Alabama Supreme Court

[HershOstropoler]

"So a statue of Mohammed is OK, but the display of anything he wrote is not OK? We can display Confucious, but not Jesus Christ. We can display Moses with blank tablets, but not the Ten Commandments themselves?"

As I wrote somewhere in this thread, the issue is who can display what. If everyone can just say I can put up anything I want in the court building as long as I pay for it, fine. Then Moore can have his 10 commandments, an atheist can have a model of an atom or whatever, a muslim can bring a crescent or a display of the 5 pillars, and an agnostic can just not care.

Now Ned, can everyone display religious symbols at his/her pleasure in the courthouse?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
So a statue of Mohammed is OK, but the display of anything he wrote is not OK? We can display Confucious, but not Jesus Christ. We can display Moses with blank tablets, but not the Ten Commandments themselves

Well, have you ever seen any statues of Mohammed? NO,cause that is a graven image and against his very teachings. My guess is then, that a statue of MOhammed could only serve to allientae Muslims ad could not possibly be seen as an endorsement of Islam. As for the writing, anything in which he does not call those that disgaree with what was written as infadels and heretics, or as sinners would be just fine.

This kind of hair-splitting is nonsense! The First Amendment cannot condone such idiotic reasoning.

The issue here is not the 1st ammednment but the estabishment clause. And yes, the 1st ammendment and other do go into such gairsplitting, that is what courts are for.

I was watching the news last night. One of the reporters on a panel did make the observation that virtually every public building in the United States is festooned with religious symbols of one kind or another. Roman and Greek Gods, Mohammed, Jesus Christ, Moses, the Ten Commandments. He asked the simple question, "If this is wrong, where does it all end?"

Let me guess, Fox news? Greek and Roman gods are sysmbols of a dead religion, and thus are jnot in any sense religious anymore. Again, symbols of Mahoammed are against his very religion, so what could they possibly be? And he is wrong, in that his is not a black and white issue: there is a continuum, (as wth everything) and the courts thankfully do not share his simple mind. As I said earlier, a non-denominational mention of God (aka, some rgeater force than us, eprhaps creator, perhaps not) is fine. Curcifixes and Cressent moons and sdtars of david are more iffy. IN geenral, they can not be prominently displyed on top of gov buildings, the veranddas and so forth. Even in a courtroom that is comming pretty close t not being Kosher.

Our money mentions God. So does the pledge of allegience. The Declaration of Independence says our basic rights are endowed by the creator.

And this creator is NOT specifically the Christian, Jewsih Muslim, or anyone elses specific GOD, and thus it is OK. Plus, yu forget the addition of it to the pledge was in 1954, and espressly an anti-communist act,, and the courts should have removed it long ago.

Legislatures everywhere open their sessions with prayer. Chaplains are on the payroll of the armed forces. Even the US Supreme Court begins its sessions with a prayer, IIRC.

As was already stated by others, this is at the request of the legislators, and if any legisletors refused or asked for the service stopped, they would be, since they are a courtesy, and NOT mandated. No one could avoid looking at this 2.5 ton mostrosity, it was not sublte and it was uninvited.

I cannot remember an inauguration that did not begin with a prayer. Every president invokes God.

The president does NOT have to invoke God. And presidents can say whatever they want ina speech: they could not put a crucifix on top of the WH.

Is this all to be squashed in the name of the First Amendment?

Sorry, establishment clause, NOT 1st ammendment.

A fair person would have to say that our founding fathers would be aghast at even the thought of such extremism.

Given how many of them were deaist (and given the ample proof against this notion ALREADY CONTAINED IN THIS THREAD), this point is moot.

[Ned]

GePap, why are you making distinctions between the 1st Amendment and the Establishment Clause?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[GePap]

Becuase at issue is not the whole ammendment, but what establishment of religion means. I this case the courts have said (and i think correctly) that acts which in some way say that the state endorses this one sect or religion over others is a violation of this. Judge Moore by his act clearly sought to favor one religious sect. And posting the words of the commandments right smack in public space (thus giving it the notion of an endoresement) is aso favoring a sect, given the anture of at least the first 2 commandments.

[Berzerker]

Gepap -

The Church is an arm of the government, its head being the head of state, if that head is ceremonial in both aspects. So England has a state church (so do a few other European states). Interestingly enough, they turn out to be relatively areligious places (like sweden). That is what an 'estalbished Church means" (specially if you look at why so many religious refugees came to the America's). "Establishing" religion does NOT mean the same as forcing everyone to pray or be a part of the state religion: it does mean creating a tie between the civil powers and ecclesiastical ones.

As long as religious folks are allowed to run for office, there will always be ties between religion and government except maybe in communist countries, but it would seem that for the head of state and the head of the church to be the same, a LAW was made requiring this association. And that's the ENTIRE point - a LAW must be made for a religion to be established and there was no law made by the placement of this piece of stone.

Becuase at issue is not the whole ammendment, but what establishment of religion means.

Exactly! So how do we define that word? We look at the context - and the context is "Congress shall make no law". You guys see the word "establishment" and think the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall not respect the establishment of religion". That isn't what the 1st Amendment says!!! It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

[Jack the Bodiless]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Moore's monument was NOT religious in nature.

Suppose Moore had placed a big block of granite in the entrance of a courthouse, with an inscription that read:

HERE IS THE LAW.

1. Never, under any circumstances, drink Pepsi.

2. Do not play baseball on Saturdays.

...and so on.

Surely that monument would be deemed inappropriate for a courthouse? Since when can a judge abuse his authority as a representative of the state to declare his personal preferences to be laws?

If for no other reason, the monument had to go and Moore had to be suspended. He was quite openly motivated by a desire to "make laws" that he had no mandate to make.

[Berzerker]

My God Jack, representatives of government constantly share their beliefs about what the law should be. Now, do you have actual evidence he was trying to make laws? For example, did he jail an atheist for not believing in God? His mandate is to interpret the laws written by the legislature and determine if they violate either the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution, so unless you have proof he has interjected his religious beliefs into his interpretations in violation of those documents, you're just grasping at air. Why?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ramo

No, it's a noun. A verb doesn't have an article before it. If it were used in the sense that you refer to, it would say "Congress shall not establish religion."

You must have a terrible time reading Shakespeare, where the meanings of some words as we understand them today are completely the opposite of their meaning when they were written 400-odd years ago.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap
Becuase at issue is not the whole ammendment, but what establishment of religion means. I this case the courts have said (and i think correctly) that acts which in some way say that the state endorses this one sect or religion over others is a violation of this. Judge Moore by his act clearly sought to favor one religious sect. And posting the words of the commandments right smack in public space (thus giving it the notion of an endoresement) is aso favoring a sect, given the anture of at least the first 2 commandments.

Christianity and Judaism are hardly sects in this country.

[Jack the Bodiless]

My God Jack, representatives of government constantly share their beliefs about what the law should be.

It's pretty unusual for public figures to have their personal views carved into granite, entitled "Commandments", and placed in a law court.

Now, do you have actual evidence he was trying to make laws? For example, did he jail an atheist for not believing in God?

He, and his supporters, DO appear to be arguing that the Ten Commandments should be actual laws. And I'm fairly sure that he would want to jail (or possibly even execute) atheists, because that is precisely what the first and highest of his "laws" requires him to do. If he didn't agree with this "law", then why pay to have it carved into his granite block?

It is his stated position that atheism is unlawful. Stated in a block of granite carved and placed at his command. Why should I not believe him?

His mandate is to interpret the laws written by the legislature and determine if they violate either the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution.

...And, according to him, he has an additional mandate from his God to make the Ten Commandments law.

...so unless you have proof he has interjected his religious beliefs into his interpretations in violation of those documents, you're just grasping at air. Why?

I'd say I have some pretty rock-solid evidence for that, yes. Are you seriously arguing that Moore does NOT regard the Ten Commandments as a set of laws, and does NOT regard them as at least equal in authority to the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution?

This is a guy who actually believes that God Almighty gave these laws for all to follow, and truly believes that those who supposedly used deadly force to impose these laws were doing the right thing!

You seem to be arguing that a "law" isn't actually a "law" unless it goes through official channels. This would allow (for instance) a future dictator to assemble a private police force to impose almost any set of rules he likes without violating the constitution, because they're "not laws".

[Berzerker]

Jack -

It's pretty unusual for public figures to have their personal views carved into granite, entitled "Commandments", and placed in a law court.

They aren't just his personal views, they are part of the foundation of religions and legal codes shared by the vast majority of people in this country. Btw, the stone sat outside the courtroom. I suggest you read my first post back on p1 or 2 for my views of Moore since I've already dealt with his faults, the question is whether or not the stone violates the establishment clause and I don't care to defend the character of a man I know only from a few appearances on television and whom I already find dis-ingenuous.

He, and his supporters, DO appear to be arguing that the Ten Commandments should be actual laws. And I'm fairly sure that he would want to jail (or possibly even execute) atheists, because that is precisely what the first and highest of his "laws" requires him to do. If he didn't agree with this "law", then why pay to have it carved into his granite block?

What they "appear" to want and what they actually want are not the same. I've never heard Moore suggest all 10 of the commandments should be legislated, and since he doesn't have the power, your point is moot. Btw, that bit about you being fairly sure he wants atheists jailed or executed requires proof too unless you want to continue delving into the irrational... Btw, atheists aren't violating the 1st Commandment.

It is his stated position that atheism is unlawful. Stated in a block of granite carved and placed at his command. Why should I not believe him?

For the same reason he has never suggested (to my knowledge and yours I'm sure) dis-respectful children or people who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Jesus said "do unto others" but I've never heard any Christian demand that people who don't do unto others face the weight of the law.

...And, according to him, he has an additional mandate from his God to make the Ten Commandments law.

Where did he say that?

I'd say I have some pretty rock-solid evidence for that, yes.

How long shall we wait for it?

Are you seriously arguing that Moore does NOT regard the Ten Commandments as a set of laws, and does NOT regard them as at least equal in authority to the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution?

It doesn't matter what he thinks, his thoughts are completely irrelevant to the matter of constitutionality.

This is a guy who actually believes that God Almighty gave these laws for all to follow, and truly believes that those who supposedly used deadly force to impose these laws were doing the right thing!

Lots of people believe that, so what?

You seem to be arguing that a "law" isn't actually a "law" unless it goes through official channels. This would allow (for instance) a future dictator to assemble a private police force to impose almost any set of rules he likes without violating the constitution, because they're "not laws".

If a law does not go through official channels, the law is unconstitutional because only Congress has the authority to write laws. As for some future dictator, would not his dictates carry the same weight as the law? As I repeatedly told others in this thread, using euphemisms for laws - if it walks and talks like a law then it is a law - has no bearing on this matter because a piece of stone is not a law. No one is threatened with fines or jail for ignoring the stone, so why try to equate a stone with actual laws? Do manger scenes require us to bow down and acknowledge Jesus when we walk by? You guys don't seem to understand that before religion can be established thereby violating the 1st Amendment, it must be legislated.

No legislation = no establishment

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Jack -
It doesn't matter what he thinks, his thoughts are completely irrelevant to the matter of constitutionality.

This is BADLY wrong. The intent of individuals is a vital component of the United States' judicial system. The intent of the people who wrote a particular law or a constitutional passage is considered a very key component of judicial interpretation. I.E. if situation X appears to be clearly illegal under law Y upon a straightforward reading of a law, it may not be considered so if the Judicial Branch of government determines that the people who wrote the law clearly were thinking about something else entirely and not that situation since situation X would have never come up when the law was written.

The law makes a huge distinction between someone accidently causing the death of another and a carefully planned cold blooded killing. The actions of the protesters also make it very clear that they consider the monument to a be a religious object. (One protester actually seemed to commiting the sin of idol worship when he yelled out when refering to the Ten Commandments Monument and the workers removing it "You shall not touch our god!" ) I find it disturbing how little you seem to know about how our judicial system operates, you may want to consider taking a constitution law class at some point.

[Ned]

On the intent issue, will the radical left be satisfied by a ruling from the Supremes that a display of the Ten Commandment in public buildings is OK, citing its own building as an example, but in this case the display was unconstitutional because of Judge Moore's intent?

Again, going into Judge Moore's "intent" puts him personally on trial. Can the 1st Amendment extend to render unconstitutional the opinions of one member of government?

[GePap]

If by display you mean a table that is numbered but does not actually include the commandments, that is part of the decorations, why not?

As for Judge Moore, he is an acting officer of the court, who's job is to uphold the laws of Alabama and the US: one of those laws is that objects endorsing any religious sect in public buildings is verbotten. Judge Moore broke his very owth and the law of the land, and his prozelatizing piece should be removed, and placed either in the mans ffice, or in private regions of the building, if it stays ion the building long term.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Again, going into Judge Moore's "intent" puts him personally on trial. Can the 1st Amendment extend to render unconstitutional the opinions of one member of government?

Certainly the intent and opinions stated by legislaters can be a key component of determining whether a law is unconstitutional. I.E. a law setting up voluntary prayer in public schools could very well be ruled unconstitutional because the sponser of the bill said during the debate over whether it should be passed that the bill "was designed to create a school enviroment where students are encouraged to welcome Jesus into their hearts." A law clearly dirrected against a specific group, even if not outwardly stated in the law itself, may very well be ruled unconstitutional because of the obvious intent of those who wrote the law.