Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by 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]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Even if my understanding of the 10 Commandments may not be accepted by all, I still don't have a problem. And I think a lot of Christians might be more open minded - maybe not the judge himself. But I'd rather have a Christian who doesn't "believe" exactly the way I do but still accepts a basic moral code of behavior on the bench that the 6 moral relativists who just screwed us all the sodomy decision.
If the judge were to include every source of religious law, the display would probably take up the entire inside space of the building. But I don't see any problem with other sources, if someone puts them up. Then if Moore takes them down, that would be another matter. Isn't there some area between prohibited and mandatory?
4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
That doesn't seem to allow for honoring it every two weeks. And, as I said, this Commandment is at least co-equal with the others. If this were the law (as it has been recently in many places - including my childhood home in Alabama), keeping the Hindu sabbath only would be against the law.
As I said, I appreciate and understand your view of the Commandments. Many who want Christianity to be the basis for our civil law do not.
I'm basing it on the myriad attacks on religion in the courts all over the country - from religious displays on public property, to the wearing of religious symbols, relgious books verboten, prayers forbidden, etc. And most important, tradition morality based on universal religious principles scuttled.
(you're right - I'm catching up. Live near the Pacific.)
In the Vedas there are many names for the Supreme - Brahman being more a descriptive term, meaning more or less "unlimited Supreme".
Advocating violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the colonists hadn't advocated violence against British rule, there would be no United States today.
And the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, was a reaction to slavery, not a codification of anything remotely resembling a clarification of original intent within the Establishment clause. Under my view, the states have the power to tax, the power to criminalize conduct that might not be criminalized by Congress, and so forth. Under your view, they wouldn't.
I know there are Christians who would think my understanding of the universality of the 10 Commandments as wrong. But I doubt that many of them want to start putting people in the stocks for using a car or working on Sunday (for instance, Orthodox Jews don't drive or work on Saturday, but don't expect everyone to follow suit).
I think the main importance right now of the 10 Commandments is that people be allowed to express and practice their religion - including the public display of their tenets - and the public discussion of what this country's laws and founding documents are actually based on. (I don't mean that they are based solely on the Commandments but they are to a large degree.)
I don't see that there is any danger of Christianity (as interpreted by this sect or that) becoming mandatory.
Obviously, the Court of Appeals recognizes that enforcing its decision is going to be very difficult. He is under no obligation to remove it himself. If the Court of Appeals wants it removed, assuming that the USSC does not reverse, who is actually going to remove it. Furthermore, exactly whose Constitutional Rights have been violated. If there is no victim, there can be no cause of action.
I am sensitized to attacks on religion in general by the courts because of their wholesale slaughter of religion in public for many years. So I see this as yet another attack. Yes, I think that Judge Moore should theoretically allow other religious documents that have informed the original documents and laws of the country, but since the 10 Commandments are by far the most influential, I support him and am opposed to this decision.
As noted upthread, the display of religious symbols on public property is not forbidden as long as they are not limited to symbols of one favored religion.
I am not aware of any laws prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols, nor am I aware of any laws prohibiting prayer. Some here will cite school prayer laws, but let's be clear on this - any public school student can pray in school. There is no prohibition whatsoever against this. The only prohibition is against the school - teachers, principals, etc. - leading the students in prayer. And don't think it doesn't happen anyway. I played high school sports in a public school, and we never played a game that wasn't preceded by the Lord's Prayer in the locker room.
Again, there is no law against religious books in school. Only the providing of religious books by the school, to the exclusion of other views.
The rulings are geared to state sponsorship and state endorsement of a religion, not to the practice. I have no problem with this. I've never had any problem with access to any religious materials because of it - and my worship tends to take place in places of worship - not government facilities. In addition, I tend to follow the Biblical admonition that prayer and worship is a personal and private matter.
Appreciate the discussion. My only comment would be that while you are taking up for the view of this issue adopted by some Christians who promote state endorsement of their religion, you may want to closely examine whether their view would accept and tolerate your rather broad interpretation of these issues. In my experience, it wouldn't. (An aside - the area where I grew up had a small Indian population, and the principal of my high school was an Indian Christian. He took a very harsh view of any display of Hindu culture by the Indian students - perhaps because of his own experiences in India. But his view of the primacy of Christianity was very typical, and he clearly believed it should be enforced through government institutions. Judge Moore expressly believes the same thing.)
Not on a national basis. But on a local basis - a town, a school, a court - it is not only a danger, but a reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.