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]

You are correct that they overruled a case - as they do from time to time, like when they overruled Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson. But to throw out the incorporation doctrine would be to throw out every case that has addressed the issue of whether the states have to comply with the Bill of Rights in the last 80 years.

Just so we are clear here - you do not believe that the conduct of state government is limited by the Bill of Rights.

[lugsoul]

So every state can establish its own religion. Ironic that you are here criticizing these three judges' application of the Constitution on First Amendment issues, because your view of it is accepted by exactly zero.

[lugsoul]

Enjoyed it folks. I'm outta here.

[Kryptonite]

Crystal clear. You believe that the Bill of Rights mandates that states establish non-religion.

[First Amendment]

I am not aware of any laws prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols,

There are. Recently a woman who had been fired from her government job for wearing a cross was reinstated after a higher court decision. But there are laws against wearing religious symbols here and there.

- 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.

There have been cases of students wanting to have lead a prayer at gradution and it has been ruled unconstitutional. Also a case of a student at graduation wanting to make a reference to Jesus or God and she was prevented. Students can pray but it can't be any regular part of the school, and they are intimidated or pressured, ot outright prevented from any religious expression in many cases. I have read of a case where a little boy was stopped from telling story from the Bible when it was his turn to tell a favorite story.

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. \

I have read about a teacher being punished (fired? I can't remember) for reading a Bible at his(her) desk during reading time. Also seen accounts of Bibles being taken away from school libraries. I can't even imagine what they'd do with a Bhagavad Gita or the Ramayana.

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.

I am well aware of this! But even if some (hopefully not a lot) of Christians would not afford relgious tolerance, still I afford it to them, and the more religion is recognized in general as a good and necessary influence on the human race, the better off we all will be. In fact, the reason the world appears to going to hell in a handbasket is due to the rejection of religion (and that includes being a hateful fanatic who kills in the name of religion).

[First Amendment]

Enjoyed it folks. I'm outta here.

Good night!

[lugsoul]

Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said. I've said it upthread, and I'll say it again, since you have such difficulty with basic reading. I believe that the Constitution mandates that states be NEUTRAL on religion - favoring no one view over any other.

[lugsoul]

One last thing - I've have seen stories of this kind you cite. What I meant is that there are not Federal court decisions providing that those actions are correct or required under the 1st Amendment. 1st Amendment jurisprudence has historically allowed a great deal of leeway on just the kind of issues you are talking about, and I am quite confident that if the affected persons sought legal protection for their rights in this regard they would be upheld.

[Kryptonite]

You're the one who was constantly putting words in my mouth.

I figured since you were incapable of understanding your own projection, you might understand a return volley. Apparently, you are incapable of grasping the concept, and are content to ignore the decades of precedent behind In God We Trust and One Nation Under God while patting yourself on the back about the disguise of nirvanic neutrality.

I imagine I'll find your and your type in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional queue. G'night.

[yonif]

This is what I believe (and I debated someone on my radio show concerning this story).

The Ten Commandments should have a right to stay in judicial buildings, especially state justice areas. I believe that our country was founded upon Judeo-Christain values, ethics, and principles, which the 10 commandments bring out. Many of our laws are based upon the 10 commandemnts, in that our laws provide punishment for some of the commandments, such as Thou Shall not Murder. What's more, all these people who say they are offended by it, I do not understand. Are they saying they are offended by the wording "Thou shall not murder" or some of the other commandments? Are they saying they do feel those commandments are wrong? Or are they doing so only because they hate religion no matter what it says?

The fact of the matter is, these 10 commandments are there to remind us of our history and what values inspired our founding fathers. It is not just about religion. What's more, its not like the Judges use a bible in court to make their decisions. The placement of the 10 commandments is just like a historical aspect to our nation. It is just like if it were in a federal-museum (which the Smithsonian has in DC). If you take it out of these government buildings, you would have to take it out of our government run museums, monuments, etc.

This is another decision which is wrecking our country. And not only our country, but distorting how our great nation was founded.

[exnavy]

Concerning your post # 370, truer words were never spoken, well said, I concur.

[muawiyah]

"Yahweh = Krishna"

It's really more like "Jesus = Krishna/Ram" (In Hinduism the Messiah has been manifest several times, once in the Noah and the Ark story interestingly enough.)

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Pram is about as Hindu as my dog is.

[lugsoul]

You really need to brush up on your reading skills. If you could read, you would see that I addressed those issues already in this thread.

Are you now claiming that you did not say the 1st Amendment doesn't bind the states? If you like, I'll show you the post where you made that exact argument.

[lugsoul]

"What's more, its not like the Judges use a bible in court to make their decisions."

You need to read some of Moore's decisions.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Thats a pretty feeble sort of omniscient, omnipotent God you have if He can't make a nice enough example to beleive in through the lives and regular efforts of His followers, and must rely on the coercive power of the State to get people in line.

[Dog Gone]

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.

With all due respect, so what? I'm not offended by it, either.

Constitutionality is not dependent on what does or does not offend you. The court here specifically addressed that issue and found that the display did offend the plaintiffs.

[jwalsh07]

The court here specifically addressed that issue and found that the display did offend the plaintiffs.

There is no "transcendent" right in the Constitution to not be offended. At least not yet, but give them time and SCOTUS will find one.

[Dog Gone]

I hope that never happens, although it certainly seems to be leaning that way.

In this case, the court had to inquire whether anyone was offended by this monument in order to satisfy the requirement of standing. It wasn't a difficult task.

[Cultural Jihad]

In Islam you do not see any depictions of Mohammed. Indeed their religious art is all stylized geometry. On the other hand, you may have a graven image of someone you love, a close relative. You keep it in the open and gaze affectionately upon it. It brings to your mind their life and presence and fosters love in your heart. Is it the same as the person you love? No.

As for the issue of "interpretive leeway" it is you who are attempted to make an interpretive leeway by saying such images are forbidden. That you would think you know better than the Holy Spirit who guides the Church, or the countless successful saints throughout Her history, speaks of sinful pride.