Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

AP on Fox News ^ | 8-21-03 | AP on Fox News website

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[ClancyJ]

Trying to make this a Christian country? This country was created TO get away from the Church of England and insure that this government did not interfere with religious freedom. And people like you come along and try and put their beliefs over all others - atheism.

This country was created WITH God as mentioned over and over in the Declaration of Independence. That is a fact.
You are trying to change this government. No one is telling you to worship anything - yet you are telling others they cannot mention God in public buildings, on and on. Who are you to overrule the majority - who are you to impose your views on others?

Just because you do not believe does not mean that all others in the world are willing to change how this country was formed to "make you comfortable". You have the choice to believe what you wish. You do not have the choice to take beliefs away from others.

[ClancyJ]

Will you believe in God because God is mentioned by others in prayers in a building? Because God is mentioned on a monument? Does that make you believe? No? Than how does it bother your life?

Since when has all government been exactly as you wished? Why are you so insecure that you cannot tolerate seeing others believe in something and having the freedom to express it.

There are plenty of countries that have governments that rule what people can or cannot say or do. I suggest you find one of those that will impose your will on all others.

[inquest]

OK, thanks for that Brennan argument. My first observation (and this is probably going to make you want to smack me) is that this is not the actual opinion of the court, so I'm unsure of what precedential weight it should be given. But that's OK, I'll deal ;-)

It seems the paragraph that deals with the crux of my argument is this:

It has also been suggested that the "liberty" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment logically cannot absorb the Establishment Clause because that clause is not one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights which in terms protects a "freedom" of the individual. The fallacy in this contention, I think, is that it underestimates the role of the Establishment Clause as co-guarantor, with the Free Exercise Clause, of religious liberty. The Framers did not entrust the liberty of religious beliefs to either clause alone. The Free Exercise Clause "was not to be the full extent of the Amendment's guarantee of freedom from governmental intrusion in matters of faith." McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 464 (opinion of Frankfurter, J.).

His "co-guarantor" thesis is a bit flawed, I think. Why couldn't the Founders "entrust the liberty of religious beliefs" to the free-exercise clause alone? Isn't that exactly what the free-exercise clause says? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the free exercise [of religion]." What more do you need, from an individual-rights standpoint?

Now his cite from Justice Frankfurter (which btw was another concurring opinion - not the opinion of the court - and even then it was dictum because the court didn't find a violation - but that's OK) I can allow for the sake of argument: the FE clause "was not to be the full extent of the Amendment's guarantee of freedom from governmental intrusion in matters of faith." But "intrusion" in matters of faith is not the same as violating individual liberties. The "individual liberties" part was covered by the free-exercise clause. Just as the free-speech clause needed no further props to guarantee the full range of individual liberties within its sphere, neither did the free-exercise clause. The "intrusion" part was covered by the establishment clause. So again, he tap dances around the subject, but makes no direct attempt to show how "violations" by the states of the establishment clause interfere with the rights/privileges/protections contained in the 14th amendment.

[inquest]

It's a discretionary act on his part. He's not required to decorate the rotunda at all, but once he does, it cannot be exclusive to his particular viewpoint in matters of religion. If he had chosen to decorate the rotunda in a secular manner, he could have done so in whatever manner he sees fit without ever implicating the establishment clause, which has been the source of his troubles from the beginning - nothing in the First Amendment prevents Judge Moore from using his office to stake out a position on secular issues, after all. Indeed, his job requires him to do exactly that. But once religion becomes the subject, the establishment clause comes into play, and Judge Moore has less of a free hand than he might otherwise wish for, by virtue of the fact that he's an agent of the state.

This is starting to get away from the question I asked at #1071: "Is it truly one of the 'privileges' of citizens to put whatever religious decoration they want in their courthouses & other government buildings?" You began to address it, but now you're moving away from it again. The argument you gave me in the paragraph above can only be completed by saying how it affects the liberties of the individual. As I said earlier, prohibiting all people from putting up religious displays is just as unacceptable as prohibiting some people. You appeared to agree with me, I think.

So how does it more adversely affect the liberties of the individual when Moore puts up the Decalogue while excluding other displays, vs. him putting up nothing while excluding other displays? The individual citizens are just as restricted either way.

[general_re]

Why couldn't the Founders "entrust the liberty of religious beliefs" to the free-exercise clause alone? Isn't that exactly what the free-exercise clause says? "Congress shall make no law...abridging the free exercise [of religion]." What more do you need, from an individual-rights standpoint?

Let's think about the establishment of a real national church for a moment. From a practical standpoint, the govenrment has resources and abilities far beyond any individual Americans, or any subset of Americans. Imagine for a moment the establishment of an official national church, built upon, say, the proposition that the Founding Fathers were not merely brilliant men, but were in fact prophets, with writings and thoughts directly dictated to them by God, thus making their writings into more than simply political theory - it's considered holy. And they revise the New Testament in accordance with some sort of claimed revelation, in order to make it seem as if this was foretold in the Bible.

Now, the government can afford to do things even your national congregation probably cannot. So they do, in order to promote the national religion of the Divine Church of the Revolution - they hire hundreds of thousands of people to pass out literature, they build massive churches on every street corner, every piece of mail has a solicitation for the national church on it where a stamp would be. And not only are they bigger and better funded than your organization could possibly be, but there are some mysterious things about how the government seems to treat people. DCR members always seem to spend half as much time in line at Motor Vehicles as you do when it's time to renew their licenses, and for some reason, they never seem to get audited by the IRS. Oh, nothing you can prove, nothing you can point to and call a clear violation of the equal protection laws, but it'll be one of those things that "everybody knows", with a wink and a nudge.

And here's the fun part - you get to pay for all this, with your tax money. You, good Christian that you are, get to support this church with your tax dollars - a church that you would, no doubt, consider blasphemous. And that's in addition to supporting your own with whatever voluntary contributions you can make. Voluntary contributions being, of course, something that the national church members don't have to worry about - they gave at the office, and so did you ;)

So how long will it be before the members of your church start wandering away? Maybe it'll be the constant, 24-hour a day barrage of government sponsored proselytization, maybe they'll get tired of standing in line at the DMV, maybe they won't be able to afford their taxes and the collection plate - I'm guessing it'll be something.

That's the practical argument, against the potential results. The abstract argument is the one of individual conscience - if religion is truly a matter of individual conscience, why should you be forced to support someone else's church, one that preaches tenets that you neither believe nor practice?

Now, you could, I suppose, point out that you are already forced to support secular ideas you disagree with through compulsory taxation. But religion is supposed to be treated differently in the first place, not as basely as more worldly political ideas and theories. And the national church isn't likely to be anything quite so strange as what I described above - perhaps the only difference between it and other Christian denominations will be minor doctrinal differences, or perhaps the national church will simply be created by adopting an existing church, where it will suddenly become exceedingly accurate to say that this is a "Catholic" nation or a "Mormon" nation. But in that case, I think you can still expect to see some of the effects I describe above - bishops wielding secular power, polygamy becoming a legal lifestyle, et cetera. The whole point to the establishment clause is that two-fold protection of religious freedom that Brennan talks about - not only should you be free to practice your beliefs, but you shouldn't have to face pressure from the govenrment to believe as they believe.

I've gotta cut out for a bit, so I'll catch your other post some time later. Until then...

[general_re]

Back again ;)

As I said earlier, prohibiting all people from putting up religious displays is just as unacceptable as prohibiting some people. You appeared to agree with me, I think.

I do, but the problem is that not all state property is available or appropriate for use as a public forum. As I type this, I'm sitting about 45 minutes away from the Pentagon, which, in a very real sense, belongs to me, as well as all the other citizens of the United States. This does not mean, however, that the Department of Defense must honor my request to engage in free-speech activities on the grounds of the Pentagon - its primary function is as the civil and military headquarters of the armed forces of the United States, not as a forum for everyone's soapbox, including mine.

And so it is with the courthouse - the primary function of the Supreme Court of Alabama is to administer the laws of the state of Alabama and the United States, not as a free-speech zone where citizens may gather to express their views in an open and public forum. However, when the chief administrator of that facility turns it into a forum for expressing his religious views, then he has brought the First Amendment into play, and it cannot remain a forum exclusively devoted to one single point of view, particularly since that point of view has no real bearing on the day-to-day function of the court. Judge Moore, by his actions, has created what must now be a public forum, although I think that it can reasonably be returned to its original sole purpose without causing undue harm to anyone.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Way beyond the pale, tasteless, and out of bounds.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Same with you. Out of line.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

" If [the ACLU] had their way all referances to God would be removed from our culture."

You're obviously a prime example of someone who's hostility towards the ACLU is born out of ignorance.

The ACLU has been the leading advocate for, and defender of, freedom of religious expression. If you're unaware of the case law and willing to learn, I'd be happy to educate you.


"You seem to think America is confused about the issues pushed by the ACLU"

I don't know about America, but it's obvious that you personally are hopelessly confused about the issues pushed by the ACLU.

[Conservative til I die]

Provide examples then, instead of just calling everyone ignorant.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You are, by your admission, ignorant. And hostile. Interesting how those two often go together.

For examples of the ACLU defending freedom of religion, take a peek at post #46.

[Conservative til I die]

You are, by your admission, ignorant.

I am? When did I admit this?

And hostile.

Why? Because I dismiss you for being an anti-religious bigot and an ACLU lover? Get some thicker skin, sissy.

Believe me, I feel I can safely disregard anything you say, just for your love of the ACLU.

[Conservative til I die]

Was that the fellating the ACLU comment???? BTW, what did the other guy say? I'm curious as to how low-class it was.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Yep.

[commonerX]

You totally do not understand the bases of a religiously free country. In a religiously free country governments can not indorse or promote any single religion. Putting religious icons in government buildings is indorseing that one religion over another. Why do you feel so insecure about your religion if it doesn't appear on a government building. Why can't you let the government be nuetral about religion? Why does that bother you and the religious right so much? The only reason I can think of is that you wish to indoctrinate people into that particular religion. To make it the official religion of the country, and that I am against.

[commonerX]

Would you be perfectly alright with the government placing Penticles or icons of Islam, or Druidic icons in the building along side the Ten Commandments.

[ClancyJ]

Because they are not just making government neutral - they are making government anti-God and taking away the religious freedoms we established the country to get.

Sure - there is no problem with just making it neutral - but they are not doing that because it means there can be no mention of God in public buildings, no prayers at sports events, no ability for a child to give a friend a Bible at school, they are then progressing further to telling us where we can speak the "G" word, what decorations we can have on holidays, what kind of pageants at school.

Many of you are not looking at the goals of the ACLU. It is not merely making government neutral - it is destroying our religious freedom and the religious freedom of all religions - especially anything with God in it.

Now it is remove something from the building because it offends. No concern that it offends the Christians when someone decides that they no longer have the freedom to speak of God anyplace - same as all other religions have.

Next it is "do that on private property - not public property because you cannot mention anything about God on public property". And "why do you feel the need to speak of God publicly anyway - it should be done in your homes".

So here we are now taking our religious freedom and curtailing it because the government has access over that property. This is the very same thing they are doing with the environmental issues. Assume control over an area due to some environmental issue and then keep that control and deny the public the right to free use of the area. Remember Anwar, the national forests, business pursuits in California, endangered species.

The very same plan is at work on freedom of religion in America.

People better wake up. They know full well there has been NO promotion of a specific religion in America as all religions operate freely. The atheists want no religion, the Muslims want their religion instilled as the only religion and to do it, they must get God out of there. Then they will instill their version of religion and enforce the public supporting it.

Don't blindly believe it is just making government neutral - it is giving government the right to tell us where and when we can mention God, how we handle Christmas, Easter, what we can do at sports events, who and when we can give Bibles to a friend, and what is taught in our schools.

I thought most of these supporters were great believers in no government control - yet they are the ones fighting to take God out. How appropriate that in removing God - they also remove their freedom of religion and freedom in America.

Remember - "Don't Mess with God".