The 10 Commandments & Alabama

[Marko Kloos]

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere.

The phrase "separation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, describing the intent and practical application of the First Amendment.

The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

 

[cuchulainn]

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere.

Yeah, and the right to discharge your gun is imaginary too because it's not mentioned in the 2nd

Moore made a "law respecting a establishment of religion" when he ordered the monument be placed there and explicitely tied his action to promoting religious values.

 

[Keith]

Kind of like rulings based on an imaginary "separation of church and state" which was derived from.........................................nowhere.

Isn't this whole discussion getting bizarre? This is why I keep suggesting that these guys go back and examine the premise - the First Amendment - and READ the very simple statement it contains. But no, they'd rather keep edging further and further out on a limb that's been sawed off a dozen times!

Now, we have the argument that there is some vaguely define and unwritten rule that trumps everything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights - public officials are themselves "Gods" whose every pronouncement has the force of law...

Cognitive Dissonance!

Keith

 

[cuchulainn]

Keith,

Something out of a modern dictionary is not evidence that the founders used the term law in a manner more narrow than the common Anglo-American legal usage concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

I could provide you with a modern dictionary definition of regulate as "government controlled." That that does not prove the the founders used it that way. Same with your modern dictionary definition.

 

[2dogs]

explicitely tied his action to promoting religious values.

So now it's laws against religious "values"? How about religious names, yeah, let's do names- anyone named John or James or Paul should be dropped off a bridge.

The argument about firing your gun is completely specious as that (again) is inferred from the right to keep and bear arms. "Separation of church and state" isn't inferred, it is spun like yarn.

 

[Keith]

The phrase "separation of church and state" was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, describing the intent and practical application of the First Amendment.

And this letter to the Danbury Baptists overrides the Constitution?

Jefferson also wrote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Does that mean I can legally take my rifle to DC and do some "refreshing"?

The founders wrote all kinds of things, but the only writings with the force of law are those within the Constitution and its amendments. And in this case, those words start with; "Congress shall make no law..." and end with; "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Until judge Moore makes a law based on his religious principles, he is on firm constitutional ground. And his actions are protected by the First Amendment - which can't be "trumped" by a letter to the Danbury baptists!

Keith

 

[DaveB]

Masturdebation - the art of debating with yourself because you can't keep up with your opponent.

db

 

[Keith]

Something out of a modern dictionary is not evidence that the founders used the term law in a manner more narrow than the common Anglo-American legal usage concurrent with the ratification of the Constitution.

Ah, the liberal argument - whatever civil liberties we don't approve of, we'll just "interpret" away by creating fanciful definitions or build a house of cards based on the placement of comma's and semi-colons... Sorry, but it doesn't wash with 2nd Amendment arguments and it doesn't wash here.

In fact though, the word "Law" dates back to the 12 century (read the definition) and the word meant the same thing then as it does now.

If you disagree, then provide a cite showing that "law" in the 18th century meant "any utterance or action of a public official". You should be able to do that since Websters dates back nearly to that era.

I'm waiting...

Keith

 

[Marko Kloos]

Until judge Moore makes a law based on his religious principles, he is on firm constitutional ground. And his actions are protected by the First Amendment - which can't be "trumped" by a letter to the Danbury baptists!

So, if another Chief Justice in another state put up a monument in his courthouse proclaiming "There is but one God, and his name is Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet", he would be protected by the First Amendment in doing so?

 

[dustind]

Assuming the case DaveB posted is true, the judge has violated the 1st by putting his god above the law. If he is ruling based on religious beliefs, and not the law, he needs to be at the least thrown out. His statements to the press also seem to indicate he is biased to the point of putting his god above the law.

If the question is, "does his statue in a court house violate "prohibiting the free exercise there of"?" I would say yes, homosexuals, satanists, "immoral" people, etc, etc, would not be equal under the law. Defendants would have to hide their beliefs so that they did not bias the judge against them.

I think the line must be drawn at when people use the government to establish their religious beliefs to the point that it interfers with others "free exercise there of". God on money, and other small things do not seem to harm anyone, but court rulings can.

 

[cuchulainn]

provide a cite showing that "law" in the 18th century meant "any utterance or action of a public official".

I never claimed anything that broad. I have been careful to modify what I say with "in their official capacity" because when they act in their official capacity, they are agents of the state -- in effect become the state.

Blackstone, in the 18th Century, defined law as:
"a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong"

Moore prescribed a rule of civil conduct: fealty to the 10 Commandments.

He didn't just put the monument there for symbolism or decoration (as has been the case in other courthouses). He explicitely put it there as an official act of prescribing what he believed to be right -- asserting that the rules of the Judeo-Christian deity govern U.S and Alabama law.

Thus it was a law "respecting an establisment of religion."

 

[cordex]

He didn't just put the monument there for symbolism or decoration (as has been the case in other courthouses). He explicitely put it there as an official act of prescribing what he believed to be right -- asserting that the rules of the Judeo-Christian deity govern U.S and Alabama law.

So sneaking around in the middle of the night and dragging a rock onto public property was an official act as Judge? Not on the clock, presumably not wearing his pretty black dress of office ... hrm ...

Pretty broad definition of "official" you've got there.
Does his morning evacuation count as an "official" act (and thus, law) as well?

 

[Intune]

Moore's attorney, Herbert Titus, wrote that a stay would "permit the Chief Justice to fulfill the campaign promise that he made to the citizens of Alabama to restore the moral foundation of law."

Yeah, sure looks like he used his position to "officially" get it done. His morning evacuations are probably looked on as a bed of roses by his supporters!


This sure is helping to bring the country together, eh? United, no matter what race, religion or creed. Hmm...

 

[cuchulainn]

So sneaking around in the middle of the night and dragging a rock onto public property was an official act as Judge? Not on the clock, presumably not wearing his pretty black dress of office

What do the time of day or what he was wearing have to do with anything?

Pretty broad definition of "official" you've got there.

It became official when he claimed he had the authority to do it because he is the head of the Alabaman judiciary.

 

[Keith]

So, if another Chief Justice in another state put up a monument in his courthouse proclaiming "There is but one God, and his name is Allah, and Mohammed is His prophet", he would be protected by the First Amendment in doing so?

What do these words mean to you: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF"?

This isn't complicated stuff. If a judge or politician writes law based on religion, he's violating the 1st Amendment.
But look around you at the thousands of religiously themed monuments in every corner of the country, on public land, in government buildings and paid for with your tax dollars! Why is a statue of Zeuss (a god!) in central park not a violation, while a rock with Jewish/Christian/Muslim writings (the ten commandments) in Alabama is?

This isn't brain surgery here - open your eyes and look around!

Keith

 

[Keith]

I have been careful to modify what I say with "in their official capacity" because when they act in their official capacity, they are agents of the state -- in effect become the state.

Then you would approve of the Declaration of Independence being removed from public display? You would approve of removing the tens of thousands of monuments across the country that have religious themes? You would fire all of the chaplains paid for by the US government? You would remove the bible from US courtrooms? You would tear down the portions of government buildings with greek or roman gods in the facade?

The notion is ridiculous!

Keith

 

[cordex]

What do the time of day or what he was wearing have to do with anything?

It tells us whether or not he was acting in his offical capacity as a Judge at the time he illegally dumped the rock at the courthouse.

Contrary to popular belief, not every single action is done in an "official capacity".

It became official when he claimed he had the authority to do it because he is the head of the Alabaman judiciary.

If he in fact said that he drew his authority to use public property in the fashion that he did from his position as a Judge, then I can agree that he was acting in a manner which conflicts with the First Amendment.

 

[Intune]

No, I would remove a 5,000lb monument to religious laws enshrined in a house of law that suggests such religious laws are sanctioned by the "state."

 

[cuchulainn]

Then you would approve of the Declaration of Independence being removed from public display? You would approve of removing the tens of thousands of monuments across the country that have religious themes? You would fire all of the chaplains paid for by the US government? You would remove the bible from US courtrooms? You would tear down the portions of government buildings with greek or roman gods in the facade?

Your only response is the slippery slope logical fallacy, then?

 

[cuchulainn]

If he in fact said that he drew his authority to use public property in the fashion that he did from his position as a Judge, then I can agree that he was acting in a manner which conflicts with the First Amendment.

from: http://www.morallaw.org/presentation.htm

Presentation of the Ten Commandments Monument at the Alabama Supreme Court

Speech Delivered by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, August 1, 2001

By the authority vested by the Constitution of the State of Alabama in the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and as the administrative head of the judicial system of the State of Alabama; and

By the authority vested by Alabama Code Section 41-10-275 in the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court as the Authorized Judicial System Representative of the Unified Judicial System of the State of Alabama; and

By the authority vested in the Chief Justice as such Authorized Representative under the lease of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama;

I am pleased to present this monument depicting the moral foundation of law, and hereby authorize it to be placed in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

<snip>

 

[cordex]

Works for me.

 

[Moparmike]

[Mr. Burns]
Exxxxxxcccceeelllleennttt.
[/Mr. Burns]

Good info. Nothing like having proof that someone in charge overstepped his bounds.

Republicans get their panties in a wad because of Clinton lying under oath. Liberals (and Libertarians) get into a tizzy because some Bible-thumping redneck Justice oversteps his legal authority to put religion into a secular hall of law. Its all the same really. It gets way too much press, and way too much attention called to it thru actions against it. Just impeach him (we did...) and just remove the monument. Done is done.

MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIVES PEOPLE!!!

 

[Leaky Waders]

i still don't see the problem...

So a bunch of liberals removed the ten commandment statue from within a courthouse - big deal...the whole book is used multiple times throughout every case ever sanctioned throughout US history...

Yet, the cornerstone of the American Judicial system is whittled away and this is viewed as a 'victory' from philosophers...so the Satanists, Viking War Cult, and others that do not agree with the Ten Commandments don't have to worry about having their feelings hurt. boo hoo.

It is total bizarro world political correctness. I still find it hard to believe that some court took a firm stance on this subject and others and myself have diatribed about the state sanctioned religious icons that addorn our society.

America stands for something. And, I don't think that it's a neutral gray immoral society that is supposed to oppress it's people with hypocritical judgements like this one. Consult the founding fathers writings upon the subject of God as in the Declaration of Independence amongst other things...it wasn't an afterthought.

Could our ability, as America, to incorporate the Bible for over 200 years as a document to respect and acknowledge an oath prove intolerance to other religions no matter how non-mainstream they are? History says no...we are not intolerant bigots, despite using the Bible solely as the document for acknowledging oaths. In other words...it's in our culture to use this - it's Americana.

Those who fear this Bible or it's excerpts display a 'Chicken Little the sky is falling mentality' with respect to the history of our Legal System. I think that they are well meaning judeo-christian-phobes who can't see the forest from the trees.

As for those who really hate the statue despite any sense of its benign nature...a more coaxing argument to me would have been asking the judge to remove it upon religious principles...kind of like considering it a graven image. If a bunch a burlap hooded freaks would've showed up and burnt incense and worshipped his rock then he would've thrown it out of the rotunda himself.

 

[jimpeel]

For those who say things like "He didn't just put the monument there for symbolism or decoration" the Ten Commandments are now under attack in Georgia as well. They, however, are merely placed among copies of founding documents and other documents for "symbolism or decoration".

It seems that is is not enough that they are merely there for "symbolism or decoration". They are to ben banned wherever they appear by those who just cannot stand religion at any level.

 

[jimpeel]

... and then there's this ...

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17069

Ten Commandments monument can stay on Texas Capitol grounds

By The Associated Press

10.07.02

Printer-friendly page

AUSTIN, Texas — Thou shalt not remove the Ten Commandments from the Capitol grounds.

A federal judge has ruled that a 5-foot stone slab with the biblical passage next to the state Capitol building does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Thomas Van Orden, a homeless man living in Austin, had sued for its removal, calling it an endorsement of Judeo-Christian beliefs by the state government.

In a 14-page ruling filed Oct. 2, U.S. District Senior Judge Harry Lee Hudspeth rejected those claims and said no reasonable person would consider the display a religious endorsement.

The ruling was praised by the Liberty Legal Institute, which defends religious freedoms and First Amendment rights.

"There is not (a) constitutional right to censor religious history or artifacts because some citizen feels offended," said Kelly Shackleford, the institute's chief legal counsel.

Gov. Rick Perry also applauded the ruling.

"Today's court ruling is a victory for those who believe, as I do, that the Ten Commandments are time-tested and appropriate guidelines for living a full and moral life," Perry said in a statement.

"The Ten Commandments provide a historical foundation for our laws and principles as a free and strong nation, under God, and should be displayed at the Texas Capitol," the Republican said.

The monument was donated to the state in 1961 by the Fraternal Order of Eagles for the purpose of promoting youth morality to curb juvenile delinquency. The group gave similar monuments to several states.

Hudspeth's ruling said documents show Texas accepted the monument for secular, not religious, purposes.

The monument does not bear a state seal or the Texas star that is evident on 16 other Capitol monuments, most of them memorials to the state's history.

The legislative resolution accepting the monument made no mention of religion, and there is no record that either a Christian clergyman or a Jewish rabbi participated in the dedication ceremony.

Van Orden, who said he is not religious, told the court he found the monument offensive when he passed it on his way to the state law library in the Texas Supreme Court building.

The state countered that the slab is more historical than religious, with key segments of law founded on the moral and cultural ethics provided by the commandments.

The judge noted that no one else complained about it for 40 years and that Van Orden personally waited six years before filing his lawsuit, undermining his claim that it caused him harm.

"If the plaintiff has the right to request removal ... he certainly slept on that right for a long time," Hudspeth wrote.

The judge also said that because of its location — turned away from a seldom-used door and facing away from vehicle traffic — most Capitol visitors didn't even know the monument was there.

Van Orden could not immediately be reached for comment.

Will Harrell, director of the Texas American Civil Liberties Union, which was not involved in the lawsuit, said he wasn't surprised by the decision.

An order to remove the monument would have bucked recent case law, Harrell said.

"The law has developed as such that there can be religious symbols associated with non-religious ones if they have historical values," Harrell said. "We don't go about fighting lost battles."