Alabama Supreme Court

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Because he has the power to do so. A person of such power, backing religion to such an extent to where you have a religious monument on the steps of a Supreme Court, is definetly an establishment of the Christian religion.

After all, isn't it elevating that religion above others? What about those believes that don't like the 10 Commandments? But you have this religious monument smack in the middle of the body that DECIDES THE LAW!

The only greater establishment of religion would be if the Court declared the official religion of the State of Alabama to be Baptist, and the State would have pay money to that Church.

I think the last bit is hyperbole. Right?

I can see how the monument is offensive to people who believe differently. I do not see, though, how it establish religion or how one man, Judge Moore, can do so. He doesn't have the power.

What this amounts to is a display of his religious beliefs.

So, has this too become illegal under the establishment clause? I harken back to the teacher suspended for wearing a crucifix. I find that wearing a crucifix by Christians or veils by Moslem women or those black caps (what are they called) by Jewish men to be conduct protected by the constitution as "exercise" of religion, and not proscribed "establishment of religion."

[Kuciwalker]

DIE, thread, DIE!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can see how the monument is offensive to people who believe differently. I do not see, though, how it establish religion or how one man, Judge Moore, can do so. He doesn't have the power.

Yes, he doesn't... because the Federal Court told him to take his attempts at establishment away. One man, with sufficient power, can break down the door of establishment. You don't merely have to have a state religion to trigger the clause... after all, slowly creeping state acknowledgment of a certain religion can lead to a state sponsored religion just as good.

What this amounts to is a display of his religious beliefs.

Yes, in a public forum with the implied assertion that the State of Alabama in its laws is ruled by the Christian faith. You forgot that part.

I harken back to the teacher suspended for wearing a crucifix.

Well, if you are capable of reading, can you re-read what I wrote on that issue?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned
So, has this too become illegal under the establishment clause? I harken back to the teacher suspended for wearing a crucifix. I find that wearing a crucifix by Christians or veils by Moslem women or those black caps (what are they called) by Jewish men to be conduct protected by the constitution as "exercise" of religion, and not proscribed "establishment of religion."

There is a huge difference between wearing a personal item and placing a very large prominent religious item in a PUBLIC SPACE. This momenument was also not lawfully approved and placed according to court procedures (he snuck it in without the approval of the other judges in the dead of night), and I suspect there are criminal charges which should be levied against Judge Moore in this instance. If Judge Moore wants to stick a Ten Commandments Monument in his house fine, but a public space is entirely different. (What you wear can be legitmately restricted in some instances where a specific dress code is specific for logical reasons.) I'm not certain if you are being deliberately dense or having an attack of the stupids here.

Note, I believe the justification in the case you mentioned included that the very large size of the cross made it disruptive to the learning enviroment and violated the school dress code. Ordinary sized crosses or Stars of David are worn all the time without any school districting taking action against the students.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
I harken back to the teacher suspended for wearing a crucifix.

A situation that you seem to be ignorant of in terms of the details. Read up on exactly what led to the suspension and get back to us.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

This is BADLY wrong. The intent of individuals is a vital component of the United States' judicial system.

Criminal intent has no bearing on whether or not the establishment clause has been violated - you know what that is, the issue being debated. Do you understand context? If so, try to keep within the context of this case and not jump off onto other issues that are not applicable.

The intent of the people who wrote a particular law or a constitutional passage is considered a very key component of judicial interpretation.

And what was the intent of the people who wrote "Congress shall make no law"? Seems quite obvious, no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion - there is no law in this matter. Why do you people find that so confusing?

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!" )

It doesn't matter if it's a religious symbol or not, no law was made, therefore no "establishment" has been respected.

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.

Is Bill Clinton still teaching constitutional law? Great, I can learn how to re-write the Constitution to accomodate my ideology too. Btw, I'm well aware how our judicial system works - a bunch of lawyers intent on increasing their power devise ways of circumventing the limitations imposed by the Constitution by "interpreting" it to allow their power grab and most Americans either don't care because they see ways to profit from the power grab or are just apathetic.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has been "interpreted" to mean "Congress shall not respect an establishment of religion".

I'm still waiting for someone on your side to cite the "law" that was made...

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mordoch -
And what was the intent of the people who wrote "Congress shall make no law"? Seems quite obvious, no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion - there is no law in this matter. Why do you people find that so confusing?

I believe you are the ONLY one in the United States that believes this. (Other people might not have thought over this issue, but that's a different situation.) Your interpretation would mean that if John Ashcroft declared Protestantism the sole accepted religion in the United States and ordered the department of Homeland Security to arrest anyone practicing other religions, this would not violate the establishment clause since no law was actually made by the order.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

I believe you are the ONLY one in the United States that believes this. (Other people might not have thought over this issue, but that's a different situation.)

You obviously don't listen much to the arguments being made on this issue because I've heard a number of people on talk shows making the very same argument. Tell us Mordoch, did the people who wrote the 1st Amendment believe it? After all, they're the ones who wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" into the Constitution, not me...

Your interpretation would mean that if John Ashcroft declared Protestantism the sole accepted religion in the United States and ordered the department of Homeland Security to arrest anyone practicing other religions, this would not violate the establishment clause since no law was actually made by the order.

Try reading the thread because I've already dealt with this nonsense. He needs "laws" for such actions and he doesn't have the constitutional authority to make them. You're jumping from the absence of a law - this monument - to argue that my position allows for laws to be made that do violate the 1st Amendment. If you want to use analogies, at least use a bit of logic so you don't end up making ridiculous comparisons.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mordoch -

You obviously don't listen much to the arguments being made on this issue because I've heard a number of people on talk shows making the very same argument.

These must be neo-strict constructionist wackjobs who belong in an insane asylum, but I've never heard any of them on the radio shows I've listened to. Frankly I think I'm going to stop wasting my time debating this point with you in this thread, since no-one else seems to agree with you on this point, and you probably would not be persuaded if the founding fathers who wrote the constitution all rang your doorbell tommorow and told you "We meant not just congress but all employees of the government when we wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you moron!"

[Boris Godunov]

Ah, intent...

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811)."

--James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights.

Madison was quite strict about separation of church and state, and made it clear that wherever the two came into potential contact, it would always be best to keep them seperated. Considering his above veto and his reference to the First Ammendment, I hardly think he would agree that it is solely confined to legislation that "establishes" a religion. I also think, judging by his general sentiments, he'd agree the monument in Alabama had to go.

[Berzerker]

Mordoch -

These must be neo-strict constructionist wackjobs who belong in an insane asylum, but I've never heard any of them on the radio shows I've listened to.

I guess "neo-strict constructionist whackjobs" is how you describe people who can read what the 1st Amendment actually says, nevertheless, your assertion that I am the only one making this argument is fallacious and your ability to accept corrections with civility has been shown to be non-existent.

Frankly I think I'm going to stop wasting my time debating this point with you in this thread, since no-one else seems to agree with you on this point, and you probably would not be persuaded if the founding fathers who wrote the constitution all rang your doorbell tommorow and told you "We meant not just congress but all employees of the government when we wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you moron!"

You've been debating a point? All I see from you are insults, illogical "analogies" and the ability to ignore what I've said. This thread won't suffer by your departure... Now, "moron", if the Framers meant all employees of government and every government throughout the land, why did they say "Congress" in the 1st Amendment? I'll answer for you since it's obvious you don't know, because "Congress" writes the laws and the relevant part of the 1st Amendment was designed to prohibit laws respecting an establishment of religion, so it doesn't make sense to add every government employee into a prohibition on potential laws.

Boris -

Madison was quite strict about separation of church and state, and made it clear that wherever the two came into potential contact, it would always be best to keep them seperated. Considering his above veto and his reference to the First Ammendment, I hardly think he would agree that it is solely confined to legislation that "establishes" a religion. I also think, judging by his general sentiments, he'd agree the monument in Alabama had to go.

Boris, he objected to a bill containing legislation appropriating public - federal - land for a church. He objected to a law, not a piece of stone.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

What this amounts to is a display of his religious beliefs.

It might be if he wore the monument on a chain around his neck....now there's a thought.

Who decides who gets what monument and where it goes, if people are given carte blanche to erect obelisks to their faith on government property?

Can the Church of Satan have a nice big pentagram on the White House roof?

Will there be trials by combat (pay per view, of course) to decide who has the right to plant a memorial and how big it gets to be? Perhaps it should be by number of adherents of the faith in question, so say Episcopalians get a medium sized monument, Mormons a slightly smaller one (except in Utah where they can have the equivalent of a Mt. Rushmore) and the Shakers just get a lovely hand turned rocking chair, in some unobtrusive position.

[Berzerker]

Can the Church of Satan have a nice big pentagram on the White House roof?

If a Satanist wins the presidency, sure. What people do on public property is a matter for the owners of public property to decide, so let them decide. I'll vote to allow religious displays when there aren't safety and space concerns. If there are, then I'm sure another location can be found...

[Ned]

As to whether Berzerker has no adherents to his point of view, I agree with it now. Judge Moore cannot establish any religion by his lonesome. He simply does not have the power to do so. The placing of the monument in the foyer of the Supreme Court building represented his personal views on religion and the status of the Ten Commandments. However, what he personally thinks is irrelevant to an establishment clause case.

To make out a case, this has to be an act of the State at a minimum. We all see to agree that it was not an act of the State of Alabama.

Second, the action must be a "law" or equivalent thereof - just as Berzerker says. Otherwise, the issue does not fall under the "make no law" aspect of the establishment clause. I challenge anyone to point to a case that does not involve a statute or ordinance of some kind. Personal statements by individuals are not "law."

These are the issues that will be litigated at the Supreme Court. I doubt that the Supremes will even get to the validity of the display of the Ten Commandments by lawful statute of a State, as that issue is not presented here.