Moses Image (With 10 Commandments) Adorns U.S. Supreme Court Building

Self ^ | 8/20/2003 | Angkor

[general_re]

No, I suggested that those advancing the idea that Judge Moore was the only one who could decide what would be placed in the rotunda would only promote that notion so long as they happened to agree with what Judge Moore was putting in there, and that if he had put something that they happened to find personally offensive, they would be much less likely to accept or advance that idea. IOW, that the claim that Judge Moore was the sole authority on displays at the courthouse was merely a matter of convenience rather than a firmly held belief. Given your reaction, I'd say I hit that nail pretty squarely.

[general_re]

Can you site an instance where someone asked for another display and Moore turned them down?

The trial court cited two instances, which I posted in #93.

[VRWC_minion]

Attempting to gadge the intent of a monument to see if its acceptable is nuts and doesn't make sense legally. Its too arbitary.

[Tailgunner Joe]

You're 100% right. I wouldn't approve of Moore displaying pornography or pictures of Stalin, I just don't think that the Ten Commandments are offensive and obscene like you do.

[RonF]

Did you Google Solon + Zeus?

Yes, I did. Didn't see anything there that establishes him as a religious leader or a deity, unless you're talking about the page about the Xena episode where Zeus supposedly got Xena pregnant and she named the kid Solon. Not what's up in the SCOTUS building, though, I suspect.

Well, that settles that then.

Yes, it does. He was a religious man who wrote a body of secular law. If you think that this makes him a religious figure, then so is President Bush and just about every other President we've had.

[general_re]

Happens all the time. It has to be that way in a lot of cases - did I intend to run you down with my car, or did I simply lose control? The first case is murder, the second is just a horrible accident. Did I intend to burn your house down, or was I just careless about where I tossed my cigarette butt? Did I intend to sell you stolen property, or was I truly ignorant to that fact? Does Moore intend the monument to be a means of advancing his personal beliefs? By his own words, the answer is, pretty clearly, yes.

[general_re]

I just don't think that the Ten Commandments are offensive and obscene like you do.

You can, of course, produce the post(s) where I said, suggested, or implied such a thing, right? Or is it just that your crystal ball needs a good polishing?

[VRWC_minion]

How do you measue the intent of past monuments like the SC freize ? If its established that the artist intended to make a religious statement should it too be removed ? Look, its just plain silly to attempt to use intent to determine whether a monument is acceptable.

[RonF]

Interesting, but not particularly significant. We're talking about now. The Alabama judge is displaying the actual text of a particular religion's fundamental laws in a central position of his state's highest court. SCOTUS displays a large number of figures who have been involved in law, and no actual text of the laws themselves. About half of the figures are allegorical, and of the rest only a very small percentage are religiously oriented. The emphasis is on law, not religion.

They are not comparable; neither one justifies the other. If the Alabama judge wanted to put up a display honoring the various sources, both historical and religious, of the development of the rule of law in the U.S., I would have no objection whatsoever even if the full text of the 10 Commandments was included. But to put up a single display of one religion's laws, including laws that would be a violation of the Constitution to enact (Commandment 1, for example), has a purely religious purpose that at least appears to me to be intended to put the power of the state towards favoring a particular religion.

Given the nature of the situation (it's a state court) and the nature of the First Amendment ("Congress shall pass no law ..."), I'm no longer sure as to whether or not this is a violation of the First Amendment. But I do think it's the wrong thing to do. This is the state favoring a particular religion, and that's wrong. If the Judge managed to convince the state/city/private party/whatever to sell him some land downtown across from the courthouse or next door to it, he could build this monument, a statue of Jesus, a cross, a Nativity scene, and speakers playing (at a legal volume) his favorite hymns, and I'd defend his right to do so. But he has no right to do this kind of thing on public property in his position as a Judge.

And the Supreme Court seems to agree. It only takes 4 Justices to agree to grant certarori (sp? sorry), so this thing is at least a 6-3 loser before argument, maybe worse.

[general_re]

That's why there's two possibilities to the thing. One is that if an act is intended to advance a particular religion, it is impermissible. And the other is that if it has the effect of advancing a particular set of beliefs to the exclusion of others, it is impermissible. So if it's obvious that the thing has the practical effect of advancing some particular religious beliefs, then you don't have to get into questions of motive.

If, for instance, Judge Moore had said "only Christian lawyers will be allowed to argue in front of this court, and not all Christian lawyers, but only Southern Baptist lawyers will be allowed in" - well, you really don't have to get into motives for that. The obvious effect of such a thing is to promote a particular denomination over and above all others - while you could reasonably infer that this was his intent, it really doesn't matter if he intended it that way or not, since that's the practical effect.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The Ten Commandments are not the "actual text of a particular religion's fundamental laws."

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all revere the ten commandments.

[RonF]

The Supreme Court, where they held religious services during our first three administrations; the Capitol buiding where they held religious services attended even by some guy named Thomas Jefferson...

My how the Constitution changes without being amended.

Your observation that the practice of religion by Government officials on Government property have changed thoughout our history is valid. Your apparent conclusion, however, doesn't necessarily follow from it.

If the earlier practices had been tested against the Constitution and found valid, and then later the same practices had been tested and found invalid, then your conclusion would be justified. For example, if someone had brought suit in 1799 that holding religious services in the Senate Chamber was a violation of the First Amendment and lost, the practice had continued, and then suit had been brought in 1999 and won, then that would represent a change. But since no one brought suit about something like this early in our history, for all we know this practice was always unConstitutional, it just had never been tested yet. From Washington on, the Court has never been advisory. Suit has to be brought for a specfic circumstance. If no suit for a particular circumstance is brought, then we have no legal surety whether or not that circumstance is Constitutional or not.

Actually, given recent rulings it seems to me that holding religious services in the Senate chambers would be perfectly legal, as long as the Senate was not in session at the particular time (I mean date and time, not just within that week or whatever) and equal access to the schedule was offered to any religious group.

[RonF]

"But they would have no case if Moore agreed to include the Hammarabic code, and Solon, and Confucius in his display."

Just what the h*ll do ANY of these belief systems have to do with American law, tradition, and heritage??

American law mostly came from English Law, but where did English Law come from? I can see where Confucian philosophy probably had little to do with the development of English Law, but the foundations of all of Western law weren't made up of whole cloth from Christianity. They go back further into pre-Christian western civilizations; Rome, Athens, and the Middle East. Christianity built on those.

[RonF]

How do you measue the intent of past monuments like the SC freize[s]?

Well, VRWC_minion, you take a look at the documentation thereof, using the links I gave you for that very purpose in post #34.

Intent is all over the law, as has been amply documented to you, and so it this Judge's intent, and the intent of the artists who decorated the Supreme Court building. The effect is pretty obvious, too.

[RonF]

The Ten Commandments are not the "actual text of a particular religion's fundamental laws." Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all revere the ten commandments.

Fair enough, but it still excludes many other religions. Also, I'm told that different Christian sects and Judaism have slightly different versions of the 10 Commandments. Finally, it's pretty obvious from his quotes that the Judge meant to exclude any religion that doesn't accord with "Holy Scripture" (I quote because those are the Judge's words), which I presume would at least exclude Islam.

[general_re]

Indeed. When Judge Moore's words are clear as to his intent - and to his credit, at least, he was admirably straightforward about why he did what he did, rather than trying to dissemble and cloud the issue - then there is hardly any need to read tea leaves or consult the Ouija board about what he could have been intending to do...

[Tailgunner Joe]

Buddhists are atheist. By your logic, any acknowledgement at all that there is a God is the exclusion of Buddhist faith by the Government.

That means we have to remove God from our money, our pledge, our courts, our classrooms, and even the supreme court itself. Heck even the Declaration of Independence is Unconstitutional because it clearly states that our inalienable rights are God-given.

[candeee]

Interesting that you bring Bill Pryor into this. He has said that this ruling in itself is unConstitutional, although he would obey it.

[RonF]

The Declaration of Independence was written before the Constitution was. Additionally, it was written as a justification for an act which was patently illegal under the laws that up to that point had been in effect over the people who wrote it. The concept of it being Constitutional or unConstitutional is meaningless.

Further; it states that our inalienable rights are given by our Creator. It doesn't name the Christian or Jewish God specifically, and leaves open to individual interpretation as to who that creator was.

Buddhists don't believe in an incorporate God, but they do believe in a supernatural plane. References to "God" in the context of it's usages in things like "In God We Trust" and other such Government declarations have been expanded to cover that kind of thing, much as the BSA does when it says that Buddhists are eligible to be members and promise to do their "Duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent".

[mrsmith]

I hope you won't defend your very strong implication that Washington presided over a convention that presented a blank Constitution- to be filed in later by the Supreme Court- to the states for ratification. Though that attitude is at the heart of this debate IMHO.
I'm sure you merely meant that rulings on specific cases would be more authoritative, and assume that those rulings would be impartial to the facts and faithful to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, that once allowed the preaching of the gospel in it's chambers, depends upon the good will and faith it has earned in the minds of the people for it's authority.

That it is not faithful to the First Amendment is an undeniable historical fact, and brings disrepute upon it.
They can't incorporate what isn't there. They must cobble together whatever kind of "privileges and immunities" argument they can and start using it.