixer Stonerific Location: Colorado	Just posting to add my support to The_Dude. I have absolutely nothing against the Ten Commandments, although I am an athiest. They are very fine 'rules', or whatnot, and ones I tend to follow morally. However, because they are tied with religion, they have no place on our courts, or any federal building for that matter. I honestly can't understand ANY arguments for this justice. Get it out of there. __________________ They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin