PS, Larry, re: your avatar: that's not you, is it? It kinda looks like the Iraqi minister of disinformation....
Originally posted by Larry Gude
That picture looks NOTHING like any Iraqi anything. If you look close, it is clearly ME. I tell you, it is ME! There is no way it can be anyone else. Trust me. I am telling the truth. The pic is straight off of my drivers license. Perhaps it is a little grainy and my sterling features are not as clear as they could be but, none the less, you can rest assured that that picture is the one, the only, the ME.
Sure there are various versions of the Commandments. There are also quite a few different versions of the Christian bible. So what? None of them establish a religion, just as the statue of the Commandments doesn’t establish one.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.
I say it does because they are looking at his relationship with religion, which is something based on the wording of their Constitution that should not be allowed.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.
As he is the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, what is he allowed to do? Is he responsible for the upkeep of the building and is he given specific powers to adjust the interior decorations of said buildings?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.
Trying to twist logic, huh? The Alabama Constitution prohibits such use of religion to impact a person in that state. Committing a crime isn’t protected by their Constitution.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.
What law was broken? Please be specific and cite your reference.Judges cannot break the law--as Crazy Roy did.
Originally posted by Doc
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."
Amendment XIV (1868)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Originally posted by Doc
--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.
The Religion forum was established to allow people to discuss their faith, world religions or even just solicit opinions about where to find a good church to meet their needs. In short, it is intended to be a forum for serious discussions. If your intent is to belittle or condemn a person, their faith, or a religion, please don't do it here.
I can't. I don't know of any such Alabama law(s).Originally posted by Ken King
Again I ask, what law was broken by Judge Moore?
Does Alabama have a law, or laws, that says “any statue with religious significance or donated by a private citizen cannot be displayed within any building operated or used by the state” or anything similar?
Show me that and I'll agree that the statue should be removed.
That "power" would be the Fourteenth Amendment.Originally posted by 2ndAmendment
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.
Disagreement on interpretation is putting it mildly. I think this is more of a jurisdictional matter. The First Amendment bars the government from acting on a religious matter. The Federal ruling should not be allowed to stand as it would directly impede Judge Moore from “the free exercise thereof” of his religious freedoms. This is business for the state as the Federal Government is constitutionally bound by those amendments.Originally posted by Bertha Venation
To the best of my knowledge, the order to remove the monolith was based upon the First Amendment's establishment clause, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth's privileges & immunities clause.
I'm looking for a link to the federal judge's order. Ken, your belief that the monolith should've stayed (am I right about that?) may be based simply upon disagreement with the federal judge's interpretation of the Constitution.