Judge Moore Ain't Removing Ten Commandments (FOX NEWS)

[Dallas]

You gotta love this guy....

[andy_card]

The connection between the Ten Commandments and the Constitution is found in the authors. Reading their own words on the subject you can clearly see the influence of the Ten Commandments on our law. They plainly said so.

Don't play games. Show me where on "can clearly see the influence of the Ten Commandments" on the United States Constitution. If this is so plainly self-evident, this oughta be a cinch.

[Aquinasfan]

They follow a different set of Ten Commandments. By choosing the Protestant version over the Catholic version, you're promoting Protestantism over Catholicism.

Please. We're not complaining.

[Jael]

Jael:
He has placed a historical display regarding the history of law. Period.

Andy:That's not at all what Moore's claiming.

Jael: He has the freedom to say anything. Remember?

Andy: Besides, were he interested in historical education, why does he so steadfastly refuse to accept any other historical statues?


Jael: This is about the historical foundation of law in the US. That is approiate for a courthouse. Why does he need to put up any other statues? And you are seriously misquoting the events.

Andy:This isn't about history, this is about Judge Moore's religion, and his decision to use his public office as a platform from which to promote it.

Jael: That's your opinion. Either way, a historical display does not establish a religion.

[nicmarlo]

There shall be no law made which prevents any person from freely expressing their religious beliefs. There shall be no particular religion established by the government. The government shall not impose restrictions upon members of our society from displaying, speaking, or praying to any religious figure. The reason for this? They did not want there to be another Church of England established in the U.S. Every person has the right to believe or disbelieve, as they choose. But those who believe shall not have laws imposed on them concerning the exercise of those beliefs.

The Federal Judge's ruling is baseless. Judge Moore has not established any religion. What the Federal Judge did was to create law from the bench that FORBIDS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION--this is unconstitutional.

--------------------------------------------------

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

* * *

Amendment I

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.

-------------------------------------------

Here's a little dictionary exercise on establishment, religion, free, and exercise, something apparently not understood too well.

Establishment:

Something established, as: a) An arranged order or system, especially a legal code; b) A permanent civil, political, or military organization; c. An established church

Religion:

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe; A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Forbid:

To forbid by authority; to prevent; preclude.

Free:

Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.

Exercise: An act of employing or putting into play

[usadave]

Now, I happen to be a Buddhist and I think that in addition to having the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse we should also have the Four Noble Truths on display as well, at taxpayer expense of course.

But now comes the hard part: how are you going to go about getting your Four Noble Truths displayed? Do you petition the state in which you live? If the state turns down your request, then what? File a lawsuit against the state? On what grounds would you file the lawsuit? On the grounds that the state isn't displaying text from every known religion on Earth? Does the state have a legal obligation to display text from every known religion if they display text from one religion?

[Jael]

It certainly promotes the religion, whether or not its succesful at actually converting anybody. How would you feel were you to walk into a courtroom and see commentaries on Shar'ia law posted all over the walls? I don't know about you, but that would scare the s--t out of me.

Then you scare pretty easy.

A historical display is not a religious comentary. And if Shar'ia law was foundational to American jurisprudence, one should expect to see it in a historical display.

There is no religion being established here. Move along.

[Boxsford]

You say that your broke them all! As we all have. Remember, Moses broke them before the Israelites even laid eyes on them. They were given to us to show us how far we are from the goodness of God and that it is his GRACE that saves us. And I can't think of a better time in this nation than now to show us all, via commandments, at how far we really have fallen short of God's goodness.

[Jael]

Thanks again for an excellent post. I needed it a few days ago. I am going to post it and link to your post. :-)

[breakem]

Your listing of exceptions merely proves my point. This is the residual left from 500 years ago when the church could actually try and kill you for violating commandments and church law. the fact that some of these survive only shows that my point is accurate. If anything there has been a general rejaction of these "moral" laws in the last 75 years.

By the way, Agustus outlawed adultery 2000 tears ago. Doesn't that show that he beat the commandments to Europe. Just a little tangent

[FreeTally]

Care to show what part of that applies to anything I posted to you? I think we are in agreement on defintions, unless you want to specifically address my post where I explaiend what "freedom from religion" would mean in a legal sense.

[pgyanke]

"There are too many Commandments that are simply ignored in our legal system, and other Commandments such as not stealing or killing that I think any civilized society must have."

---

I appreciate your position and your thoughts on the subject. The parts of the Commandments that are ignored are those that deal with personal thought and conviction. The founders refused to legislate coveting, worship and honoring and focused on personal action (killing, stealing and bearing false witness--perjury).

Basically, your rights end where mine begin. I can believe what I want to believe and think what I choose to think, but the government can regulate what we do to each other.

[XJarhead]

Did any of you even read the case law I posted???

FF578, I'm a lawyer, and citing to 1811 decisions from the Supreme Court of New York (which really isn't the Supreme Court of New York -- misleading title there), isn't terribly persuasive. I find the First Amendment to be far more authoritative.

For what its worth, I have no problem with posting the Ten Commandments. At the bare minimum, they are an incredibly influential document/icon of western legal and moral history. Sort of a statement that even from a very early period, people had laws based on morality to guide their daily interactions. Where I'd have a problem is if the Judge required litigants to recite the Commandments before beginning oral arguments. But he's not doing that.

I don't oppose the judge's stance, as long as he were to comply with a final order of whatever level of court this case ends at. My only point has been that those who claim that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of our legal system, or were instrumental in creating our legal system, are wrong. Or at least, they lack evidence showing that our system would be any different without the Commandments.

[E Rocc]

Atheists are a relatively recent development (wart) on the body politic.

... If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814.

-Eric

[andy_card]

First of all that which is created cannot be greater than the Creator.

Tell that to the Pharoah Khufu.

A lower Federal court is NOT superior to a State Court. Especially concerning a STATE issue. This IS a State issue.

Actually, the Feds do have jurisdiction here, because this concerns the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govt the Right to tell the states what to do. If it does not specify that, then it does not have the power.

C.F. The Fourteenth Amendment.

[stands2reason]

Now, I happen to be a Buddhist and I think that in addition to having the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse we should also have the Four Noble Truths on display as well, at taxpayer expense of course.

Tell me how the Buddha's teachings influenced the founding of our country, How many of our founding fathers were Buddhist?

[E Rocc]

Well, I'm a bit like ERocc in that I have a hard time seeing a direct connection. There are too many Commandments that are simply ignored in our legal system, and other Commandments such as not stealing or killing that I think any civilized society must have. On the other hand, I do think that Christian principles influenced a great deal of what they wrote and believed more generally. Particularly in the Declaration of Independence.

There isn't anything in the Declaration that couldn't have been written by a Deist who rejected the divinity of Christ. Which isn't suprising, since one wrote it.

-Eric

[breakem]

Hey, pal. I'm a simple person. I've read the commandments a few times and can recite and explain them, but which one prhibits me and my wife from engaging in anal or oral sex and how does that relate to the sodomy laws you are quoting?

[nicmarlo]

Only that nowhere does it state in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that Americans shall be free from religion. Those rights, rather, are protected rights. I included you in my response because I thought you'd be interested in what I was stating. : )

[Kerberos]

"On what grounds would you file the lawsuit? On the grounds that the state isn't displaying text from every known religion on Earth? "

Yes, that would be a problem, wouldn't it? So, what are we to do, base our selection strictly on a majority? But then again, wouldn't that be mob rule and I thought that was something we are against here, after all isn't that why we formed a Constitutional Republic?

[andy_card]

Why do you ignore all the case law I posted?

Because we're talking about the Constitution, not unenforced state statutes.