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.
Period.
My point is, no expression of religion can be made which does not exclude someone else's religion.
We guaranteed the right to espouse our own religion. We are not required to espouse religions with which we do not agree just for the sake of inclusion.
So, if he lies about his intent then the monument would be OK ? Thats a nonsensical conclusion.
So they SC freize is OK so long as the current residents don't point to it and announce it has religious significance. But the minute say a new judge is appointed who claims it has religious significance and makes it a big deal then the freize attains the status of becoming evil ?
Your posistion is illogical and nonsensical.
You keep flip flopping on your arguments. It seems you cannot make a case that the monument is in itself a religious monument without attaching the Judges personal view point.
If the judge put up abstract art and claimed it was Jesus on the cross would the abstract art need to be removed ? What if artist claimed the same art was supposed to represent a banana ?
Who or what else could someone seriously refer to other than Locke, Blackstone's English law, and the Bible itself? Confucious?? Buddha?? The Space Federation??
Ron, your arguments about whether the monument is objectionable or not would be more consistant if you looked to the impression of those who view it, like the laws on obscentiy. You would be more consistant.
The idea that an objects representation as a religious object can only be measured by the intent of the person who put it their is stupid.
You make an important distinction, that needs to be understood. However, your final conclusion is rather sad. While the majority that voted against Texas on Sodomy might well rule against Mr. Justice Moore, there is not a sound legal basis for such a ruling. Anyone who understands the ordinary meaning of the English language will appreciate how completely and absurdly stretched the whole skein of anti-religious cases has become.
Note that what the First Amendment prohibits Congress--not the States--from doing, is making any law respecting an establishment of religion. That doesn't just mean they cannot establish a religion; they cannot deal with any of the existing establishments of religion that still existed in some States. How can the theoretical application of the First Amendment to the States, by reason of the 14th Amendment, extend a power to the Federal Courts to do the exact opposite of what the Amendment seeks to accomplish?!
Let us say, theoretically, that Justice Moore's position is not just to honor the Biblical roots of Western Law, but the extreme end that the anti-religious wackos would accuse him of--i.e. that he is seeking to preserve an established religion. That is the very thing that the Federal Government, in the form of Congressional legislation, is forbidden to deal with. There is no way that prohibition rationally translates into an empowerment of the Federal Judiciary to interfere in what Congress was forbidden to touch.
Those that consider these cases acceptable interpretation, have lost sight of the very great actual diversity in the values of the States that created our Federal Union, and their mutual toleration for their respective rights to maintain those separate and diverse cultures, while still working together for those purposes that they did in fact have in common. In these anti-religious decisions, the Courts are embracing a new fanaticism, where the most basic cultural as well as religious rights of our respective peoples are being subordinated to a Collectivist Socialist norm, being imposed by theorists without a semblance of legal or rational justification.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Look how close we all are to agreement LOL!
Oh well, I expect the Supreme Court to come up with a defensible First Amendment doctrine next session- though I probably won't approve of anything this bunch would concoct.
|
The sculptural pediment over the east central entrance of the U.S. Capitol is called Genius of America. The central figure represents America,who rests her right arm on a shield inscribed "USA"; the shield is supported by an altar bearing the inscription "July 4, 1776." America points to Justice, who lifts scales in her left hand and in her right hand holds a scroll inscribed "Constitution, 17 September 1787." To America's left are an Eagle and the figure of Hope, who rests her arm on an anchor. Italian sculptor Luigi Persico's original design for the sculpture included figures of Peace, Plenty, and Hercules; these were replaced at the suggestion of President John Quincy Adams with the figure of Hope. Adams wished the design to "represent the American Union founded on the Declaration of Independence and consummated by the organization of the general government under the Federal Constitution, supported by Justice in the past, and relying upon Hope in Providence for the future." 'Hope in "Providence"', and an altar? Hey, what was the "intent" of this guy? |
You really don't see the stupidity in having to do forensic researsh into the mind of the artist in order to determine if it has religious intent do you ?
What if the family of this artists unearths s long lost diary that the artist kept and in it he wrote how is real secret purpose was to perserve and advance the Christian relgion. Using your acid test, we would have to remove it then. Thats plain nuts.
The so called second half of the standard is the only thing that makes sense. However, when you attempt to apply the second half by itself without Moore's posistion the monument by itself could simply be history or art. It loses its apparent religious sigificance. I would then agree that if a jury of peers decided it was religious based on their own standards of the day then that could be a reasonable basis but the one that has been put forth here can only result in bizarre consquences.
Luigi is obviously Italian and undoubtedly Roman Catholic. Good Catholics are taught its their duty to bring people to God. Therefore he must be advancing religion.
You mention Blackstone. Can't argue with that choice. Let's see what he had to say on the origins of English law:OUR antient lawyers, and particularly Fortefcue c, infift with abundance of warmth, that thefe cuftoms are as old as the primitive Britons, and continued down, through the feveral mutations of government and inhabitants, to the prefent time, unchanged and unadulterated. This may be the cafe as to fome; but in general, as Mr. Selden in his notes obferves, this affertion muft be underftood with many grains of allowance; and ought only to fignify, as the truth feems to be, that there never was any formal exchange of one fyftem of laws for another: though doubtlefs by the intermixture of adventitious nations, the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans, they muft have infenfibly introduced and incorporated many of their own cuftoms with thofe that were before eftablifhed: thereby in all probability improving the texture and wifdom of the whole, by the accumulated wifdom of divers particular countries. Our laws, faith lord Bacon d, are mixed as our language: and as our language is fo much the richer, the laws are the more complete.
So Blackstone seems to think that English law had antecedents in Roman, Danish, Norman, Pict, and Saxon law. I'm certainly not going to argue with him. And it would be supposed that these laws, in turn, had antecedents that contributed to them and thus to English law.
The only standard I can think of that is fair to all parties involved is the standard of "let 'em all in, or keep 'em all out". The ACLU and PFAW and assorted other fools would probably prefer the second part, but I personally would prefer the first alternative. It keeps the government neutral on the subject of faith and creed, while not pretending that there's no such thing as religion in the world. The government is built the way it is for a reason, and tinkering with it by pretending that the establishment clause doesn't really apply to Christians is starting down a very dangerous road, IMO.
The only standard I can think of that is fair to all parties involved is the standard of "let 'em all in, or keep 'em all out". The ACLU and PFAW and assorted other fools would probably prefer the second part, but I personally would prefer the first alternative. It keeps the government neutral on the subject of faith and creed, while not pretending that there's no such thing as religion in the world. The government is built the way it is for a reason, and tinkering with it by pretending that the establishment clause doesn't really apply to Christians is starting down a very dangerous road, IMO.
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.