Posted on 08/20/2003 2:43:26 PM PDT by angkor
Legalistic hairsplitting that defies common sense. Moses, Solon, and Confucius would all find this position laughable, and set you straight on the source of those laws.
My questions. What proportion of non-religious stuff VS religious stuff makes it religious ? What determines religious stuff -if a philospher is a Christian or a Jew but not mentioned in the bible, does that count ?
Help me here, I cannot see how one objectively determines what is religuious and what is not. For example, in your description you contain lots of information about the freize that isn't contained in the display ? Apparently we need to find out the intent of the object. Do we interview the artist that created it, the people that commissioned it or the present occupants ? I'm confused.
It's coming.
Can you site an instance where someone asked for another display and Moore turned them down? I've not heard of this occurring.
Or the liberal cries against book burning. What is the difference between banning this book from public display and burning books in the public square ?
No. It is Moore who will not tolerate any religious expression but his own in the rotunda of the Alabama Supreme Court building.
You're as bad as the baby-killers who are attacking Bill Pryor.
Bill Pryor will act to remove the monument, if the other eight Justices overrule Moore, which is what they will do.
Moore has not violated the establishment clause, and if he did, how would including other religious monuments make it not a violation of the clause. It wouldn't. You don't care about the separation of church and state, you just don't like Moore's brand of Christianity and you want to prohibit it and drive those who subscribe to it from government if they won't bow to your pagan idols.
It's clear to everyone that the end result of your fanatical intolerance of a certain brand of Christianity is the banning of God from our money, our pledge, our schools and our government.
And you just want to rant. The 10 Commandments are displayed in public buildings all over this country. The very 11th Circuit which told Moore to take his rock down, allowed the 10 Commandments to remain in another courthouse. If Moore was serious about making sure this display stayed, he would do whatever those who are currently displaying the decalogue are doing.
But Moore has another agenda, which is to ride this issue to the governor's mansion. He placed the monument where he did knowing PRECISELY that he would lose in the Supreme Court. In fact, he's counting on it.
This is not about the 10 Commandments; it's all about Roy Moore.
You've already admitted this is not about the monument. Of course not. If it really was, then we'd have to be consistent and smash all the other icons including the ones of Moses on the courthouse and Supreme Court.
This is about Roy Moore TO YOU, and to others who disagree with his religion and want to supress it and drive people like him from government.
It's about Roy Moore to you, too. His associate justices disagree with him, as they have just put a curtain around it so that it can no longer be seen.
This is what you and your allies in the government do to people who won't pay fealty to your imperial cult. You threaten them, rob them and throw them in cages. You are barbarians and the enemies of the people of God.
That's actually not a bad line of defense you've cooked up, honestly. The problem is that Judge Moore shot it directly in the foot with his actions. From the 11'th circuit opinion:
The Chief Justice did add two smaller displays to the rotunda at some point after the Ten Commandments monument was installed. The first, a plaque entitled “Moral Foundation of Law,” contains a quotation from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from the Birmingham jail speaking of just laws and “the moral law or law of God,” and a quotation from Frederick Douglass speaking of slavery as hiding man “from the laws of God.” Id. at 1324-25 (App. D - providing a full quotation of the plaque). That plaque, which the Chief Justice paid for with his own money, measures forty-two inches by thirty-two inches. Id. at 1296.
So, since I think you're going to have serious trouble arguing that MLK's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" and a quote from Frederick Douglass are of significant "legal historical weight", you might want to find another line of reasoning.
Really, Moore was quite clear about why he placed the Commandments there, and it has nothing to do with history:
At the public unveiling of the monument the day after its installation, Chief Justice Moore delivered a speech commemorating the event, and in that speech he talked about why he had placed the monument, which he described as one “depicting the moral foundation of our law,” where he did. He explained that the location of the monument was “fitting and proper” because:
this monument will serve to remind the appellate courts and judges of the circuit and district courts of this state, the members of the bar who appear before them, as well as the people who visit the Alabama Judicial Building, of the truth stated in the preamble of the Alabama Constitution, that in order to establish justice, we must invoke “the favor and guidance of Almighty God.”Id. at 1321-24 (App. C - reproducing the full text of Chief Justice Moore’s remarks at the unveiling ceremony). During that speech, the Chief Justice criticized government officials who “forbid teaching your children that they are created in the image of Almighty God” and who “purport all the while that it is a government and not God who gave us our rights,” because they have “turned away from those absolute standards which form the basis of our morality and the moral foundation of our law” and “divorced the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from these principles.” Id. at 1322. Recalling his campaign “pledge to restore the moral foundation of law,” he noted that “[i]t is axiomatic that to restore morality, we must first recognize the source of that morality,” and that “our forefathers recognized the sovereignty of God.” Id. He noted during the speech that no government funds had been expended on the monument.
The Chief Justice described various acknowledgments of God throughout this country’s history, some of which, he pointed out, are inscribed on the monument. He proclaimed that the unveiling of the monument that day “mark[ed] the restoration of the moral foundation of law to our people and the return to the knowledge of God in our land.” Id. at 1321. In closing, he told the audience that they would “find no documents surrounding the Ten Commandments because they stand alone as an acknowledgment of that God that’s contained in our pledge, contained in our motto, and contained in our oath.” Id. at 1324.
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. Vol. 2 at 100.
Q . . . Do you agree that 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.
Man, I've seen people miss the point before, but really. Talk about not even in the ballpark - you're not even on the same planet as the point I was making. Tell me, did you do that on purpose, or can you not help it?
Be careful what you wish for...It wouldn't at all surprise me for Sandra Dee and her Merry Band of Sodomites to order the destruction of the Moses/Commandments sculpture and replace it with a Greco-Roman sculpture of two men "going at it".
In part. Both his intent and his actions are under scrutiny here. Rightly or wrongly, case law is fairly clear that the state cannot act in such a manner as to promote one sect or religion over another, nor can it act in a manner intended to promote one sect or religion over another - which law, BTW, clearly applies to Judge Moore, his claims of exemption notwithstanding. Needless to say, this involves examining the actor's intent, which the legal system does all the time in a variety of cases. As I pointed out elsewhere, I will go to jail if I intentionally shoot you, but I won't if I accidentally shoot you - or, at the very least, I will face much lesser charges in the second instance. But in both cases, you get shot either way - the only difference between them in the eyes of the law is my intent.
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.