Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Moses Image (With 10 Commandments) Adorns U.S. Supreme Court Building
Self ^ | 8/20/2003 | Angkor

Posted on 08/20/2003 2:43:26 PM PDT by angkor

With regard to today's refusal to hear the case against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, the court has at least delayed a legal decision about defacing its own hallowed halls.

It is likely well-known to the justices that the East Pediment of the Supreme Court showcases the image of Moses bearing the two tablets upon which the 10 Commandments are enscribed. In fact, Moses is front and center and indeed the largest figure in the entire sculpture.

Ironically, the Chief Justice's offices are immediately behind this portico.

Moses center stage on the USSC East Pediment, brandishing his illegal "Ten Commandments."

The sculpture, "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Herman McNeil contains the following elements (in McNeil's own words):

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group— left — is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The “Youth” is brought into both these groups to suggest the “Carrying on” of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left — The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right — Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left — Study and pondering of judgments. Right — A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale — The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; art; catholiclist; commandments; constitution; doublestandard; firstammendment; freedomfromreligion; historicalbasis; history; hypocrisy; judeochristian; law; lawgiver; mediabias; pc; politicallycorrect; religiousheritage; religiousintolerance; revisionism; sculpture; supremecourt; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-193 next last
To: RonF
I'm simply pointing out more information about the display so that you can put it into context

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.

121 posted on 08/21/2003 3:04:42 AM PDT by angkor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Zathras
Rock on!

New desktop for me....
122 posted on 08/21/2003 4:55:14 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: narses
Bump
123 posted on 08/21/2003 5:01:45 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RonF
So if Moore adds a reference to Confucius, that would make his display nonreligious ?

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.

124 posted on 08/21/2003 6:02:23 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
"Wouldn't it be ironic if someone next sued the Supreme Court to remove the religious idols from its own building, using the Alabama case as its precedent?"

It's coming.

125 posted on 08/21/2003 6:13:00 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: angkor
This is really no different than the Taliban destroying ancient statutes because of a distant religious link, or the Soviets attempted destruction of the "opiate of the masses". This goes way beyond religion -- it is, in reality, an attempt at "cultural clensing" by radical secularist groups. Allowing this to stand merely gives them judicial precedent to use for future assaults on religion. . . ANY religion.
126 posted on 08/21/2003 6:13:44 AM PDT by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
After reading that court summary, its apparent the monument is irrelevant. Its Moore's intent regarding the monument that is on trial.
127 posted on 08/21/2003 6:14:03 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"If he allowed other displays besides this one, this would have been resolved quickly and in his favor."

Can you site an instance where someone asked for another display and Moore turned them down? I've not heard of this occurring.

128 posted on 08/21/2003 6:14:09 AM PDT by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
This is really no different than the Taliban destroying ancient statutes because of a distant religious link

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 ?

129 posted on 08/21/2003 6:20:04 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
You seem to have a litmus test against Christians and Jews who don't share your own ecumenicist beliefs serving in government positions.

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.

130 posted on 08/21/2003 6:21:25 AM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No. it is the federal government who will not tolerate the free expression of religion by state officials. They love to talk about the "establishment clause" of the first amendment, but never want to mention the other clause of the sentence which prohibits them from doing what they are doing now.

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.

131 posted on 08/21/2003 6:41:00 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
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.

132 posted on 08/21/2003 6:47:04 AM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
No, this is about Judeo-Christianity itself. You say it's okay for Moore to have his monumant, just so long as he violates the First Commandment and enshrines icons of other gods next to those.

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.

133 posted on 08/21/2003 6:57:03 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
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.

134 posted on 08/21/2003 7:02:13 AM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
They are intimidated by the hostile and lawless government which is threatening their lives if they dare follow the mandate of their own state constitution.

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.

135 posted on 08/21/2003 7:06:51 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
Have they denied a request for something of similar legal historical weight?

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.


136 posted on 08/21/2003 7:45:19 AM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
Funny how you think the Ten Commandments are as unnacceptable as pornography and the greatest mass murderer ever.

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?

137 posted on 08/21/2003 7:47:23 AM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: general_re
You're the one who made the analogy of pornography and mass murder to the Ten Commandments.
138 posted on 08/21/2003 7:50:55 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Seems to me the Feds ought to clean their own houses first....as long as they are willing to push America into worshiping the gods of paganism and atheism

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".

139 posted on 08/21/2003 7:56:31 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Its Moore's intent regarding the monument that is on trial.

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.

140 posted on 08/21/2003 7:56:45 AM PDT by general_re (A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181-193 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson