Alabama Supreme Court

[Guynemer]

Okay, I understand not everyone shares my worldview, but please, someone explain to me how this is even up for debate?

A 2.5 ton monument to the Ten Commandments sitting in the rotunda of the state Supreme Court? Who the hell does this guy think he is? It's about time we drag this guy into the 20th century, kicking and screaming.

[GePap]

Well, the other 8 associate justices of the state ordered the thing roped off and covered from view. At least they have some common sense.

[Berzerker]

What's the problem? There are religious symbols and sentiments all over Washington DC.

[SlowwHand]

Worry about Michigan, Guynemer. Someone should.

[Verto]

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

Does that mention of a Creator (ie, God) make the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?

Second of all, I don't see how a Ten Commandment monument goes against the First Amendment. You can try to twist it or add words to it, which is what most people do.

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

[General Ludd]

It has nothing to do wtih free speach or the right to practice religion or any of that mumbo jumbo. If someone can't understand the implications or symbolism of puting the ten comandments up in a COURT ROOM, there's something wrong with them.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Moore has shot himself in the ass royally. He might have made a case, but a court officer at any level publicly proclaiming he's going to defy a valid order of a higher court means he's going to get slammed from here on out.

If he'd taken the position that the monument wasn't related to an endorsement of religion per se, but was related to historical/cultural inspiration for our system of laws.

Non-endorsing religious references have been allowed since the beginning of US history, commencing with the motto "In God We Trust" on coinage and currency.

If Moore had stuck to that theme, he'd have a chance. But ol' Roy is nothing if not honest about his position, and he was bound and determined to make a show of it.

[The diplomat]

I know I am probably in the minority, but I support Moore 100%. The 10 Commandments monument should stay.

The 10 Commandment monument has not prevented anyone from exercising their religion. No one in Alabama is being forced to worship the Christian God or not to worship their God because of the monument. Therefore, it is not violating the 1st Amendment since it is not violating freedom of religion. Furthermore, the monument has not prevented anyone from working at the Court or prevented anyone from going to the Court because of their religion. There are many who probably don't agree with the Christian beliefs, who are able to go to the Court and are not offended by it.

A Court room is about right from wrong and the law. The 10 Commandments is a legal code. It seems perfectly appropriate to have a LEGAL CODE displayed in a COURT OF LAW.

The monument is simply a memorial to the 10 Commandments which historically has been a very important legal code in this country. It is not causing discrimination or preventing freedom of religion.

There is no reason to remove it.

[Al B. Sure!]

american justice is based on judeo-christian morality...

i don't understand at all how anyone could possibly have a problem with the ten commandments in the court room... what planet do these people come from that they whine and moan about the existance of THE moral/law code of the western world? especially since the judges aren't judging according to the commandments (which might be controversial) but according to american and state law... it's just a damn symbol for justice that the vast majority of people can agree as being a good moral code...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ordinarily, I wouldn't think it worth removing, or necessary to remove, however, Moore's defiance of the judiciary cannot be allowed to stand. Moore also blew it when he publicly proclaimed the monument was about "acknowledging God."

edit - xpost with Speer, comment intended for The diplomat:

However, would you say (seems so from the "nobody's forced" language in your post) that short of "forcing" someone's attendence or conversion, or renaming the country to the Christian States of America or some such, that any amount of Christian religious display in government buildings installed and maintained at taxpayer expense would be acceptable?

[Shi Huangdi]

The Ten Commandments should stay, I think, there is nothing wrong with displaying one of the more basic elements of the roots of the law.

That said, Moore has no business defying a court order, and so if the Higher Courts overrule him, he must comply.

[Al B. Sure!]

MtG:

If the majority of tax-payers are christian (which they are by a far) and they support a cross on the top of the Capitol building... thats great. it's the will of the majority.

i dont see how this is even up for debate... most people got no problem with the ten commandments up there... or am i missing something?

i always feel like there's this constant, I'm part of the 1% minority that doesn't like some random, insignificant thing existing, though everyone else got no problem with it, but because i don't like it, we got to get rid of it! its part of my rights! bull...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
american justice is based on judeo-christian morality...

i don't understand at all how anyone could possibly have a problem with the ten commandments in the court room... what planet do these people come from that they whine and moan about the existance of THE moral/law code of the western world? especially since the judges aren't judging according to the commandments (which might be controversial) but according to american and state law... it's just a damn symbol for justice that the vast majority of people can agree as being a good moral code...

Well, if you're a practicing Nation of Islam member defendant in a capital trial for killing of someone generally recognized by the jury as a good Christian, and a good Southern Baptist to boot, you might have a different take on things.

Nothing wrong with the ten commandments as a moral code (although funny how the plain language of "though shalt not kill" gets guardhouse lawyered around by some of the same people who complain about interpreting the Establishment Clause ), but Moore has made it plain that it's much more than that.

[Berzerker]

The establishment clause was about using the government to impose religion on others, not preventing everyone from seeing or hearing religious statements. Where I have a problem with Judge Roy Moore, the guy who had the monument installed, is his support for the pledge of allegiance in schools. That does impose religion on others by using the state to facilitate the coercion of children to affirm a belief in God (among other beliefs) they or their parents may not agree with. Christians like Moore would certainly understand this if their children were told to stand up and affirm a belief in Satan, Allah, or Santa, or sit down and remain silent or leave the room while a large majority of the kids who were followers of these "beings" stood to honor them. Most kids know very well that standing out in that manner makes them more susceptible to ridicule if not outright violence.

To quote Moore himself in a clip I just saw: "no man can dictate in whom we believe or trust". Yet that is exactly what the pledge does - it coerces children to state a belief in God. The establishment clause derives from the opposition of the Founders to religious tests for holding office. Some of the states would not allow "non-believers" to hold office and required candidates to be members of the dominant religion in that state. The Framers didn't want such tests to hold federal office and even authored a second "oath of office" because there were Christians who correctly believed Jesus condemned oath taking. This is the principle behind the establishment clause.
So Moore is being hypocritical on that count; furthermore, his reasoning is bogus. He claims his duty requires him to acknowledge God as the source of our inalienable rights, but he doesn't even believe we should have these rights (the drug war is just one example). And that this duty somehow requires him to have that monument sitting there at the courthouse. That's BS! He may want the monument there and he obviously wants others to see it, but that monument doesn't fulfill his duty to the creator anymore than quoting the Bible makes someone a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

If I could ask Moore a question, I'd ask him if he was failing to do his duty prior to the monument being installed? Just how does that monument mean he is now fulfilling his duty? Frankly, he is full of it, this isn't about his duty, it's his attempt to challenge the trend toward restricting religion in the public "square". Fine, I agree with him to a degree, but don't give us this nonsense about a piece of stone fulfilling some duty to God.

[General Ludd]

It's not about having a religous symbol in the courtroom, it's about having THE TEN COMMANDMENTS in the court room. That says to anyone who apears in the court: "You are being judged by [my] god" and implies that the judge will rule with his own religous beliefs over the law. Which is proven from his promise to ignore the rulings against him.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
MtG:

If the majority of tax-payers are christian (which they are by a far) and they support a cross on the top of the capital building... thats great. it's the will of the majority.

Read the first amendment. Even more, some Christian groups would consider the monument to be a graven image, in violation of the commandments themselves.

i dont see how this is even up for debate... most people got no problem with the ten commandments up there... or am i missing something?

What part of "no law" don't you understand.

[Al B. Sure!]

i know very little about this issue but i think the man mentioned it as fulfilling a duty to God in order to rally popular support to his side... unfortunately, the majority apparently got no room in modern politics with this minority lobbying and clamouring for rights...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Apparently, the majority be so picked on and persecuted.

Moore is making a point of using his office to promote religious values.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Osweld
It's not about having a religous symbol in the courtroom, it's about having THE TEN COMMANDMENTS in the court room. That says to anyone who apears in the court: "You are being judged by [my] god" and implies that the judge will rule with his own religous beliefs over the law. Which is proven from his promise to ignore the rulings against him.

This is a good post, and changed my mind about the issue. In any other public venue, it might be acceptable, but the fact it sits smack dab in the middle of a court does violate establishment, I think.

[Al B. Sure!]

But Osweld and Jac de Molay... the existance of this little monument in the courtroom does NOT imply that someone will be judged by it... its quite clear that they will be judged by the judges interpretations of the laws on the books which are loosly based on the ten commandments. so no one is being judged by the Jahovah...

MtG:

I think minority rights have gone way too far... we're not talking about the majority voting their way into someone's pockets or taking their lives... we're talking about a minority that is whining over something that don't matter and doesn't truly effect them at all... fortunately for the liberal cause in this regard, the majority of americans don't really give a damn so the ten commandments will probably be taken down in every courtroom...

[Berzerker]

MtG - "In God we Trust" was put on coins long after the Founding of the country. I forget if it was under Lincoln or even later. But I saw the monument and I noticed the words "thou shall not kill" on it, and that isn't even right. It was "thou shall not murder".

Osweld, the monument sits outside, not in the courtroom.

Diplomat -

The 10 Commandment monument has not prevented anyone from exercising their religion. No one in Alabama is being forced to worship the Christian God or not to worship their God because of the monument. Therefore, it is not violating the 1st Amendment since it is not violating freedom of religion.

Correct.

A Court room is about right from wrong and the law. The 10 Commandments is a legal code. It seems perfectly appropriate to have a LEGAL CODE displayed in a COURT OF LAW.

I believe only 3 or 4 of the commandments are reflected in our
legal code. Murder, stealing, bearing false witness. The others are about thoughts or conduct not involving the law

[Al B. Sure!]

Berzerker:

Murder, stealing, bearing false witness. The others are about thoughts or conduct not involving the law

but most of the others such as coveting your neighbour's possessions, etc. can translate to actual crimes if acted upon... the commandments serve as a guide so that if you follow them, you won't find yourself guilty of some crime in the courtroom

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
However, would you say (seems so from the "nobody's forced" language in your post) that short of "forcing" someone's attendence or conversion, or renaming the country to the Christian States of America or some such, that any amount of Christian religious display in government buildings installed and maintained at taxpayer expense would be acceptable?

You don't neccessarily have to go that far.

But it seems to me that in order to prove that something violates the 1st Amendment clause on freedom of religion, you should have to show discrimination of some form. In other words, if it does not affect anyone's religious views, then how can one say that it violates freedom of religion?

For example, if a muslim wanted to pray next to the monument but was told he couldn't, or Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to proselitize near the monument but were turned away, or the Chief Justice required his staff to pray every morning around the monument, etc... then I would say the monument should be taken down because it is causing religious discrimination and clearly violates the 1st Amendment.

But in this case, it seems like it is just a simple memorial. So I don't see why it should be taken down.

Also, we live in a representative republic where government is suppose to act according to the will of the people. Moore was elected by the people of Alabama. Obviously, a majority supported his views. Shouldn't they have a say as to what they deem appropriate or not?

When it comes to Church and State, shouldn't we the people have a say as what we want or don't want?

Another point I want to make. I realize that Moore should obey Court orders. But aren't there some case where it is ok to refuse to obey the law, if the law is unjust or wrong? What if this case is one of them?

If Moore is right, and the Courts are wrong, what recourse does he have, if can't disobey the order?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
But Osweld and Jac de Molay... the existance of this little monument in the courtroom does NOT imply that someone will be judged by it...

Question: How would you feel being tried for anti-gay hate crimes in a place where they'll call you a "breeder" if they could, and glare at you, with a monument to Versace and Durex adorning the walls, and a Judge dressed in drag.

It's not endorsing it, but you have to wonder if the people behind such a courtroom have some kind of agenda that would get in the way of justice, don't you think?

[Jac de Molay]

But Osweld and Jac de Molay... the existance of this little monument in the courtroom does NOT imply that someone will be judged by it...

Like Osweld said, the fact that Moore's fighting the ruling so fervently, I think, DOES imply that the TC's play an influential role in his court. He's likening it to a new civil rights movement, of sorts.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But aren't there some case where it is ok to refuse to obey the law, if the law is unjust or wrong?

ROTFLMAO

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
This is a good post, and changed my mind about the issue. In any other public venue, it might be acceptable, but the fact it sits smack dab in the middle of a court does violate establishment, I think.

It is outside the court building, not in the court room!

[Asher]

It's in the rotunda, on the premises, visible as you enter...

[mrmitchell]

Does that mention of a Creator (ie, God) make the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional?

Who knows? Maybe...then again, we'd kind of have to give up and submit to Britain again if we wanted to void it, wouldn't we

Second of all, I don't see how a Ten Commandment monument goes against the First Amendment. You can try to twist it or add words to it, which is what most people do.

It's a state endorsement of a specific religion, in this case Judaism or Christianity.

But aren't there some case where it is ok to refuse to obey the law, if the law is unjust or wrong?

...So the amendments seperating church and state, allowing people to worship (or not) as they choose are unjust or wrong?

[Boris Godunov]

People seem to be ignoring that Moore IS using the monument as an endorsement of Christianity. He has openly stated that he blames a perceived moral decay on the lack of God in people's lives, and this monument is explicitely meant as a religious symbol, not a legal or historical one.

By allowing him to display this monument under these pretenses, it is absolutely a de facto endorsement of a religious creed and ergo unconstitutional. Government buildings are not the place for religious displays, period. I could just hear the furor from the Christian Right if, says, an atheist judge put up a monument dedicated to secular humanism. Or even a Muslim putting up a monument to the Koran.

Moore has every right to practice his beliefs in private, but none to use government time or resources to impress his views on his citizens. It is an abuse of his position of authority to allow it to continue. Judges are appointed to be judges, not religious demogogues.