Alabama Supreme Court

[Ned]

Mordoch, I would find it incredulous if the Supreme Court would decide this case on the basis you suggest. The description of the display by its creator states that the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Western Law:

"MacNeil submitted the following description to the Supreme Court Building
Commission for the “Eastern Pediment”:
Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group—
left — is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The “Youth” is brought into both these groups to suggest the “Carrying on” of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left — The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right — Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left — Study and pondering of judgments. Right — A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale — The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.
The East Pediment by Hermon MacNeil
The East Pediment
Updated: 8/18/2000"

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
Mordoch, I would find it incredulous if the Supreme Court would decide this case on the basis you suggest. The description of the display by its creator states that the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Western Law:

"MacNeil submitted the following description to the Supreme Court Building
Commission for the “Eastern Pediment”:
Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group—
left — is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The “Youth” is brought into both these groups to suggest the “Carrying on” of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left — The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right — Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left — Study and pondering of judgments. Right — A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale — The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.
The East Pediment by Hermon MacNeil
The East Pediment
Updated: 8/18/2000"

Frankly, US law dosn't have much to do at all with Confucius. The way the description states things suggests that The Ten Commandments are at most used selectively, and certainly the description does not eliminate the argument that they are merely an inspiration for current US Judicial law. I would be VERY curious to find out how often "The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare" is used as a basis for making actual case law decisions. It appears to me to be merely a reminder to be careful and deliberative when making judicial decisions.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

Two key things are that the Ten Commandment in the Supreme Court building does NOT show any of the actual commandments, just numbers.

Why is that key? Does the absence of written words mean we no longer understand what the tablets represent?

Ramo -

Like court administrative practices. Don't see how that's so different from a law passed by a legislature

You don't see a difference between "Congress shall make no law" and administrative practices employed running the daily functions of the judiciary? Are you put in jail for not reading that monument? No...see a difference now? C'mon! I went thru this with MtG, the Framers weren't talking about "administrative actions" that lack the force of law when they prohibited "Congress" from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. Frankly, you guys are reaching for excuses and I don't understand why.

We're no longer living in the 18th century. There are things like executive orders that are equivalent to laws in many ways.

Whether or not an execuitve order has the force of law is irrelevant to this issue.

The courts don't take that position.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, citing the fact the courts are corrupt does not mean the 9th Amendment has been legitmately re-written or amended. It still says what it says and no amount of BS from the SCOTUS will ever change that...

That's irrelevent. Once again, if you really want to take it literally, there are no state or local congresses.

Does the 14th Amendment apply the 1st Amendment to the various state legislatures or not? If it does, then the "literal" language used in the 1st Amendment applies to the states' version of Congress.

Except there are laws on the books that are quite frightening, and the only thing stopping me from being arrested is that the police and courts are subject to the First Amendment. I don't want to be picked up because some ******* cops and judges want to use the "criminal anarchy" law in Texas.

The police and courts are not charged with the power to make laws, so why would a restriction on law making power mention the police and the courts? That's why the 1st Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law" and that's why applying that language to the states requires a bit of logic. We're into this part of the debate because you guys insist on re-writing the 1st Amendment to include non-legislative bodies that by definition lack the constitutional authority to make laws.

I never said it did.

You asked:

Honestly, I don't know how you could possibly support the legitimacy of a government whose courts and executive institutions don't need to respect freedom of speech or religion, etc.

If you weren't talking about this monument, then what purpose was served by your comment? Are you now saying this monument does not violate your religious freedom. If so, that would seem to indicate that the 1st Amendment remains intact if the monument stays put.

Have you taken a look at the US code lately? Like the Espionage Act is still law, that for instance could easily get you thrown in prison. If the executive and judicial branches weren't constrained by the First as you believe they should be.

Why do you keep raising other issues? We're talking about a piece of stone, not this act or that act.

[Ned]

It would indeed be interesting if the national media would take their camera's over to the US Supreme Court and focus them on Moses and the Ten Commandments. I wonder how the plaintiffs in the Alabama case would react?

[Berzerker]

Hell, I'm a libertarian who is very keen to violations of religious freedom (just another reason I oppose the drug war) and I can see that this monument neither violates anyone's religious freedom nor "establishes" religion. And when there is ambiguity, certainly not on this issue, I'll side with religious freedom...always... I wouldn't care if every member of Congress and the SCOTUS got up and professed an undying devotion to Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha and littered the Capital with religious symbols (with their own money of course) - that makes absolutely no demands on you and me - and that is how we determine whether or not religion has been established...

Unfortunately, "shall make no law" has been re-written to mean "shall make no expression".

[GePap]

Ned:

Moses is depicted as part of a group, holding a tablet that includes NO WORDS. As has been pointed out ad-naseum, the comparison is spacious.

Bezerker:

I wouldn't care if every member of Congress and the SCOTUS got up and professed an undying devotion to Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha and littered the Capital with religious symbols (with their own money of course) - that makes absolutely no demands on you and me - and that is how we determine whether or not religion has been established...

Actually, that last bit is where the courts, and the vast majority of posters here disgaree with you. England has a state religion: no one in England is forced to be an anglican, yet the State has an established religion. So having an outright demand made on you is NOT the sole measure of the establishment of religion.

Thankfully, whether you feel a demand on you or not is irrelvant to the law in this land.

[Berzerker]

Actually, that last bit is where the courts, and the vast majority of posters here disgaree with you. England has a state religion: no one in England is forced to be an anglican, yet the State has an established religion. So having an outright demand made on you is NOT the sole measure of the establishment of religion.

Just how is the Anglican Church "established" in England and just how does this monument establish religion here?

Thankfully, whether you feel a demand on you or not is irrelvant to the law in this land.

That's the point, if there is no law, there is no demand. If there is no demand, there is no law. WRT this issue, demand and law are synonymous...

[Imran Siddiqui]

the Roman Goddess Justitia is displayed in virtually every courthouse in the Western world. Does this display of a Roman Goddess mean that the courts are endorsing paganism?

Don't be dense . No one puts up Justitia with the intent to back the Roman religious practices, but rather because she stands for 'justice'. It is quite obvious that Moore's intent here is to push the Christian religion.

The fact that Moore resorted to throwing the monument up at night without consulting anyone should be a big clue that he knew his actions weren't on the level.

Yep, exactly. Even he knew it was wrong, since he did it under the cloak of night and not telling any of his fellow justices about it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Just how is the Anglican Church "established" in England and just how does this monument establish religion here?

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.

[Ned]

GePap, clearly the US Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments with other basic sources of Law, including Confucius (who is leader of a Chinese religion) and Solon. This display clearly is about the Law aspects of the Ten Commandments, not about the establishment of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions.

Displaying the Roman Goddess Justitia is not about establishment of the Roman religion.

So why is displaying the Ten Commandments by itself all about the establishment of Christianity? Clearly, if it is, then it violates the Constitution. But, as we have seen here, the Ten Commandments by themselve have been recognized a source of Law in Western Civilization.

Absolutely everyone here who opposes the display constantly cites Moore's intent and Moore's statements. They are complaining about Moore, not about the Ten Commandments per se. Otherwise, to be consistent, one would have to object to their display on the Supreme Court. One would also have to object to the display of Confucious, a Chinese religions figure. One certainly should also object to the display of Justitia, a Roman Goddess of all things.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
So why is displaying the Ten Commandments by itself all about the establishment of Christianity? Clearly, if it is, then it violates the Constitution. But, as we have seen here, the Ten Commandments by themselve have been recognized a source of Law in Western Civilization.

Absolutely everyone here who opposes the display constantly cites Moore's intent and Moore's statements. They are complaining about Moore, not about the Ten Commandments per se. Otherwise, to be consistent, one would have to object to their display on the Supreme Court. One would also have to object to the display of Confucious, a Chinese religions figure. One certainly should also object to the display of Justitia, a Roman Goddess of all things.

Again, the display in the SC is decorative, not placed right smack were everyone coming into the building, no matter their business, will run up against it. For the umteeth time, the examples you give are NOT similar. How many people who see Justitia even KNOW what she is, beyond an personification of law itself? And confucious, like Moses, is placed well out of the way of people as a deocrative motiff in the SC, not a giant 2.5 ton monolith in everyones way.

Now, Judge Morre put in that piece of granite in for all the wrong reasons. He had every right to place it IN HIS OFFICE, IN THE PASSAGEWAY TO HIS PRIVATE OFFICES, or anywhere else to show his individual deovtion. Right smack in the most pucli part of the building? No, speically given what his intent was. Every copurt that has seen this has ruled against Moore, including 8 of his collegues. If you want to bring a suit against displaying Justitia..fine, do so and see how far you get.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, clearly the US Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments with other basic sources of Law, including Confucius (who is leader of a Chinese religion) and Solon. This display clearly is about the Law aspects of the Ten Commandments, not about the establishment of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions.

For the upteenth time, the SCOTUS building does NOT display the Ten Commandments, it displays Moses holding the tablets (on which the Commandments do not appear). That is because Moses was a historical lawgiver, like Confuscius and Solon. It has NOTHING to do with any religious conotations, only legal.

Moore's display was intentionally and inheritly religious. It featured not only the commandments, but other quotes that were based on god. There's no way to view the monument as some sort of historical marker and separate it from Moore's views, except through a lot of disingenuity and specious reasoning.

Oh wait, seems that's what's being done...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the Roman Goddess Justitia is displayed in virtually every courthouse in the Western world. Does this display of a Roman Goddess mean that the courts are endorsing paganism?

Don't be dense . No one puts up Justitia with the intent to back the Roman religious practices, but rather because she stands for 'justice'. It is quite obvious that Moore's intent here is to push the Christian religion.

It would be refreshing if someone could argue the issue without talking about Moore and his "intent." The issue is the Ten Commandments, not Moore. Moore's intent should be completely irrelevant to the legal and constitutional issue.

[GePap]

One can not separate Judge Moore form the case, since he IS the case. That's lie saying : 'can someone plsea stop talking about the facts of the murder and focus on the issue of calling this murder..."

But to move beyond this case, which is pen and shut, thanks to judge Moore's fat mouth:

The US mentions God all over the place: but it never happens to meiton Jesus anywhere, or Mohammed, or any of the prophets of Israel, or this or that. Only if one believes in the Trinity does God equal=Jesus and the Christian faith. And that goes fuly with the fact that the US government does not recognize any one faith, or sect of a faith as having more inherent value than another: it stand equally behind the religion, or irreligiosity of all of its citizens, given that fact that it gives it citizens the freedom to choose any sect, or avoid all sects, according to the free will of the citizens. This monument is an afront to that. As Has been pointed out, the SC does not even list the commandments on its table, and for good reason: how many of them are actually law? 3 (murder, theft, false witness), and you can find those on Hammurabii's code as well, or Roman codes of Law. The first two commandemts are utterly secterian in nature: they negate the validity of faiths that disagree with this one (what is a hindi to do about graven images?) as such, it runs counter to the spirit of this country, and the consitution in not taking sides with any sects, to insure that the freedom of all sects remains.

[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?

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

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?"

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

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.

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

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

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