Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[jethropalerobber]

yes.

no.

no.

you might be more comfortable moving to a country with christian theocracy, you know - if you can find one.

[ClancyJ]

Why do you feel the need for the government to indorse your religion?

The government does not endorse any religion. They hopefully respect God.

Why are you so afraid of any mention of God being seen? Could it be you are Muslim, atheist?

What we are fighting for - is the prevention of government, the ACLU and people like you taking away our religious freedom and telling us when, how, where to pray, how we can practice Christmas, Easter, what we can or cannot do at a school event.

We are sick and tired of the ACLU, atheists and the anti-God crowd destroying America and taking away any moral values and leaving us with a school system that is more damaging than helpful, a society rife with any vulgarity pushed in our face. We are sick of art paid for with tax dollars that seeks to mock our faith and mock our Lord.

The lines are quickly being drawn that we will no longer tolerate the nonsense from the ACLU. It is coming to a head over this - but it is all of the abuses adding up - we have had it.

[commonerX]

I rather error on the side of freedom for all. A religious person wouldn't feel intimidated if there are no religious icons in a building the omition of such icons shows no preference for any religion, they are free to feel and think as they wish. But someone who is a muslim or jew or any other religion that is not being represented in the building might. I would rather the building be neutral.

[commonerX]

"The government does not endorse any religion. They hopefully respect God."

If they are puting religious icons in government buildings theyare endorsing it over religions that are represented. By not having any religious icons they are respecting all religious thoughts and ideals.

"Why are you so afraid of any mention of God being seen? Could it be you are Muslim, atheist?"

I am not a muslim or atheist, if I was a muslim I would be afraid of people like you wanting to take away my freedom to practice a religion that you don't approve of.

"What we are fighting for - is the prevention of government, the ACLU and people like you taking away our religious freedom and telling us when, how, where to pray, how we can practice Christmas, Easter, what we can or cannot do at a school event."

I said this before and I'll say it again how is not having religious icons in government buildings taking away your right to practice your religious beliefs.

"We are sick and tired of the ACLU, atheists and the anti-God crowd destroying America and taking away any moral values and leaving us with a school system that is more damaging than helpful, a society rife with any vulgarity pushed in our face. We are sick of art paid for with tax dollars that seeks to mock our faith and mock our Lord."

First of all I do not believe you are the spokesperson for the religious right so you should be using the "I" not "WE". The reference that you make to the none religious and non christain people destroying america is the main point of not allow religious icons in government buildings. You are already showing your desire to make this country no longer religiously free. I wonder about people how fell they need the threat of eternal damnation to do what is right and civil. This tells me that if you didn't have religion that you would see no problem with murdering, raping and stealing for others, so yes I am glad you have your religion. I do the right things because I believe it is the right thing to do and I want to treated as good as I treat others. And as far as the government paying for art, well is a different subject, but I believe the government should be paying any art, art is personal. And if it wasn't for the ACLU you probably wouldn't even be allow to pratice religions at all.

"The lines are quickly being drawn that we will no longer tolerate the nonsense from the ACLU. It is coming to a head over this - but it is all of the abuses adding up - we have had it."

What are you going to do if it doesn't go your way, revolt. Again all the more reason not to allow religious icons in government buildings. You want to take away the rights of others to believe as they feel and force them to believe in your god. Apparently the government agrees with my line of thinking, not yours. Way can't you worship your god without forcing others to?

[commonerX]

----TYPO ERROR----
I wonder about people (WHO FEEL) they need the threat of eternal damnation to do what is right and civil. This tells me that if you didn't have religion that you would see no problem with murdering, raping and stealing (FROM) others, so yes I am glad you have your religion. I do the right things because I believe it is the right thing to do and I want to treated as good as I treat others. And as far as the government paying for art, well is a different subject, but I believe the government should be paying any art, art is personal.

[kkindt]

We had one here but those who think like you took it away - it would just happen again. The Pilgrims came here to establish a community where the laws were in keeping with God's law. Unfortunately as more came to the community and lied to them about how they really believed and became a part of the community they ended up with witches and others who destroyed the government they established.

[inquest]

*exasperated sigh*....Yes, I'm the patient one, don't worry.

So you claim that state establishment of religion involves coercion. How you put it earlier, that Moore's court becomes some kind of 1st amendment zone while the monument is in place. The more I contemplate that argument, the more esoteric it comes across. Just to bring the matter back into the normal laws of physics, when the people of Alabama went to bed on the night the monument was about to be installed, they enjoyed a certain sphere of religious liberty. By all indications, they enjoyed the same sphere of liberty when they woke up the next morning. What privileges were they able to exercise beforehand that they weren't able to exercise afterwards? That's what's necessary to establish "coercion". Absent a logical answer to that question, the case can not be made that Moore violated the 14th amendment.

[ClancyJ]

I said this before and I'll say it again how is not having religious icons in government buildings taking away your right to practice your religious beliefs.

These are not religious icons. Good grief - it is a piece of stone with the Ten Commandments written on it. How does that mean the government is saying all should believe the Ten Commandments? Why are you so afraid of the mention of God? You are probably not even in Alabama and probably would never even see those pieces of stone. They are the historical basis of our judicial system. To take them out and ban them in reality is taking God out and banning Him. Why?

There has been absolutely no attempt to make others believe anything - but only the attempt to have the freedom to keep the ability to mention God, display where we wish, do as we wish.

No matter how many times you say differently - no one - absolutely no one is or has been telling you you have to worship God. Yet, we are telling you that you do not have the right to tell us we must only speak of God in certain places.

This judgement was made by a federal judge who ignored the Alabama constitution and made a ruling that then is supposed to supercede the constitution. Now, the judge is supposed to ignore his vows and follow this law based on nothing to get you the outcome you want.

No, afraid not. I don't care about whether the Ten Commandments are displayed there - but I care about the federal government telling us where we can mention God, how we practice our holidays, how we are to teach our children that they cannot give a friend a Bible at school - it must be "outside" school. Religious freedom? Why are we to give up our religious freedom?

In the last few years we have lost the ability to mention God or Jesus in a school function, we have lost the ability to have a prayer at sports events, our schools can have any weird kind of club they want, but nothing with Jesus or God mentioned in it. A prayer club? Forget it. What message does that send to those children believing in God? What about their feelings?

We see the trend. And, you think we are fools enough to allow a judge to come in and subvert a constitutional right basing his action on nothing?

I will speak of "we" if I want, because remember - I still have a few places I can use freedom of speech.

Or, am I to ask you what I can say now too? Man, you anti-religious crowd are demanding people aren't you?

Besides, I am not just talking about me - I am talking about those that think like me - and, in fact, that is the majority in this country.

[general_re]

When the people of Alabama went to sleep last night, they had exactly the same rights and privileges as Roy Moore. When they woke up, they discovered that he had carved out an extra privilege for himself, by virtue of his office, that he was unwilling to extend to anyone else. Why should the minions of the state be able to use their positions to enable them to enjoy personal freedoms that mere citizens cannot, particularly when those personal freedoms are not at all necessary to the job for which they have been entrusted? What else should we permit Moore to do that the rest of us cannot? A nice dacha on the Black Sea, perhaps?

[ThomasMore]

and so it ends....

...and so it begins...

[inquest]

Assuming your characterization of events to be valid, the 14th amendment doesn't prohibit government officials from "carving out extra privileges for themselves". Offices often have various privileges associated with them. What it does do is prohibits them from taking away privileges from citizens.

A dacha on the Black Sea wouldn't violate the Constitution either.

[general_re]

By what right does he deny it to others?

[inquest]

That's for the people of his state to decide. They're the ones who grant the privileges that pertain to various offices. All I know is that such granting of privileges does not violate the 14th amendment.

[general_re]

That's for the people of his state to decide.

Why are we bothering with a Constitution, then? Let's just have a direct democracy and be done with it.

All I know is that such granting of privileges does not violate the 14th amendment.

To extend the analogy a bit, the problem doesn't lie in the fact that Judge Moore has a nice dacha on the Black Sea, the problem is in his declaration that he's the only one who will have a nice dacha on the Black Sea...

[inquest]

To extend the analogy a bit, the problem doesn't lie in the fact that Judge Moore has a nice dacha on the Black Sea, the problem is in his declaration that he's the only one who will have a nice dacha on the Black Sea...

That comes entirely down to who owns the Black Sea and its frontage. If it's Alabama government property, and the people of that state have decided that one of the privileges of the Chief Justice position is to have a dacha on the Black Sea, and yes, other people are excluded, that does not violate the Constitution.

If it's private property, then that's obviously a different matter altogether.

[general_re]

If it's Alabama government property, and the people of that state have decided that one of the privileges of the Chief Justice position is to have a dacha on the Black Sea, and yes, other people are excluded, that does not violate the Constitution.

Perhaps they ought to start by amending their own constitution to reflect that notion, then:

...no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

[inquest]

Federal courts aren't supposed to get involved in state constitutions.

[general_re]

State judges are supposed to obey higher courts. What can I say? Everybody's unhappy ;)

[inquest]

State judges are supposed to obey higher courts.

Only to the extent that those higher courts rule in accordance with the law.

[general_re]

That's not for Judge Moore to decide.