Alabama Court House...

Larry Gude

Strung Out
...and the 10 Commandments.

Guess this could be in "Current events" but the biggest component seems to be the religious aspects as many people feel that this is really bad, removing the stone.

So, any thoughts? Anyone know the deal here? The reports keep saying "Judge Moore put the monument in 'his' courthouse". How can that be? Shouldn't this be a referendum or process as to what goes where in public property? Why is it a problem to begin with? Do we now have to get rid of our money?

Help me understand.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It's hard to watch the coverage. Both sides sound like a bunch of nutcases. The Christian mullahs are wailing away, the ACLU crowd is wailing away. As far as I can tell it's just a pizzing contest to see who can get their way.
 

Dymphna

Loyalty, Friendship, Love
I've been doing my best to ignore this story because I think the whole debate is stupid.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there is to be a separation of Church and State. It says that Congress cannot establish a religion or interfere with people practicing religion. It doesn't say all government must pretend that religion doesn't exist. It doesn't say that government officials cannot be inspired by religion-based morals.

The whole point of that amendment was to avoid what England had done in creating the Church of England. It made all other religions illegal, most of which were much older than the Anglican church and were the inspiration of said church. The founders were all devout Christians and were inspired by their religion to create most of the documents that are the foundation of our government. Without religion, there would be no United States of America.
 

alex

Member
From what I have read Judge Moore had the statue created at his own expense and in the middle of the night had it installed in the courthouse.

The state tried to place barriers around it (in an attempt to "remove it from public view") until all appeals, etc had run their course but for some reason that was not acceptable. They even thought about putting it in Judge Moore's office but the weight of the monument (2 tons) would cause it to crash through his floor.

Whether you believe it is okay to have it there or not, the fact that a judge, sworn to uphold the law, would knowingly violate a court decision does not sit well with me.
 

Bertha Venation

New Member
Justice Moore does not have the right to judge American citizens or to arbitrate American law based upon his theology. By placing his monolith in the building, he reveals his prejudice. By doing it in the dead of night shows a great deal more.

Also, his having placed it there stands in direct opposition to the First Amendment, which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Finally, Moore's sheer arrogance in the matter is astounding (and, IMO, rather un-Christ like).
 

Doc

New Member
Originally posted by cmcdanal
Without religion, there would be no United States of America.

Incorrect. I dealt with this in a previous thread.

To summarize, the Ten Commandments and Christianity in general have nothing to do with the laws of our country.

In the case of four of the commandments, our laws say the opposite:

"Worship no other gods" Our laws allow you to worship whomever you please. No penalty for worshipping Buddah instead of the Big Sky Daddy.

"Honor your father and mother" There are no laws forcing children to obey their parents. But just try to neglect or abuse your child and see what the law does.

"Make no graven images" Copyright law exists pretty much to protect your right to make images.

"Don't covet" The whole economy is based on coveting.

For three of them the law is neutral:

"Honor the sabbath" There exist a few odd local ordinances here and there that don't allow you to buy alcohol or sell cars. But federal law isn't going to stop you from dishonoring the sabbath.

"Don't take god's name in vain" Blasphemy is quite OK, apart from a few archaic "blue laws" that would be quickly struck down by the Supreme Court if it came to that.

"Don't commit adultery" Again, here and there you can find anti-adultery laws on the books. They're never enforced.

One of the commandments agrees somewhat with our laws:

"Don't lie" You can't lie in Court or to Congress or on official documents, but that's pretty much it. Your right to parody is protected--and parodies often boil down to lies. And lies that injure no one aren't prosecutable. Just announce to the world, "I'm King of France!" and see if you get arrested.

There's only two commandments that agree with our laws: "Don't kill" and "Don't steal."

Well thank you christianity! We'd never have figured out that you shouldn't steal or kill if it wasn't for those commandments!

Prohibitions against killing and stealing are common throughout nearly all cultures--christian and nonchristian.

Lesson learned: the Ten Commandments have no business being posted in a courthouse, since they have nothing to do with our laws.

And most of the Founding Fathers were anything BUT "devout christians". Their insipiration to create their documents arose from rational thought and the spirit of Enlightment rather than the pathetic ramblings of an archaic, backwards tome like the Bible.
 

Bertha Venation

New Member
Originally posted by Doc
Incorrect. I dealt with this in a previous thread.

To summarize, the Ten Commandments and Christianity in general have nothing to do with the laws of our country.
In addition to what you've pointed out--commandments with no corresponding laws in the U.S.--I'd like to see some examples of the reverse: of U.S. laws that are clearly based directly upon a commandment.

On one of the radio reports about Judge Moore's idol, I heard one of his supporters say that all of our laws here in the United States are based on the ten commandments of Moses. This isn't a direct quote, but it is what the man said: that all our laws are based on the commandments.

I'm not going to argue that our murder laws aren't based on the commandment "thou shalt not kill," or that our burglary laws aren't based on "thou shalt not steal." I don't think they are, but AFAIC that's not a point of contention.

I want to know is this: on what commandment are our laws against child endangerment based?

Or laws against gay Americans adopting children?

Or traffic laws?

Or food cleanliness laws (i.e., laws regulating packing houses, dairies, etc.)?

On what commandment is (for one really obscure example) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 based?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Not being from Alabama I had to check a few things first. As of yet I have not found anything that would prevent the judge from making a contribution of a statue for display within the State Court House.

Next I felt it necessary to see what Alabama says about religious freedom. Guess what? They have a section in their Constitution covering this.

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.


Okay, so does placing a statue of the Ten Commandments there:
1. Establish a religion?; or,
2. Give preference to any sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship?; or,
3. Compel anyone to attend worship?

Do the actions taken by the state against the judge:
1. Create a religious test (or lack of religion test)?; or,
2. Impact his civil rights, privileges, or capacity because of his religious beliefs?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Those are the questions I'd like to see answered, Ken. Like I said before, the coverage of it really makes you want to get out the rubber hoses. Such hysteria and self-righteousness on both sides.

To me, this is just a power-play by the anti-religion folks. But the 10Com folks aren't doing much to help their cause.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment only places a restriction on Congress. It does not place a restriction on people, states, local governments, or anybody or any other organization. No power is given to the Federal government to enforce the First Amendment on any body of people.

All you have to do is understand English grammar.

The subject of the sentence is "Congress". The verb is "shall make". "no" is an adverb negating the action "shall make". An alternative reading to "shall make no law" is "shall not make any law" The object of the sentence is "law" which defines what Congress shall not make. The rest of the phrases modify the object "law" limiting what law Congress shall not make.

Nowhere does it say the states can't pass such laws nor does it say that people can't say things that are offensive to other people.

It is the Federal Government that has overstepped its Constitutional bounds with Federal judges usurping legislative authority from the Congress. We are suppose to have a Federal government, not a National government. The founders stated this clearly when writing the Constitution.

"The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will
ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National
Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal
encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted
by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political
calculation." --Alexander Hamilton
Even though Alexander Hamilton called the federal government the National government, this except from the Federalist Papers clarifys the actual intent of the founders.
- James Madison, our Constitution's author -
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution. ... The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
 
Last edited:

Doc

New Member
Originally posted by Ken King
1. Establish a religion?

No, not as such.

2. Give preference to any sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship?

Yes it does. It gives preference to the Christian mythos. There is no historical significance to the monument itself (Crazy Roy Moore snuck it in one night.), so it exists merely to advocate a specific religion. Crazy Roy Moore has suggested as such. Note that the claim that our country is somehow founded on the ten commandments was shown to be false earlier. The monument exists to advocate a particular religion--Christianity. As an atheist, were I to walk into Crazy Roy's courtroom, or even the public areas of the court, it would be clear to me that preference is given to Christians.

3. Compel anyone to attend worship?
No.

1. Create a religious test (or lack of religion test)?; or,

No. Crazy Roy may believe whatever he wants. He may post the Ten Commandments in his private office. He may not clog up the public areas of his building with a display of his religious beliefs.

2. Impact his civil rights, privileges, or capacity because of his religious beliefs?

Again, no. He can believe in whatever stupid religion he wants. Just don't try to force it on the rest of us by dropping a two-ton monument to it in the middle of a public area.
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by Doc
As an atheist, were I to walk into Crazy Roy's courtroom, or even the public areas of the court, it would be clear to me that preference is given to Christians.

Well boo-hoo... Another myth you forgot to mention, an unbiased court room.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Doc,

1. We agree. It does not establish a religion.
2. Disagree. You claim it gives preference to Christians, but don’t the Torah and Koran have almost identical commandments? Which means that the presumed preference is in fact not a preference.
3. Again we agree that it does not compel worship.

1. You say it doesn’t establish a test. Many feel that because he has these beliefs that they will automatically impact his legal decisions (this is the test). Similar to the litmus test concerning abortion that regularly crops its head up in judicial confirmation hearings.
2. Again, disagreement. He has been removed from his position. This has an obvious impact against the judge.

So, in your's and many other's minds, the only good judge is one that has no religious affiliation or strong moral beliefs.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
As an atheist, were I to walk into Crazy Roy's courtroom, or even the public areas of the court, it would be clear to me that preference is given to Christians.
That's because you'd be looking for something to be offended by. When you walk into McDonald's, is it clear to you that the preference is given to clowns? I mean, considering they have a big statue of one right there and all.

I fail to see how viewing a statue is somehow forcing a religion on you. When you see paintings of the Madonna and Child, do you feel that religion is being forced on you?

However, this judge should have found a better way to make his case rather than blatantly defying a court order. Because now this isn't about relgion in the courtroom. It's about breaking the law. And Christians who defend this judge are no different than Democrats who still maintain that Clinton only lied about sex.
 

Doc

New Member
Originally posted by 2ndAmendment
Nowhere does it say the states can't pass such

Perhaps if you'd care to read past the 2ndAmendment, you'd notice, a bit further down, sandwiched between the one abolishing slavery and the one allowing all races to vote, the somewhat obscure 14th Amendment which makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. This would be the amendment that, along with the 1st, formed the basis of deciding McCollum v. Champaign Board of Ed. (1948). This is one of the many cases establishing the "wall of separation between Church and State."

Unlike the Bible where you get to pick the parts you like and ignore the rest (At least, this is the way it seems to work in practice. Example: latching on to the single sentence in Leviticus that appears to forbid homosexuality, while ignoring the first ten chapters of it which go into extreme detail concerning how, when, and where god expects his animal sacrifices.), you actually have to bother to read the whole Constitution.
 

Doc

New Member
Originally posted by Ken King
You claim it gives preference to Christians, but don’t the Torah and Koran have almost identical commandments?

Sure, but what about Satanism? Or Buddhism? Or Hinduism? Or Animism? They all have different commandments. Oh, and what about atheists? We're smart enough to know that killing, lying, stealing, cheating are bad without needing to be told so by a mythical sky god. Also, if I'm not mistaken, there are two different versions of the 10Cs--one with two coveting commandments and no graven image commandment--and different denomination of christians worship their favorite version. I assume Crazy Roy has selected one of those versions over the others, thus advocating a particular brand of christianity.

1. You say it doesn’t establish a test. Many feel that because he has these beliefs that they will automatically impact his legal decisions (this is the test). Similar to the litmus test concerning abortion that regularly crops its head up in judicial confirmation hearings.

Maybe I misunderstood what you said. I'd say that the actions of the state against the judge do not establish a test for judges. This seems a reasonable assumption--I'm going to guess there's many christian judges who are privately very devout. As long as they keep their nonsense out of the court, no one cares. But for a judge to slap a big old ode to his religion in the middle of a public place takes a private matter into the public forum. The state is establishing a test only insofar as it tests whether you're shoving your delusions on other people; it's not testing whether or not you have those delusions.

Maybe Crazy Roy is letting his religion dictate his decisions ("Well the evidence shows you murdered the woman, but since she was dishonoring the sabbath, I guess we'll let you off this time."). But that's a matter for appeals courts to worry about. Nobody is upset about any in-court decisions he's made. They're upset about him placing in a public space a monument advocating his particular brand of religion.


2. Again, disagreement. He has been removed from his position. This has an obvious impact against the judge.

Sure, there is an impact upon him, but to use the third-grade vernacular, "He started it." He should have known that placing the 10Cs monument in a public place like that would get him slapped down. This is why he did it in the middle of the night. I mean if you caught him taking bribes and removed him, there'd be an "impact against him," right? This is just another way of breaking the law.

So, in your's and many other's minds, the only good judge is one that has no religious affiliation or strong moral beliefs.

A judge can believe that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. His religious affiliation matters not to me. Unless it were to color his judgement in ways contrary to our laws. Judges SHOULD have strong moral beliefs. But of course it's possible to be moral but not religious.

Judges cannot break the law--as Crazy Roy did.
 

Doc

New Member
When you see paintings of the Madonna and Child, do you feel that religion is being forced on you?

Certainly not. That's because in their proper place--a museum--they are placed in context. They tell me about people's beliefs. They are artwork that can be judged on aesthetic merits. The monument in question is not historical (it's just something Crazy Roy had made up), it doesn't fit in with the context of the surroundings (it's a lobby in a public building), has nothing to do with Alabama (the 10Cs were not written there, there is nothing relating an Alabama courthouse to the 10Cs).

Clowns in McDonald's (and believe me when I say that if there's one thing I hate more than anything it's clowns) are advertising. Paintings of Madonna are museum pieces or church decorations (or album covers). I expect to see a clown in McDonald's. I expect to see a religious painting in a museum. I should not expect to see the 10Cs--which I have conclusively shown to have nothing to do with our laws--in a court. I don't mind if people in church want to look at the 10Cs. I don't have to go to church. A congregration of people has no power over me. But if I am compelled to walk into a court--which DOES have power over me--seeing the symbol of an archaic, oppressive, backwards religion tells me that someone's going to be trying to force their dopey views on me.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
seeing the symbol of an archaic, oppressive, backwards religion tells me that someone's going to be trying to force their dopey views on me.
That particular statement interests me. Which of the 10Coms is such a bad idea? No lying? No stealing? No murdering? I mean, the first 5, okay. They are pertaining to a relationship with God. But the last 5 are Commandments on how to get along in society.

And I hate to be ticky, but I must point out the the 10Coms are part of the OT, so this isn't Christian doctrine. Christians hadn't been invented yet.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Not bad...

...amongst all the acrimony, name calling and high mindedness I got my answer: Moore took it upon himself to put the rock in a place where he had no business doing so.
 

Bertha Venation

New Member
Re: Not bad...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...amongst all the acrimony, name calling and high mindedness I got my answer: Moore took it upon himself to put the rock in a place where he had no business doing so.
Believe it or not, I did miss what you originally posted, Larry:

"The reports keep saying "Judge Moore put the monument in 'his' courthouse". How can that be? Shouldn't this be a referendum or process as to what goes where in public property? Why is it a problem to begin with?"

Yes, Moore snuck his monument into the courthouse overnight.
 
Top