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]

[BenR2]

The Ten Commandments are every bit as much a part of the Christian religion as the Jewish religion. The Ten Commandments are taught in every Sunday School and Catholic CCD class in America.

///////////
The poster simply chose to focus on the (just slightly) Jewish origin of the Decalogue.

[sweetliberty]

Beautiful graphic.

[First Amendment]

but the decision was based on impartiality toward the establishment of religion by governmental authorities.

No, it's based on hatred toward religion.

[MatthewViti]

it is :]

[First Amendment]

I can envision the year 2400 when Islam or Gaia or some other religion has gained predominance in America. This ruling would protect me and uphold the Constitution.

Islam had nothing to do with the founding of this country. Gaia (do you mean earth worship?) isn't a religion, unless anything anyone believes in (tooth fairy, santa claus) is a religion.

[lugsoul]

I believe you are right about those rules which govern our relationship with others; It is the first three or four that could present a problem (how they are numbered is not universally agreed): I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other God before me - remember, this was Yahweh speaking. No making of graven images? Well, Buddhism at least would seem to be in violation of this one, and I'm sure other faiths as well. Keeping the Sabbath Holy? (Again, the reference here was to the Jewish Sabbath - the change to the Christian Sabbath is too complicated to address here). These Commandments are at least co-equal with those prohibiting murder, theft, etc. - And those who practice faiths other than Judaism or Christianity are in violation of them.

Pram, I appreciate your Supreme Being view, and I don't know enough about Hinduism to know how well the position that Yahweh = Krishna will stand up. But it is not really any secret how most Christians would answer that question.

[lugsoul]

Your point?

[First Amendment]

You make a great point. People in the majority now, don't want constitutional protections for religious minorities, because it doesn't affect them, right now, since their ox isn't being gored.

Straw man argument. I am a member of a religious minority and I welcome display of the 10 Commandments. It is an historical document, intrinsic to the fouding of this country, and I am not offended in the least by it. You're dragging in Popes, and Baptists, and what not. This is silly and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[lugsoul]

"No, it's based on hatred toward religion."

What is your basis for this statement? Did you not see that the Court relied, in part, on Judge Moore's refusal to give "equal time" to other religious sources?

[First Amendment]

Only 2 of them acknowledge Yaweh as the only God.

Not necessarily. I consider "Yaweh" to be one of the many names of the one Supreme Being. Even in the Bible God is given many names.

[lugsoul]

I acknowledged your view on this. What about my other questions?

[lugsoul]

Do not Hindus worship to idols or statutes of Hindu deities?

[First Amendment]

Do you people really believe that the Constitution endorses a theocracy?

Words mean things. Yesterday (or was it the day before? It's so exciting at FR!) someone posted the exact meaning of theocracy. Essentially it means rule by unelected CLERICS, PRIESTS or other offical religous dudes. It does NOT mean that judges or elected officials cannot be informed by religion.

[lugsoul]

Sorry - I guess I should have said Yahweh = Brahman. Showing my lack of knowledge of your faith.

With regard to the question of theocracy, have you read Judge Moore's testimony? He is not talking merely about being "informed" by religion. He is talking about exalting Christianity above other faiths and relying on it as the basis for law.

Since words mean things, will you answer my question about graven images in your faith?

[First Amendment]

What I addressed was prohibiting the government from promoting the exercise of a specific religion.

The government is not prohibited from promoting religion, specific or not. It is prohibited from establishing a state religion, entirely different.

[lugsoul]

I see that it is your opinion that the government is not prohibited from promoting a specific religion to the exclusion of others. That view is contrary to the entirety of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Do you really believe that a state can favor one religion over others under the U.S. Constitution?

[First Amendment]

However, we have a slight problem because for my entire adult life the government has been promoting secular humanism to the exclusion of religion. What now?

In a sense, there are only two religions. One is the worship of God, the Transcendent Supreme Being, who is worshipped variously by all monotheists.

The other "religion" is the worship of His creation out of lust and envy, with the desire to usurp His position as owner and creator. Secular humanism is one way to describe the second religion.

[longtermmemmory]

they would celebrate you choice of "diversity"

[Cultural Jihad]

Think outside the box. It works.

There is only one moral Law. You would find that Hindus are as repelled and disgusted by the cruel evil of homosexual sodomy as any Christian is.

[First Amendment]

Tell me, is there any difference in your faith between homosexuality and any other form of non-procreative sex? Do you believe that the government should be involved in prohibiting all non-procreative sex?

In the Manu Samhita, the original law book of the Vedas, (the "Hindu" scriptures), homosexuality is severely condemned - I believe the traditional punishment was death. Adultery was also condemned but not as severely. I don't suspect that many traditional Hindus expect the Manu Samhita to be enacted as law at this point in time!

But my beliefs - as well as universal morality - convince me that homosexual behavior should be against the law - not that cops should knock down doors (not a reference to the recent decision, that was a setup), but it should not be tolerated in public, promoted, be taught in schools, or given special consideration. It should go back to the closet.