Those funny fundamentalists......

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
However, he also did not seek approval or go through any official channels to place the monument there--he just paid for it himself and had it delivered privately. If anyone thinks that's acceptable, I'm going to go drop all the furniture I don't want from my move on the steps of city hall and defy anyone to remove it.

Uh... Boris... Judge Moore IS an official channel.

Chief Justices are the senior judicial officers of their states (as is Rehnquist at the Federal level), and have administrative duties with regard to their state court systems, and with regard to the court buildings in which their courts sit and the personnel that staff them. (senior or presiding judges at courts of appeal have similar administrative duties with respect to their courts and court personnel)

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Because it's in the Constitution.

Can you point this out to me? I can't find it. The only thing along these lines I can find is the 1st amendment which reads:

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.

Presumably it would have to be in one of the Articles, but searching the whole thing for the word 'religion' gives me only the 1st amendment?

[ajbera]

There's nothing in the US Constitution saying it's wrong to have a monument of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. The only statement made regarding religion is in the First Amendment:

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.

The perception that a monument of this type acts as official endorsement is just that - a perception, and nothing more. Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything). Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Does the US constitution forbid religious monuments? I thought it just said that people could worship whatever they liked (ie. freedom of religion)?

It depends on the intent - at cemeteries, memorials, historical sites in context, no, it's not forbidden. One thing that simplifies this case is that Judge Moore is completely honest about his intentions.

In an interview, he stated directly that he wouldn't allow any sort of Islamic monument because "the Koran is not the law." In Judge Moore's view, the King James Version of the Bible is the supreme law and the source of American law - he has said that directly, and it's also reflected in his remark that the Federal judge who issued the removal order "placed himself above the law and above God."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Uh... Boris... Judge Moore IS an official channel.

Chief Justices are the senior judicial officers of their states (as is Rehnquist at the Federal level), and have administrative duties with regard to their state court systems, and with regard to the court buildings in which their courts sit and the personnel that staff them. (senior or presiding judges at courts of appeal have similar administrative duties with respect to their courts and court personnel)

Had Moore been acting in his official capacity as Chief Justice, he would still had to have gone through some official means to get the monument there--paperwork, work orders, insurance, etc. As someone pointed out, if someone were to be injured by the monument, who would be liable?

By paying for it himself and having it installed himself, he didn't appear to be acting in his official capacity as judge, but rather as an individual choosing to deposit something on government property.

RJ:

The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the the 1st Ammendment is stating that the government can't endorse religious sects. It also ruled that posting religious doctrines like the 10 Commandments in official buildings counted as endorsing those religious doctrines, and was therefore prohibited.

[ajbera]

Addendum:

My consternation at the whole affair stems from the fact that a minority of people demand that God not be anywhere except places of worship, no place public. I think that's rather silly, even if I completely disagree with the particular message espoused by a religion.

However, the law (misguided as it may be) is the law, and must be obeyed. Thus, it was absolutely correct to have Judge Moore removed from duty, even if he felt he was doing the absolute correct thing by fighting to keep the monument. He had a duty to uphold the law, regardless of his personal feelings about it. He didn't, and now he's outta there, and rightly so.

For the record, many conservatives (like Pat Robertson) also think that the monument's presence did not violate the Constitution, but that Judge Moore was definitely wrong in continuing his fight as he did, and that it was proper and correct to remove him from duty.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by ajbera
I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything). Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by ajbera
The perception that a monument of this type acts as official endorsement is just that - a perception, and nothing more. Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

This is, of course, patently false, since Judge Moore explicitely stated on numerous occasions that the very purpose of the monument is to endorse Christianity and proclaim the "truth" of his god. Now who's got the false perception?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ajbera
There's nothing in the US Constitution saying it's wrong to have a monument of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. The only statement made regarding religion is in the First Amendment:

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.

The perception that a monument of this type acts as official endorsement is just that - a perception, and nothing more. Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything). Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

Only 200 odd years of jurisprudence has consistently taken the position that the Constitution is to be interpreted on the basis of intent, and not on contriving the narrowest semantic construction of the exact words. Courts have allowed ten commandments displays in government buildings, because as displayed, they haven't been official endorsements of a specific religion. Judge Moore, in his official capacity, has made it very clear that it is his exact intention that Christianity, and only Christianity (and most likely, as an evangelical fundamentalist, he doesn't consider Catholic or Orthodox Christians to be "true" Christians) as the supreme "law."

The issue IMO isn't the stone monument itself (I think it's great - it's a fantastic piece of marble, very well executed, and it should get prominent display in some appropriate place.), it's Judge Moore's openly avowed intended use of the monument, and use of the court building, to use his state office and his official power to profess the "true" religion and "the law."

Moore is like a modern day Cromwell.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the the 1st Ammendment is stating that the government can't endorse religious sects. It also ruled that posting religious doctrines like the 10 Commandments in official buildings counted as endorsing those religious doctrines, and was therefore prohibited.

That is such a weird conclusion to come to. To me it says nothing of the kind. But it is your country I suppose, so if everyone is happy with this....

Isn't it then in conflict with other articles? I mean, if the populace were to democratically elect a Christian isn't that also endorsing Christianity? Or what about a Christian party (or for that matter a Muslim party)? Would they just be prohibited from taking office?

Edit: Carter is a Christian isn't he?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Isn't it then in conflict with other articles? I mean, if the populace were to democratically elect a Christian isn't that also endorsing Christianity? Or what about a Christian party (or for that matter a Muslim party)? Would they just be prohibited from taking office?

Edit: Carter is a Christian isn't he?

Uh, no, because nothing prohibits a government official from being religious, or professing his religious belief. However, if he starts using his official position to promote a religious doctrine on government property (which is what Moore was doing), there's a problem.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Had Moore been acting in his official capacity as Chief Justice, he would still had to have gone through some official means to get the monument there--paperwork, work orders, insurance, etc. As someone pointed out, if someone were to be injured by the monument, who would be liable?

By paying for it himself and having it installed himself, he didn't appear to be acting in his official capacity as judge, but rather as an individual choosing to deposit something on government property.

Judge Moore's circumventing normal state procurement practices (however, at no apparent monetary cost to the state for the monument or it's installation) does not negate his role as the chief judicial officer of the state, and with statutory authority over the building staff. Hell, if Judge Moore wanted to display a couple of works by Salvador Dali, he has that authority too. His authority doesn't extend to someone else's courthouse or the governor's office, but as CJ, he's in charge of the bulding and the staff.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
This is, of course, patently false, since Judge Moore explicitely stated on numerous occasions that the very purpose of the monument is to endorse Christianity and proclaim the "truth" of his god. Now who's got the false perception?

I was referring to the monument iteslf, and what it meant, rather than Moore's intent. In this case, Moore was wrong to use the monument as a promotion of fundy Christianity, as has been appropriately b!tch-slapped.

I can only assume, then, that had Moore kept his mouth shut, nobody would have had a problem with it and nobody would have tried to have it removed?

[realpolitic]

I got a huge laugh at the Fundy who screamed "They're taking away our God." If God was that weak he'd have died long ago. They're upset because they can't use the monument to shove religion in people's faces. Instead of trying to live their lives congruently with their beliefs, they're shoving their beliefs in people's faces.

Being raised Jewish, I have deep respect for the 10 commandments, but also have respect for the vegitarians who are expressing Hinduism, the Buddhist monks who selfimmolated to protest Vietnam, and the atheists who turned away from religion because of hypocrisy and the kind of idiocy in Alabama. Some of these fundies are the kids of the "Christians" in the KKK, but to be fair, religion has gone a long way. A few years age, The Pope pardoned Galilleo.

[Rogan Josh]

Someone should found a religion called 'Linconism' proclaiming Lincon as the saviour. Then we could all complain that the $ bills are promoting religion.