I have to agree with Franky17. Playing the victim card seems a bit of a cop-out. From where I stand, Christians in the U.S. generally have it pretty good.

By the way, it would be correct to say that Alabama, like many other states, included advocacy of Christianity in its charter/constitution. Most states East of the Mississippi were admitted to the Union before the 14th Amendment was ratified. Until then, it was perfectly legal for states to ignore the first amendment, since it technically only applied to the Federal Congress. The 14th Amendment incorporated a selected few "basic" rights as "universal" for US citizens (it specifically addressed state government but has been interpreted to apply to all levels). Even though Alabama began as a legal Christian state, it is now bound by the same protections that apply to any part of the country.

JamieD77
Just curious.. If the Judge were to sign his name on the bottome of if claiming it his work of art if this would be such a big a deal and if it could stay?

Well, since they're over 80 years old, claiming to be the sculptor is a bit of a stretch. But ignoring that, the legality probably depends on two things:

A) what are the rules regarding what a judge can and cannot put up as decorations in a public place?

and always:
B) (parts 1,2,3):
1) It has a primarily secular purpose.
2) It neither has the effect of advancing nor inhibiting religion.
3) It does not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

Re: the headline, it won't be the first time Jesus has been hated by the govt and most of the people, won't be the last.

Sure, Six-Wings, we Christians have it pretty good right now. Mostly because we as Christians have compromised so much. If we were living right, we'd be in much more trouble. I fail to understand why so many "Christians" try to craft a likeable Christianity. We're not supposed to be popular. :-)

Six-Wings
Christian are also generally good humble people who go about their own daily lives and never interfere with anyone else or cast jugdement on anyone.. But a high percentage of atheist particularly on this site label someone as a gay bashing, bible thumping, freedom hating neocon the minute the mention they are a christian.. We would just like to be treated the same we that we treat you and not the way some extremist may treat you..

It's unfortunate that a few zealots make the majority of Christians, who are indeed inoffensive people, look bad. The same is true of liberals, conservatives, atheists, muslims, etc.

All I have to write before I head out is "f_uck your god"!

Sneak a monument in under the cover of night and you will get a court battle, and you will loose. The judge would rather fight this battle that he picked than to use the money to fund school lunch programs, or help students go to college.

The religious fundie folks are only getting more vocal because their system of belief is crumbling around them, and they are decreasing in numbers.

Rainbows are known to be caused by refraction. We know that there was no worldwide flood, and jeebus (if he existed) was killed and stayed dead like the criminal he was.

oh god, nobody light a match!

crazy_gaijin

"It looks to me like almost said the opposite earlier...."

Please learn to form complete sentences or proofread.

I missed the word "he". Now let me find you a ladder...

Moore pledged to ask the Supreme Court to overrule Thompson and said the promised fines would add to the approximate $125 million the state has already spent defending the monument's place. The state is spending $25,000 a day of taxpayers' money on the case, Moore said.

shouldnt they be prevented immediately from spending that much money attacking the establishment clause....

Is it just me, or are the people trying to get it taken down the asshats? It would have been cheaper to leave it there than to bring litigation to start with. It wasn't the judge that started this

I don't really care whether they belong there or not, or what our laws are based on, or any of that crap. People just get too caught up in "separation of church and state"

/not taking sides, just begging for a little common sense. I never knew anybody's eyes getting burned out by a plaque on the wall

2003-08-14 06:34:14 PM wirthling


By the way, it would be correct to say that Alabama, like many other states, included advocacy of Christianity in its charter/constitution. Most states East of the Mississippi were admitted to the Union before the 14th Amendment was ratified. Until then, it was perfectly legal for states to ignore the first amendment, since it technically only applied to the Federal Congress. The 14th Amendment incorporated a selected few "basic" rights as "universal" for US citizens (it specifically addressed state government but has been interpreted to apply to all levels). Even though Alabama began as a legal Christian state, it is now bound by the same protections that apply to any part of the country.


Even Alabama state law is against this guy. I refer all to the Alabama State Constitution ratified in 1901 (before the momument was put up):

Section 3 Religious freedom.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

I have always tried to figure out why atheists are so offended by something they do not believe in. The argument that non-believers cannot get a fair trial from a believer is hogwash. How will removing a statue change anything? Answer: It won't!

In about 20 years, only atheists will be allowed to hold any public office.

As a Pagan, I give you my promise that I will never force you non-Pagan Farkers to adhere to the principles of my religion, nor insist that secular courts and other state offices carry my religious symbols. I also promise never to knock on your door at 8 am Saturday morning trying to sell you my religion.

It must suck big time to all those true followers of Christ (especially the ones who refuse to pray in public because the New Testament says not to, etc. etc. etc.) that the government and politicians use their religion to gain more power for themselves and waste their tax payer money on silly things such as this. Not to mention, one or two of the ones I know are highly pissed at the fact that the government keeps interfering with their religion.

As a side note: I bet Thomas Paine (read "Common Sense" sometime), George Washington (the father of our country in more ways than one), Ben Franklin (the guy who got kicked out of France for porking some higher up's wife), et. al. are rolling in their graves over statements such as "this country was founded on Christian principles." The "Creator" mentioned in the Constiution is based on a Deist belief.

Guy Innagorillasuit:

which is why I said, "or proofread." I knew there was some pronoun or name left out, but it was nearly impossible to determine. Find me a ladder?

GoldLeader

Is it just me, or are the people trying to get it taken down the asshats? It would have been cheaper to leave it there than to bring litigation to start with. It wasn't the judge that started this

How did the monument get there again?

"Chief Justice Moore Puts God's Law in Alabama Court
Thursday, October 04, 2001

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore surprised many on August 1 when he unveiled a granite monument bearing the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state Supreme Court building"

Guy Innagorillasuit

That isn't the point. The monument is there. Been there for almost two years.

That money was already spent. It was gone. No more would have been spent on it if some asshat didn't get their feelings hurt. Sorry...

crazy_gaijin
Find me a ladder?

So you can jump up my butt. /MST3k reference

Actually I think it was supposed to be a stepladder, but it's been too long...

anrwlias:

That's the point I was making. The Founder's weren't specifically talking about a law creating a state-religion, but about laws regarding religion. That's why it used the article an instead of the. An establishment is much different than the establishment. In fact, Madison misquoted the amendment several times stating that "Congress would make no law respecting a religious establishment," clearly talking about laws giving one sect prestige over another.

GoldLeader

That isn't the point. The monument is there. Been there for almost two years.

That money was already spent. It was gone. No more would have been spent on it if some asshat didn't get their feelings hurt. Sorry...

None would have been spent on it if some asshat didn't go out of his way to challenge the laws he's supposed to uphold.

Thanks for the correction, Persnickety. I had heard about reference to god in the Alabama Constitution but was not aware of that "Religious Freedom" clause, which does indeed seem to leave little doubt about their stand on church-state separation (at least in 1901). There were states that had state-established religion before the 14th Amendment, however.

Guy Innagorillasuit

Which law was broken, exactly? A monument with the ten commanments on it doesn't force religion on anyone. It can't make you believe in God or go to church or anything.

What does it hurt?

That money was already spent. It was gone. No more would have been spent on it if some asshat didn't get their feelings hurt. Sorry...

Once again, the charges were filed shortly after it was put there. It's not like they waited 2 years to say anything.

GoldLeader
That isn't the point. The monument is there. Been there for almost two years.

So if I manage to get a pentagram engraved on the courthouse stairs, then you would think it was stupid to waste money suing to have it removed?

GoldLeader
Which law was broken, exactly? A monument with the ten commanments on it doesn't force religion on anyone. It can't make you believe in God or go to church or anything.

the first ammendment. see Anagrammer's eloquent post:

2003-08-14 04:31:21 PM Anagrammer

Franky17

Yes, actually I do think that it would be stupid to go to court to have it removed.

Inanimate objects don't offend people. People hurt their own feelings.

GoldLeader
Yes, actually I do think that it would be stupid to go to court to have it removed.

Star of david? Picture of an aborted fetus? The Koran (every word)? Swastika? Hard-core porn?

Inanimate objects don't offend people. People hurt their own feelings.

So putting up swastika flags at a courthouse wouldn't bug you, either, and it shouldn't bother anyone else, eh? That's an interesting perspective.

Mostly because we as Christians have compromised so much. If we were living right, we'd be in much more trouble.

I agree with you on the first part, coyoticus. As for the second part, if we were all living right, things would be a lot more equitable. But it would mean less in the pocketbooks of some of our wealthier brethren, but I think they'd still be okay.

Christian are also generally good humble people who go about their own daily lives and never interfere with anyone else or cast jugdement on anyone.. But a high percentage of atheist particularly on this site label someone as a gay bashing, bible thumping, freedom hating neocon the minute the mention they are a christian.. We would just like to be treated the same we that we treat you and not the way some extremist may treat you..

I agree with you too, JamieD77. As a Chrsitian, I'd like to be treated with dignity and respect, just as much as the next guy. However, I should point out that blind hatred isn't the sold province of athiests (or non-Christians, or what have you), just as morality isn't the sole province of Christianity. Also, I've gotten just as much disrespect from athiests (for my Christian beliefs) as I have from fundamentalists (also for my Christian beliefs)who claim some sort of moral superiority just because they've slapped the Christian tag on themselves.

All I have to write before I head out is "f_uck your god"!

I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. Sometimes, you just gotta let 'em be.

Scary Judge Moore quotes:

"The monument serves to remind the appellate courts and judges of the circuit and district courts of this state and members of the bar who appear before them as well as the people of Alabama who visit the Alabama Judicial Building of the truth stated in the preamble of the Alabama Constitution, that in order to establish justice we must invoke 'the favor and guidance of Almighty God.'"
-- Judge Roy Moore, upon quitetly ordering the placement in the Judiciary Building of a huge stone monument containing an abbridgement of the Protestant listing of the first stone tables of the Hebrew Ten Commandments, a move which disturbed many legislators and citizens, since Moore did not even consult with other judges or elected officials, quoted from AANEWS 952 (August 29, 2001)

"All the Ten Commandments and prayer is an acknowledgement of the Almighty God. We will not back down from that."
-- Judge Roy Moore, to a group of supporters outside the hearing where the ACLU sued to remove from his courtroom his posted copy of an abbridgement of the Protestant listing of the first stone tables of the Hebrew Ten Commandments, quoted from Conrad Goeringer, "Ten Commandments Posting in Courtroom Challenged by Alabama Freethought Association" (September 13, 1996)

"Acknowledgment of God is not now, or ever has been, a violation of the U.S. constitution."
-- Judge Roy Moore, defending his "right" to promote the Christian religion above all other religions and above no religion at all while presiding in his Alabama courtroom, quoted from Conrad Goeringer, "Judge Says He'll Continue Courtroom Prayer Despite Ruling" (November 24, 1996)

"I consider it my duty to acknowledge God. To take down the Ten Commandments and to stop holding prayer would be a violation of that duty. I will not take down the Ten Commandments and I will not stop holding prayer."
-- Judge Roy Moore, defending his "right" to promote the Christian religion above all other religions and above no religion at all while presiding in his Alabama courtroom while threatening not to pay fines and mentioning the possibility of mass arrests, quoted from Conrad Goeringer, "Judge Says He'll Continue Courtroom Prayer Despite Ruling" (November 24, 1996)

"I feel that I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Alabama, and those constitutions are founded upon a fundamental belief in God ... my display of the Ten Commandments and prayer before sessions are simply acknowledgments of God."
-- Judge Roy Moore, vowing to uphold different a Constitution than the ones under which we Americans live, quoted from Conrad Goeringer, "Judge Rules That Decalogue Is A Religious, Not Historical Statement" (February 13, 1997)

"If you're here tonight to support me, you shouldn't be here. This is not about me. This is about something far more important. It transcends race, it transcends politics, it transcends gender. This is about the laws of God."
-- Judge Roy Moore, laying it on thick at a rally to blast the ACLU and "working the evangelical crowd into a frenzy," quoted from William C. Singleton III, "Judge Blasts ACLU In Alabama Rally" (February 23, 1997)

"To restore morality we must first recognize the source from which all morality springs. From our earliest history in 1776 when we were declared to be the United States of America, our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God."
-- Judge Roy Moore, a judge, flat-out declaring that atheists cannot be moral; also, in saying that "we were declared to be the United States of America," he makes a grievous error: we declared our own sovereignty, which eventually became a government made up of "We, The People," this did not happen to us from afar, as Moore pretends, we did this ourselves, from Maranatha Christian Journal, "Ten Commandments Judge Displays New Monument,"

"We've voted in a government
that's rotting at the core,
Appointing Godless Judges who
throw reason out the door,
Too soft to place a killer in
a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill a baby
before he leaves the womb."
-- Judge Roy Moore, anti-atheist sentiments in a poem by a man elected for his impartiality, from "America the Beautiful" by the judge

"Worship With Your Vote."
-- Judge Roy Moore, his campaign bumper sticker, implying that to vote for Moore is to worship God, Philip Rawls, "Atom sculpture awaits place beside Ten Commandments monument," AP (October 27, 2001)

Franky17

While Anagrammer's post is eloquent, it falls short of proving which law was broken. Unfortunately, people don't understand what "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" actually means.

That portion of the first amendment means that the government can't establish a national religion and force people to follow it, as was the case in most European countries when our constitution was written. Unless your school re-wrote history for you, that's why people moved here to begin with.

The other thing is that people who quote that phrase often make no mention of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That means that even though people don't like other peoples' religious symbols, they have no right to force them to remove or hide them.

The ten commandments in a courtroom doesn't force a religion on anyone.

You must have missed my earlier post about the 14th Amendment, GL. Scroll up...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what the symbol is, the first amendment guarantees that it is protected. It's like the confederate flag here in the south. What do I care who flies it or who doesn't. It doesn't hurt me.

And the 10 commandments aren't just a Christian thing...they are also a Jewish thing, etc.

It must suck big time to all those true followers of Christ (especially the ones who refuse to pray in public because the New Testament says not to, etc. etc. etc.) that the government and politicians use their religion to gain more power for themselves and waste their tax payer money on silly things such as this. Not to mention, one or two of the ones I know are highly pissed at the fact that the government keeps interfering with their religion.

I agree with you, Dissy. Am I the only Christian here who sees this whole thing as an issue blown way out of proportion?

Regarding Anagrammer's post, this Judge Moore seems to be nothing but a modern-day Pharisee. I think he lives by fear, and not by faith.

impaler
And just because non-Christian countries have similar ideals doesn't prove that they aren't also Christian ideals.

No even attempted to claim that. Not even close. Why did you make that statement?

It was a reply to a statement by Guy Innagorillasuit which said;
"So none of those [types of laws] exist in non-christain countries?"


And
Guy Innagorillasuit
It looks to me like almost said the opposite earlier:

I said "similar" ideals. Many people may be against murder, but for completely different reasons. So even though they are seemingly similar, the underlying ideals behind the conclusion can twist the eventual outcome. For example;

1. Christians believe humans are equal and their lives are precious. So, murder is wrong.
2. Others believe humans are beneficial to the populace, so their lives are precious. So murder is wrong.

The first group, because of its reasoning, would view abortion and euthanasia as murder. The second would not. So, while both are similar, the ideals based on Christianity have a result completely different than the second group. So, I am not contradicting myself in arguing that laws based on the ideals of Christianity are superior to other types of governments, regardless if whether they have laws similar to ours.

wirthling

I read your post on the 14th amendment, but prior to it the states had the right to establish a religion, because the constitution says that any powers not expressly delegated to the Federal government are up to states to control.

How does the 14th amendment apply? He didn't try to establish a state religion.

GoldLeader
That means that even though people don't like other peoples' religious symbols, they have no right to force them to remove or hide them.

No one is asking this judge to stop praying, wearing a cross, or do whatever it is he does on private land. This is public land - not his personal playground.

Placing one particular religious text in a prominent place is not "exercising" his religion; it is an attempt to blur the lines between govt. and religion as multiple posts above suggest (see Anagrammer's most recent post).

The ten commandments in a courtroom doesn't force a religion on anyone.

It certainly creates an atmosphere under which the line between govt. and religion is significantly blurred, don't you think?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what the symbol is, the first amendment guarantees that it is protected. It's like the confederate flag here in the south. What do I care who flies it or who doesn't. It doesn't hurt me.

And the 10 commandments aren't just a Christian thing...they are also a Jewish thing, etc.

A) Confederate flag isn't a religious symbol
B) Confederate flag isn't being promoted by state gov't
C) It doesn't matter if the 10 com. are Xian and Jewish, it's still gov't promoting religion

crazy_gaijin


A) Confederate flag isn't a religious symbol
B) Confederate flag isn't being promoted by state gov't
C) It doesn't matter if the 10 com. are Xian and Jewish, it's still gov't promoting religion


Actually, your remarks aren't entirly true. It depends on how you define religion. Skinheads belief in nazism can be charactarized as a religion, and they believe that the swastika is a religious symbol, but a swastika isn't a religious symbol to me.

And the fact that it the ten commandments are in the Bible isn't enough to unilaterally declare them a religious symbol.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

GoldLeader, the monument is protected speech. The problem is the placement of it.

Sadly, your knowledge of the Establishment Clause is lacking. The "Free Exercise" part has no bearing on this case becase he is a servant of the state and he put this in a biulding owned by the state.

I truly cannot understand why people feel we should interpret the Establishment Clause so differently than what it says. The original intent that you claim is the true intent was stated quite clearly in the first version of the amendment. The following version and last version of the clause move quite a bit away from what you're saying. Now why would the Founding Fathers move from a clear statement of "their" intent to go to something that no one in their right mind would associate with it? (The versions are easy to find so I won't link them)

Actually, your remarks aren't entirly true. It depends on how you define religion. Skinheads belief in nazism can be charactarized as a religion, and they believe that the swastika is a religious symbol, but a swastika isn't a religious symbol to me.

And the fact that it the ten commandments are in the Bible isn't enough to unilaterally declare them a religious symbol.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

GoldLeader, now you're just arguing semantics.

Franky17

It certainly creates an atmosphere under which the line between govt. and religion is significantly blurred, don't you think?

No, I don't think so at all. Judges have a sworn duty to uphold the law, regardless of thier personal beliefs. Now we all know that nobody is impartial, and all decisions are made dependent on a belief system. To use your example, a person who has denounced their American citizenship would find an American flag in the courtroom offensive. Should it be removed.

The constitution doesn't guarantee that people won't get their feelings hurt.

Six-Wings: Regarding Anagrammer's post, this Judge Moore seems to be nothing but a modern-day Pharisee. I think he lives by fear, and not by faith.

If you like the quotes, you might enjoy a more thorough history of Judge Roy Moore and his antics, available at:

Prayer and Arrogance In Alabama -- and Elsewhere (PaAIA)

PaAIA: Judge Roy Moore articles

Six-Wings

Semantics is what it comes down to. That is all it is.

VanillaThunder

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the judge's constitutional rights would be violated by it being removed. My point was to the people that want to stamp out Islam or Christianity or Judaism because they don't believe in "religion".

Anyone who crusades against religion because they feel that their rights are infringed upon by it is a hypocrite.

He didn't try to establish a state religion.

You keep harping on this point as if it were relevant. The actual extent of the 1st amendment has been clarified through dozens of SCOTUS decisions over the last two hundred years. The First Amendment does not say "You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater," for instance, but that has been ruled to be a reasonable extension of the intent of the first amendment. You are free to believe that the first amendment has been misinterpreted by a majority of justices over two centuries but be aware that your understanding is not the legally correct view.

I brought up the 14th amendment because it sounded like you were stuck on the idea of a "national religion." People frequently seem to be unaware that a few of the first 10 amendments were expanded in scope by the 14th.

Semantics is what it comes down to. That is all it is.

GoldLeader, I understand that. And that's fine for a Fark discussion thread.

But you need something a little more concrete from a legal perspective in the arena of constitutional law.

GoldLeader
No, I don't think so at all.

You don't think that having a single religious text in a prominent place in a courthouse comes close to giving the impression of establishing a state religion? That's impressive.

Judges have a sworn duty to uphold the law, regardless of thier personal beliefs.

And their personal beliefs need to stay out of the courtroom as much as possible.

To use your example, a person who has denounced their American citizenship would find an American flag in the courtroom offensive. Should it be removed.

No. Because the first ammendment doesn't say "the govt. shall make no law concerning the establishment of a state with a flag". It does say that no law shall be made establishing a religion. This has been interpreted to mean that the appearance of a state religion is close enough to warrant suspicion and should be avoided.

The constitution doesn't guarantee that people won't get their feelings hurt.

I was just arguing the same point to JamieD77 yesterday...