Alabama Supreme Court

[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.