Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[lugsoul]

What's going on? We don't have 14 different Moore threads running at the same time today?

[commonerX]

"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? "


If I was a muslim and had to go to court and saw the court house has Christain icons in it I may feel intimidated and that there is no way that I am going to get a fair shake in this court. Fair Government is for all not just ones who believe in Jesus Christ. And you and the religious right have no place in trying to intimidate people into your beliefs.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I know more potheads than drunks...In fact I know more about the effects of dope than alcohol.

YOu allude my last statement. I do not drink, nor do I associate myself with those that do.

[ClancyJ]

Quit with the silly questions about why are you insecure. These must be the new ACLU talking points. They have nothing at all to do with my reasons provided before.

To remove the mention of God in governmental areas, provides the government with control of our religious freedom and the progression begins.

I am against the government telling me anything about where God can be mentioned.

Apparently you wish the government to have the power to limit religious expression, to be given the authority to tell Americans what they can do at sports events, what they can do at CHRISTMAS, where and what kind of decorations.

Maybe you are Muslim. Well - I am sorry. I am no fool and this is the first step to taking away our religious freedoms.

Others being uncomfortable? That means you make those who want religious freedom of expression uncomfortable to salve the feelings of those who want only the Muslim god inplace in America?

I think our religious freedoms are more important than the comfort level of any particular religion. If they knew about America they would understand this country was formed to provide religious freedom and we intend to keep it.

[ClancyJ]

Fair Government is for all not just ones who believe in Jesus Christ. And you and the religious right have no place in trying to intimidate people into your beliefs

Where is the intimidation? Just when have any been made to turn away from their beliefs and believe in Christianity? Try something like this in any of the Muslim countries and see how far you get. Why complain about America and religious comfort levels when most every other country does dictate what you believe.

Just provide one time you were intimidated? Maybe you need to rethink your reaction to intimidation. So what if they mention God - you don't have to heed it. So what if some want Christmas decorations? This is America - they are fee to decorate how they wish - so are you.

If you have more comfort in a country that believes as you do - feel free to seek out a dictating country and move there. America is free.

[inquest]

Eh-kay, I made it back alive.

The first part of your post can be summed up by saying, that state establishment of a church creates a potential for abuse of individual liberties. But surely you can see that the 14th amendment only prohibits actual violations of liberties, that is, actual limitations on people's autonomy. As for your other point:

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.

That it's "supposed to be treated differently" does not establish that not treating it differently in any way limits our autonomy as individuals, which is what the 14th amendment proscribes.

[inquest]

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.

I don't know about this. The legal doctrine about "bringing the First Amendment in to play" where it wasn't previously, seems a bit counterintuitive to me. Also, the views he's espousing aren't merely "his"; they represent views of a large majority of Alabama's population. And it's far from a foregone conclusion that they have "no real bearing on the day-to-day function of the court." I believe there's ample historical evidence to show that Christian morality - particularly Protestant Christian morality - was the starting point which Alabama's founders regarded as the moral basis for their laws, in which case I'd think his monument would be highly relevant to the court's job.

But all that aside, I'll simply have to ask you if you think Moore is violating the establishment clause, or the free-exercise clause, since judging from your statement above, it seems like it can go either way. If the former, then we can just continue along the other line of argument regarding that clause whereof my most recent post was #1126. If the latter, then I would have to consider it self-evident that the free-exercise clause, by itself, is no less important or forceful than the free-speech clause. In such a case, secular speech cannot be treated any differently than religious speech.

[inquest]

I suppose that should have read, "no MORE important or forceful", but it all winds up in the same place anyway.

[kkindt]

Do you mean that if I am elected to public office I am wrong to say that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but through Him?

If the President of the United States believes that you will go to hell unless you believe in Jesus Christ is it not a repugnant thing that he would be silent about this? I mean if you believe this way and you keep silent that's wrong, isn't it?

[commonerX]

"Quit with the silly questions about why are you insecure. These must be the new ACLU talking points. They have nothing at all to do with my reasons provided before."

You used the insecure remark back on post 1,102 first. I just turned it around and applied it to you. I still do not understand why you are so bothered by a religiously neutral government. If you what a religiously Christain country you should go to Ireland or some of the countries down in south America.

You seem so blind to the true concept of religious freedom you are starting to not make sense.

How is a religiously nuetral gavernment trying to take your religious freedom away?

It is religiously blinded people that would like to take away the freedoms of all to practice the religion of their choice. With people like yourself that wish to make this country a christain one, this is the first step. In Suadi Arabia am sure only Muslim icons are in government buildings, that I believe is the desire of the religious right in this country. Someone saying, "Well look christain references are on our money they are in the government buildings so hence it should be the official religion." No athiest in america with any sense would even try to tell you, you can't worship your God. But I am sure christain tell athiest all the time if you don't believe in god your going to hell. It's a small jump for christains to say, We need to save those people from themselves.

[commonerX]

"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. "

This statemant makes no sense if you are understanding what I am talking about. I believe you and all religious people have the right to express and practice your religion. The problem is when it is placed on government buildings it no longer becomes an expression but an indorsement by the government. Why do you feel the need for the government to indorse your religion?

[commonerX]

"Where is the intimidation? Just when have any been made to turn away from their beliefs and believe in Christianity? Try something like this in any of the Muslim countries and see how far you get. Why complain about America and religious comfort levels when most every other country does dictate what you believe."

First of all justification by comparison is not relievant in America. It is not right to say that it is better here because it is worst somewhere else. What right do you have to decide whether someone is intimidated or not.

[inquest]

What right do you have to decide whether someone is intimidated or not.

Then put it in objective terms. On what logical basis do you claim that you're intimidated? Are you likewise intimidated by the references to the Creator in the Declaration of Independence?

[inquest]

Sorry, I made an assumption in my previous post. I realize now that you yourself weren't claiming to be intimidated. My question remains, however, regarding how feelings of intimidation can be properly justified.

[kkindt]

In the first place can't you use a different word to describe my view other than 'freaky' because that is not a word that contributes to dialogue nor does it describe rationally the view that you have about how my view is wrong. These discussions on line are to generate light not heat.

In response to your statement "which one would the the 'one true faith' - my answer is in the words of the only man who rose from His own death:

"I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but through me."

I'd say that if a man raises Himself up in the same body in which He was crucified dead and buried and has plenty of eyewitnesses to bolster that claim - witnesses that were willing to die for this truth - that's a pretty good claim to being the one true religion.

Belief in Jesus Christ is belief in this good news, not opinion or views.

[kkindt]

You are right. Judges do not make laws. Hence what they DO with regard to decorating their court house is NOT a law and therefore can't be unconstitutional.

If there is a law that permits the judge to decorate the courthouse as he wishes and that law is judged to be unconstitutional that would be a different matter but that's not what the appeals court has done.

[m1-lightning]

This deal with the Ten Commandments monument is BS. Just when I thought the scum from this nation couldn't get any worse, now they aren't satisfied that the pledge of allegiance is voluntary. They want it to be disregarded from school all together. First they take away our right to say "under God" and now they want to take away our right to pledge our allegiance to this nation. And when I say they, I mean the liberal scum who hate this nation and are allied with libertarians who scream the bill of rights does not hold water legally. It's time we stop giving up our rights to the authoritarians and start taking bold steps like Judge Moore did.

[general_re]

The first part of your post can be summed up by saying, that state establishment of a church creates a potential for abuse of individual liberties. But surely you can see that the 14th amendment only prohibits actual violations of liberties, that is, actual limitations on people's autonomy.

Would that it were so - the courts can and do entertain facial challenges to laws and state actions all the time. Suppose your state were to make castration the penalty for jaywalking - must we wait until someone is actually facing that sentence before we act, or should not the courts be able to determine that such a law is invalid on its face, under the Eighth Amendment? Or maybe you don't think it's "cruel and unusual"? ;)

That it's "supposed to be treated differently" does not establish that not treating it differently in any way limits our autonomy as individuals, which is what the 14th amendment proscribes.

You may be right, but given the state of First Amendment law, this is still ultimately a normative argument. Whether or not it should be treated differently, it is treated differently, and not without some historical and legal justification, either.

[BearCub]

The pro-freedom view is to let people have the freedom to express their views. Denying Judge Moore this freedom is anti-freedom.

Stop miscasting the issue. People are free to express their religious views - government is not. Judge Mooore's views aren't at issue here. Judge Moore is not acting as a private citizen when he is at work - he is 'the government'.

Once again I'll say: Those of you who support Judge Moore are doing so only because his views reflect your own. If he were a Muslim wanting to put up a tribute to the Koran then you'd be screaming bloody murder.

But why? He'd only be expressing his views...

The dishonesty of your opinion is obvious.

[kkindt]

I agree - lets take a stand and wear t-shirts with the ten commandments on them to schools and to all public places. Will they get a judge to say we can't wear t-shirts to schools with God's commandments on them when the pagans wear t-shirts with devils on them.