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]

[Catspaw]

Touro Synagogue National Historic Site Located in Newport, RI TRAVEL BASICS - CAMPING - LODGING ACTIVITIES - FACILITIES - FEES/PERMITS

Touro Synagogue  (NPS Photo)

IN BRIEF Touro Synagogue, dedicated in 1762, is the oldest synagogue in the United States and the only one that survives from the colonial era. The congregation was founded in 1658 by Sephardim, descendants of Marranos who fled the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal and who were themselves seeking a haven from religious persecution in the Caribbean. A trap door under the bimah is symbolic of their fear and apprehension. But in America they, like millions of others, found the religious toleration they had so long sought. In his famous letter to "The Hebrew Congregation in Newport," written in 1790, President George Washington pledged that the new nation would" give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" and thereby set the standard for religious freedom and civil liberties in America. The synagogue was designed by noted colonial architect Peter Harrison and is considered one of the finest examples of 18th century architecture in America. It was designated a National Historic Site in 1946. Today, it continues to serve an active congregation.

Of course, the Touro Synagogue could be wrong about the intent of one of the Founders, George Washington, so let's read the letter:

[Address to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island]

[Newport, R.I., 18 August 1790]

Gentlemen.

While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport, from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Go: Washington

---

Notes:

1. See Washington to the Clergy of Newport, R.I., 18 Aug. 1790, note 2, in Papers, Presidential Series. vol. 6.

 

 

[Catspaw]

Those will interpret it according to the intent of the framers and within the limits of their constitutional power, of course.

And who exactly is included in your "Those?" The Judiciary? The Executive branch? The Legislative branch? One of these? A combination of two or three of them? Or none of the above?

[exmarine]

I see nothing contradictory to what I said in your post. People here are FREE to worship as they please and believe as they please, but that does not change the fact that the nation was founded on judeo-Christian moral principles or that 99.8% of the population was Christian. A Christian theocracy was never intended nor implied by our framers. However, the govt comes under the authority of God as much as the church does. How do I know that? Read the Declaration of independence which recognizes that God is the giver of basic human rights, not man, and no govt can abrogate such rights. Logically and philosophically, the founders were subjugating the power of the civil govt to God's moral authority. That's the problem today. People DENY that our govt falls under any authority and that is a LIE from HELL. If it doesn't, then your God-given rights aren't worth a hill of beans and the govt. becomes the highest moral authority; indeed, it becomes God. Get it?

[exmarine]

And who exactly is included in your "Those?" The Judiciary? The Executive branch? The Legislative branch? One of these? A combination of two or three of them? Or none of the above?

The Constitution spells it out. It's the law of the land. Isn't it clear what the functions of the 3 branches are? It's not rocket science. Do you think it requires a liberal elitist snob in a black robe to understand it's meaning, or can a citizen also understand it? I think the latter.

[Catspaw]

I'm sure you can clarify this for me: what you're saying is that the judiciary should be abolished?

[exmarine]

I'm sure you can clarify this for me: what you're saying is that the judiciary should be abolished?

No silly. I'm saying the judiciary should confine itself to the powers vested to it by the U.S. Constitution. It has usurped the power of Congress. That is an impeachable offense and any judge to usurps power - like the justices did in the Michigan affirmative action ruling, or in this 10 commandments ruling - should be removed immediately!

[Catspaw]

People here are FREE to worship as they please and believe as they please

Can they worship as they please if there's an official state religion?

[exmarine]

Can they worship as they please if there's an official state religion?

Let me ask you a question for clarification: Is having the 10 commandments in a courthouse tantamount to establishing a state religion?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You're forgetting about the Native Americans - who were animists. That cuts your percentages down significantly.

[Catspaw]

That is an impeachable offense and any judge to usurps power - like the justices did in the Michigan affirmative action ruling, or in this 10 commandments ruling - should be removed immediately!

Immediately? By whom? Impeachment takes longer than "immediately." It takes many months--just ask Alcee Hastings. So if you want an immediate removal, just who is going to do it? Are you proposing that they be removed by other means?

[exmarine]

You're forgetting about the Native Americans - who were animists. That cuts your percentages down significantly.

I was speaking of citizens (about 3 millions all told). Indians were not citizens at that time. Besides, many of them converted to Christianity, and not forcibly either. In fact, Jefferson and Washington encouraged such missionary work.

[exmarine]

Answer the question please: Is posting 10 commandments in a courthouse tantamount to establishing a state religion? Yes or no.

[exmarine]

You know that if you answer the question, you will be trapped by either answer. Silence is your best bet.

[lugsoul]

First - the opinions you reference on prayer are about leading others in prayer - not the right of a person to pray. You can't find a single decision that prohibits a citizen from praying.

Second - Christianity is not in unanimous agreement with Judge Moore's views. He is admittedly pushing a Protestant view. It seems even you would find this inappropriate for a State to do.

Third - As I have said above, ad nauseum - I agree that those Commandments relating to our conduct toward others are a foundation of moral and civil law. But Nos. 1-4? Are they the foundation of all law? If so, whose God is the one true God? Whose Sabbath must be observed under the law? Is the Catholic view, the Protestant view, or the Jewish view of graven images controlling? What about those citizens who don't subscribe to any of those?

[lugsoul]

"Each state had to meet certain requirements at the time of their entry into the union. Those requirements were not laid out in the Constitution, but were requirements that were given to the states in order for them to be called states and given entry into the union."

Post support for this falsehood. And then post some evidence that any state after the original 13 had to comply with any kind of "standard" in its Constitution requiring conformity with the Bill of Rights. And then post some evidence that each state can't amend or rewrite its constitution as it sees fit.

You are just making this crap up.

[Catspaw]

Sorry, dear, I was on the phone with a client almost as whiny and demanding as you are. I'll get the quotes from Judge Moore about what his goal was once the decision loads and I copy it into MS Front Page and post.

[lugsoul]

Read the opinion. When the judge who puts them there - the Chief Justice - does so expressly to exalt his version of Christianity above all other faiths, and refuses to allow other expressions of faith in the same manner, then YES, it most certainly does.

[lugsoul]

Nope, I'll answer it - see post above.

[lugsoul]

What if they banned Christianity in their town? Can they do this under the U.S. Constitution? What is stopping them, if the 1st Amendment only applies to Congress?

[Catspaw]

The 11th Circuit, in this case, believes that was the intent of Chief Judge Roy Moore, and they quote his testimony as the basis for their decision:

CARNES, Circuit Judge:

The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court installed a two-and-one half

ton monument to the Ten Commandments as the centerpiece of the rotunda in

the Alabama State Judicial Building. He did so in order to remind all Alabama

citizens of, among other things, his belief in the sovereignty of the Judeo-Christian

God over both the state and the church. And he rejected a request to permit a

monument displaying a historically significant speech in the same space on the

grounds that “[t]he placement of a speech of any man alongside the revealed law of

God would tend in consequence to diminish the very purpose of the Ten

Commandments monument.” Glassroth v. Moore, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1297

(M.D. Ala. 2002).

The monument and its placement in the rotunda create the impression of

being in the presence of something holy and sacred, causing some building

employees and visitors to consider the monument an appropriate and inviting place

for prayer.

<snip>

During the trial the Chief Justice testified candidly about why he had placed

the monument in the rotunda. The following exchanges between him and one of

the plaintiffs’ attorneys establish that purpose:

Q [W]as your purpose in putting the Ten Commandments

monument in the Supreme Court rotunda to acknowledge GOD’s law

and GOD’s sovereignty? . . .

A Yes.

1st Supp. Rec. V ol. 2 at 100.

Q . . . Do you agree th at the monument, the Ten Commandments

monument, reflects the sovereignty of GOD over the affairs of men?

A Yes.

Q And the monument is also intended to acknowledge

GOD’s overruling power over the affairs of men, would that be

correct? . . .

A Yes.

Q . . . [W]hen you say “GOD” you mean GOD of the Holy

Scripture?

A Yes.

1st Supp. Rec. V ol. 3 at 34.