Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal

Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

[Lurking Libertarian]

ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

[snip]

Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

[click link to read remainder of article]

[lugsoul]

No. But I'm not real big on the idea of the Pledge being required by schools, either. And I would prefer the original pledge. But I don't think "under God" refers to any specific God, and if you are an atheist, well, just suck it up. I have no problem with "God Bless America" at the end of the State of the Union, or "God save this Honorable Court" at the beginning of a session.

As I've already made pretty clear, I think these three judges did a hell of a job dealing with most of these issues, and got this one right.

[Labyrinthos]

I've read the decision-- it includes a strongly-worded warning to Judge Moore not to try to defy the court's order.

I've read the decision also and the court of appeals is absolutely right on. If the "Amercian Taliban" had its way, only born again Christians would have access to the courthouse and pre-marital sex would be punished by death by stoning.

[lugsoul]

Does your statement include religious expression BY THE GOVERNMENT? Which expressly prefers one religion over others?

[proudofthesouth]

Well said. And I made the mistake of voting for our current govenor Bob Riley. Of course, the other choice was Don Siegelman. One of those caught between a rock and a hard place situations. ;)

[jwalsh07]

No I don't, he stepped outside the first amendment when he refused to include other monuments. I believe in a vigorous application of the first amendment as displayed in my town square where we display the Baby Jesus and the Menorah on either side of the memorial to our dead vets during the holidays.

[lugsoul]

whoops - meant to say "aren't exactly neutral"

[muawiyah]

If you really feel that the Constitution will protect you if Islam takes over the country, that means you don't know beans about Islam.

You will pay the religious tax and keep your face out of public affairs.

That's just to start!

[Spiff]

That would be the 1st Amendment, incorporated against the states by way of the 14th. Next, I suppose you'll be telling us that the state can decree singing of hymns in the courtroom.

See 1st Amendment - "Congress shall make no law..." it doesn't say "States shall make no law..."

And don't get me started on the 14th Amendment.

[Spiff]

Oh, Spiff. The 10th refers to rights NOT set forth in the Constitution - or reserved to the people under the 9th. It does not give the states the right to trump the Federal Government on the issue of interpreting the U.S. Constitution. If you think it does, please indicate where.

States came first, Federal (not National) government came later. You've certainly got things backwards. When you can understand the difference between a National government and a Federal government, you'll begin to get it.

[jwalsh07]

But I'm not real big on the idea of the Pledge being required by schools, either

Well Counselor then you have nothing to worry about because it has been against the law to coerce the recitation of the Pledge since Barnette in 1943.

[qwertyz]

With the combined Supremes and 11th Circuit rulings, one must say not in men, but "in God we trust." Excuse me for using these "rote" words.

[muawiyah]

Regarding what Judge Moore said were his motives, they are irrelevant. He's obviously a religious heretic of some sort who believes in false doctrines. For the 11th to turn around and tell the rest of us that they have examined Moore's words and they are legitimately religious is a clear violation of the Constitution.

It's simply none of their business what is or is not legitimately religious.

[lugsoul]

Got no problem with that. Most of these "lawgiver" displays, like the one all these folks like to point to at the Supreme Court, include all kinds of historical references (such as Hammurabi - yep, he wrote the laws for what is modern-day IRAQ!), not one exalted over all others. But Moore clearly was trying to push the envelope to advance his own views. It is nothing new for him. And he continues to demonstrate his lack of knowledge of the Constitution by claiming that his interpretation (not even the interpretation of his Court, but HIS interpretation) takes precedence over that of a Federal appellate court.

[jwalsh07]

I knew what you meant but I find your statement slightly unbelievable since I live in New England where the states and the schools have taken positions directly contrary to the teachings of the worlds major religions relative to morality.

But hey, maybe could exchange property and pursue happiness with our feet!

[lugsoul]

In public schools, yes, I'm well aware of that. I've attended schools where it wasn't optional. And I'm also aware that sitting in your chair in public school while the rest of the class recites it carries its own consequences.

[lugsoul]

You have already demonstrated the value of your statements by claiming that these three judges want to burn Jews in gas ovens.

[muawiyah]

For a guy who's write up advertises almost all of Buchanan's more nearly anti-semitic sound bites, you sure have a mouth on you.

[Catspaw]

That is what happens when you live in a free society. Views you don't like are expressed. I prefer that to the alternative. There is no basis except recent left wing court decisions for censoring religious expression.

It depends on which religion, now doesn't it? Would you object to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Utah say, "I will promote Mormonism," and put up statues and plaques to Mormonism to the exclusion of all religions? What if it was Judaism? Buddhism? Shinto? Islam? Catholicism? Heck, even Wicca.

From my reading of the decision, Judge Moore did this unilaterally, with even consulting with the other justices of the Alabama Supreme Court. In fact, he told no one, save, of course, Coral Ridge Ministries, who did film the installation of the statue/monument/chunk of granite.

[jwalsh07]

And I'm also aware that sitting in your chair in public school while the rest of the class recites it carries its own consequences.

Did SCOTUS also find a fundamental right to be free from be offended or peer pressure last week?

[lugsoul]

Well, I lived for about half of my life in the very state discussed on this thread. And the rest in neighboring states. And Moore's approach, while obviously incorrect, is not that uncommon.

Can't remember the name of the case, but we even had a Federal judge in 'Bama rule that Alabama could establish a state religion if it wanted (Judge Brevard Hand, in the Southern District). The Supremes had fun with that one.