Alabama Supreme Court

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Ramo
Thus, the judge's actions, promoting an establishment of religion (namely, Judaism and all of its offshoots) are unconstitutional. Period.

But the 10 Commandment Monument does not establish a religion! It does not force a religion on anyone or interfer with anyone's religions.

Why do we have "In God we trust" on our currency? Isn't that an extablishment of religion, we all know it is refering to the Christian God?

The SCOTUS building has paintings of Moses with the 10 Commandments. Isn't that an establishment of religion?

The Senate opens with prayer by a protestant chaplain, isn't that an establishment of religion?

There is a huge double standard here.

[Arrian]

As a matter of curiosity, why is it that religious people seem to be so into public displays of their faith? If you really believe in Christianity, why is it particularly important to stick your belief in everybody's elses' faces? Why can't a believer be content to just believe, and let others believe what they want, without a show?

I don't get it.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Arrian
The monument, while I'll bet it looks cool, must go.

It's a magnificent work of art, and I hope that some private art gallery takes it in.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Sikander
Yea, I can't tell you what a help it would be to be reminded "Thou Shalt Not Kill" throughout the day. I'm sure I would really cut down on my murdering.

Obviously, you are a good little boy. But there are plenty of people who do need to be reminded of them.

[Asher]

The diplomat: Why are you throwing such a fit?

It's been ruled illegal, suck it up, get over it, and move on.

Religious symbols have no place in the government. And yes, you are right -- things like "In God We Trust" on the currency has to go too.

You're acting like this is a direct attack on your religion or something. It's just inappropriate for a court of law, much like if a gay judge erected a 2.5 ton statue of a phallus.

It's not establishing a sexuality, but it's certainly inappropriate, don't you think?

[Kuciwalker]

The diplomat: you forget about "Remember thou keep the Sabbath day" and such.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


But the 10 Commandment Monument does not establish a religion! It does not force a religion on anyone or interfer with anyone's religions.

It just sends a message to those who might come before Judge Moore's court as to just where they might stand if they don't adhere to the Judge's beliefs.

Why do we have "In God we trust" on our currency? Isn't that an extablishment of religion, we all know it is refering to the Christian God?

If you want to make enough of a show of it, you might succeed in getting it thrown out as well.

The SCOTUS building has paintings of Moses with the 10 Commandments. Isn't that an establishment of religion?

Not in it's context. Look at the other decor in and on the building, and consider the complete context.

The Senate opens with prayer by a protestant chaplain, isn't that an establishment of religion?

And by their rules, if any of them should object, say, Senator Lieberman, or back a while ago, former Senator Ribicoff, they would not do so. It is not mandated by law, it is by the consent of the membership, and intended for the membership only.

There is a huge double standard here.

Yep, there is. One created and fostered by Judge Moore.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But I want separation of Church and State!

Then you should see why the judge is wrong!

I'll ask again:

Is it okay if I go and place an altar to Baal in the rotunda of my local state courthouse? Would the authorities have no right to remove it on the basis that doing so would violate some sort of right of mine?

Berz:

Where did Jefferson call himself a "primitive Christian?" I've never seen any claim from him using that terminology.

But the point about Jefferson that Odin was making (I am thinking) is that despite the DoI referring to a "Creator," he would never have supported what Moore is doing. This is verified by his own statements on religion and state:

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

Now, I'm sure you'll continue to think he's referring solely to legislative action, but the implication goes beyond that, especially regarding his sentiments of using the term "Creator":

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’

The Ten Commandments monument, being an explicit monument to the Judeo-Christian God, would not be acceptable to Jefferson, I believe. I'd also point out that "Creator" need not necessitate a supernatural entity, since one can view natural forces as being a "creator."

And for diplomat:

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Asher
The diplomat: Why are you throwing such a fit?

It's been ruled illegal, suck it up, get over it, and move on.

You're acting like this is a direct attack on your religion or something. It's just inappropriate for a court of law, much like if a gay judge erected a 2.5 ton statue of a phallus.

It's not establishing a sexuality, but it's certainly inappropriate, don't you think?

I am certainly arguing a certain position. But I am not "throwing a fit".

But I could ask a similar question to you. Why are you throwing a fit for its removal? Why are those opposed to the monument, so adamant for its removal? Are they not as adamant for its removal as some are for it remaining?

And, no, it is not an attack on my religion. If they take the monument down (and they mostly likely will, sadly), I will still go on with my faith uninterrupted.

I just think it is a nice monument to have, and I wish it could stay.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The Senate opens with prayer by a protestant chaplain, isn't that an establishment of religion?

I've already pointed out that the Senate varies who leads their prayer, and it has been led by member of virtually every religious denomination. Please stop reposting false claims.

Regardless, as MtG points out, that is solely for the benefit of the Senate members, not the general public, and is at their discretion. Moore is foisting a monument on the public in a place he has no right to do so.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
But I could ask a similar question to you. Why are you throwing a fit for its removal? Why are those opposed to the monument, so adamant for its removal? Are they not as adamant for its removal as some are for it remaining?

What a distortion of reality! You'll note that it is Moore is defying the law in not removing it, and it is HIS supporters that are outside protesting its removal and getting arrested for disrupting the peace over it!

People are opposed to it because it sets a precedent that a judge can foist his personal religious belief on the public, using government space to do so. It's repugnanant. There would be no reason to stop anyone from putting up anything they want in a government space if this were allowed to continue.

And, no, it is not an attack on my religion. If they take the monument down (and they mostly likely will, sadly), I will still go on with my faith uninterrupted.

This is an about-face for you. You said before it WAS an attack on your religion. Make up your mind!

[Asher]

Originally posted by The diplomat
I am certainly arguing a certain position. But I am not "throwing a fit".

I was using your own words against you...

But I could ask a similar question to you. Why are you throwing a fit for its removal? Why are those opposed to the monument, so adamant for its removal? Are they not as adamant for its removal as some are for it remaining?

I'm not throwing a fit for its removal -- it's already been decided that it will be removed, I'm just supporting the legal system by saying the judge should do as the law says.

People who are protesting are throwing a fit, other people are just following the rules.

And, no, it is not an attack on my religion. If they take the monument down (and they mostly likely will, sadly), I will still go on with my faith uninterrupted.

So what's the problem?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Then you should see why the judge is wrong!

I'll ask again:

Is it okay if I go and place an altar to Baal in the rotunda of my local state courthouse? Would the authorities have no right to remove it on the basis that doing so would violate some sort of right of mine?

Well, courts have a statue to the goddess Venus. Both are archaic objects of worship. So by your own example, the statue of Venus should be immediately removed because it is an establishment of religion which violates my rights. So why is an altar to Baal wrong but a statue of Venus, ok?

And don't say because Venus is simply a symbol of justice and nothing more. If I declared that Baal was nothing more than a symbol of truth, would that make it ok to be placed in a court?

And for diplomat:

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”

What exactly are you trying to say?

[Kuciwalker]

Well, courts have a statue to the goddess Venus

I think that sort of thing is because they like to use Greek and Roman looking buildings. It's just part of the architecture.

[Verto]

Well, there is a depiction of Moses with the Tablets above the Supreme Court, as well as something about Muhammed and Confucius. The Senate opens with a prayer. Our money has In God We Trust.

It's a strange line that is used to determine what does and does not go against the Separation of Church and State.