M-15 - Ten Commandments Controversy

[bellatrix669]

I did a search and didn't see anything on this subject.
In Alabama, Judge Roy Moore clandestinely put a huge monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the state's judicial building, violating a court order. He has been ordered to remove the monument, but has recently said that he will not and plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. For more info, go to this website: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16497.
I personally feel that he is seriously violating the principle of separation of church and state, one of the principles that makes the U.S.A. so unique and should be removed. I have three questions for those who choose to respond to this thread:
1. Do you agree with his decision?
2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?
3. Do you have any other comments to add?

[strickendeath]

1. Do you agree with his decision?

- I agree with Moore 100%.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

"I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral foundation of our law,"

- He's right. The ten commandments are basically what laws are based upon. Whether it was intentional or not, the fact remains that they are very similar to eachother. Not recognizing one, in my eyes, would be to throw away the other.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

- Separation of church and state. Then should all Americans who believe that burn all their money? Because clearly, on American bills, it states "In God We Trust". If Americans can accept that on their money, why can't they accept it in the courts?

Sorry if I didn't make sense. It's really hard to put into words how I feel about this. :banghead:

[Wendiigo]

1. Do you agree with his decision?

-Yes,

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

-Simple. If he doesn't comply with the ruling and remove the monument, he will be in contempt of court. From there, a bench warrant for his arrest will be sworn, and he'll end up imprisoned until he complies with the ruling. There's just something precious about a judge who believes that he is above the law ending up in jail.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

-Strickendeath makes a very good point - it seems that for a country that espouses religious freedom, there's a lot of "God" this and that all over the place. Sure that's fine if you're a Christian, but there's a slew of other religions represented in America that have a voice last time I checked. Most religions have a basis of morality that goes along with the Ten Commandments, so saying that it's an exclusively Christian based system of rules of behavior is ludicrous.

Just goes to show you what happens when your country is founded by Puritans...

And yes, I was born & raised in the USA.

[Benzo]

We don't debate in Hogwart chapel, this thread will be moved to Knockburn Alley.

[bellatrix669]

^^ sorry, I overlooked that :blush:. Anyway, while the Constitution is based on English Common law, which is based on the commandments, you cannot overlook the fact that the first commandment is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If I were going to court and that was the first thing I saw, I'd be offended because I, as well as many other Americans, do not acknowledge a god. Imagine the outcry there would be if there was a monument with the tenets of a polytheistic religion on public property.

[Midnightsfire]

I shall withhold my comments until it's moved.

*zips lips shut*

*raises eyebrow*

OK!

1. Do you agree with his decision?

Heck no! If he wants to put his religious beliefs before his public duties he should quit and become a minister.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

Separation of church and state. (Among others)

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

Many Christians point out that this new covenant deal under Christ in the New Testament supercedes any older covenants made in the Old Testament. So get rid of the Ten Commandments already! (They number close to 600 anyway... :banghead: Not that anyone truly follows them to begin with.)

[Morgoth]

He's right. The ten commandments are basically what laws are based upon.

Um, no. The early Sumerian law and subsequent laws and edicts of the King Hammurabi of Babylonia are considered the original written laws, which I believe number into the hundreds as well. It is entirely likely that the Commandments were adapted versions of those early laws anyway, so they aren't the absolute original laws that we base ours on today.

[Ares'Fury]

1. Do you agree with his decision?

Yes I do think he made the right choice.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

I myself am a christian and I have a lot of respect for this guy tellin the government to **** off and let him show people his his beliefs. If you don't like the monument then don't look at it.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

I don't think that he will win his case in the Supreme Court because of Seperation of church and state.
I wish people would stop ******* about religion. If someone decided to put some sort of satanic sign on the the doors of a court house then I'd just give it the finger and not say anything about because I belive people should be free to show their religion in any place.

[Ares'Fury]

Quote"Um, no. The early Sumerian law and subsequent laws and edicts of the King Hammurabi of Babylonia are considered the original written laws, which I believe number into the hundreds as well. It is entirely likely that the Commandments were adapted versions of those early laws anyway, so they aren't the absolute original laws that we base ours on today."

I'm afraid that the Founding Fathers made laws on morals they believed in. And I'll guarentee that 99% percent of the framers were Christian, therefore they would use morals Jesus taught in the bible.

[bungo mungo]

First of all, Judge Moore was elected by the state of Alabama on a platform that stated he would ensure that "Moses' Laws" were more firmly in place in the courtroom. Therefore, when Alabamians voted for him, they knew what was coming. It seemed only fitting then to Judge Moore to place that monument as a reminder to the voters what he promised. I am proud that he is standing up to the federal courts like he is. The federal courts, in my opinion, have no say in what is placed in a state building. The people of Alabama spoke on the issue by electing Judge Moore. This is just another example of the decreasing rights states have.

It's not like he is instituting a state religion, and in all actuality, our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, so to deny that the Ten Commandments play an intrical role in the writing of our laws is folly.

Next thing you know, they will take the word "God" out of everything...oh wait...the 4th Circuit Fed. Court in California already tried to do that...

[The Oracle]

Quote"Um, no. The early Sumerian law and subsequent laws and edicts of the King Hammurabi of Babylonia are considered the original written laws, which I believe number into the hundreds as well. It is entirely likely that the Commandments were adapted versions of those early laws anyway, so they aren't the absolute original laws that we base ours on today."

I'm afraid that the Founding Fathers made laws on morals they believed in. And I'll guarentee that 99% percent of the framers were Christian, therefore they would use morals Jesus taught in the bible.

.... -.- Let's take this a bit slower. Morgoth was saying that the biblical teachings the founding fathers and this yahoo are holding so dear were based on older teachings. In other words, Jesus does not have the monopoly on morals. So I suppose based on that, we should not put up passages from the Bible, but even more ancient text. Because you know, that would be the real "back to basics" truth. Though I doubt Mr. Moore would think that's acceptable. Wonder why...

[Morgoth]

I'm afraid that the Founding Fathers made laws on morals they believed in. And I'll guarentee that 99% percent of the framers were Christian, therefore they would use morals Jesus taught in the bible.

Well in order to understand the origins of morals, you first have to understand the world before Judaism. Pre Jeudo-Christian civilisations had morals and laws, amongst many included penalties for murder, abduction and stealing. All of these were quite common and therefore whatever Jesus taught, however good it was (and I'm not saying his teachings weren't) were already in practise for centuries before. It's just that human beings built their beliefs around Jesus, rather than King Hammurabi or the Sumerian law establishers (is that a word?)

For the record, the ancient Vedic (http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/12/1994-12-03.shtml) civilization has the oldest known moral code/god belief systems in the world with the Rig Veda (http://www.2think.org/vedas.shtml). This belief is system is centuries older than Jeudo-Chrisitianity and for the record, the origin of moral codes comes from the Vedic god Dyaush-pita (Sky father, I believe).

[haycheng]

1. Do you agree with his decision?
No. He is apply for a job to uphold the law of people, not law of the God.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

Separation of church and state.US is not build as a religious nation. Christian is not the official religious of US. No matter how much connect our nation have with the church, we still have to uphold the separation of religious and government.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?
Law of the Christian should not be mix up with the law of US. We, Christian may choose to follow our "law" but we can not force it on others. We can try to convert them but not force them.

[Midnightsfire]

If Moore was a Muslim putting up passages from the Quran, I'd think a lot of people would be singing a different tune.

Hehehe...Do we really want to delve into the dubious origins of the Bible again? :lol: If he wants the Commandments posted, then he should post all of them. More to the point, he should obey all of them. :elaugh:

My opinion is this is an issue of separation of Church and state.

[Silvilocks]

1. Do you agree with his decision?

I respect his right to make any decision he chooses, but at the end of the day if he's going to break the law he has accept that his decision can and should lead to him being removed from office.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

As many other people have pointed out, separation of Church and State. If this was happening in the UK, I'd also be worried about what the next step would be. Bring back oaths that must be sworn on a Christian bible? I know we're officially a Christian country, but a sizeable chunk of the population isn't.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

I must admit I've never given any thought to our laws being based on the Ten Commandments, or any older religion. Of course the basis for our laws is ancient, and it's inevitable that various churches at different times would have played a part in those laws being drawn up. But that has no relevance to me personally, and I feel that religion should be kept firmly out of all state affairs.

[bellatrix669]

Thank you all for responding to my post. I want to add that he had the monument put up either overnight or extremely early in the morning. If he wanted to be that upfront about his faith in God, why didn't he have it done in broad daylight?

[triki1988]

People sometimes get so caught up in making things fair for diversity, they do things that make no sense at all.

[Angora]

I'm don't have perfect understanding of the American legal system. From what I understand though, this isn't his building to put a monument in front of. By which I mean, if he wanted to build it in front of his house, that would be fine, but if he wants to build it there, it should agree in content with the principles of justice, right?

Again, I'm not American, but I think American justice is supposed to be based on it being blind (meaning everyone is equal before the law no matter what you believe in). Maybe I'm misinterpreting his role as a Judge (and if I am, you can tell me) but shouldn't he check his personal prejudices at the door?

[Bhodi]

Interesting issue... Quite frankly, I'm torn on this one... On the one hand, the Ten Commandments are, indeed, arguably an important historic code of laws that provided a moral foundation for society in Israel (and, later, other societies in Europe and North/South America)...

Granted, it is certain that they were based upon earlier codes--probably influenced by multiple societies (it stands to reason that even back then there was quite a bit of trade among civilizations, thus there was probably a lot more knowledge transfer going on than we will ever be fully aware of)... It wouldn't surprise me if the recipe for the Ten Commandments read something like "start with the code of Hammurabi, trim all excess fat from body of code, add a dash of Greco-Roman influence, season with Vedic undertones to taste, etc..."

But, to get back on track... Regardless of the influences that led to the eventual Ten Commandments, I would still argue that they represent, historically, an important societal moral code... Viewing it from this standpoint, I sometimes feel that the 'separation of church and state' crowd goes a bit too far in barring the display, teaching, etc. of truly relevant and arguably significant pieces of historic information...

Ideally, we should be able to display the Ten Commandments in a government building without being worried about people thinking, "Oh my, this is offensive... They're shoving religion down my throat!" or "Oh dear... Big brother is trying to covertly compel my conversion to the Judeo-Christian religion..." After all, they do have historic value, and it is instructive for us to consider the history of such a code to ponder why it was enacted in the first place (to bring order to a bunch of folks who just broke away from slavery and were hoping to create a new state in the Middle East...). Of course, all the same, we should be able to display the code of Hammurabi in a government building, or selections from the Rig Veda, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Tao Te Ching, etc. for the same effect--to ponder their historic value and the whole question of their purpose in the grand scheme of things...

And this is where the realist in me kicks in, and realises (as a realist, by nature, does) that the 'separation of church and state' crowd, though sometimes a bit extreme, is normally right on the money in these instances... Because, the fact of the matter is that Judge Moore's actions were, indeed, covert, meaning he knew he was trying to "sneak one by us." And why did he know? I would argue because his motives for displaying the Ten Commandments are not along the innocuous lines of providing a fascinating slice of history for people to ponder the origins of legal codes, but, rather, the less innocent motive of trying to make some kind of a political statement based on religion... That's supposed to be a no-no, and is one of the things the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent...

And that's why the 'separation of church and state' crowd probably seems so extreme to me at times, because the opposite side of the aisle (the "religious right") is extreme in trying to foist Judeo-Christian principles upon the rest of our society... The rationale for doing so, of course, is simple--"Well, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles... 'In God We Trust' is on our money... Congress begins each day with a prayer..." And so on and so forth...

Of course, what these folks seem to forget is that America has embraced the 'Melting Pot' concept throughout our history, thus we have allowed our society to evolve in quite interesting ways through the absorption of individuals with non-Judeo-Christian value systems... For better or worse (and, IMHO I think it's for better), this means that we've evolved beyond the simplistic, single-minded view of those 'first invaders' (ask descendents of the indigenous people of North America how excited they are about Judeo-Christian values) who established this country and have begun to embrace a broader, more inclusive view of our society and the people within it...

Anyhow... I think I'm beginning to babble, so I'll just say that I could support putting the Ten Commandments or a similar item of historic importance in a government building if the motive for doing so were clearly non-political/non-religious in nature (which, call me crazy, I believe is possible...), but in this case the motive seems to be a bit, shall we say, nefarious in nature, thus it's a no-no...

[Fantome]

The ten commandments aren't modern laws, so how do they apply now? See the list below. only numbers 5 and 7 are real current legal laws. They don't make sense in a courtroom. "Don't lie" and "don't be jealous" aren't laws.
1. You shall have no other gods.
2. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
3. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not murder.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodus 20:1-17.

[bungo mungo]

Overall, this is a state issue. As I am not a citizen of the state of Alabama, it doesn't affect nor bother me. Alabama is a fairly conservative state, so when they elected him they knew what they were going to get...shoot, the guy displayed a wooden tablet with the ten commandments in his courtroom.

If it really bothers the people of Alabama to have this in their STATE building, then they can have a referendum vote on whether or not to take the monument down.

Commandments five, seven, and eight apply to our laws. following Commandments 9 and 10 are generally a good way to prevent committing a sin that goes against commandment 7. As for commandment 6, often in cases of divorce, if there has been adultery, it can sway the case. Commandment 2 comes into play when you are under oath. Lying under oath is a sure way to break that commandment. As for 1,3, and 4, those really don't have much play in hte laws, but just because 3 of 10 aren't incorporated into our laws doesn't mean that the 10 Commandments don't play a part in the laws.

[The Oracle]

Overall, this is a state issue. As I am not a citizen of the state of Alabama, it doesn't affect nor bother me. Alabama is a fairly conservative state, so when they elected him they knew what they were going to get...shoot, the guy displayed a wooden tablet with the ten commandments in his courtroom.
So what? He was elected, but the doesn't mean he does whatever he wants. Not everyone elected him, not everyone has the luxury of moving to a different state. Conservative or not, Alabama isn't an independant state. It's still subject to federal laws and the Constitution.

If it really bothers the people of Alabama to have this in their STATE building, then they can have a referendum vote on whether or not to take the monument down.
If people really wanted it, they should have have a referendum vote to put it up in the first place. This isn't "screw up the laws for your own religious wiles, THEN let people deal with it." How selfish are conservatives anyway? Yeah...let's not go there. :P

Commandments five, seven, and eight apply to our laws. following Commandments 9 and 10 are generally a good way to prevent committing a sin that goes against commandment 7. As for commandment 6, often in cases of divorce, if there has been adultery, it can sway the case. Commandment 2 comes into play when you are under oath. Lying under oath is a sure way to break that commandment. As for 1,3, and 4, those really don't have much play in hte laws, but just because 3 of 10 aren't incorporated into our laws doesn't mean that the 10 Commandments don't play a part in the laws.
Commandment 6 is going the way of the tree in many states. Adultery tends to play no part in divorce procedings unless the person is caught on film, with his/her pants down, in the act, etc. It's very hard to prove anymore. Just mentioning.. And no, I don't think the commandments play much in the laws considering again, they don't have the monoply on morals. That's nice that at the beginnings of US history, Christianity was prevalent but that was hundreds of years ago.
Christianity as a whole is loosing steam, with people converting to other religions and I think this is a really transparent attempt at someone trying to "hold on" and show people that Christianity is "strong," when it obviously has a flimsy hold on people. It's just denial..

[bungo mungo]

So what? He was elected, but the doesn't mean he does whatever he wants. Not everyone elected him, not everyone has the luxury of moving to a different state. Conservative or not, Alabama isn't an independant state. It's still subject to federal laws and the Constitution.


If people really wanted it, they should have have a referendum vote to put it up in the first place. This isn't "screw up the laws for your own religious wiles, THEN let people deal with it." How selfish are conservatives anyway? Yeah...let's not go there. :P


Commandment 6 is going the way of the tree in many states. Adultery tends to play no part in divorce procedings unless the person is caught on film, with his/her pants down, in the act, etc. It's very hard to prove anymore. Just mentioning.. And no, I don't think the commandments play much in the laws considering again, they don't have the monoply on morals. That's nice that at the beginnings of US history, Christianity was prevalent but that was hundreds of years ago.
Christianity as a whole is loosing steam, with people converting to other religions and I think this is a really transparent attempt at someone trying to "hold on" and show people that Christianity is "strong," when it obviously has a flimsy hold on people. It's just denial..


Not everyone elected Hillary Clinton in the state of New York, and they are upset with what she has done with her time as senator. Not everyone has the means of moving out of the state of New York, does that mean they should just get rid of her? A MAJORITY of the people elected Judge Moore knowing full well that he would continue to display the ten commandments. A MAJORITY elected him. That's how democracy works.

The federal courts really have no place to state their opinions on this matter; it is between the elected official and the people he represents. So far, the only ones who raised a fuss about it in the first place are the ACLU and a handful of trial lawyers, which, last time I checked, isn't a majority of the people.

By the way, which federal law says that the ten commandments can't be displayed? What laws did Moore break or screw up in the first place to place the 10 Commandments in the state court? As I recall, no one is instituting a state religion, nor are they forcing you to look at the monument or convert to Christianity/Judaism. The first amendment grants you freedom of choice in what you choose to practice as your religion, but not freedom from religion. I've seen the monument in person and really all it is a stone book opened up with the ten commandments written on it. How is this limiting how you can practice your religion? How is it incorporating church into the state?

As for your claim that the state of Alabama is not an independent state, it is granted, under the 10th Amendment, the power to deal with issues within its state that affect its state; powers are delegated to the state that are not given to the Federal Gov. Last I checked, this means that states don't have to go to the federal government to solve their issues. This is one of those issues. If Alabamians see fit to rid themselves of the monument, then they will do it.

As for commandment 6, not only does the fact adultery took place in a relationship matter in a divorce case (and it is proven in more ways than just film) but it also matters in child custody cases. I never said I agree with it working that way, but I know that it does work that way.

The laws were based on the philosophy behind the 10 Commandments, not so much the religious background of them. In a marble relief on the bench of the Supreme Court, there are images of all the past civilizations that helped shape our laws, from Hammurabi to the Ten Commandments. So then, if the Ten Commandments played no role whatsoever in the founding of our laws, then I guess it would make sense then to remove the Ten Commandments from the relief in the SUpreme Court. I am quite confounded about what you mean as a "monopoly of morals"?

If Christianity is losing so much steam, as you claim, then why does it bother you that they are displaying the ten commandments? Wouldn't it just be a last desperate act by a group that is losing its influence?


Your comment about the selfishness of conservatives is a rather broad generalization, that really has no point to this argument...liberal and conservative politicians are both greedy and selfish if you ask me; all they want is to get votes.

[The Oracle]

"As for commandment 6, not only does the fact adultery took place in a relationship matter in a divorce case (and it is proven in more ways than just film) but it also matters in child custody cases."

Nope. Not in all states and again, a lot states are changing to "no fault" states, which means you do have to have that film if you want more than a general 50-50 split. Maybe your state isn't like that *sees Texas and understands*...

[Angora]

The point of guaranteeing religious freedom (and other freedoms) in a country is so that even if a majority of people in a given area want to favor one religion they aren't allowed to.

If you listen to what the man says, his reasoning behind building the monument is to favor his religion. It's possible, I suppose, to build a similar monumnet to serve another purpose - the relief bungo mungo talked about is an example. But no one seems to be denying that this specific one was built to favor one religion above all others (maybe even just through what it implies) - and if the state is seen to favor one religion, that's not religious freedom.

[The Oracle]

The point of guaranteeing religious freedom (and other freedoms) in a country is so that even if a majority of people in a given area want to favor one religion they aren't allowed to.

If you listen to what the man says, his reasoning behind building the monument is to favor his religion. It's possible, I suppose, to build a similar monumnet to serve another purpose - the relief bungo mungo talked about is an example. But no one seems to be denying that this specific one was built to favor one religion above all others (maybe even just through what it implies) - and if the state is seen to favor one religion, that's not religious freedom.

Can I borrow your brain? That's exactly the point. The US is about religious tolerance but do you think if the judge was Muslim and he put up passages from the Qur'an, it would have been tolerated? I don't care if the south is conservative, they don't have any more rights to do such a thing as anyone else. Or "they voted for him, they should expect it." Honestly.. That's like saying ALL of America should side with Bush on all his policies just because we voted for him. Umm..no? (An example, let's not get off topic.)

[bellatrix669]

This is mainly directed at the argument that Alabama is a free state that should be able to do what it wants. What if someone else ran for office on a platform that promised to display scriptures from the Satanic Bible and won? The very first thing the religious right would do is seek an injunction to stop the display of any such monument, under the very same clause the ACLU is using now.
Besides, Roy Moore is planning to appeal to the Supreme Court. If I recall, one only appeals to the Supreme Court in cases that involve questions of federal law. I'd have no problem with his displaying the commandments if they were included as part of an historically-based exhibit that included other systems of law from which ours has evolved.

[The Oracle]

I'd have no problem with his displaying the commandments if they were included as part of an historically-based exhibit that included other systems of law from which ours has evolved.
I notice you added this, :) and sorry for being spammy. D'oh.
This is a quote from one of his support pages, so it's not supposed to be against him.
"A West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, Moore says the Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western civilization and American law. Once again, the ACLU and many secular media outlets have taken him to task for his stand, and the ACLU has hinted at a lawsuit. Moore is neither impressed nor intimidated.
"They do what they've got to do," he says, "and I'll do what I've got to do. We will defend this display in the judicial building vigorously. It is an acknowledgment of a sovereign, Holy God whose laws superintend those of man. We will not retreat from that position because it is true."
Justice Moore believes we've made some progress in regard to public acknowledgment of the country's Christian heritage. "That was our theme when we started, and I think other people have picked up on it. I see many articles now being written about the acknowledgment of God, and its not being adverse to the First Amendment. I have great confidence in the American people that when the truth is known, they will stand up."

Sounds as if he's being more preachy about how Christianity is the correct religion, rather than standing up for religious freedom of ALL religions in America. :P Note my post above about using the Founding Fathers and the beginnings of America as an excuse to preach the Bible.
"Uh hur.. The Founding Fathers were Christian, that means all of American should be. hur hur hur.."

[Bhodi]

"As for commandment 6, not only does the fact adultery took place in a relationship matter in a divorce case (and it is proven in more ways than just film) but it also matters in child custody cases."

Nope. Not in all states and again, a lot states are changing to "no fault" states, which means you do have to have that film if you want more than a general 50-50 split. Maybe your state isn't like that *sees Texas and understands*...

Objection, Your Honor... Argumentative... ;)

Though I understand the points made about the lack of modern legal relevance of the Ten Commandments, I don't see how that is germane to the issue here... The fact is (and it simply cannot be contradicted) that this Judeo-Christian code was an integral part in establishing a moral-legal foundation for numerous societies (starting with Judea)...

Were the Ten Commandments based on earlier codes (e.g. Hammurabi's)? Most certainly... Did the societies influenced by the Ten Commandments use other influences in structuring their legal codes? I would hope so... But that still doesn't negate the historical importance of the Ten Commandments... After all, as bungo mungo correctly points out, the US Supreme Court even has a marble relief acknowledging the historical significance of the Ten Commandments (along with many other moral-legal codes throughout the history of human civilization) in the annals of law...

Regarding your statements negatively stereotyping Texans and conservatives... C'mon, Oracle--You're above that sort of stuff... I saw nothing in bungo's initial post to warrant any venom...

[The Oracle]

I wasn't using the commandment in regards to divorce as any example of anything, I was just mentioning that states laws are changing. Why? No clue. I was only pointing something out, not making a point. :)
And it isn't venom at all. As many people have said, the south is more conservative (including Texas) and that is a fact. While a lot of northern states have adopted the "no fault" clause in divorces, many southern states have not. In other words, I was just noting that Bungo's experience in any kind of divorce most likely didn't have the "no fault" clause, therefor might not know that there was one to begin with.
You're reading into things too much, silly. ;)

[shadow fox]

Way to go, Bhodi :tu: ! I agree with you.

1. Do you agree with his decision?

I'm in the range of "yes" and "no".

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

Well, for starters (and I've stated this many times before) the Ten Commandments is apart of the Hebrew law. It was once apart of the Old Testament and most Christians study for wisdom and blah blah blah (see? I don't like to repeat myself ;) ). Other than that, I don't know what Moore's religion is and some of the Ten Commandments involve with our legal system. Thou shalt not kill. Now we all know that murdering is absolutely a big "no no" in the legal system everywhere (well, almost everywhere). I would state more of the Commandments, but it's seems that according to the posts above, it's not neccessary and I really don't have all the Commandments memorized anyone, so. . . .

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

I wish this Moore guy best of luck. And to those above: Why are some against this when most of us know that there are some laws similar to the Commandments in our legal system. Maybe not from the Bible, as many would say, but our Founding Fathers were Christians and based their laws from Christianity. Okay, the some of the laws have changed from that point on (and made the law list longer). Are some of you afraid that perhaps a "little bitty bit" of Christianity plays an itty bitty role in our society? :evil:

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

1. You shall have no other gods.
2. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
3. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
4. Honor your father and mother.
5. You shall not murder.
6. You shall not commit adultery.
7. You shall not steal.
8. You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Exodus 20:1-17.

Thank you for writing them out, because this illustrates an aspect of the First Amendment problem. A lot of people don't seem to realize that the order of the Ten Commandments varies between not only Judaism and Christianity, but denominations. What you're all referring to as the Sixth Commandment, "thou shalt not commit adultery," I know as the Seventh. So the moment you put them in a specific order, you're advocating one particular belief system over another.

As that opening makes clear, I don't agree with Moore's decision. As Morgoth said, a citation from the Code of Hammurabi would be more appropriate if he wished to honor the spirit of ancient law, just as a citation from Locke would be a more appropriate method of honoring the Founding Fathers (most of whom, while they believed in God, weren't necessarily religious in a way Moore would have agreed with).

[shadow fox]

As that opening makes clear, I don't agree with Moore's decision. As Morgoth said, a citation from the Code of Hammurabi would be more appropriate if he wished to honor the spirit of ancient law, just as a citation from Locke would be a more appropriate method of honoring the Founding Fathers (most of whom, while they believed in God, weren't necessarily religious in a way Moore would have agreed with).

I suppose I have no problem with that (so I supposedly would have to agree). It does seem silly that he is bringing the Ten Commandments to the legal system, but as I and others have said, there are some laws that are apart of the legal system originally from the Ten Commandments and technically from our *some* of our Founding Fathers but I'm not gonna get into a long discussing on that. That something for the History Corner.

[bungo mungo]

"As for commandment 6, not only does the fact adultery took place in a relationship matter in a divorce case (and it is proven in more ways than just film) but it also matters in child custody cases."

Nope. Not in all states and again, a lot states are changing to "no fault" states, which means you do have to have that film if you want more than a general 50-50 split. Maybe your state isn't like that *sees Texas and understands*...

Still even if the sixth commandment does not play a major role now, it did at one time, thus historically the ten commandments have played a role in the laws of our nation. I know of my explanations of how the commandments apply to present day law, that was the weakest one.

My main point, before this starts turning into a whole "well this is about religion" is that NO! for me this is not about religion. This is a state issue that the federal government thinks that it needs to intervene into, that is the main reason I support Judge Moore. Of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment is the one most abused by the Federal Government. If the case were different and instead of the commandments he displayed some other religious figure that had historical signifigance to our laws, I would have no problem.

Angora, Please tell me how he is putting another religion over another? He isn't forcing his constituents to pray to one God or follow one religion. He is simply stating that personally, his sense of ethics and morals are influenced by his religion.

Have their been major complaints about non-Christians who have appeared in his court that feel he was prejudiced against them because they were non-Christians? I don't believe their have been, so while this guy feels that his religion is the supreme religion, he still has not forced that down someone's throat.


As for the comment about democracy and not liking Bush: that's why it is important to VOTE and not be apathetic about it so you can ensure that what you want heard is heard. Sometimes you may not always like the result. A Majority is still a majority. You don't have to support Bush because you don't agree with his politics. If the people of Alabama didn't agree with what Judge Moore did, I think then that more people would take an active role and protest the monuement, rather than over 10,000 people show up in a rally in support of a man. That's how democracy works.

If the religious right wants to organize to get a satanic bible verse removed, that's their perogative. If atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, and other groups objected to the Ten Commandments being displayed want it removed, that is their right as well to protest and petition for it to be removed. That is the democratic process!! However, no major movement or petition to the wise has been done, except by the ACLU.


Thanks Bhodi and Shadow Fox! :D

[shadow fox]

You're quite welcome :tu: :D And great post, bungo mungo. You really struck a point there.

[bungo mungo]

This is a good read that answers many of the questions put forth on here regarding the historical signifigance of the Ten Commandments among all things. It's very long though.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41

[Anne]

While I certainly agree with the Ten Commandments, I don't think they should be prominently displayed in any courtroom setting. The first commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) is entirely religious in its nature, and putting it in a judicial building basically violates the first ammendment to the Constitution.

[Morgoth]

The Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, 1806 (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm)

ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

By displaying the Ten Commandments in a Court of law, it is endorsing Christianity. If the Judge wishes to have the Ten Commandments displayed, then he can have them in his home, where your personal life and opinions remain.

[bungo mungo]

the Commandments are not displayed in the courtroom. Before he was elected, Judge Moore did indeed display the commandments in the courtroom, but that is not the case now. The monument is on display in the rotunda of the state court building, not in the courtroom. The ten commandments are on display in the courtroom of the Supreme Court behind the Justices' bench...does that mean we should take it down from there?

How does displaying the ten commandments violate the first amendment? The first amendment grants freedom of religion, not from it, and as I have stated numerous times, no one has instituted a state religion. If this was the case, then I don't think the U.S. Congress would vote 260-161 for an amendment to defund any effort by U.S. Marshals to remove the monument; the Congress views it much as I do: a state issue to be dealt with by the state of Alabama.

[Bhodi]

While I certainly agree with the Ten Commandments, I don't think they should be prominently displayed in any courtroom setting. The first commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me) is entirely religious in its nature, and putting it in a judicial building basically violates the first ammendment to the Constitution.

Not necessarily, Anne... I think a key question that needs to be asked in situations like these is what seems to be the motivation, not simply the potential effect... Clearly, the Supreme Court does not consider display of the Ten Commandments in a public building as always in violation of the First Amendment, given the fact that their building includes a representation of said commandments...

[Morgoth]

Please locate the following founding principles in the Bible.


Representative democracy (The bible has Kings)
Freedom of religion (vs the 1st commandment which is not freedom of religion)
Separation of powers (It's all in the king)
Habeus corpus
Freedom of speech
Free press
The right of the people to peaceably assemble
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure
Trial by jury
Bicameral legislation
Limited executive power


In addition, please find the 10 Commandments in the US Constitution.


ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your


Note that the first 4 items would be unconstitiontional to enact into law. #5 is not law, Number #6 is illegal but neither is it a solely christian idea. #7 is not against the law but in some places used to be. #8 is against the law but neither is it uniquely christian.
#9 is not against the law unless in cases of purgury. But lying is not generally against the law. #10 is capitalism. The US ecomony is based on coveting.



Thanks to Crazyfingers

[Bhodi]

Please locate the following founding principles in the Bible.


Representative democracy (The bible has Kings)
Freedom of religion (vs the 1st commandment which is not freedom of religion)
Separation of powers (It's all in the king)
Habeus corpus
Freedom of speech
Free press
The right of the people to peaceably assemble
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure
Trial by jury
Bicameral legislation
Limited executive power


In addition, please find the 10 Commandments in the US Constitution.


ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your


Note that the first 4 items would be unconstitiontional to enact into law. #5 is not law, Number #6 is illegal but neither is it a solely christian idea. #7 is not against the law but in some places used to be. #8 is against the law but neither is it uniquely christian.
#9 is not against the law unless in cases of purgury. But lying is not generally against the law. #10 is capitalism. The US ecomony is based on coveting.



Thanks to Crazyfingers


You're not suggesting that the Ten Commandments aren't one (of many, mind you... I'm in full agreement on that point) important foundation for our system of law, and that they thus don't have any historic significance, are you?

In case you are, how about I just quote US District Judge Myron H. Thompson from his November, 2002 opinion on this matter?

"Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice (of Alabama) violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible."

Mind you, this is the decision Moore intends to appeal... To reiterate, the court ruled that his actions in this specific instance violated the Establishment clause, but made it quite clear that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public building does not necessarily violate the First Amendment... Clearly, Thompson also went out of his way to acknowledge the importance of the Ten Commandments as one (of many) influential foundations or, as he puts it "sources of American law."

Now, I didn't go to law school, but I'm guessing Judge Thompson did, thus I'm assuming he knows what he's talking about... Of course, he could be completely off base in making this bold statement regarding the significance of the Ten Commandments... But, then there's the little matter of the frieze of Moses (among many other notable 'lawgivers' from the history of civilization) carrying the stone tablets (with a portion of the Ten Commandments visible in Hebrew upon them) carved into the wall behind and above the Supreme Court bench... Or the image of Moses (flanked by Confucius and Solon) holding the stone tablets on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court exterior... Or the carvings of the stone tablets (sans writing, just to be clear) on the oak doors and bronze gates leading into the courtroom... Or the marble relief portrait of Moses (sans commandments) in the center of the upper north wall of the House of Representatives Chamber (the portraits are of "noted Lawgivers")... Or the two tablets (they are blank, just to be clear) representing the Ten Commandments sitting at the feet of the Spirit of Justice statue in the Justice Department... Or the colorful mural depicting Moses carving the commandments (including a full version of the text of said commandments) hanging within the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Harrisburg (it's one of 16 murals depicting different sources of law)... And son on and so forth...

I believe all of these examples and more are mentioned in the decision, which can be accessed via FindLaw.com (here's the link: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religion/glsrthmre111802opn.pdf).

[Tarawyn]

Matt, I was thinking about The Treaty of Tripoli...

U.S. law was influenced by the Ten Commandments, certainly - influenced through years of European history and European law. The country was not founded on Biblical principals, but it's impossible for it not to have been influenced by them, as the principals were key in a lot of history leading up to it. IMO, any arguments leading from that are null. The founders didn't intend for the U.S. to be based on Christianity and they didn't have to.

I'm uneasy that the Ten Commandments are displayed so carelessly, as the motto "In God We Trust" is - come to think of it, that wasn't present on paper bills until the '50s, but that's another story - but it's something to live with, I suppose. I think the whole lot of that stuff borders on unconstitutional, but if we accept some borderline, we have to accept it all, or run the risk of being hypocritical. I don't agree with any of it and I'd like to see all of it trashed, but what's the chance that's going to happen?

[bungo mungo]

Just trashing this whole affair would be to ignore Constitutional law.

The first amendment states, "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." Moore has not established a religion. He has merely placed a monument to something that has historical signifigance to the laws of the nation. A law has not been made in this instance to change the state religion to Christianity, nor are other people being forced to convert. I believe some of the belief that this is going against 'separation of church and state' is the oversimplification of this clause. That clause merely means that the government will never set up a 'Church of the US' like there is a Church of England.

The first and ninth amendments allow Moore to display the ten commandments if he wishes in his courtroom, though to some, this is not the best thing to do professionally, but it is his right to do so.

Ignoring this issue also ignores the tenth amendment: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' This states that if the people of Alabama have a problem with the monument, then it is their right as the citizens of the state to deal with the issue. This amendment also warrants that the state is solely in control of what is placed in a state building, as it is not the property of the Federal government.

...so, in conclusion, by placing the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state court building, no one's rights, as granted under the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, are being impinged upon. The Federal Government needs to keep out of the business of teh state and let the people decide upon the issue.

[Morgoth]

You're not suggesting that the Ten Commandments aren't one (of many, mind you... I'm in full agreement on that point) important foundation for our system of law, and that they thus don't have any historic significance, are you?

No, of course not, but we need to establish the motives for having them. In the cases you quoted below, the Ten Commandments are not displayed in such a manner that they promote Judeo-Christian attitudes. For in doing so, this would be proselytization as laid out in the report. As the link says:


At the monuments unveiling ceremony, Chief Justice Moore made a speech noting the monument depicted the “moral foundation of law.” But consistent with the impression the court had when it viewed the monument and consistent with his intent to design the monument to emphasize the preeminence of God’s Word, the Chief Justice made clear the monument was ultimately a monument to the giver of this moral foundation , the Judeo-Christian God, and, in particular, to his sovereignty over all the affairs of men.



But, then there's the little matter of the frieze of Moses (among many other notable 'lawgivers' from the history of civilization) carrying the stone tablets (with a portion of the Ten Commandments visible in Hebrew upon them) carved into the wall behind and above the Supreme Court bench... Or the image of Moses (flanked by Confucius and Solon) holding the stone tablets on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court exterior... Or the carvings of the stone tablets (sans writing, just to be clear) on the oak doors and bronze gates leading into the courtroom... Or the marble relief portrait of Moses (sans commandments) in the center of the upper north wall of the House of Representatives Chamber (the portraits are of "noted Lawgivers")... Or the two tablets (they are blank, just to be clear) representing the Ten Commandments sitting at the feet of the Spirit of Justice statue in the Justice Department... Or the colorful mural depicting Moses carving the commandments (including a full version of the text of said commandments) hanging within the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Harrisburg (it's one of 16 murals depicting different sources of law)... And son on and so forth...


Yes along with the comments laid out between pages 22 and 25 of the the report, which states:

The monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building is, therefore, dramatically different from other Ten Commandments displays in other government buildings and on other government land across the country... [descriptives of other monuments in government buildings]... in each of these displays, the Ten Commandments are situated in a secular context and the secular nature of the display is apparent and dominant...

Further on pages 26-27, the Chief Justice's attempt to prostlytize is described, when it states that it is nothing less than "an obtrusive year-round religious display", which the report goes on to say: "in order to place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," the Chief Justice's religion.

The issue should be about motive. The Ten Commandments do have a place in the history of common law, as much as the Code of Hammurabi does, if not more so. However, with Christianity, you have to be doubly careful about the way in which you wish to convey your faith as a representative of the United States government. Not all the people follow the Christian faith and not everyone is religious, so if you are brought to trial and do not follow Christianity and the Commandments, in which the Chief Justice bases a lot of his decisions, you have grounds to suggest his motives were biased.

In a democratic, free and multi-cultural society, the justice system of the United States must not be seen to favor a particular religion. Remember, the United States government has condemned the human rights abuses imposed by Islamic countries using Shariah law (Islamic Law). It would therefore be hypocritical of them to allow such a blatant endorsement of early Judeo-Christian law to exist above more secular laws, based on more than just the secular-based laws of the Ten Commandments.

Honoring an historical aspect of law is good and I'm all for that, but we are not simply dealing with a momument, we are dealing with the reason the monument was put there to begin with and that's an entirely different issue.

[bungo mungo]

The reason for why it was placed is not THE issue. It is the means by which is being asked to be removed.

The Justice system, particularly, Judge Thompson, are ignoring the constitutional basis for Moore's argument. The people of Alabama knew he would display the Ten Commandments and they still voted him in; it is a perfectly legal situation under the tenth amendment of the constitution. The people/state decided what they wanted, voted on it, and what they wanted happened. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and as judges both Moore and Thompson have an obligation to uphold the constitution. Thompson is ignoring the ninth and tenth amendments. Of anyone, he should be impeached for such wanton disregard for the document he has sworn to uphold.

Moore has merely stated how his religion has impacted his views and his life and how he views religion in its place in the laws of American gov. He has yet to let that impair his judgement as a judge and how he executes what he does in the courtroom. Where are the complaints that his overzealous Christian nature has caused a mistrial or the unfair trial of someone in his court that wasn't Christian? While it might not have been wise for Moore to blantantly make his comments at the dedication, it is his right to do so. I have yet to hear where his views as a Christian have affected his judgement in the courtroom.

Where does Moore advocate early Judeo-Christian law over the laws of the Gov. of Alabama and the U.S. government? Stating as such would be breaking his oath as a judge to uphold the Constitution.

I fail to see how the monument differs from the mural of Moses or from other depictions of the Moses and the Ten Commandments. Wouldn't all of these displays be religious in some form or another? It seems rather hypocritical of the court to say that. How do they define what is a secular display or not?

I do believe it has other historically signifigant quotes with the monument as well, the Founding Fathers no less:
Moore unveiled the monument that featured the Ten Commandments, along with quotations from Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison

[Morgoth]

The reason for why it was placed is not THE issue. It is the means by which is being asked to be removed.

Okay, it's part of the issue. Motive must be established in order for it to be ordered to be removed in the first place.

Where does Moore advocate early Judeo-Christian law over the laws of the Gov. of Alabama and the U.S. government? Stating as such would be breaking his oath as a judge to uphold the Constitution.

Page 19 of the report states:


In his trial testimony before this court, the Chief Justice gave structure to his understanding made clear both at the unveiling ceremony and at trial, is a granite reminder to Alabama judges and justices and all other state citizens of the ultimate sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian God over both the state and the church, of how all men and women should, therefore, look to God as the ultimate source for all moral foundation of all the laws of this country; for, it was God, and not man or the state, that gave us the Ten Commandments.

Seems an endorsement of the Judeo-Christian law to me, or did another religion have the Ten Commandments before Judaism?


I have no issue with the Judge's personal beliefs, but when a public servant uses their position to advocate that personal faith, using their own seat of power, then you have a problem. If Christians are to trust Non-Christians in positions of power and influence, then Non-Christians should be able to trust Christians in the same/similar roles. Can a Judge who displays the Ten Commandments be trusted to return a fair verdict on a Non-Christian?

Let us not forget that Constitutional seperation of Church & State protects Christians and their faith from attempts to regulate or negate it by non-Christians and Christians, with whom another Christian can disagree with in government office.

No one is ever served by Theocracy and if you're a Christian, then it really doesn't seem to serve Christ, either.

[Fantome]

This judge may not have made any obvious mis-judgements against people who don't agree with the 10 commandments, but I'd have a real problem myself being judged by someone who obviously believes I'm evil because I don't follow some of the commandments on his wall decoration. He has to think that the commandments must be obeyed if he felt like it was important to display them. So if he finds out that someone doesn't believe in them, he's not going to treat them the same.

Christians need to remember that they themselves aren't unified--many groups of Catholics disapprove of other Christians and vice versa (i.e., the statues are "idols" and the saints being "worshipped"). Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses aren't looked upon kindly sometimes too. Christians wouldn't like it if only one denomination took over and put its symbols everywhere. You'd feel left out or a little nervous, wouldn't you? It's just part of showing that everyone belongs in America.

[Midnightsfire]

Actually, this could be funny in a way. Imagine yourself to be a practicing Wiccan/Witch and you commit a crime and have him as your judge...

All things considered, in my opnion, the judge isn't thinking...

If he thinks to set a precedent, he will be aiding everyone with other religious convictions, Wiccan, Satanist, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, etc...to set their principles in stone and put it on public display at the publics expense.

If he thinks to tout the value of a theocracy, then he really needs to study history...A LOT of history. Only Buddhists had the best POSITIVE success at a theocracy.

http://smilies.networkessence.net/s/contrib/ruinkai/GRIM2A.gif

[Bells For Celes]

1. Do you agree with his decision? No
2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision? #1. I believe in the separation of church and state. #2. I don't think Roy Moore should be allowed to shove his religion in the face of every single person who walks into that Courthouse in the form of a gigantic hunk of stone that's basically saying to any non-Christian, "You're not welcome here." I dunno, growing up in Alabama (the Buckle of the Bible Belt) as a non-Christian tends to make you pretty paranoid and touchy and very very angry about these sort of things, so maybe my perspective's a bit off. Anyways, I don't think he's doing this for any other reason than his own political advancement. What better way for a corrupt politician to get the world's attention and the support of the brain-dead, gullible voters of this state? What a jerk. Think I'll go post Xeroxed pictures of Roy Moore wearing a corset and feather boa all over the city to cool off... :banghead:
3. Do you have any other comments to add? Not really. Just that if I thought Roy Moore was doing this for the right reasons I wouldn't be quite so angry about it. Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't really mean to. I don't have anything against Christians, just Roy Moore and his rabid followers. It's kind of neat, though, all this news and attention being focused on my hometown. I guess that's pretty cool, then.

[Midnightsfire]

Think I'll go post Xeroxed pictures of Roy Moore wearing a corset and feather boa all over the city to cool off... :banghead:

:rotfl: Well now, you go on right ahead!

:lol:

:welcome: to the forums!

[Bells For Celes]

Thanks, Midnightsfire ^_^. I usually just lurk around here.
A couple of friends of mine did that last year, posting Xeroxed pictures of Judge Moore wearing a Rocky Horror-type getup, complete with boa, and a caption that said "Judge Moore takes off his robe". I think I might still have a few that they gave me lying around my house. ;)

[Angora]

Angora, Please tell me how he is putting another religion over another? He isn't forcing his constituents to pray to one God or follow one religion. He is simply stating that personally, his sense of ethics and morals are influenced by his religion.


I think Morgoth already explained it pretty well before I got here.

I mean, the man came right out and said that he intends the display to promote his religion and that he thought his god's laws were the highest laws.

The reason that the federal government needs to be involved is that it violates federal laws.

This seems to be a point of contention, but: It's not his courthouse. He doesn't have the right to post his personal beliefs all over it, and frankly, his personal beliefs shouldn't make it through the door with him.

I think it's perfectly possible to display the ten commandments in an inoffensive way if you respect that although they played a part in forming the legal system, they aren't the legal system.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Where does Moore advocate early Judeo-Christian law over the laws of the Gov. of Alabama and the U.S. government? Stating as such would be breaking his oath as a judge to uphold the Constitution.

From The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19163-2003Aug20.html), August 20th:

Moore said that, as a judge, he expects people to obey laws but said he thinks his situation is different.

Why does he feel himself exempt? He can't claim federal authority, because federal authority has said he's wrong. Sure, he can appeal, but what will he do if the Supreme Court agrees with the others? At that point, the only authority Moore can claim is God's.

[bungo mungo]

Angora- He hasn't stated this in a courtroom where he was presiding, and thus, it hasn't affected people getting a fair trial. What federal law has he broken?

Once again, I am not making this out to be about religion; it is about the right of the state to decide for themselves. If the statue was of Mohammed, my stance on this issue would still be the same.

Personally, I believe, a wiser judge wouldn't order the statue to be brought down; rather, he would order that a referendum vote be brought this November before the people of Alabama, that way, this situation could be settled definitively. They vote for it to stay, it stays; they vote for it to go, it goes, no questions asked.

Also, while it is not professional, the man still has the right to say that he thinks his religion is best, or do you want to trample on his first amendment right to do so? You don't have to agree, but he does have a right to say what he thinks. And the context in which he said this is legal. It wasn't like he was in his court sitting on the bench preaching this. He may state that he believes God's law to be above all others, but where have his actions in the courtroom followed this? Actions do speak louder than words...

His personal reason was for displaying the statue was religious, however, the way in which is displayed is in a historical context; there are quotes on the monument from various Founding Fathers. And still, how does this display of the ten commandments differ from displays of it in other governmental buildings? How can displaying the ten commandments at all be called 'secular?"

Rowena Ravenclaw- He feels himself exempt from following the courts order because they are overstepping their bounds as a representative of the FEDERAL gov. by interefering in STATE affairs. Please read Amendment X of the Constitution.

Bells for Celes- a personal attack against someone because they don't agree with them (Moore) is a sure fire way to lose credibility for your stance.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

This isn't a states' rights issue. Even Moore isn't trying to frame it that way.

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16507

"[This is] about the acknowledgment of God upon which this nation and our laws are founded. ... It's time for Christians to take a stand."

And he's ignored procedures that would have kept higher levels of the federal government from getting more involved.

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16516

Moore lost a case before Thompson last November and before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals July 1. After he and his lawyers chose not to request a rehearing before the full 11th Circuit Court, Thompson issued his final judgment and ordered the monument removed.

"To this day, the court does not know any litigation-related reason why the Chief Justice declined to seek a stay through the orderly and established process outlined in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure," Thompson wrote.

Moore clearly wants this dealt with on a national level, in the court of public opinion, rather than any judicial or even legislative forum. But if the nation doesn't agree, he's got no one to blame but himself...or God.

[Angora]

Angora- He hasn't stated this in a courtroom where he was presiding, and thus, it hasn't affected people getting a fair trial. What federal law has he broken?

I don't know what to say that people haven't already said. I'll try to rephrase.

He has the right to say whatever he wants wherever he wants to whoever he wants because when you say something it's understood that that's your personal opinion. But by building the monument where he built it he is implying that it represents the opinion of the justice system and if the justice system had the opinion that the christian god's laws superceded all other laws, that would violate the constitution (as I understand the constitution).

That's why this specific monument isn't right. I believe you've already said yourself, bungo mungo, that you think it might have been a bad idea to build it.

The reason that they can't have an open vote is that it doesn't matter if most people like the monument. It isn't in the middle of a public park, it's in front of a court building and as such it has a responsibility to represnt the justice system in good faith (no pun intended).

The difference between this and other displays discussed is that the other displays were very clear about including the ten commandments as an element of the justice system rather than as the whole thing.

[The Oracle]

w00t!!
http://www.msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?0cv=CB10

And let the record reflect that even Mr. Moore acknowledges that this has nothing to do with politics..

“This case is not about a monument. It’s not about politics or religion. It’s about the acknowledgment of God,” he said on CBS’s “Early Show.
We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God. For [the judge] to say ‘I can’t say who God is’ is to disestablish the justice system of this state.”

So in other words, he IS using the supposed basis for the Constitution as a reason to preach the Bible and as an excuse to say that Christianity is the one true religion. This whole thing has nothing to do with America, but with Bible beaters. eesh..

[Scarlet Tears]

Thank you all for responding to my post. I want to add that he had the monument put up either overnight or extremely early in the morning. If he wanted to be that upfront about his faith in God, why didn't he have it done in broad daylight?

Actually, he confirmed on a televised interview that the monument was originally scheduled to be put up around 6:00 pm to avoid injury during working hours, but the company couldn't get it shipped at that time, so it had to be delayed until around 9:30 pm. Here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94216,00.html) is the link to the interview.

Anyway, declaring that the monument in Alabama is unconstitutional because it contains the Ten Commandments is the equivalent of stating that many of the beliefs that the Founding Fathers based both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself upon are also unconstitutional. It is my understanding that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed that the rights of man come from a transcendent "Creator," and not from the government, so even though the Ten Commandments are part of the Bible and they imply a belief in a certain religion, they are still a valid and relevant representation of certain moral truths and values that every American, whether or not they believe in a religion at all, should strive to uphold. Also, as it is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Moore has also commented on this issue by stating an example of a historic case in which his point was supported (in the same interview I liked to above):
"1961, in Miguelian v. Smerla, it was said the institutions of our society are founded upon the belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state, that there is a moral law which the state is powerless to alter, and that the individual possesses rights conferred by the creator which the government must protect."

(By the way, I understand that the Ten Commandments and other Christian beliefs are not the only source upon which the Founding Fathers based the framework of the American government, but they did play a very significant role nonetheless.)

Why does he feel himself exempt? He can't claim federal authority, because federal authority has said he's wrong. Sure, he can appeal, but what will he do if the Supreme Court agrees with the others? At that point, the only authority Moore can claim is God's.

That quote from the Washington Post, though I regret not being able to read the full article, has Liberal spin written all over it. Moore does not believe he is exempt from any laws. Here is what he himself has said:
"Because as chief justice of Alabama, I'm sworn to uphold the Alabama Constitution. I'm the chief administrative officer of the justice system. And our justice system is established invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God. It says, 'we the people of the state of Alabama, in order to establish justice, invoking the favor and guidance of almighty God.' When the federal judge says I cannot acknowledge God, I can't do my job."

I wish Judge Moore the best of luck in his fight to keep the monument and uphold what he was elected to do.

[bungo mungo]

Good points Scarlet Tears.

I would just like to thank everyone for their points of view and perspective they bring to the debate. This has been very engaging.

In other interviews, Moore stated that the Constitution of Alabama, which he took an oath to uphold, calls that he acknowlege God. Now if this is the case, then this case goes far beyond just a monument in a state building.

What mostly concerns me about this case is the fact the Federal Courts are assuming powers that were never granted to them under the constitution. Matters like this were meant to have been handled by the states, at least that is what the Founding Fathers intended.

Here's an article by Moore justifying his position, forget where it is from though.... :banghead:
In God I Trust
Why I'm standing up for the Ten Commandments in Alabama.

BY ROY S. MOORE
Monday, August 25, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

MONTGOMERY, Ala.--The battle over the Ten Commandments monument I brought into Alabama's Supreme Court is not about a monument and not about politics. (The battle is not even about religion, a term defined by our Founders as "the duty we owe to our creator and the manner for discharging it." Federal Judge Myron Thompson, who ordered the monument's removal, and I are in perfect agreement on the fact that the issue in this case is: "Can the state acknowledge God?"

Those were the precise words used by Judge Thompson in his closing remarks in open court. Today, I argue for the rule of law, and against any unilateral declaration of a judge to ban the acknowledgment of God in the public sector.

We must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.

By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor and my fellow justices have argued that they must act to remove the monument to preserve the rule of law. But the precise opposite is true: Article VI of the Constitution makes explicitly clear that the Constitution, and the laws made pursuant to it, are "the supreme Law of the Land." Judge Thompson and the judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have all sworn oaths which bind them to support the Constitution as it is written--not as they would personally prefer it to be written.

By subjugating the people of Alabama to the unconstitutional edict by Judge Thompson, that public officials may not acknowledge God, the attorney general and my colleagues have made the fiat opinion of a judge supreme over the text of the Constitution. While agreeing with me that the Constitution is supreme, and that the opinion of Judge Thompson was contrary to the Constitution, the attorney general has argued that he must follow an order he himself believes to be in direct violation of the supreme law of the land.

One of the great influences on the Founding Fathers, common law sage William Blackstone, once pointed out that judges do not make laws, they interpret them. No judge has the authority to impose his will on the people of a state, and no judge has the constitutional authority to forbid public officials from acknowledging the same God specifically mentioned in the charter documents of our nation, the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
My decision to disregard the unlawful order of the federal judge was not civil disobedience, but the lawful response of the highest judicial officer of the state to his oath of office. Had the judge declared the 13th Amendment prohibition on involuntary slavery to be illegal, or ordered the churches of my state burned to the ground, there would be little question in the minds of the people of Alabama and the U.S. that such actions should be ignored as unconstitutional and beyond the legitimate scope of a judge's authority. Judge Thompson's decision to unilaterally void the duties of elected officials under the state constitution and to prohibit judges from acknowledging God is equally unlawful.

For half a century the fanciful tailors of revisionist jurisprudence have been working to strip the public sector naked of every vestige of God and morality. They have done so based on fake readings and inconsistent applications of the First Amendment. They have said it is all right for the U.S. Supreme Court to publicly place the Ten Commandments on its walls, for Congress to open in prayer and for state capitols to have chaplains--as long as the words and ideas communicated by such do not really mean what they purport to communicate. They have trotted out before the public using words never mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, like "separation of church and state," to advocate, not the legitimate jurisdictional separation between the church and state, but the illegitimate separation of God and state.

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution. Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.

Scarlet Tears- I saw that interview...did you by any chance see Alan Keyes on the show? He was on Thursday night. I didn't see it, but read the transcript. Man, that guy is such an awesome speaker and really drives some points home.

[Midnightsfire]

Here's something that seems to encapsulate the various arguments: Compiled from posters from other forums called the Fray...(No moderation in those forums so things tend to get well out of hand but there are some very thought-provoking posts at times...wading through the ad-hominen, obscenities, etc...)

Take Two Tablets:
The ten commandments of the Fray. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087156/)

Thou Shall Take Lots of Cream With Your Coffee (DrPedantic, "A Word From the Religious Left"):

As both an Evangelical Christian and a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I have to commend Ms. Lithwick by hitting on a point I raise all the time. Watering down God and religion so that they become nothing more than "symbols" is nothing less than blasphemy.

When Posting, Thou Shall Cite Frankish Law Whenever Possible (Thrasymachus, "Moore's a Disgrace to the Bar"):

U.S. law has many foundations, and … "Judeo-Christian law" isn't one of them, because it doesn't exist. American law, as Moore should have learned when he was in law school, has several major sources. A few of the leading ones are:

1) Babylonian Law
2) Hebraic (note: that's not "Judeo-Christian") Law
3) Greek philosophy
4) Roman Law
5) Frankish Law; and most importantly of all-
6) English Common Law.

If judge Moore really wanted to showcase the foundations of American law, where's his statue of Zeus?

Thou Shall Smite Slate Correspondents for Their Ahistorical Renderings (1-2-Oscar, "Dhalia Lithwick doesn't know her history"):

First, we should note that the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law...." The first ten amendments to the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, were intended to limit the power of the federal government, and did not limit the powers of the several states in any way…

Second, Ms. Lithwick is apparently not aware that every one of the original thirteen states had an "official" church at the time that the Constitution and its first ten amendments were written and ratified.

Thou Shall Be Squirrely and Think Outside the Bible Box (Appleblade, "Roy Moore's Argument"):

In rushing to condemn Roy Moore's annoying position the media, reporters and analysts alike, have failed to notice the cleverness of his argument. While I don't think he's right to keep the Ten Commandments lodged in the floor of the courthouse, I do think he's on solid ground with his defense of one claim and his defiance of the order from the other chief justices.

First, his one claim that's adequately defended is that the constitution prohibits the establishment of religion, but not the acknowledgement of God. His evidence? God is acknowledged in all sorts of government traditions and documents.

Thou Shalt Not Overlook the Temerity of Elected Officers of the Court (celticdog, "Y'all Are Funny …":

Roy Moore is achieving exactly what he wants, he's getting publicity. He obviously aspires to some higher political office, such as governor or senator. Judges? Political? How can that be? Well in Alabama the Supreme Court Justices are elected. And what about those Federal Judges? Why they're political apponitments. Not appointed based upon their legal acumen, but upon their political connections.

As for Moore, he is appealing to Christian conservatives with his righteous stand. Oh, and making his name a household word for the next election. See, you can use religion to achieve many goals........such as running a political campaign for free.

Thou Shalt Not Romanticize nor Idealize the Intentions of the Founding Fathers (Zathras, "God and the Founders"):

Well, we live in a different country now than our forefathers did. We aim to be open and welcoming to all beliefs, or unbeliefs, hostile toward none, which is what the Founders intended. Isn't it?

Actually, they probably never imagined it. There is not the slightest historical evidence that the Founders ever assumed that the United States would at some point not be a predominantly Christian -- indeed, predominantly Protestant Christian -- country. The prohibition against establishing a church (which Connecticut and Massachusetts ignored well into the 1800s) or legislating upon the exercise of religion was intended to keep Congress from giving an advantage to any of the Protestant denominations (or, in Maryland only, the Catholic Church) over any of the others. If there had been any appreciable number of Muslims or Hindus in late 18th Century America they would most likely have been directed to leave by the governments of that time -- and in fact, the "free exercise" of Native American religions was recognized in precisely that way.

Thou Shall Be Pithy, Even When Discussing Metaphyiscal Issues (chloeqpc, "Lithwick column"):

The thing that makes these questions of religion so difficult to navigate is the fact that religious belief is for the most part absolute, intolerant, and non-negotiable. For a Christian, the question of Christ's divinity is not up for debate. Similar issues can be found in other major religions.

How then can a system that values - even requires - tolerance and diversity accommodate behaviors which are the direct opposite? The answer is that it can't.

Thou Shall Invoke One's Faith to Revive Dead Horses with Fresh Insight (SensibleChristian, "a question of purpose"):

If one believes in the 10 Commandments, as I do, he/she probably has them memorized (as I do). Why must they be posted in government venues, unless the majority is trying to intimidate non-believers into thinking that particular belief system, and none other, is "approved" by the United States court system. I wear a crucifix around my neck and pray wherever the heck I please. If anyone tried to stop either _private_ practice, I'd be up in arms over my Constitutional rights. But public displays are not religion, they are politics. And they are intimidating, bullying tactics that should not be catered to by our laws. Period. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "your rights end where my nose begins." Someone a lot more important said, "Be not like the hypocrites who pray on street corners, but retire to your chamber .. . " Look it up. It's in the Bible. The speaker was Jesus Christ.

Thou Shall One-up Thrasymachus (see above :D with a Reference to Simon de Montfort (Mike_Murray, "Absence is in no sense neutral"):

Would anyone object to a statue of Simon de Montfort, Hamurabi, Marcus Aurelius, or Justice (blindfolded with scales) in a courthouse? The answer is undoubtedly no. In particular you do see Classical statues to Justice etc in courthouses. So a non religious object with reference to justice or the rule of law is fine. Does the Ten Commandments have a reference to justice or the rule of law? I think only the most fanatic would argue that Judaic law did not have an effect on the history of law and certainly the Ten Commandments are the most recognizable representation of that history. So, any item which has a religious connotation of any sort must because of that connotation be banished from public display regardless of how much otherwise it might be appropriate to the circumstance …In terms of freedom of religion this seems to me not only inconsistent but antithetical. But does this mean religious display of any sort is appropriate? … The Ten Commandments undoubtedly is representative of more than just Judaism or Christianity or Islam. It is representative of early attempts at codifying law and establishing the rule of law.

Thou Shall Pick Apart the Opponent's Argument, Hanging Relevant Links like They're Christmas Lights (Joe_JP, "Roy Moore, Defender of the Faith and 10A"):

[Moore] is seen as a hero of states rights. Another current hero (and past supporter of Moore) is Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, controversial nominee to the federal court bench. What does he think about the federal order to remove the statute and the fine to the state if it is not removed? Well, he surely opposes the decision, but not the power to inflict it. He said as much in a recent letter to the minority in the state legislature that discusses the case.

First off, "The State of Alabama is not a party to either of the cases against Chief Justice Moore and has neither waived its immunity nor consented to suit." At any rate, per a 1908 USSC decision, a state official can be ordered by the federal courts to act, though the state itself can not. Finally:

"The power of the States under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution does not include the power of state officials to violate other provisions of the United States Constitution and federal law. Compliance by state officials with a valid federal court order would involve no abdication of any power whatsoever."

Who determines if it is "valid?" Each individual state judge? Not in the eyes of CJ Moore's colleagues, who per Alabama law has the power to overrule him on such matters. They are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it." What is the alternative? Each state judge can decide on their own what the federal law means?

:cool:

[Mad-I Moody]

1. Do you agree with his decision?
No, I do not. If Roy Moore is a Christian and he wants to acknowledge God, there are other ways to do so that do not violate the basic principle of the separation of church and state.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?
Oh, so many reasons, really. First of all, we live in America, where everyone has the right to worship in whatever manner they see fit. How would one feel, then, if one were of a non-Christian faith, and one were to go into the courthouse in Alabama where this monument is currently being displayed? Would that person be likely to think that he or she would be treated fairly by a court that so obviously boasts its own, different (from that person's) religion? Why not erect monuments to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Wiccan, The Native American Ten Commandments, etc.?

No one is trying to take away Roy Moore's moral beliefs. No one is trying to say that he cannot be a Christian and be a judge. He should be satified to be in the position he is in and to be able to make decisions based on his own moral code and on the code of law.

Roy Moore knew that the monument would not be allowed in the federal building. He knew this, so he had it placed in there in the dead of night. He didn't have it installed during the daylight. He KNEW he was doing something wrong, yet he did it anyway.

Isn't there a commandment about worshiping false idols? It's just a monument. Taking it down has no effect on Roy Moore's Christian beliefs.

I am of the mind that Christians should be compassionate toward others. Being a Christian myself, I can see how a huge bloody monument of the Ten Commandments of the Christian faith could be offensive or off-putting to people of other religions, especially if there are no huge bloody monuments to their respective faiths around to equalize the thing. Therefore, since no one is trying to tell Roy Moore that he can't or shouldn't believe in the Ten Commandments, the monument itself should not be a big deal. But it COULD be a big deal to those who do NOT believe in it.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?
Roy Moore seems to be vying for publicity more than anything else. Much of the speculation in the state of Alabama talks about how Roy Moore is beginning his campaign for governor once Bob Riley moves out. Roy Moore is gaining a lot of publicity with this, and, if you'll read some other transcripts of his speeches and interviews on this matter, you'll see that he refers to himself much more than he refers to God or to Christianity.

[shadow fox]

Looking at Midnightsfire previous post about those ridiculous Commandments (some I thought were funny) reminded me of a shirt I found that had a Commandment on it. It said:

Thou shalt not weigh more than thy refrigerator :D

Just thought I might throw that in for fun . . . .

[bungo mungo]

I really don't know how to respond to what Midnightsfire put. I thought it was pretty funny though.

Mad-I: Just to correct a few points, it was placed in State building, not a federal building. The principle of 'separation of church and state' is no where in the constitution. The idea of it originally comes from a letter Jefferson wrote and it was taken grossly out of context.
In addition, the reason it was not placed in the courtroom in the daylight is the fact that due to its size and the business going on in the courtroom, it would be difficult to move in. IN fact, it was supposed to be placed in the rotunda at 6:30 pm, soon after the court closed, but due to complications with the company that would move it in, this was moved back to 9:30.

[Angora]

Clearly it's a bigger issue than just a monument. Like I said, I'm not from the states...

The provinces here have a different relationship to the federal governement than the states have to theirs (or at least, that's what I'm understanding).

So, does the state constitution (if that's what it's called, sorry) have to agree with the federal constitution? I would assume that it does, right?

If it does then they should be striking down the state constituion (if it's true that it doesn't agree with the federal constitution) instead of wasting time striking down each individual violation of the federal constitution.

[Midnightsfire]

Thou shalt not weigh more than thy refrigerator

Methinks a certain American football player may be in trouble. :p

From that link and post:

"The State of Alabama is not a party to either of the cases against Chief Justice Moore and has neither waived its immunity nor consented to suit." At any rate, per a 1908 USSC decision, a state official can be ordered by the federal courts to act, though the state itself can not. Finally:

"The power of the States under the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution does not include the power of state officials to violate other provisions of the United States Constitution and federal law. Compliance by state officials with a valid federal court order would involve no abdication of any power whatsoever."

;)

[Mad-I Moody]

Mad-I: Just to correct a few points, it was placed in State building, not a federal building. The principle of 'separation of church and state' is no where in the constitution. The idea of it originally comes from a letter Jefferson wrote and it was taken grossly out of context.
In addition, the reason it was not placed in the courtroom in the daylight is the fact that due to its size and the business going on in the courtroom, it would be difficult to move in. IN fact, it was supposed to be placed in the rotunda at 6:30 pm, soon after the court closed, but due to complications with the company that would move it in, this was moved back to 9:30.


Sorry about the state/federal slip-up. I know it's in the Alabama State Courthouse.

As far as "separation of church and state" goes, I was referring to the clause in Amendment I of the Constitution, which says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

While I know that a monument in a state building placed there clandestinely by Roy Moore is not Congress establishing a law respecting an establishment of religion, I think that the point still bears making that Roy Moore is actively seeking to impose his thoughts about where the moral foundation of our country comes from onto people who don't believe in the God he believes in. Roy Moore is a state official, and he answers to federal law, and he cannot impose his religion onto others. In fact, He should remember Section 3 of the Alabama State Constitution which declares: 'That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."

As far as placing the monument in the building at night time goes, the state Supreme Court's senior judge, Gorman Houston said the monument was put in the Judicial Building on Tuesday night (July 31) without the knowledge of the other eight justices and apparently without the knowledge of 10 other judges on the lower appellate courts. Moore also admitted that one of the few people he let in on his secret plans to erect the monument was a florida preacher, who filmed the installation. He sells the videos of it for $19.

This is paraphrased from a Tuscaloosa newspaper:
Furthermore, Roy Moore has made it clear that he will not permit Buddhists, Hindus or Muslims to erect monuments to their faiths, because they have nothing to do with what he sees as the moral foundation of law. That foundation, in Moore’s mind, comes from the one true god -- his god. The god of any other religion doesn’t meet Moore’s measure.

[bungo mungo]

There is no question of where the moral foundation of our country come from though. A majority of the founders were heavily influenced by The Lex Rex. It is an error in assuming that America was founded on a non-Christian basis because it rejected theocracy. It *did* reject theocracy, but it was because it was based on a particular worldview that had done that before.The fact is that Rex Lex is a teaching written by a Presbyterian Pastor named Samuel Rutherford that is rightly credited with having a huge influence on the foundation of our nation, because it answers (Biblically) the big questions of what is the basis for freedom, and law, and rights, and what is that which is foundational to culture and society. It is decidedly a Reformed Christian view (for that day), and so it is indeed unique to that particular worldview. The very culture that surrounded the foundation of our nation was thick with it, and again one need not even be a Christian in the first sense to be participating in and living in a culture of Christian consensus, themselves exercising and affirming the natural conclusions of the kind of form and freedom that a biblical worldview brings forth.

This is why Moore will not allow a Buddhist or Hindu statues: their laws don't have relevance to the founding of our nation and its laws and the ideas of liberty.

As for religion: yes, we know Moore is Christian, but by placing a monument to the Ten Commandments (along with quotes from historical documents and prominent founding fathers) what religion is being promoted? Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have reference to the Ten Commandments in their Holy books. Certainly, a state religion is not being founded or forced upon the people of Alabama, thus not a violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution or Section 3 of the Alabama Constitution. The only way it even violates those two is if you have a very loose interpretation of those sections. Beyond that, I have no clue what federal or constitutional provisions Moore has broken.

Midnightsfire- I have a commandment to add to your others.
one of the Alabama Ten commandments: "Thou shalt not steal, unless it's a football coach from another good team". (In relation to Bear Bryant (long time ago) leaving A&M to coach football at UofAlabama). :cool:
:cool:

[Bells For Celes]

Bells for Celes- a personal attack against someone because they don't agree with them (Moore) is a sure fire way to lose credibility for your stance.

Sweetie, I don't care about my credibility, I was just expressing my opinion. Sorry if you got all hot and bothered about it. By the way, I was six feet away from Alan Keyes and snapping photographs when he gave that speech at the Ten Commandments rally, and he struck me as a bit of a psycho.

Something else to add: when Roy Moore says things like homosexuality is "an inherent evil" and a "criminal act that is destructive to a basic building block of society -- the family." I consider that to be a personal attack on ME. So really, I don't care about my credibility for you.




NOTE: Revising my post again. Sorry if that wasn't civil, I'll try to keep it cooler next time.

[Midnightsfire]

From slate:

Moore's Law
The immorality of the Ten Commandments. (http://slate.msn.com/id/2087621/) By Christopher Hitchens

The row over the boulder-sized version of the so-called "Ten Commandments," and as to whether they should be exhibited in such massive shape on public property, misses the opportunity to consider these top-10 divine ordinances and their relationship to original intent. Judge Roy Moore is clearly, as well as a fool and a publicity-hound, a man who identifies the Mount Sinai orders to Moses with a certain interpretation of Protestantism. But we may ask ourselves why any sect, however primitive, would want to base itself on such vague pre-Christian desert morality (assuming Moses to be pre-Christian).

The first four of the commandments have little to do with either law or morality, and the first three suggest a terrific insecurity on the part of the person supposedly issuing them. I am the lord thy god and thou shalt have no other ... no graven images ... no taking of my name in vain: surely these could have been compressed into a more general injunction to show respect. The ensuing order to set aside a holy day is scarcely a moral or ethical one, unless you assume that other days are somehow profane. (The Rev. Ian Paisley, I remember, used to refuse interviewers for Sunday newspapers even after it was pointed out to him that it's the Monday edition that is prepared on Sunday.) Whereas a day of rest, as prefigured in the opening passages of Genesis, is no more than organized labor might have demanded, perhaps during the arduous days of unpaid pyramid erection.

So the first four commandments have almost nothing to do with moral conduct and cannot in any case be enforced by law unless the state forbids certain sorts of art all week, including religious and iconographic art—and all activity on the Sabbath (which the words of the fourth commandment do not actually require). The next instruction is to honor one's parents: a harmless enough idea, but again unenforceable in law and inapplicable to the many orphans that nature or god sees fit to create. That there should be no itemized utterance enjoining the protection of children seems odd, given that the commandments are addressed in the first instance to adults. But then, the same god frequently urged his followers to exterminate various forgotten enemy tribes down to the last infant, sparing only the virgins, so this may be a case where hand-tying or absolute prohibitions were best avoided.

There has never yet been any society, Confucian or Buddhist or Islamic, where the legal codes did not frown upon murder and theft. These offenses were certainly crimes in the Pharaonic Egypt from which the children of Israel had, if the story is to be believed, just escaped. So the middle-ranking commandments, of which the chief one has long been confusingly rendered "thou shalt not kill," leave us none the wiser as to whether the almighty considers warfare to be murder, or taxation and confiscation to be theft. Tautology hovers over the whole enterprise.

In much the same way, few if any courts in any recorded society have approved the idea of perjury, so the idea that witnesses should tell the truth can scarcely have required a divine spark in order to take root. To how many of its original audience, I mean to say, can this have come with the force of revelation? Then it's a swift wrap-up with a condemnation of adultery (from which humans actually can refrain) and a prohibition upon covetousness (from which they cannot). To insist that people not annex their neighbor's cattle or wife "or anything that is his" might be reasonable, even if it does place the wife in the same category as the cattle, and presumably to that extent diminishes the offense of adultery. But to demand "don't even think about it" is absurd and totalitarian, and furthermore inhibiting to the Protestant spirit of entrepreneurship and competition.

One is presuming (is one not?) that this is the same god who actually created the audience he was addressing. This leaves us with the insoluble mystery of why he would have molded ("in his own image," yet) a covetous, murderous, disrespectful, lying, and adulterous species. Create them sick, and then command them to be well? What a mad despot this is, and how fortunate we are that he exists only in the minds of his worshippers.

It's obviously too much to expect that a Bronze Age demagogue should have remembered to condemn drug abuse, drunken driving, or offenses against gender equality, or to demand prayer in the schools. Still, to have left rape and child abuse and genocide and slavery out of the account is to have been negligent to some degree, even by the lax standards of the time. I wonder what would happen if secularists were now to insist that the verses of the Bible that actually recommend enslavement, mutilation, stoning, and mass murder of civilians be incised on the walls of, say, public libraries? There are many more than 10 commandments in the Old Testament, and I live for the day when Americans are obliged to observe all of them, including the ox-goring and witch-burning ones. (Who is Judge Moore to pick and choose?) Too many editorialists have described the recent flap as a silly confrontation with exhibitionist fundamentalism, when the true problem is our failure to recognize that religion is not just incongruent with morality but in essential ways incompatible with it.

(Every now and then Hitchens surprises me.) :blush:

[Rydia]

Apologies if I repeat what someone else has already said.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"
- Mark 12:17

I think that definitely applies in this case. Speaking as a Christian I think that separation of Church and State is a VERY important thing and what Roy Moore is doing is just plain dumb. If a judge decided to put a list of non-Christian beliefs up in front of a court I would be offended just as I'm sure many people are offended by having that monument in front of the state's judicial building. Most importantly, Moore was ordered to remove it and he blatantly disobeyed the law. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's", as a Christian, Moore should be very familiar with this verse and yet he chose to totally ignore the very teachings of the bible.

Its no wonder that so many people have a low opinion of Christians with this kind of behavior being publicized all over the media.

[Midnightsfire]

Haycheng:

Exodus, chapter 20 to near the end of Exodus (40:15) and Leviticus, chapter 20 to the end at Leviticus 27:34, have many Commandments that not many focus on.

http://burns.thefinaldimension.org/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[hermy_weasley2]

I did a search and didn't see anything on this subject.
In Alabama, Judge Roy Moore clandestinely put a huge monument depicting the Ten Commandments in the state's judicial building, violating a court order. He has been ordered to remove the monument, but has recently said that he will not and plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. For more info, go to this website: http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16497.
I personally feel that he is seriously violating the principle of separation of church and state, one of the principles that makes the U.S.A. so unique and should be removed. I have three questions for those who choose to respond to this thread:

1. Do you agree with his decision?

I think the Commandments should stay, but monuments concerning other religions shoukd be allowed to be placed there as well. However, if the Ten Commandments are taken down, NOTHING dealing with ANY religion should replace it. I do believe reverse descrimination is becoming a problem in the US.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

The Ten Commandments are what this country's laws are baed on, but our Constitution also gives us freedom of religion.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

Like I said bfore, racism and descrimination based on anything is double standard here in the US. For example, the way colleges decide who they are going to accept or how standardized tests are scored (sorry, I'm stil in school). With colleges, if a white, Christian student and a minority student have exactly the same attributes, the minority student will be accepted, because of their race,religion,etc. On standardized tests, a minority student is more likely to recieve a higher score. I'm sorry, but that's true. This why I think the monument should be allowed to stay, but other monuments should be allowed to go up.

[The Revenant]

I can imagine in a near future USA state, under the control of groups such as the Christian Coalition. You would have Bibles in school, creationism taught over evolution, compulsory prayers in school. Mandatory religious education classes, i.e. Islam is bad, Christianity is good.

Justice-wise, you'd have denied equal rights to homosexuals, feminists, single-mothers (but not good heterosexual Christian (white) single-fathers), non-Christians in particular atheists, immigrants. Possible executions of un-repentant homosexuals, ten commandments in every single court house etc... History would be re-written and overlooked. The USA would be bombing (more) people off the face of the Earth.

Another example, imagine if the Taliban had the resources of the United States. Bye-bye planet Earth, hello waste ground of the infidels.

[Midnightsfire]

Alabama chief justice removed from office (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/13/moore.tencommandments/index.html)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (CNN) -- Alabama's judicial ethics panel removed Chief Justice Roy Moore from office Thursday for defying a federal judge's order to move a stone Ten Commandments monument from the state Supreme Court building.

The nine-member Court of the Judiciary issued its unanimous decision after a one-day trial Wednesday. The panel, which includes judges, lawyers and non-lawyers, could have reprimanded Moore, continued his suspension or cleared him.

Moore said he was not surprised by the decision, which he called a step toward "prohibiting the public worship of God."

"I have absolutely no regrets," he said. "I have done what I was sworn to do. I have said repeatedly that unless we can acknowledge God, we can not uphold the oath of our office."

A federal judge in Montgomery ruled the 2.6-ton granite monument was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and ordered Moore to move it from the rotunda of the state judicial building in August. Moore refused, but was overruled by his eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court on November 3 refused to hear Moore's appeal in the case.

"In defying that order, the chief justice placed himself above the law," said Judge William Thompson, head of the Court of the Judiciary.

The panel also found that Moore "showed no signs of contrition for his actions."

Moore said he would discuss the possibility of an appeal with his lawyers and could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review his removal, arguing that it violates the Constitution's ban on religious tests as a qualification for office.

Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor had filed the ethics charges against Moore after the chief justice refused U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove the monument. Thompson ruled the monument was an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government in violation of the First Amendment.

Moore had demanded a televised trial in a larger venue than the Supreme Court courtroom, and said Wednesday's proceedings amounted to a closed hearing.

After Thursday's decision, he criticized the court for not opening the hearing and suggested that Pryor had changed his position on the issue for political gain.

Moore read comments Pryor made in 1997, defending Moore for displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom as a northeast Alabama circuit judge.

He pointed out that Pryor has been nominated to a seat on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

First Amendment debate

Moore's case has become a magnet for religious conservatives around the country.

He and his supporters say that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the U.S. legal system and that forbidding the acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion.

But a lawsuit filed after the monument's installation argued the massive stone marker constituted a government endorsement of Christianity.

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... ."

With Thompson threatening to fine the state $5,000 a day for defying his order, Pryor and Gov. Bob Riley refused to support Moore.

Both men are Republicans and self-professed conservative Christians who supported the monument's installation, but they said Moore was bound to obey Thompson's order.

Moore was a circuit judge in Etowah County, northeast of Birmingham, in the late 1990s when he fought a lawsuit seeking to remove a wooden plaque depicting the commandments from his courtroom.

The legal battle propelled him to statewide office in 2000, when the Republican jurist was elected chief justice after campaigning as the "Ten Commandments Judge."


*scrutinizes*
"I have said repeatedly that unless we can acknowledge God, we can not uphold the oath of our office."

What an ****...I completely agree with the judicial ethics panel. If he couldn't keep his religious beliefs at home, he definitely should be fired.

[Hagrid442]

The only thing wrong with firing him is that it martyrs Moore. The conservative Christians are now mobilized, and with his new-found fame and obvious ambitions (how Christian-like!) he just might get into a position of Executive Power. Just what Alabama needs, a theocrat.

Interesting quote by Martin Luther, Midnightsfire. Oh, should I mention that he was a rabid anti-Semite?

[Morgoth]

Interesting quote by Martin Luther, Midnightsfire. Oh, should I mention that he was a rabid anti-Semite?

I think Midnightsfire is aware of that. The quote itself is a statement of the mentality of a lot of believers who would not allow free-thinking if it intruded upon their own beliefs.

[Masterfroggy]

The only thing wrong with firing him is that it martyrs Moore. The conservative Christians are now mobilized, and with his new-found fame and obvious ambitions (how Christian-like!) he just might get into a position of Executive Power. Just what Alabama needs, a theocrat.

Interesting quote by Martin Luther, Midnightsfire. Oh, should I mention that he was a rabid anti-Semite?

Nearly all the people who signed the Constitution, on which the United States of America bases its laws, were people who believed in slavery, or held slaves themselves Does that fact, lessen the Constitution?

[Hagrid442]

What does that have to do with this topic's discussion?

[Masterfroggy]

What does that have to do with this topic's discussion?

Sorry I thought by including the person I was quoting it would be clear as to Point I was making
I will try and make it clear

Midnightsfire has as his signature, this quote

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
~ Martin Luther

Hagrid442 commented on the above quote
Interesting quote by Martin Luther, Midnightsfire. Oh, should I mention that he was a rabid anti-Semite?

My point is that even if Martin Luther was in your emotive words "rabid anti-Semite" Does it make his words less true?

As I posted
Nearly all the people who signed the Constitution, on which the United States of America bases its laws, were people who believed in slavery, or held slaves themselves Does that fact, lessen the Constitution?

Does the beliefs of the people who wrote the Constitution negate the value of the Constitution, as it stands today?
As to what is has to do with the topic at hand, it has as much to do with the topic as your comment about Martin Luther

[Hagrid442]

Ah, ok. I see your point. That wasn't what I was driving at however. I did not mean to infer that everything that Luther did be negated because he was anti-Semitic. That remark was more on a specific level than one so broad. My point was that someone that held such strong views against Reason, was also someone that was "rabidly anti-Semitic". Just a dig at the irrationality of anti-Semitism, especially in these times with Mahathir Mohammad's little speech, and 74% of the European Union deeming Israel the "largest threat to world security".

[Midnightsfire]

I think Midnightsfire is aware of that. The quote itself is a statement of the mentality of a lot of believers who would not allow free-thinking if it intruded upon their own beliefs.
*nods* (I once had hopes for Martin Luther *sigh*)

I find it somewhat inconsistent that many Christians view the Ten Commandments as valid while considering the Old Testament as invalid. It can even be anti-semitic in a way...*shrugs* (John 10:24-26)

Speaking of Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohammad's remarks (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=19616) http://www.kurts-smilies.de/fechten2.gif

Of course, such things do get a bit heated as noted in the Crisis in the Middle East--discussion (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=319). (Yes, I was even accused as being an anti-semite. http://www.kurts-smilies.de/geige.gif)

[Laufa]

If the state and the church are spereated, he has no right to put what christians base THEIR laws upon as common laws.

For example, you're not allowed to belive in other God's in the ten commandments, then how can the church and state be seperated?

May he belive in Christ for all he wants, but it is very unfair to make others apply to his rules - against their wishes.

Oh, I'm christian, btw.

Love,
Eyrún

[nightingale]

Whether it was wrong or not (which, speaking in terms of not personal belief, but what I interpret from the "establishment clause" of the the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Therefore, putting the Ten Commandments up on government property violates this, doesn't it?) it was a pretty brilliant political move. He's running for office again, and I bet he'll win, too.

[Bhodi]

speaking in terms of not personal belief, but what I interpret from the "establishment clause" of the the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". Therefore, putting the Ten Commandments up on government property violates this, doesn't it?

Again, no... Putting the Ten Commandments up on government property does not, per se, violate the Establishment Clause... Both the manner in which they are displayed and the rationale for displaying them seem to be the critical factors in whether or not the court rules against display of the Ten Commandments on government property...

[Mad-I Moody]

The issue seems to have surpassed (and with great gusto, thanks to Ragin' Roy Boy) simply whether or not the monument belongs in a state building. The fact of the matter is that Roy Moore blatantly and unapologetically defied a COURT ORDER by keeping the monument in the building. We cannot respect or obey officials who place themselves so self-righteously above the laws we (citizens of the United States) are expected to obey. He should have been removed from office, and, should he run for another political position (say, Governor), one can only hope that enough Alabamians have the good sense not to elect someone who so callously ignores the law.

And, I might add, I totally resent Roy Moore's implications that those who disagree with him are non-believers. I am a Christian, and I believe in the 10 Commandments. I do not need to post them on my wall at work to show everyone that I believe in this moral code. I simply carry out those actions in my everyday life.

[nightingale]

Again, no... Putting the Ten Commandments up on government property does not, per se, violate the Establishment Clause... Both the manner in which they are displayed and the rationale for displaying them seem to be the critical factors in whether or not the court rules against display of the Ten Commandments on government property...

I'm sorry if I was repeating something previously said, I didn't realize it, but I don't understand what you're saying, really. But Mad-I Moody is right, it's moved beyond that now.

[halfbreedlover]

I am no expert in this field. But I have to say that the decision to put up the ten commandments in any sort of judiciary building does violate the 1st amendment in my mind. This is not Moore's courthouse, it's the state's courthouse, he cannot do whatever he wants with it. What kind of a judge does something he knows is illegal? Doesn't that make him a hypocrite in his own profession?

Bungo Mungo and the rest of you who think this is ok, try and step out of your box. Pretend for a second you are not Christian, perhaps you are an atheist, perhaps you are a Buddhist, wouldn't you be slightly offended if you saw such a document? You would feel like a minority, like this isn't your country, taken to the greatest extent you might really feel like an outsider.

I personally am against organized religion and this very debate proves one of the problems with it...but let's not go there.

Locke, Reusseau, Voltaire and the others who most directly shaped the ideas of the Constitution were living in the Enlightenment when people were QUESTIONING the Bible and the Pope. They were living during an age when things were being rationalized, they applied rational laws to aspects of the world such as politics, physics, medicine and economics. And here you are telling me the Constitution is based on founders' religion? No, the ideas in the constitution were based on logic and reasoning.

[Kaonashi]

Like I said bfore, racism and descrimination based on anything is double standard here in the US. For example, the way colleges decide who they are going to accept or how standardized tests are scored (sorry, I'm stil in school). With colleges, if a white, Christian student and a minority student have exactly the same attributes, the minority student will be accepted, because of their race,religion,etc. On standardized tests, a minority student is more likely to recieve a higher score. I'm sorry, but that's true.

No it's not. Wow, it couldn't POSSIBLY be because the student was actually SMART, could it?

For the record, my son takes those standarized tests, and nowhere on them is race even mentioned! And I've known people who were minorities with 4.5 GPAs who applied for Harvard and Penn AND DIDN'T GET IN while white students with only 3.0 GPAs DID, so what do you call that?

This why I think the monument should be allowed to stay, but other monuments should be allowed to go up.

You're right, others should go up. It's only fair, this being the country of free speech and especially considering how many people came here because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs back home.

[iluvhhr]

I don't agree with having the Ten Commandments in front of any government building. I really believe in the separation of church of state. Religion doesn't belong in politics.

[Azimuth]

I personally feel that he is seriously violating the principle of separation of church and state, one of the principles that makes the U.S.A. so unique
Ever been to Europe?

[halfbreedlover]

Ever been to Europe?

I have, and your point is? It's much less secular than here. It is my understanding that in England, where you're from, children have mandatory prayer in school. That's not separation of Church and state.

We don't have that in America and if we did there'd certainly be an outcry.

*apologizes for OT-ness*

[Wab]

Difference is that in the UK the head of state is also head of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith (although the title was bestowed by Papal authority so technically the faith the Crown defends is Catholicism but that's another story).

But apart from all the argy bargy the point is that the order came down that an individual setting a monument on state land without permission is illegal. It's a no brainer really.

[Masterfroggy]

I have, and your point is? It's much less secular than here. It is my understanding that in England, where you're from, children have mandatory prayer in school. That's not separation of Church and state.

We don't have that in America and if we did there'd certainly be an outcry.

*apologizes for OT-ness*
children have not been forced to pray in public schools in England for 10 years or more (unless it's a church school )

[Dementor Dave]

1. Do you agree with his decision?

Absolutely not. Moore is a grandstanding state politician with political devices on another level.

2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?

Not all people believe in the ten commandments. The ten commandments are not the foundation of American law. Religion has no place in government, especially in a court of law.

3. Do you have any other comments to add?

As a citizen (reluctantly) of the state of origin for this whole mess, I find it wholly nausiating. When Moore runs for State government, I will not vote for him. (Though he'll win, anyway).

[Kevin]

The UK is more whats the word "liberal" on certain issues than the US and religion is one of them. As for the Church of England that was a pretext for Henry 8th to get a devoirce after the pope said no and to raid the monestarys and Churches for much needed cash. Ah Kings of England, gotta love em or loathe them. The Queen maybe the head of state but she has no real power these days. Her role is symbolic. The only time she will have any real power is if all the main politicans are killed and there is no chance of a new Government being elected by the british people. Therefore the Queen assumes command of the Armed forces and purse strings. That will happen in one of two ways. Ethier theres a nuclear attack or the Government is wiped out with a biological weapon, along with the rest of London and other major Citys.
As for the 10 commandments. I'll think you'll find theres 613 to be exact, all in the old testament. Depending on which translation you have.

[HollywoodBob]

Found this while looking for some other stuff thought it was worth some discussion

*Which* Ten Commandments? (http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)

-HollywoodBob

[salem_phoenix]

1. Do you agree with his decision? No way.
2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision? Because not everyone believes in the book that the Ten Commandments came from. It's taxpayer money. It's about separation of church and state, the government should not promote any one religion over another.
3. Do you have any other comments to add? There's a quote somewhere, I looked it up online and couldn't find it, but it's something along the lines of "If there was only one minority in the world, the other 6 billion people would have no more right to silence him than he would have to silence the other 6 billion."

[dawningoftime]

This always been a difficult issue for me
1. Do you agree with his decision?
Yes/no
2. Why do you agree or disagree with his decision?
Because they provide the basic framework for how laws have been laid down. However the Consitution also states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise, thereof..." Being a government building, whether you agree or not, he should remove it do to the current interpretation of the Constitution. The term "Seperation of Church and State" never appears in the Constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson talking how government was not going to be like the government in England.
3. Do you have any other comments to add?

I understand why he wants to keep the monument up, but legislating morality isn't what change people's hearts. Only God can do that. I believe there are religous freedoms worth fighting for...I just think this isn't one of those. It's one of those times when I have to wonder how many of those people upset could actually recite the Ten Commandments when asked and not miss any. I know I couldn't and I'm a Christian.

[Wab]

It's not about religion. He erected a monument on public land without permission and broke the law.,

[Yrraine]

Religious monuments do not belong in the courtroom, a public space where people do not, sometimes, have a choice about attending or not. It would raise an obvious question of whether you were being tried for breaking the laws of Alabama or the ten commandments, many of which you can break with impunity under state law.