The Ten Commandments in Alabama. Your thoughts?

[wonderfly]

As reccomended in another thread, I started up a new thread to deal with this topic alone, (to keep the other thread from getting off topic and because I feel this topic deserves it's own thread).

Anyway, what do you think of that Ten Commandments monument in Alabama? A judge put the monument in the courthouse, and a federal judge decided it amounted to an endorsement of religion. This is turning into a classic showdown between the religious and the secularists.

Here's the latest news on it from MSNBC:

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 28 — Supporters of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore filed a new federal lawsuit Thursday asking that a monument of the Ten Commandments be returned to the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building, alleging that Moore’s eight associate justices showed hostility to religion and discriminated against Christians by removing the monument.

THE LAWSUIT, filed in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, was assigned to Judge Myron Thompson, whose order last year to remove the monument was carried out by the associate justices earlier this week.
Thompson ordered the state attorney general’s office to respond by Friday.
Brian Chavez-Ochoa, an attorney for the two local residents who filed the new lawsuit, acknowledged that Thompson might dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that it the issue had already been decided. But he said that because it was filed by different plaintiffs, it should be considered a separate action even though it covered the same ground.
A decision on whether to allow the lawsuit was expected Tuesday.
Chavez-Ochoa promised supporters that he would appeal any dismissal, but he said he was confident that Thompson, who found that displaying the monument violated the constitutional separation of church and state, could rule fairly.

MASS RALLIES PLANNED
The 5,280-pound monument remained in the state Judicial Building despite being wheeled from the rotunda Wednesday to comply with Thompson’s earlier order. Building manager Graham George said it was in “a private storage area,” declining to elaborate or say if the public would be able to see it.
Moore, who installed the monument in the middle of the night two years ago, made no public appearances Thursday, but he said in a statement: “It is a sad day in our country when the moral foundation of our laws and the acknowledgment of God has to be hidden from public view to appease a federal judge.”
Scores of supporters who have kept a weeklong vigil outside the building were dismayed when the granite monument was lifted from its site and rolled by a work crew to a back room.
“This is not the last battle,” said Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. “There are many more to come.”
Supporters hoped a visit by the Rev. James Dobson, whose daily radio show is broadcast in 15 languages in 116 countries, would help maintain the momentum they have built over the past week.
“The issue in Alabama is not simply about a 5,300-pound monument depicting the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse,” said Dobson, who spoke Thursday afternoon at a rally. “The larger issue is that the unelected, unaccountable judiciary, who are appointed for life, have become so powerful.”
Moore was originally expected to speak at the rally, but he decided not to attend, saying he did not want people to make the fight about him rather than about the public acknowledgment of God that the monument in the rotunda represented.
Supporters scheduled what they called a mass rally for 7:30 Thursday night at the Judicial Building and said they would hold similar rallies every night through at least Sunday. Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes was to keynote Thursday night’s rally.
“You have seen a movement here,” Chavez-Ochoa said. “It is a movement of the spirit of holy God.”
Thompson’s ruling said the marker could be in a private place in the building but not the highly visible site in the rotunda directly across from the entrance.
“This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law and respect for religious diversity,” the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said this week. “Perhaps Roy Moore will soon leave the bench and move into the pulpit, which he seems better suited for.”
Attorney General Bill Pryor, who would not give details on where the monument would remain, said Wednesday that he thought the state had met the requirements of the court order.
Moore was suspended by a judicial ethics panel when he refused to obey Thompson’s order. Under the threat of $5,000 daily fines on the state, the eight associate Supreme Court justices ordered the monument removed.
Mississippi’s Democratic governor, Ronnie Musgrove, and his Republican opponent, former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour, both said Thursday that they wanted to install the monument in Mississippi if it could not remain in Alabama.
Musgrove said he would display it in the capitol building for a week and hoped that other states would do the same. Barbour said he would put it in the governor’s mansion.

JUDGE BEING PROSECUTED
Pryor defended their action and is overseeing the prosecution of Moore on the ethics charge, which will be heard before the seven-member Court of the Judiciary, which has the power to discipline and remove judges. Moore has not filed his response to the charges, but he has said he did nothing more than obey his oath of office.
Moore contends that the federal judge has no authority to tell Alabama’s chief justice to remove the monument.
Protesters turned their attention to Washington. The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the Washington-based National Clergy Council, said his organization was pushing federal legislation to protect public displays of the Ten Commandments. Mahoney called on President Bush to speak out on the case.
Asked about the president’s view of the controversy, White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said: “It is important that we respect our laws and our courts. In some instances, the courts have ruled that the posting of Ten Commandments is OK. In other circumstances, they have ruled that it’s not OK. In either case, there is always opportunity for appeal of courts’ decisions.”

[RKillian]

The campaign to remove this inoffensive monument is being run by some worthless busybodies who have nothing productive to do with their time. Instead, they've chosen to get media attention by crusading against a random scapegoat in order to feel good about themselves. More interested about looking good on TV than solving any of the real challenges facing America. PC liberal defined if you ask me.

[Tienshin]

I'm not a practicing Christian but I found this whole contoversy to be a complete waste of time. I read in Gregg Easterbrook's Tuesday Morning Quarterback column (the only Brookings Scholar to write a pro football column for a major media outlet) the following, which I found interesting. The snippet is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think his overall arguments hold water:

____________________________________________________________



Judge Roy Moore, the publicity-seeker who put the 2.5-ton Ten Commandments in the Alabama state courthouse, declared Monday that he could disobey the direct order of a federal judge because "judges do not make laws, they interpret them." Since, Moore continued, an interpretation can be wrong, therefore he may defy a judicial order. So presumably Judge Moore also thinks that if he sentences a man to prison, the man can declare that the interpretation might be wrong and walk free? It's exactly the same logic.

Thou shalt worship Bear Bryant ...

Moore further said that the First Amendment precept, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," does not apply to him because "I am not Congress." Drag this incompetent lunatic out of the court quickly, please. Anyone with entry-level knowledge of Constitutional law knows that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to state governments; that a 1937 Supreme Court decision specifically declared that the First Amendment binds state officials like Judge Moore.

As a church-going Christian -- TMQ (Edit: The author of this article) was in this church on Sunday -- I find it deeply embarrassing when Christianity is associated, in the public eye, with hucksters like Moore. I find it embarrassing, too, when Christians supporting Moore's hunk of stone suggest that a big object in a public square is what matters, rather than the power of God's message itself. Anyone who needs to look at a big object in order to believe, doesn't really believe.

And consider that in the same state, Alabama, where the Judge Moore sideshow is getting nonstop media attention, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is risking his political neck to campaign for tax-law changes that would increase taxes on the well-off while exempting everyone who makes less than $17,000 annually. Gov. Riley phrases the campaign in religious terms, saying, "According to our Christian ethics, we're supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor." How come this pure and admirable Christian sentiment gets no media attention while the egomaniac with the hunk of stone in the same state's courthouse enjoys round-the-clock coverage?

[supermonkey]

'Moore further said that the First Amendment precept, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," does not apply to him because "I am not Congress."'



Wow Moore is a nut. He's so clueless it's funny.

[Stewie]

The monument shouldn't be there.
Not because it is offensive, or states something which any reasonable person disagrees with, but because it is a government building. A court of law.
Having monument to the Ten Commandments implies that the government supports one religion of another. It should not be that way.
If this guy wants to have the Commandments on the wall in his office or on his desk that is fine. But not in the lobby.
No one (except kooks) is saying that the Commandments are bad. Just that they shouldn't be endorsed by the federal government.

Besides, only 2 of the Commandments are actually law in this country. (Thank you Bill Maher)

And the fight to have the monument removed is not about attention-grabbing or run by busybodies with nothing to do (is that an oxymoron?). There's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. Even if it is seen as a "liberal" cause.

And we could devote a thread to the comment about "PC liberal" but shouldn't bother to.

[RKillian]

Having monument to the Ten Commandments implies that the government supports one religion of another.

No, it doesn't. Liberals like to lead the people into believing that everyone else is leading them around. If only people would wake up and realize that they're as self-serving and closed-minded as the conservatives they rail against.


If this guy wants to have the Commandments on the wall in his office or on his desk that is fine.

Give it a few years and some attention-seeking moron will complain about that too.


And the fight to have the monument removed is not about attention-grabbing or run by busybodies with nothing to do (is that an oxymoron?).

Yes it is. Just like the retard who crusaded against soccer in Hawaii, the retard misreading the rating on FLCL, and the retards who went on Iraqi TV to denounce Bush as a fascist. And, no, that's not an oxymoron.


There's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. Even if it is seen as a "liberal" cause.

We all know this is a publicity stunt.

Let's slant this another way. Abortion clinic bombers are standing up for what they believe in. Yet they're ridiculed and imprisoned every day. Explain that without diverting us to the cliche of two wrongs not making a right.

The liberal cause wants to destroy anything standing in the way of their "do what feels good" mantra, whether or not such destruction has adverse effects on society. Christianity just happens to be the "in" target lately.


And we could devote a thread to the comment about "PC liberal" but shouldn't bother to.

Go right ahead. I could use some entertainment.

[Psilon]

liberal != militant atheist

When you mean liberal, do you mean socially liberal?
There are militant atheists who fall on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Tienshin]

liberal != militant atheist

When you mean liberal, do you mean socially liberal?
There are militant atheists who fall on both sides of the political spectrum.

I like you Psilon...you are officially the Resident "Bringer of Common Sense"

And you are absolutely correct, people toss around "liberal" and "conservative" (left or right) like they are actually making a point. The fact is mass media flamebaiting is nothing more than an attempt to draw ratings, newspaper sales, etc. Meanwhile the folks working the trenches in the political middle ground get overlooked.

[The Detective]

The Supreme Court has several monuments of the Ten Commandments as well as other Biblical related items. I believe they open with prayer as well. Guess the liberals better get busy.

The founding fathers, wrote that ammendment to prevent what had happened in England. The State creating a ruling church or religion that all must serve. The majority of them were christians. I fail to see how The Ten Cammandments serve as a endorsement. Only an acknowledgement of the tradition of law and the first lawgiver.

[AF$]

The campaign to remove this inoffensive monument is being run by some worthless busybodies who have nothing productive to do with their time. Instead, they've chosen to get media attention by crusading against a random scapegoat in order to feel good about themselves.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. I think if people stepped back for just a second sometimes to see what they are doing they would be surprised. I don't understand what there is to gain from removing the monument. Will the goverment building suddenly become neutral? Will the janitor have more floor space to clean? Honestly people...

[Tanooki]

ok. i come from a Catholic and governmental stand-point

i think the monument shouldn't have been in the court building. we need to separate church and state according to the law. i personally don't see any harm in mixing the two, but law is law

now, if the monument was placed outside the courthouse on public property...nothing wrong with it ;)

Falcon

[Slash Tompson]

I dont see what the big dealis. They're not actually endorsing it. They're not saying "Okay, from this point on, anyone who cheats on their spouses will be stoned....to death!! And anyone who doesn't follow the way of Moses.... stoned." Its a monument not a law. Fo rit to be illegal the state would have to declare that it is a christian state. And it hasn't So they still judge fairly.

[William C. Maune]

In this case though it isn't just a simple monument. The Supreme Court may have small inscriptions of the Ten Commandments in places along with other historical records of the legal system, but they are small. This on the other hand is a freakin' 5,000 pound huge chunk of rock in the middle of the courthouse where it is guaranteed to be seen by everyone. Unlike other cases, this is much more likely to give the impression of an endorsement of Christianity.

The other main problem with this is Moore's intention in placing the monument. He isn't just doing this for historical significance. He campaigned as the Ten Commandments judge and he has used every opportunity to promote them. Moore wants the monument to be a public acknowledgement of god and he wants the Ten Commandments there so it can be seen as the moral basis of the law. This looks to me to be a definite endorsement of religion.

The vast majority of folks may be Christian, but that does not mean everyone is. Just because the majority has Christian values does not mean that everyone should be forced to live by Christian values. The government and the courts should operate using a system that isn't based on any one religion and is thus equal for everybody.

The founding fathers may have been Christians, but they certainly went out of their way to never once mention any specific religion in the Constitution.

[Stewie]

No, it doesn't. Liberals like to lead the people into believing that everyone else is leading them around. If only people would wake up and realize that they're as self-serving and closed-minded as the conservatives they rail against. If the monument doesn't imply that for you fine, but it does for me (and other people) and we're not all nuts. The importance of the monument to those of us supporting it's removal is not what is actually written on the stone, but what it's position in a government building (a federal courthouse no less) symbolizes.


Give it a few years and some attention-seeking moron will complain about that too.
I agree, that person would be a moron. Or at least, taking the argument too far. A reasonable person can see the difference between a small object placed on the wall or desk in a private office and a big rock in the middle of the lobby for all to see.
The fact that someone would complain about a plaque on the wall doesn't make the complaint about the monument in the lobby less valid.


Yes it is. Just like the retard who crusaded against soccer in Hawaii, the retard misreading the rating on FLCL, and the retards who went on Iraqi TV to denounce Bush as a fascist. And, no, that's not an oxymoron. Just because you say that it is all about getting attention doesn't make it that way. I'm against the monument being there but not so I can get attention. "Liberal" causes are not automatically about getting attention any more than any other cause.
I am not familiar with those cases you cited so I respond to them directly. Except to say that to many people around the world, Bush is a fascist. By some definitions he is a fascist. But then so is every other American president (at least since Teddy Roosevelt). We don't need to get into that argument now. I'm not a Bush supporter, but I'm not about to go on TV saying he's a fascist.
("Busybody with nothing to do". It just strikes me as an odd phrase. Forget it. Also, I think it's impolite to refer to people as "retards". Even if they are complete idiots.)


We all know this is a publicity stunt. No, we don't. You can pretend that I'm hiding from the fact that this is a publicity stunt, but I'm not and neither is anyone else because it is not a fact. It is your belief.


Let's slant this another way. Abortion clinic bombers are standing up for what they believe in. Yet they're ridiculed and imprisoned every day. Explain that without diverting us to the cliche of two wrongs not making a right. No one arguing against the monument has killed anyone over it. I don't have any problem with anti-abortionists protesting, voting, writing letters, etc. Those things are all legal. The problem with abortion clinic bombers is not what they fight for, but the manner in which they fight. If they didn't blow things up I could almost support them.
(And there is nothing wrong with the idea that "two wrongs don't make a right" but I get your point.)


The liberal cause wants to destroy anything standing in the way of their "do what feels good" mantra, whether or not such destruction has adverse effects on society. Christianity just happens to be the "in" target lately. I think that statement is wrong in many many ways. The reasonable people (I keep saying "reasonable people" because there are extremists on all sides and I don't want to speak for the kooks.) aren't doing this because it "feels good". It's what we believe is best for our country. I happen to think that keeping the monument out of the courthouse would be good for the country, not just me and my hippie friends.
I am probably an atheist, but I don't have any problem Christianity (or any other religion). I just don't want it supported by the government.


Go right ahead. I could use some entertainment. I don't know what you mean to imply by saying that (or I do but don't want to talk about it). Let's just forget it.

Let's be clear on one thing. This is not an attack on Christianity, God, The Ten Commandments or religion. None of the reasonable people involved in this want the monument removed because they dislike Christianity. It is because of the message it sends about our country, the government that runs it, and the body that interprets our laws.
No one (again, no one reasonable) is afraid that the next step will be for adulterers to be stoned. That's not the issue. The issue is whether we want to allow the placement of a monument that some of us believe is symbolic of the government endorsing a specific religion. (Some of that response is directed more at what Slash Thompson said.)

(This post is so long, I'm going to spend all day rewording and editing the typos.)

[Lucky Bob]

I'm just going to add to what many have said. This is an absurd lawsuit that is being pushed by a group of zealous leftists (the ACLU) to use judicial power to usurp the will of the American people. The founding fathers did not want an establishment of a state religion, but they also did not want government to totally absolve itself from acknowledgement of God. The one exception to this was Thomas Jefferson, who didn't even proclaim days of thanksgiving for fear of establishing a religion. However, his contemporaries did, including James Madison, who was the author of the Constitution itself.

(EDIT: Clarifying Madison's position on the Bill of Rights) Madison originally opposed the Bill of Rights, feeling that the original Constitution limited itself well enough. However, when public opinion for ratification showed that the states would not accept the proposed Constitution without the Bill of Rights, Madison switched his position. He subsequently offered his draft for the proposed First Amendment:


The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.

While this draft never made it as the First Amendment in this wording, the idea was still preserved in its final form. Thus, we can glean from this that the idea of the First Amendment among Madison and his colleagues was originally to stop one single religion from being established as the state religion.

Jefferson, on the other hand, had no part in the writing of the Constitution at all. Thus, it is erronious to claim that all of the founding fathers would support the removal of this monument based on one little letter by Jefferson. His convictions were his alone.

To sum up, I'm gonna beat wonderfly to the punch and post an excellent summary made by Bill O'Reilly last night. Some would disagree, but like Bill, it's something that I see happening every day, as well.



Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

What is really behind the Ten Commandments controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers (search) wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities. They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces.

And that's The Memo.

[Stewie]

Oy. Being on the left is exhausting.

[Joe Mama]

It should've stayed were it was.

[Clayface]

Let me just say that Stewie and William C. Maune pretty much summed up my feelings on the situation. It shouldn't be there, because it implies that the government is supporting one specific religion.

That said, I want to address the Bill O'Reilly statement put up by Lucky Bob. I'd say its a nominee for most ridiculous item of the day, myself.


Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.

What is really behind the Ten Commandments controversy? That's the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo. It's not about the commandments monument in the Alabama hallway. This is about a significant power in this country that does not want any mention or reminder of spirituality in public, period.

On the radio today, a guy called me, named Sean from Virginia, and he admitted it. He said it offended him to hear the word "God". And he didn't care if it were attached to any religion or not. He just didn't want to hear the word.

As much as I tend to agree with Bill on a lot of subjects, I have to say his argument here is one of the weakest I've ever seen. He proclaims to know the "true intentions" of what's behind all this, and his entire pool of evidence is one guy admitted something to him? Great argument. :rolleyes:

I mean, heck, that argument could be put to all sorts of good use in debates all over the country. I know a black guy that thinks affirmative action is good because it "screws whitey". I guess now, based on Bill's logic here, I've got a solid argument for the abolishment of affirmative action all together. Right? I mean, one guy admitted it, so that must be the true intentions of everyone behind affirmative action, right? :rolleyes:

Sorry Bill, but this is making blanket statements and generalizations used to its worst end. To lump the entire argument against the monument into one hidden-agenda conspiracy theory is sad at best, irresponsible at worse.


So that's what this dispute in Alabama is all about. But if you look deeper, there's another reason why people like Sean want to banish God. The secularists in America have an agenda. They want total personal freedom. That means no judgments about anyone's behavior. They want legalized drugs, gay marriage, soft criminal penalties, and rehabilitation in prisons instead of punishment.

Really? That's funny. I guess I never knew that about myself. I'd consider myself a secularist, yet I don't want drugs legalized, I want harder criminal punishments, and I want both rehabilitation AND punishment in prisons. But, hey, what do I know, Bill's most certainly more knowledgeable about what every secularist wants. Thank you for teaching me about myself, Bill. :shrug:

See my point here? He's making a lot of blanket statements and assessments, but he's not giving anything to back it up other than speculation based on his political views.


The agenda goes on and on, but the message is that the USA should be a place where all non-criminal conduct is permitted and moral judgments about right and wrong should never be made.

If you take the God factor out of the country, that agenda is easier to impose. But that would lead to social chaos. Last night, I told you about a guy who lit up a marijuana cigarette in front of two young boys at a rock concert. Now I made the idiot put it out, but he didn't want to. And if drugs ever become legalized, he'll be able to blow that pot smoke right in your kids' face. Is that the kind of society you want, where any kind of boorish behavior is acceptable?

Hmm. Again, a very, very weak argument. One thing is not a consequence of the other. I see no hard evidence that the issue of separation of church and state is going to lead to the legalization of any drugs. Its a terrible leap of logic that's trying to prey on people's fears. Its the same one used by small minded people to proclaim legalizing gay marriages is going to lead to legalizing child rape.


In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You?, I prove that the Founding Fathers (search) wanted a spiritual presence in the public arena for a very practical reason. They understood the new government did not have the power to control behavior. They rightly figured that a God-fearing people would behave better than people with no moral boundaries.

Interesting theory. But its also debatable.


So in every debate about the Constitution, God was mentioned. I have all the letters written between [James] Madison and [Thomas] Jefferson in my home library. There's no question those two men, who forged the Constitution, wanted God on the minds of Americans.

Our forefathers also promoted slavery. I guess we should go back to that too? Society evolves and changes, its that simple. What may have been the best intentions back then are not necessarily what's best now.


But now we have powerful judges and politicians who reject the intentions of the framers. And that is what we are seeing in the Ten Commandments debate. Those slabs in Alabama do not establish any religion, nor do they intrude on any sane person's sensibilities. They are simply a reminder that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian philosophy. And the Alabama debate is a reminder that our freedoms and traditions are under assault by secular forces.

I think the comments by Stewie and William C. Maune above already address this issue.

[Lucky Bob]

Let me just say that Stewie pretty much summed up my feelings on the situation. It shouldn't be there, because it implies that the government is supporting one specific religion.


Which one? Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptists, or Judaism? :p

[Clayface]

Which one? Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptists, or Judaism? :p

LOL! Fair enough - I worded that poorly. But you get my meaning. :p ;)

[William C. Maune]

I believe he was refering to Christianity which in a broader scope can be looked at as a specific religion when compared to the other varying religions in the world.

[Clayface]

I believe he was refering to Christianity which in a broader scope can be looked at as a specific religion when compared to the other varying religions in the world.

Yeah, what he said. ;)

[Lucky Bob]

I believe he was refering to Christianity which in a broader scope can be looked at as a specific religion when compared to the other varying religions in the world.

But that was hardly the case in the days of the Founding Fathers. Remember, England during colonial times went through some pretty violent shifts between Catholic and Protestant monarchs. And Quakers weren't looked on too fondly, either. All of these "varying religions" you refer to didn't exist, or barely existed on the continent back in that day. Thus, given the rifts between the different denominations of Christianity, it's hardly fair to lump them all together. The Founders didn't. Jefferson's letter to Danbury was written because the Baptists there felt oppressed by the Congregationalist majority. Thus...

Besides, Judaism claims the 10 Commandments, too. That's hardly a Christian religion. So, who's being established?

[Tienshin]

Besides, Judaism claims the 10 Commandments, too. That's hardly a Christian religion. So, who's being established?

Isn't that an ancilliary point of fact? The crux of the issue has to to do with plain old generic religion and enforcing its separation from the state.

[Lucky Bob]

Isn't that an ancilliary point of fact? The crux of the issue has to to do with plain old generic religion and enforcing its separation from the state.

Not quite. As I stated earlier, the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a single religion. Most of the Founding Fathers didn't see anything wrong with acknowledging God or religion at all, just so long as no single religion was established.

[William C. Maune]

There is a big difference between today and the era of the founding fathers though due to the fact that our country has continued to grow and expand and increase its interaction with to the rest of the world. The differences between the different factions of Christianity back then can be seen as analagous to the differences between varying religions today. It's just that the scale has changed. Just because those other religions weren't around does not mean the founding fathers would not have taken them into account if they were. Finally, Christianity was not the only belief around in the United States at the time due to Native American beliefs.

[Tienshin]

Not quite. As I stated earlier, the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a single religion. Most of the Founding Fathers didn't see anything wrong with acknowledging God or religion at all, just so long as no single religion was established.

Then in that case I would have to agree with William C Maune, in saying that in general Christianity would be the "offending" religion. Including Baptists, Methodists, Congregationalist, Protestants, the whole lot of them.

[Lucky Bob]

There is a big difference between today and the era of the founding fathers though due to the fact that our country has continued to grow and expand and increase its interaction with to the rest of the world. The differences between the different factions of Christianity back then can be seen as analagous to the differences between varying religions today. It's just that the scale has changed. Just because those other religions weren't around does not mean the founding fathers would not have taken them into account if they were. Finally, Christianity was not the only belief around in the United States at the time due to Native American beliefs.

You missed the point, though. The different factions of Christianity were treated as seperate religions. So, for the sake of perspective, we need to include address those as such, not just lump them together. Thus, which faction is being established? And what about the Jews?

[William C. Maune]

They were treated as separate religions at that time because that is about all there was in that part of the world. I would argue that for the sake of perspective we need to look at today's situation, not the situation of 225 years ago. Whereas before not everyone was a Catholic, Protestand, Quaker, etc.; today not everyone is Christian/Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, etc., etc.

[Tienshin]

You missed the point, though. The different factions of Christianity were treated as seperate religions. So, for the sake of perspective, we need to include address those as such, not just lump them together. Thus, which faction is being established? And what about the Jews?

I disagree, the way things were back then have little reflection on today's christian landscape, which I why I thought the whole idea of viewing them separately was a peripheral issue. Sure there are different denominations, but I hardly suspect that in cases such as this anyone cares whether or not the monument in question was establishing one denomination of Christianity over the other.

[Lucky Bob]

They were treated as separate religions at that time because that is about all there was in that part of the world. I would argue that for the sake of perspective we need to look at today's situation, not the situation of 225 years ago. Whereas before not everyone was a Catholic, Protestand, Quaker, etc.; today not everyone is Christian/Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, etc., etc.

Oh, there are still differences, alright. A lot has changed in 225 years, but there are still different denominations of Christianity. In fact, they still consider each other to be seperate religions, in many cases. Thus, it would be erronious to lump them all in together. Especially with Judaism. Are you saying that the introduction of different cultures has merged all of Christianity? And with Judaism, no less? With all due respect, that's quite an absurd claim.

The idea stays the same. The restrictions on government and religion end at the government establishing a single state religion, or prohibiting the free excersize thereof. It hasn't changed in 225 years, despite the claims of activist judiciaries, nor should it just because we have some other cultures around.

[Clayface]

The restrictions on government and religion end at the government establishing a single state religion, or prohibiting the free excersize thereof.

I think you're just playing a semantics game now. If you really want to go that route, the dictionary defines "Christianity" as a religion. So, the umbrella term "christianity" (which includes the multiple denominations) is a name for a religion, and counts in your definition of "a single religion".

[Lucky Bob]

I think you're just playing a semantics game now. If you really want to go that route, the dictionary defines "Christianity" as a religion. So, the umbrella term "christianity" (which includes the multiple denominations) is a name for a religion, and counts in your definition of "a single religion".

And Judaism? Other than lump it with Christianity :rolleyes:, I haven't seen anybody give a good answer for that.

[William C. Maune]

Even under your argument the government would be endorsing multiple religions which still doesn't seem that fair. There is not much difference between "this is the religion, but not those others" and "these are the religions, but not those others."

I am not at all saying that Christianity has become merged as one single religion, but many if not most would still define Christianity as a single religion even if it can be broken down into subreligions. The problem with defining it your way is that Christianity could be broken down into infinite (or at least as many as their are people) different religions if everyone disagreed on something different and named their version something. In that case it would not matter what the government did because they would never be endorsing a single religion under your definition.

[Clayface]

Even under your argument the government would be endorsing multiple religions which still doesn't seem that fair.

Actually, doesn't the amendment say that - that the governemnt can't give preference to one religion over another? So even if you want to consider the Ten Commandments as a vital part of several religions, displaying them in the courthouse is still giving preference to at least one religion (Christianity/Judaism) over another (say, budism).

Does anyone have a link to the actual wording of the amendment? If we're going to play the semantics game, I should refresh myself on what's explicitly said versus what's been interpreted over the years.

[The Detective]

Still though, ONE man, has placed ONE monument in the rotunda of the courthouse. True, the Moore's personal motives may be to glorify God, but his pesrsonal motives aren't what's on display in the courthose rotunda. What is is a monument with the Ten Cammandments on it. If personal motives are taken into account, then stealing to give to a good cause shouldn't be all that bad. What should be taken into account is that one monument to the Ten Cammandents is not the same as establishing a state religion. He's not asking anyone to bow down to it, or forcing everyone to be a christian.

Oh and someone wanted a copy of the amendment in question. My last years text book had them all I'll copy it down later.

[Lucky Bob]

Does anyone have a link to the actual wording of the amendment? If we're going to play the semantics game, I should refresh myself on what's explicitly said versus what's been interpreted over the years.
Amendment I

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

[Clayface]

Still though, ONE man, has placed ONE monument in the rotunda of the courthouse. True, the Moore's personal motives may be to glorify God, but his pesrsonal motives aren't what's on display in the courthose rotunda. What is is a monument with the Ten Cammandments on it. If personal motives are taken into account, then stealing to give to a good cause shouldn't be all that bad. What should be taken into account is that one monument to the Ten Cammandents is not the same as establishing a state religion. He's not asking anyone to bow down to it, or forcing everyone to be a christian.

I think that's a debatable point. Does putting one monument up establish a religion, or declare that the government is endorsing that religion as the only one? Of course not. Is it a step in that direction? I would say: absolutely.

The question is, how far do we let people go. If we open the door for one person to establish one "small" monument that endorses a specific religion, legally we open the door to everyone to do so. In which case, the government establishing a religion doesn't seem that difficult of a task to accomplish, and its suddenly not that far fetched of an idea.

And I do think putting up that monument makes a symbolic statement that can't be denied.


Amendment I

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


OK, so this begs the question: where does it say "a single religion" - the phrase which we've been debating above? It looks to me like it says religion in general, not just a single one. Does the single religion idea come from later interpretations of the law?

[Joe Wagner]

The First Ammendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html) reads:


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.

Basically the Ammendment states that the Congress shall not establish any religion that would be followed by or required the enlistment of all American citizens. In essence this allows for each individual to pick a religion that suits them or pick no religion. However, it does not state that any references to God or a higher deity need be removed from public or governmental areas, currency or other items sanctioned by the United States government.

The placement of the Ten Commandments does not violate the Establishment Clause as it does not sanction a religion as being established as the only religion within the US or the state of Alabama. Rulings such as this may eventually be taken a step further as recent court cases have documened schools that have banned religious groups from meeting on school grounds, suspending a Pennsylvania school teacher for wearing a small crucifix while teaching and threatening the suspension of students that pray quietly to themselves while on school grounds or at a school sanctioned activity.

In the Supreme Court case of Good News Club v. Milford Central School Judge Clarence Thomas ruled that "we cannot say the danger that children would misperceive the endorsement of religion is any greater than the danger that they would perceive a hostility toward the religious viewpoint if the Club were excluded from the public forum." This was in reply to the arguement that the school feared violating the Establishment Clause. The same question though could be raised here - if the Ten Commandments are allowed to be removed from the court house what effect will this have in other areas? Much like the "Under God" line of the pledge the freedom for people to discredit or ignore this line and the structure has not been taken away nor do either of these items proclaim a specific religion. However, by allowing the removal of both of these items the freedom of speech allowed to people that want these items has been severely hampered - yet the freedom of speech has been severely abridged by these rulings, clearly in violation of the First Ammendment. If this is allowed to continue will the city of St. Paul be next as the name clearly represents a Christian saint and therefore there is an established connection between government and religion? Perhaps Los Angeles shall need an immediate name change as 'the City of Angels' would clearly depict a recognition of religious symbols in the form of an angel. With the current barrage of law suits focusing upon religion one wonders how long it will be before we see these types of law suits in the future.

-Joe!

[Stewie]

Everytime I go to respond to something or add something new, I find that Clayface has already said what I was going to (and he usually says it better than I would).
Kudos to you.

[Clayface]

I think Joe Wagner's statement brings up an interesting point. I say that by allowing one monument like this to stay in place, we're taking a step in the direction of a government established religion, because we're legally opening the door for all government employees to plaster the buildings with religious symbols. Joe gives us an example of the other extreme - saying that closing the door on a monument like this closes the door on all, and could lead to the eventual complete abolishment of religious freedoms and expressions.

So, where's the happy middle ground? I'm thinking the problem here is where each of us defines the line that you should not cross. What is the "definition" of a government establishing a religion? Is it only when they've enacted a law telling everyone to follow said religion? I personally don't think so. Small plaques, or religious symbols worn on the body (such as crucifixes) are acceptable displays of personal beliefs. But by putting up large public religious symbols or monuments in government facilities, I think the government is sending a clear message, and stepping over the line.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I kind of have to question whether Justice Moore has read the monument he's installed:


Thou shalt not make for thyself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Thou shalt not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Is Justice Moore somehow placing more importance on an image of the Ten Commandments than the commandments themselves? Muslims read that same commandment and forbid sculpture and representational images in their religious art entirely, for fear that they'll accidentally worship the Image instead of the Concept.

Besides, if the American justice system is truly founded on the 10 Commandments, then let's do this right. Let's make it illegal to work on Sundays (Commandment 3 or 4: Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day), and let's ban nursing homes (Commandment 4 or 5: Honor thy mother and thy father). And let's strike down all our armies and the laws on self-defense (Commandment 5 or 6: Thou shalt not kill). No? Then we're not following the 10 Commandments and we got no business suggesting that its the foundation of the law.

I think way too much importance has been placed on 2.5 tons of rock. For the record, I have no problem with a plaque in your office but plenty with a public monument in a governmental space.

-- Ed/Ace

[Clayface]

Those are some excellent points you bring up there, Ace. And I've gotta agree with what you've said. Nicely put.

[Condiment King]

Well, the Ten Commandments are still in a private place in the Courthouse, so they aren't completely out of there. That's something.

The Ten Commandments and Hammurabi's code are part of the earliest foundation of law we have. Sure, we don't follow it completely in this society because for the most part we have CHANGED. Most societies in early days were more united, or at least publicly united. Hammurabi ruled his society and though he was seen as kind, his law was harsh, and his people were united under it. We are different now and for the most part, we dont' believe exactly the same even if we live under the same religion or culture. We have different variations just like languages have different dialects.

This seems to be more of a crazier look at the seperation of church and state. I think it should be there for those who hold it with value to their lives, yet not make others do so as well, though its not even here for that. Its here for history's sake just like a monument of the Bill of Rights might be in that courthouse. Christianity, as well as other religions have a part in our nation's history that you can't just ignore, even if you don't believe in it.

[Jade_GL]

If we let this one monument to stay up, then I say that we have to put up similar monuments of the Five Precepts of Buddhism (Do not Kill, do not steal, oh and do not imbibe alcohol, that would go over big....) or Hammurabi's Code, or portions of the Law of Manu, which is the basis for Hinduism's code of conduct. We can't show preference to one religion, or a selection of religions (Judaism and Judeo-Christian) even if it is the basis for our laws. Most religions have the same *commandments*, so why is just this one specific set of ten the one that is chosen. Like I commented, the five Precepts of Buddhism are virtually the same and only differ in the no-alcohol portion.

I also find it interesting that this *graven image* seems to be in contrast to one of the commandments itself, as in that the commandments themselves denounce icons and graven images, and yet this monument is getting such attention. That's just something I find interesting. I know, it's *semantics* but it seems contradictory to me.

Anyway, I think that he can have it for himself on his desk, in his home, or even on his underwear, but I find him plunking a monument down in the middle of a courthourse where I could be judged an insult. Not that I don't personally believe that the comandments are a good moral basis for society, but that literally someone else is choosing exactly what morals I should be judged by and by what religious doctrine I should be judged by. It's not so much the commandments, but the step of taking them and putting them there and endorsing that specific set of ten, when other religions have similar laws, codes and whatnot, and yet are not taken into account.

I think that as a growing melting pot, we cannot afford to debate what the founding fathers believed in or what they meant in one tiny word. All of us humans have religions that all have virtually the same codes of conduct, so I say we leave a physical representation out of the equation.

[The Detective]

Howdy,


Besides, if the American justice system is truly founded on the 10 Commandments, then let's do this right. Let's make it illegal to work on Sundays (Commandment 3 or 4: Thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day), and let's ban nursing homes (Commandment 4 or 5: Honor thy mother and thy father). And let's strike down all our armies and the laws on self-defense (Commandment 5 or 6: Thou shalt not kill). No? Then we're not following the 10 Commandments and we got no business suggesting that its the foundation of the law.

-- Ed/Ace

For the record, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mistranslation. Literally it is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

[The Detective]

In this case though it isn't just a simple monument. The Supreme Court may have small inscriptions of the Ten Commandments in places along with other historical records of the legal system, but they are small. This on the other hand is a freakin' 5,000 pound huge chunk of rock in the middle of the courthouse where it is guaranteed to be seen by everyone. Unlike other cases, this is much more likely to give the impression of an endorsement of Christianity.


Um.....so you're saying it's the size that matters? The Ten Cammandments are the Ten Cammandments. If you feel that any monument of inscription of the Ten Cammandments in a Federal Building is a violation of the first ammendment, then what does it matter if it's 5,00 pounds or 5 pounds?

[Drachentöter]

I recognize the Ten Commandments as a symbol of Christianity and Judaism. As for myself, I label myself as an agnostic, meaning I don't place too much stock in religious symbols. I believe strongly in not letting the national government adopt an official religion or endorse one over another.

However, I do not believe that a judge or any judicial system has the right to order the monument gone when it is not offending anyone or causing anyone harm. Was an official complaint even filed before the order was given?

Alabama isn't known for its Islamic or Hindu residents. Why deny the fact that there are Christian influences? The Ten Commandments aren't particularly offensive to non-Christians. I wouldn't find it a problem even if there was a picture of Moses there.

Though I can be called a "leftist" or a "liberal" on many issues, I think this is just a case of going too far with a simple suggestion. It's fine and good that other religions are allowed to be practiced in our country, but I don't see any reason to wipe all traces of Christianity from government, when we all know very well that the founding fathers were Christians themselves.

At the heart of it, this conflict is ridiculous.

[Psycho Fox]

For the record, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a mistranslation. Literally it is, "Thou Shalt Not Murder."So, war is just state organized murder.

[The Detective]

I recognize the Ten Commandments as a symbol of Christianity and Judaism. As for myself, I label myself as an agnostic, meaning I don't place too much stock in religious symbols. I believe strongly in not letting the national government adopt an official religion or endorse one over another.

However, I do not believe that a judge or any judicial system has the right to order the monument gone when it is not offending anyone or causing anyone harm. Was an official complaint even filed before the order was given?

Alabama isn't known for its Islamic or Hindu residents. Why deny the fact that there are Christian influences? The Ten Commandments aren't particularly offensive to non-Christians. I wouldn't find it a problem even if there was a picture of Moses there.

Though I can be called a "leftist" or a "liberal" on many issues, I think this is just a case of going too far with a simple suggestion. It's fine and good that other religions are allowed to be practiced in our country, but I don't see any reason to wipe all traces of Christianity from government, when we all know very well that the founding fathers were Christians themselves.

At the heart of it, this conflict is ridiculous.
AMEN! That very thing is what is bother so man christians. You can't deny that many if not most of the founding fathers with christians and that our country was founded upon christian principles. What is bother so many christians is that now, groups such as the ACLU are attempting to erase that completely. And if this keeps up, it will be erased one day.

[William C. Maune]

"Was an official complaint even filed before the order was given?"

Yes, there was a lawsuit that was filed by three lawyers who do a lot of their work in that courthouse.

"Alabama isn't known for its Islamic or Hindu residents. Why deny the fact that there are Christian influences? The Ten Commandments aren't particularly offensive to non-Christians. I wouldn't find it a problem even if there was a picture of Moses there."

Just because Alabama isn't known for Islamic or Hindu residents doesn't mean that the influences of the majority should be forced upon them.

"Um.....so you're saying it's the size that matters? The Ten Cammandments are the Ten Cammandments. If you feel that any monument of inscription of the Ten Cammandments in a Federal Building is a violation of the first ammendment, then what does it matter if it's 5,00 pounds or 5 pounds?"

Not just size, but location and etc. also. I think there is validity in the argument of placing the Ten Commandments in a historical context. While I have not been there, it has been said that there are much smaller inscriptions of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court along with other historical rules of law. In this case it is the only one present, it is not only placed where everyone will be forced to see it, but its size is such that people cannot miss it. Judge Moore wants people to see it and he doesn't just mean it in a historical context. Instead he wants it to be seen as Christian values as the foundation of our current law.

"Joe gives us an example of the other extreme - saying that closing the door on a monument like this closes the door on all, and could lead to the eventual complete abolishment of religious freedoms and expressions."

In my view you draw the line at the government. Then when it comes to religion anyone can do whatever they want and no one else is forced to participate in any way. The government is the only part of this country that every single person has to be involved with and thus that is where you draw the line.

[Drachentöter]

Yes, there was a lawsuit that was filed by three lawyers who do a lot of their work in that courthouse.

Lawyers, interesting. Is their ethnicity known? If they are muslim or buddhist or something, then I'd give the lawsuit credit, but I can't help but find it suspicious if they turn out to be white and from Christian families.

Is the monument keeping them from their work? Does it pain them to walk by it? I emphasize again that I have little preference for christianity over other religions, but I see this as a case of no harm, no foul.

Just because Alabama isn't known for Islamic or Hindu residents doesn't mean that the influences of the majority should be forced upon them.

Well, nobody is forcing them to follow Christian principles or practices. The monument itself does not have an active role in decision making in the courts. I don't see how the minorities are being oppressed by something the majority feels very strongly about.

In my opinion, democracy is majority rule, as long as it adheres to basic human rights. No human rights are being stripped here, so why go against the majority?

[The Guitar Slayer]

[vows not to get into a debate]

My two cents:

Let it stay put. It isn't telling people to curb-stomp minorities or murder small children. It's positive overall, i.e., it's a good idea not to murder your mailman and vice versa.

[keeps firm grip on Fist of Death regarding people who misinterpret "separation of church and state"]

[Tienshin]

Hey Vortex, can you tweak your post, I glossed over it twice before I realized you weren't just posting a quote of William C Maune's response.

*Run-on sentence alert*

I think the Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear on these types of matters, and the Judge who fought so publically to keep the monument there after installing it in the middle of the night, with no prior permission granted is kinda shady IMO.

[William C. Maune]

"Lawyers, interesting."

I thought someone might mention something along these lines. I just wanted to also note that considering this is a court house we are talking about the only people who would be doing a lot of work there would be lawyers.

"Is their ethnicity known? If they are muslim or buddhist or something, then I'd give the lawsuit credit, but I can't help but find it suspicious if they turn out to be white and from Christian families."

I haven't seen anything regarding this, but even if they are white it doesn't mean they are Christian.

"Is the monument keeping them from their work? Does it pain them to walk by it? I emphasize again that I have little preference for christianity over other religions, but I see this as a case of no harm, no foul."

Physical pain, no, but considering Moore's spoken intentions in placing the monument, I would consider using it to try and force the impression on people that the Ten Commandments specifically are the moral foundations for our current law would be a harm for those who didn't believe so.

"Well, nobody is forcing them to follow Christian principles or practices. The monument itself does not have an active role in decision making in the courts. I don't see how the minorities are being oppressed by something the majority feels very strongly about."

The monument itself can not make decisions, its a piece of rock, but its presence and what it stands for can have an influence, especially considering the words spoken by the man who put it there, Judge Moore. Even if the majority is of one religion, the minority shouldn't be forced to abide by law influenced by the majority's religion.

"In my opinion, democracy is majority rule, as long as it adheres to basic human rights. No human rights are being stripped here, so why go against the majority?"

While democracy definitely is the majority rule, James Madison warned that we must protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. By keeping religion out of the government, everyone remains equal under the law.

[Tienshin]

Willy C...

I wanted to post about the concept of the "tyranny of the majority"! Damn you!

[William C. Maune]

It's all good, please feel free to use it yourself if you want/need to.

[Joe Wagner]

While democracy definitely is the majority rule, James Madison warned that we must protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. By keeping religion out of the government, everyone remains equal under the law.

But is this really the case of a tyranical majority? The 10 Commandments were placed in a public area that allows for an individual to either acknowledge or disregard their presence, no mandate was created stating that any citizen of the state of Alabama had to abide by the laws written into the stone slab, pay homage to the 10 Commandments or in any way alter their lives as a result of their presence in the courthouse. There is a major difference between keeping the government from mandating a national church and attempting to eradicate all ties to a given religion because of the Establishment Clause. Not only would this severely impede upon an individuals ability to practice their religion in a free society but could also cause many questions when coming to other areas of the government. Would elected officials have to publicly renounce a given religion upon being elected as ties between their religion of choice and their power as a legislator may provide favor to a given religion? While the religion of a person running for office is often not a factor in elections the perceived influence the individual may have on the public they represent may offend some voters within their district - much like the arguement in Alabama has stated the appearance of the 10 Commandments in the court house has done. So if the Establishment Clause is to become the seperation of all religion from all governmental ties perhaps the question should be raised about what will be allowed to be shown to the public. Will Church signs placed near a state maintained road be removed for fear of their messages being seen by motorists not of that faith? Will jewelry depicting a crucifix or star of David by eliminated for fear of offending others an individual may teach (as has happened to a teacher in PA) or pass by on the street? At what point does an individuals freedom of speech and freedom of religion become undermined by the nearly impossible task of removing all ties of religion from the government?

These are the concerns that I have when I see court orders removing "Under God" from the Pledge and the 10 Commandments from an Alabama court house. Neither of these items endorsed a national church or religion yet have been ruled against in a gross abuse of the First Amendment.

-Joe!

[Lucky Bob]

I thought someone might mention something along these lines. I just wanted to also note that considering this is a court house we are talking about the only people who would be doing a lot of work there would be lawyers.

And the ACLU is representing them, no less. I also find that interesting.


Physical pain, no, but considering Moore's spoken intentions in placing the monument, I would consider using it to try and force the impression on people that the Ten Commandments specifically are the moral foundations for our current law would be a harm for those who didn't believe so.

Again, what's wrong with acknowledging the Commandments from a historical perspective, if nothing else? I mean, the Supreme Court has a big sculpted mural on the right wall of the inner court itself showing a timeline between the 10 Commandments, and our modern judicial system!


The monument itself can not make decisions, its a piece of rock, but its presence and what it stands for can have an influence, especially considering the words spoken by the man who put it there, Judge Moore. Even if the majority is of one religion, the minority shouldn't be forced to abide by law influenced by the majority's religion.

While democracy definitely is the majority rule, James Madison warned that we must protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. By keeping religion out of the government, everyone remains equal under the law.

So, why should we have to be forced to abide by the agenda that the ACLU is putting forth if we object to it? Oh, sorry, they are an "oppressed minority". We can't hurt their self-esteem. :rolleyes:

As far as I'm concerned, we are headed for a tyranny of the minority, because federal judges are usurping authority over the people and elected officials to rewrite the law. For example, Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg in the Texas Sodomy Law case openly bragged that they had used European and Canadian laws and rulings as a guidline in the ruling of that case. That ought to send up warning flags. Whatever happened to the Constitution? Is that not good enough, anymore? You think Roy Moore is trying to push an agenda? Check out this crowd! :eek:

No person on earth is unbiased. That includes judges. And yes, judges are allowed to have personal beliefs. Right now, liberals are decrying "right-wing activist judges", while ignoring the tyranny posed by liberal leftist judges, already. As far as I can see, this whole argument against the Ten Commandments being there is not coming from anyone who believes in the Constitution, or fairness for that matter. Just those who have a beef with Christianity.

[The Detective]

No person on earth is unbiased. That includes judges. And yes, judges are allowed to have personal beliefs. Right now, liberals are decrying "right-wing activist judges", while ignoring the tyranny posed by liberal leftist judges, already. As far as I can see, this whole argument against the Ten Commandments being there is not coming from anyone who believes in the Constitution, or fairness for that matter. Just those who have a beef with Christianity.
Which brings me to another point, Roy Moore said in his speech that the same courthouse has a statue of a greek god. If people are so concerned about the first ammendment why is this still up? I mean, true the ancient religion of Greece isn't really in practice any more but the constitution says no favoring of religion period.

[William C. Maune]

"Just those who have a beef with Christianity."

I have no beef with Christianity and I would bet those in this thread who have made similar arguments in this case feel the same way.

Can we actually debate the points people are making instead of blaming the ACLU, leftist liberals, activists, the conservative right, etc.? It shouldn't matter who is making the point, what is important is the point itself.

[Roman Legion]

Couple hypothetical questions...

Were it made law that such monuments can not be placed as this one was, would that law itself be in violation of the First Amendment? Furthermore, could the removal of such monuments be viewed as the State endorsing or adopting a form of "national atheism", a position which is still technically a religious stance?

Thoughts?

--Romey

[William C. Maune]

As for your second question, I would argue that not endorsing a specific religion is distinctly different from endorsing a stance of no religion. Keeping church and state separate doesn't endorse "no religion" since it never addresses the question of whether there is religion or not.

For an example it can be distinguished from China where they specifically declare there is no religion.

[Stewie]

And the ACLU is representing them, no less. I also find that interesting.
What is your problem with the ACLU? I could understand if you simply disagreed with them but you persist in vilifying them. Try to focus on the argument, not who's making it.


Again, what's wrong with acknowledging the Commandments from a historical perspective, if nothing else? I mean, the Supreme Court has a big sculpted mural on the right wall of the inner court itself showing a timeline between the 10 Commandments, and our modern judicial system!
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging the Commandments from a historical perspective (that is why the Supreme Court has the Commandments on the wall). If that was Moore's intention in putting the monument up in the first place, then I have misjudged the situation. But I don't think that was his intention. I think he wanted to show his allegiance to (or just his appreciation of) his religion. This would be fine if he had put the Commandments in the front lawn of his house, on his bumper, or his desk in his private office. In the lobby of a federal courthouse it takes a different meaning.


Were it made law that such monuments can not be placed as this one was, would that law itself be in violation of the First Amendment?
I think I covered this just above. If this was simply some guy putting the monument on his private property, or in a private area of a public facility (i.e. his office in the courthouse) it would be fine with me. But this is public property.


I have no beef with Christianity and I would bet those in this thread who have made similar arguments in this case feel the same way.

Can we actually debate the points people are making instead of blaming the ACLU, leftist liberals, activists, the conservative right, etc.? It shouldn't matter who is making the point, what is important is the point itself.
Amen to both of those points. Let's not resort to attacking the people making an argument (or even worse, those groups associated with a political ideology) unless it has bearing on the discussion at hand.

The problem I (and I think many others) have is not that someone put up a monument to any religion (specific or just in general), it's that he didn't do it as a private citizen. He did it as a federal judge. In this case, he is representing the government (or at least part of it).
No reasonable person wants to stop Moore or any person from expressing their beliefs. He, and every other citizen of this country can endorse any religion they want to. As long as they do it as a private citizen, not an agent/representative of the government.

[Bud 'n Lou]

I'm not going to try to debate the legality of this situation, because I would be ill-equipped to do so. I will say that I don't think having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse will ever lead to an officially government established religion. That will never happen in America. However, I am somewhat wary when people in positions of power make such bold declarations of their religious beliefs. Doctors, police officers, judges, etc. My life is in the hands of people like that, and, in some extreme cases, their religious biases might determine my fate. I'm not suggesting that these people shouldn't practice the religion of their choice, and I realize that to ask them to not be biased would be unrealistic. But when you're in a position of authority like that, you should at least make the effort to be as fair and unbiased as possible. But in this case, Judge Moore having a giant stone monument is a huge red flag (or rather...a giant stone monument) that he is incapable, and even unwilling to TRY, to be impartial and separate his religious beliefs from his job.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Alabama isn't known for its Islamic or Hindu residents. Why deny the fact that there are Christian influences? The Ten Commandments aren't particularly offensive to non-Christians. I wouldn't find it a problem even if there was a picture of Moses there.

If Alabama suddenly had a massive influx of Hindu residents until they did become a majority, and they decided to put up a statue of Ganesh in the same spot, I'd have the same problems with it as with the 10 Commandments and I'd want it to be taken down, too. I'm a Buddhist, and I'd have a problem with monuments to the Eightfold Path or the 10 Buddhist precepts for government. There are no modern worshippers of Greek gods, but if that bothers people out there, I say take it down, too. I'm a perfectly equal-opportunity "separation of church and state" kind of guy.

Hammurabi's Code of Laws, however, could stay since they have no perceptible modern religious basis :).

Justice Moore has stated to the press that this is not about the law, but about God. That alone is enough for me to think he should remove the monument.


At the heart of it, this conflict is ridiculous.

I think everybody here agrees with that statement...the problem is that both sides think the other is being ridiculous :D.

-- Ed/Ace

[wonderfly]

Well, isn't this interesting. I post the topic, I go away for a couple days, and return to find it's a full blown debate. Heh, good! :)

I find myself a true moderate on this issue, able to see both sides of the subject, (in fact, I probably lean towards the liberal side a bit, for reasons I'll explain below).

Since most of what's been said on both sides I tend to agree with, I'd just like to make the following observations.

I'm very much interested in how national figures are arguing over this debate. I've heard Jerry Falwell supports the Ten Commandments being there, while diferrent organizations under Pat Robertson are split on the topic, (I haven't heard how Robertson himself feels about it, but I have no doubt he sides with Falwell).


Teinshin: you stole my post! :p The second post in this thread on page 1, (which you posted) is what I was going to post, cause I feel it sums up my thoughts perfectly. I've never heard of that columnist, (he's a sports writer of all things) but his article was read by RUSH LIMBAUGH OF ALL PEOPLE on his radio program on Friday. Rush tends to agree with that man's thoughts on the subject. Rush had tons of callers calling in on Friday battling him, saying he should be more supportive of the Ten Commandments, (kinda strange to hear people arguing with him over conservative stuff).

Rush agrees that this doesn't amount to an endorsement of religion as some claim, but he thinks this Judge Moore is going about this totally the wrong way.

Lucky Bob: You beat me to posting Bill O'rielly's memo! :p Actually, I tend to agree with Clayface, who responded to the memo quite well. I thought Bill went a tad overboard, but again: Bill could very well be right in that this DOES NOT represent an endorsement of religion.

Ace: You made an excellent point as well, about the commandments becoming an idol!

Speaking of Bill O'rielly, (and in reference to what Ace said) one day this last week, he was discussing the Ten Commandments, and he ran a clip from when they took the Commandments out of the Courthouse. One of the protestors, (like all the rest) was enraged, and had this to say:

Quote: "PUT IT BACK! GET YOUR HANDS OFF OF MY GOD, YOU BUNCH OF GOD HATERS!"

To which I thought, "Your God?!? Hello?!? Your God (and my God as well, I consider myself Christian) is everywhere, but he is NOT a slab of stone. Are you violating one of the very commandments that's on that slab?

Bill went on to say that that protestor is doing nothing but helping the liberal media to portray Christians as fanatics. Bill seems to think Judge Moore is a grandstander, (as I do) but he thinks that this does not endorse any particular religion, (and he went on in the debate to the points which Luckybob has been discussing).

Me, I admit it's not clear where/when you cross the church/state line, (it's debateable) but something tells me these folks would be better off spreading the word of God and feeding the poor, instead of protesting and filing lawsuits, (and thus playing into the ACLU's hands, and yes, they do have a harmful agenda).

[Condiment King]

As for your second question, I would argue that not endorsing a specific religion is distinctly different from endorsing a stance of no religion. Keeping church and state separate doesn't endorse "no religion" since it never addresses the question of whether there is religion or not.

For an example it can be distinguished from China where they specifically declare there is no religion.

I disagree. The removal of this monument endorses "no religion" even if its meant not to. The fact that you belong to a religion and spreading it is hand and hand. Stifling the spread of a religion endorses "no religion". In fact, even though we have the right to believe however we want, this right is becoming tweaked more and more to become private. Whereas principles of these religions clearly state to make them public. Thus the conflict.

I have to agree with Vortex. This is wavering on the ridiculous side.

[Drachentöter]

I haven't seen anything regarding this, but even if they are white it doesn't mean they are Christian.

They certainly don't have to be Christian, but do they practice a religion which the ten commandments strictly contradict? Does anyone in the courthouse feel the monument is stopping them from practicing their religion in private or elsewhere?


Physical pain, no, but considering Moore's spoken intentions in placing the monument, I would consider using it to try and force the impression on people that the Ten Commandments specifically are the moral foundations for our current law would be a harm for those who didn't believe so.

I have no question that Moore is doing this to spite people. He's doing it to promote himself as a good Christian and to thumb his nose at atheists and liberals. I'm just not one to condemn an action because of motivations. Moore's monument may be a product of religious bias, but it doesn't have an adverse affect as far as I can see.


The monument itself can not make decisions, its a piece of rock, but its presence and what it stands for can have an influence, especially considering the words spoken by the man who put it there, Judge Moore. Even if the majority is of one religion, the minority shouldn't be forced to abide by law influenced by the majority's religion.

Which law has been changed to agree with the Commandment's standards?


While democracy definitely is the majority rule, James Madison warned that we must protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. By keeping religion out of the government, everyone remains equal under the law.

I agree with that saying as well. Except, I don't see evidence of tyrannical rule. Stubborn and blind determination possibly, but no one has given me an instance where other religions/beliefs are being oppressed.

I don't mean to say the minority should go along with the majority all the time and keep silent. But when the minorities themselves are NOT concerned with the issue, it makes me feel like this rabble is a product of parties with personal and political agendas. All it's doing is angering the citizens of Alabama and raising issues which do nothing but inflame.