Alabama Supreme Court

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The diplomat
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?

Where did you get Venus from? It's not Venus, it's Justicia (Themis), or "Blind Justice." The symbol is not religious in connotation at all, but rather symbolic of the (supposed) impartiality of our legal system. In no way is Justicia on our buildings out of a sense of religion. Once again, you're completely ignoring the fact that Moore deliberately placed the monument there for a religious purpose. You've ignored this fact so many times that I'm starting to wonder if you aren't retarded. Saying "don't say its a symbol" is a stupid tactic, because it IS a symbol, the purpose of which is unrelated to religious belief, period.

On CNN, Moore just showed his colors even more, as both an idiot and a religious bigot. When asked if it would be okay for someone to do the same thing with the Koran, he said no, professing that it wouldn't be appropriate because our country was founded on Christianity and our laws on the Ten Commandments. Neither of these is true, and it just shows he's only interested in promoting his religious belief in this matter.

And it wouldn't matter what you declared Baal to be, the whole point is that I have NO authority or right to place ANYTHING in a public space just because I feel like it. Moore didn't use proper authority to put his statue there, he paid for it privately and had it installed privately. That is NOT acceptable for a government building. Why should he be able to park a monument wherever he pleases?

What exactly are you trying to say?

Jefferson rebuts your claim that the Ten Commandments is needed to remind people of how to behave. This is saying that religious creeds don't have a bearing on our law.

If you want to remind people of how to behave properly (under the specious notion that people just have "forgotten," I suppose), then I suggest just posting laws for them to see. It would be nice if people were civic-minded enough to actually know and understand the law. Or just the basics of the Constitution *hint hint*

[Lincoln]

Well this thread has been an interesting read so far. Not addressing anyone in particular I guess I should add my two cents worth.

The days of so called Christian America are long gone. Displaying the 10 commandments are not going to change anything now. Judge Moore is correct though in asserting that the foundation of American law is based upon theism so it is rather absurd for some to pretend that it is supposed to be based upon atheism now.

The word Creator refers to God not to some mass of chemicals that supposedly self-assemble. If dirt was our creator then the supposed "unalenable rights" spelled out in the Declaration of Independance would be in reality the right to survive at the expense of the weak.

What is being illegally established now in America is atheism. Two wrongs do not make a right. I couldn't care less if the commandments are removed or not but the silly reasoning of atheists who wish to establish their own form of belief on government is not convincing either.

[Ned]

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.

Osweld, I am not totally familiar with Moore's Law, but I think it is a leap to say that the Justice will rule by his interpretation of divine law just because he has a monument to the Ten Commandments in the court lobby. The Ten Commandments are fundamental to Western Civilization. I know the Ten Commandments are central to both Christianity and Judaism. I presume, but do not know, that they are also part of Islam. The only people who would not recognize the validity of the Ten Commandments are pagans (polytheists), agnostics and atheists. However, the US and most states were founded by religious types who believed in God and for whom the Ten Commandments is fundamental law.

I personally strongly disagree with the anti-religious types who are trying to eradicate God from Western Civilization and from the fundamental basis of our laws. They are forcing their anti-religion on the rest of us.

The next thing we can expect is that the ACLU will sue to prohibit public displays of the Declaration of Independence because it relies on God for our fundamental rights.

[Kuciwalker]

It's not that it mentions God, it's that it specifically says "You must worship God"

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think Judge Moore really blew it (except he was dead honest in his agenda, can't fault him for that ) when he said that a monument honoring the Koran wasn't "the law" and that it wouldn't be allowed.

The only "law" for Judge Moore's purposes was that on the commandments. That view is also consistent with his statement that the Federal judge "placed himself above the law."

Judge Moore is entitled to whatever views he wants to have, but when they cross that close into his professional life as Chief Justice, it gets real dicey. How many appeals and Habeus Corpus writs do you think might result from claims (bogus or otherwise, but Moore shooting his mouth ouf helps the claimants) that Moore's religious bias against a non-Christrian party affected his judicial actions?

The SCOTUS building and it's artwork also have a bit about the Code of Justinian, so Moses and the tablets aren't in the religious context nearly as much as they are in the context of traditionally recognized lawgivers.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by 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 Moses, Confucius and Solon. They are there because they were historically the great law givers, not because of any religious sentiments. It does not, you will note, list the Ten Commandments on the sculpture.

The Senate prayer has already been dealt with--it's not set on any denomination and it is voluntarily done solely for the members of the Senate. If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't have to. It's not at all akin to enshrining a religious doctrine in our government buildings.

"In God We Trust" is a separate issue, dealing with the hysteria of the anti-Communist scare earlier in the 20th Century. Frankly, no, it shouldn't be on our bills. However, it is non-specific enough and doesn't spell out any religious doctrine that I suppose to some it passes muster. I'd rather see it struck out, like the line in the Pledge.

[Elok]

The way this is going, it might be kinder to threadjack...anybody want to talk about their favorite foods?

[Lincoln]

Mine is locusts and wild honey...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
However, the US and most states were founded by religious types who believed in God and for whom the Ten Commandments is fundamental law.

Patent bull****. If there were the case, why aren't the Ten Commandments actually our laws? Why doesn't the Constitution just list the Ten Commandments?

Not a single Commandment is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, so claiming our law is based on them is completely absurd.

Our law is based on Anglo-Saxon law, which itself was derivied from Roman and other pagan law systems. The Ten Commandments have actually little bearing on from whence our legal code came.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by 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.

What is the intent of the sculptural works on the facade of the Supreme Court?

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/photos.html

Which current religion is 'Authority of Law' associated with?

Or 'Justice, Guardian of Liberty'? They wanted buildings in a Neo-Classical style so they could associate their democracy with the Greek democracies of antiquity, and with the architecture of pre-Augustan Rome- and this is clearly what the edifices reflect. Simply because some American public buildings bear a resemblance to ancient Roman and Greek places of worship does not mean they're expecting American citizens to prepare an holocaust at the foot of the statue of 'Authority of Law.' The framers of the Constitution were steeped in the study of classical antiquity- the architecure of public buildings reflects this influence.

The statues of justice, liberty, and law are visual representations of abstract concepts- concepts moreover that are not peculiar to any particular faith, any branch of any particular faith, nor indeed are they restricted to those who worship god/s. Furthermore- you would have to show that the artist/s intent was to remind people of the worship of the god/s of antiquity associated with those concepts and that this was also the intent of the people who commissioned and erected the artwork.
The religion and religious practices associated with it no longer existed, ergo, the statues had aesthetic but not 'sacred' value. There's a difference between erecting a statue to 'Motherhood' and a statue of the Virgin Mary, for instance.

Or are you suggesting the American Republic was a hotbed of secret pagan worshippers, with perhaps Susan B. Anthony and Mrs. Lincoln as covert Vestal Virgins, and Benjamin Franklin as an augur, divining portents from the flights of passenger pigeons?

Judge Moore's statue, in contrast, is a clear reminder that he professes or adheres to a particular branch of the Protestant Christian communion- and is not simply a reflection of his aesthetics.

'One of the most recognized legal symbols visible at the
Supreme Court is the female figure representing Justice.
Portraying Justice as a female figure dates back to depictions of Themis and Justicia in ancient mythology. Themis, known for her clear-sightedness, was the Greek Goddess of Justice and Law. In Roman mythology, Justicia (Justice) was one of the four Virtues along with Prudence, Fortitude and Temperance.

The representation of this symbol has changed over time. Some early depictions of Justice included scales to represent impartiality and a sword to symbolize power. During the 16th century, artists increasingly showed Justice with a blindfold. The origin of the blindfold is unclear, but there is some evidence that these early artists added the blindfold to indicate the courts’ tolerance of, or ignorance to, abuse of the law. Today the blindfold is generally accepted as a symbol
of impartiality, but may appear in political cartoons to signify these other traits.'

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/figuresofjustice.pdf

Shock news! Supreme Court Justice deified!

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special47/articles/0905sandra05.html

The question remains- why wasn't the statue in his office? Or in his home, or on his front lawn? Would the god-fearing folks of Alabama tolerate a statue of Vishnu the Preserver or a copy of the Qu'ran, or an inscription from a hadith on the entrance?

[Ned]

Boris, Common Law means the combination of both (Civil) and Ecclesiatical Law - Church law. The latter was the dominate legal system in the middle ages.

Cite me one founding father who was an atheist.

[Lincoln]

A brief history for our atheists friends:

no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."

Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."

The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence [143 U.S. 457, 467] so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of {515} God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or Commonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus wch we now prfesse, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, wch according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst vs."

In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.

Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; "And for the [143 U.S. 457, 468] support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.

It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, §4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of the rights of the constitution of Maryland, (1867): "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he [143 U.S. 457, 469] believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780 "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe. * * * As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily." Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832 "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. * * * Religion {516} morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470] faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Boris, Common Law means the combination of both (Civil) and Ecclesiatical Law - Church law. The latter was the dominate legal system in the middle ages.

Again, which religious laws were enshrined in the Constitution? Since the Constitution is the foundation of U.S. law, I want to know wherein it tells us about this religious basis.

At any rate, Jefferson doesn't agree with this Common Law interpretation:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Cite me one founding father who was an atheist.

What difference does it make whether or not any of them was an atheist or not? What matters is that the system they developed was not based on religion, but on secular law. Plenty of them were Deists, and as such the Ten Commandments would still be rejected as a basis for anything, since Deists did not believe in Yahweh, either.

Besides the 1st ammendment, this concept is spelled out in another official U.S. document, the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797, Article XI:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

This treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate. Also, as previously quoted, Jefferson elaborated on the 1st ammendment in 1801 when specifically said the intent was to separate religion from government. That means the laws are separate from religion.

[Lincoln]

The above excerpt was from "Holy Trinity v. United States SCOTUS

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The above excerpt was from "Holy Trinity v. United States SCOTUS

An 1892 ruling which was overturned in 1962. How poignant.

http://www.au.org/resources/Brochures/christiannation.htm

"Admittedly, the U.S. government has not always lived up to its constitutional principles. In the late 19th century especially, officials often promoted a de facto form of Protestantism. Even the U.S. Supreme Court fell victim to this mentality in 1892, with Justice David Brewer declaring in Holy Trinity v. United States that America is "a Christian nation."

It should be noted, however, that the Holy Trinity decision is a legal anomaly. It has rarely been cited by other courts, and the "Christian nation" declaration appeared in dicta – a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not a mandate of the law. Also, it is unclear exactly what Brewer meant. In a book he wrote in 1905, Brewer pointed out that the United States is Christian in a cultural sense, not a legal one."

So much for that.