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]

[exmarine]

I'm sure you'd be surprised to know that these three judges are all good Christian Southern men. But you'll probably just say it ain't true 'cause they're godless and then call them some names.

Which judges would those be - the ones that support killing babies?

[lugsoul]

"If the Constitution is a living breathing document subject to change according to social and ideological norms, as I believe at least 5 of the 9 justices believe, then so your God-given rights are also subject to change by the POLITBURO. One cannot logically maintain that constitutional law is governed by changing social/cultural norms and simultaneously hold to any unchanging absolute moral principles."

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

[Dog Gone]

Then you'd have no problem if Congress established an official national religion, so long as it didn't violate anyone's rights in your opinion.

[Catspaw]

One cannot logically maintain that constitutional law is governed by changing social/cultural norms and simultaneously hold to any unchanging absolute moral principles.

Are you talking about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (added on later, as you know), and/or Amendments 11-27--or do you have a cut-off at some point, say at 11 or 12?

[inquest]

It all depends on what you mean by "establishing an official national religion". If they're granting or withholding privileges, promotions, funding, etc., based on one's adherence to the approved religous practices, then that of course would be a prime facie violation of the establishment clause. If they were to simply pass a resolution saying this is a Christian nation, and that its principles are an integral part of our political tradition, then there is no violation, any more than the appeals to divinity in the Declaration of Independence are a violation.

[lugsoul]

I'd expect more character from a Marine, than to hurl accusations against good men serving their country - without any support.

I'm talking about Judge J.L. Edmundson, Judge Richard Story, and Judge Ed Carnes. The three judges who voted in the decision you haven't read (though Edmundson concurred in the judgment only). If you want to call them names and toss around vile commentary about what you claim they believe, you ought to back it up.

You have no shame. It is pointless to debate with one who will simply resort to unsubstantiated charges and name calling, particularly when those charges are hurled against respected men doing work in service to their country.

Where do you think this is, San Francisco? You are talking about three older white men from Georgia and Alabama selected by Republican presidents? You cavalierly lump them in with others you rail against without even taking the time to determine whether anything you say is true.

I've wasted enough time with your low-class crap.

[Catspaw]

If they were to simply pass a resolution saying this is a Christian nation, and that its principles are an integral part of our political tradition, then there is no violation, any more than the appeals to divinity in the Declaration of Independence are a violation.

So the "Judeo" in "Judeo-Christian" is really a lie?

[inquest]

I dunno. Judeo-Christian is a word. It can neither be true nor false unless it's part of a sentence.

[Dog Gone]

I think that it's incredibly obvious that if Congress declared Christianity to be the official religion of the United States, even if it said nothing more than that, it would violate the First Amendment.

Some things are simply mandated or prohibited by the Constitution, and you don't have to find someone whose rights have been violated in order declare an act unconstitutional.

[kegler4]

Maybe the nation was indeed mostly or nearly all Christian, but even back then back then you had agnostics, atheists, and people who didn't think about it one way or another. I doubt this nation has ever been 99.8 percent religious, much less Christian.

[exmarine]

And I'm tired of secular amoralists who want to destroy our Christian heritage. I really don't care what you think of me anymore than I would care what Bill Clinton thinks of me. One must consider the source.

[inquest]

"Official" implies the existence real-world effects stemming from the declaration. For example, making English the "official" language usually means that all official communications of any kind be in that language, and all government employees speak it while on the job. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Moore's Decalogue. He wasn't making anything "official".

[Catspaw]

Uh huh. Looks like Jews don't count in your world.

[exmarine]

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

Does or does not the SCOTUS exceed its constitutional powers when it legislates from the bench? Yes or no? If you say no, then you have to justify how a court can make new rules and laws to follow (independent of Congress) under the present Articles of the Constitution. These are the men I have no respect for: Taney, O.W. Holmes, Blackmun, Warren, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and their ilk. John Jay should be required reading.

[exmarine]

Is the holding of slaves as property an unchanging absolute moral principle? Or did the Supreme Court have the right and obligation to change this after the passage of time?

The difference between the founders and liberals is that the founders believed in unchanging moral laws and the unchanging sinful nature of all men. Liberals believe no such thing. John Jay had more honor and integrity in his pinky than all the liberal justices of the 20th century combined.

[inquest]

You need a more imaginative bait.

[Catspaw]

You said this:

If they were to simply pass a resolution saying this is a Christian nation, and that its principles are an integral part of our political tradition, then there is no violation, any more than the appeals to divinity in the Declaration of Independence are a violation.

I'm asking you where Jews fit into a Christian nation, and if so, where?

[lugsoul]

You disgrace your uniform by showing such low character, when you slander and insult good men without any knowledge of them. When you say consider the source - well, that is the source of your comments, and all should consider it when reading your posts.

[lugsoul]

And cowardice too? Answer the question.

[inquest]

As free citizens, same as everyone else.