Moore Vows to Continue Fight for Ten Commandments

CNSNews.com ^ | August 21, 2003 | Robert B. Bluey

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Chief Justice Roy S. Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court refused to back down from his defense of a Ten Commandments display Thursday despite a decision by his eight judicial colleagues to move the 2.5-ton monument.

"The fight to defend our constitutional rights to acknowledge God must and will continue," Moore told a crowd of supporters. "Very soon, we will file a petition for writ of certiorari before the United States Supreme Court to resolve clearly our inalienable rights to acknowledge God under the First Amendment."

Earlier Thursday, the eight associate justices of the Alabama Supreme Court voted to have the monument removed by the judicial building manager. The justices, who have the power to override Moore's administrative decisions, took the step after a federal judge threatened to fine the state $5,000 per day.

Republican Gov. Bob Riley and Attorney General Bill Pryor, both defenders of the Ten Commandments monument, hailed the justices' decision.

"Although I fundamentally disagree with what the federal courts have ordered, the state Supreme Court was correct in unanimously voting to uphold the rule of law," Riley said in a statement.

The governor, who is grappling with a budget deficit, said the fines could have added up to $1 billion within four months.

Pryor immediately filed the justices' order with the U.S. District Judge Myron H. Thompson, who set a deadline of midnight Wednesday for Moore to remove the monument. The deadline expired without much incident, although about 20 people were removed from inside the courthouse after refusing to leave.

The Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council, was among those arrested. He said it's never a pleasant experience to be detained by police, but this particular situation warranted such a stand.

"I'm certainly ready [to be arrested again] if that's necessary," Schenck said. "The Commandments are still on public display. No appears to be moving them or attempting to move them. But there are plenty of people now - scores of people - who are willing to risk arrest."

Schenck has teamed with the Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, to coordinate events in Montgomery throughout the week, including round-the-clock prayer vigils.

Defenders of Moore strongly objected to a decision made earlier in the day to shield the monument with a screen. Moore reportedly left a funeral to see that it was removed.

Later Thursday morning, the eight associate justices made their decision asking that that monument be moved from public view. Moore has dismissed suggestions that he place the monument in his office to comply with the court order.

In their order, the justices stated: "The refusal of officers of this court to obey a binding order of a federal court of competent jurisdiction would impair the authority and ability of all of the courts of this state to enforce their judgments."

Despite their defense of the Ten Commandments monument, Riley and Pryor condemned Moore for refusing to obey the law.

"The rule of law means that no person, including the chief justice of Alabama, is above the law," Pryor said. "The rule of law means that when courts resolve disputes, after all appeals and arguments, we all must obey the orders of those courts even when we disagree with those orders."

Alabama political observers like Johnny Green, who taught political science at Auburn University, said Pryor and Riley have taken a safe route by defending the monument while still vowing to uphold the law.

President Bush nominated Pryor for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, although Democrats have singled him out and raised objections to his so-called extremist views.

As for Moore, Green said this is likely the beginning of a quest for higher office. With Riley hurting politically because of an unpopular tax proposal, Moore could situate himself nicely for a run at governor in 2006, Green said.

Green said the state is split over the Ten Commandments question, but he said voters knew what they were getting by electing Moore to office. He has made clear his strong religious beliefs as well as his distaste for federal involvement in state issues, Green said.

"Remember, this is a place where they believe in states' rights," Green said. "So anytime the federal government tells Southerners what to do, they vehemently reject that and despise that. Alabamians would rather get a gun and fight than sit down at the table and discuss it sanely."

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

Moore and seven of the eight associate jellyfish justices are Republican. Johnstone is the only Democrat.

[VRWC_minion]

If we assume the biblical history is correct and Moses was actually a “Real” person who existed and he actually committed all the atrocities it says he did then why should we display anything this monster produced?

EAch step fo the way he was obedient to God.

[bluecollarman]

It was not written by George Washington or anybody else in the United States.

It was written in Algiers by Hassan Bashaw and Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul to Algiers. The original written in Arabic, had no such statement. It was added in Barlow's translation to make nice with the Moslems and that was the sole purpose for it. Moslems were forbidden to make treaties with Christians.

The entire article XI is as follows:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen(Moslems),--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

It was a diplomatic ploy to appease the moslems that caused Adams (not Washington) push through ratification. As I pointed out the original was in Arabic and had no Article XI. Joel Barlow was a Deist by the way. It is a good example of a poorly worded treaty. Adams even thought Barlow's translation left much to be desired.

I just do not think it is fair to attribute a remark to one of the founding fathers as if he made it when he did not.

I will let someone else defend Moses. I am off to bed.

[Ryan Bailey]

"IN GOD WE TRUST"
The explicit acknowledgement of our Creator and the Traditional Christian Values of our Founding Fathers is wholly irrefutable. No man can question that these Christian men established, and we are today living in, a union of states that is implicitly Christian and has as it's Supreme Sovereign, Almighty God who is the Father of us all.
Every man who owns anything in this country implicitly honors our God by honoring the currency on which His Holy Name is engraved, And not only His name, but our National statement of Trust in Him. This extends from the lowly beggar on the street who picks up a penny with the Holy Name on it, all the way up to the atheist Federal Judge who cashes a check and receives paper currency, each of these currencies are predicated upon our succinctly stated Trust in God Almighty and every man who uses them is rendering due worship to the same. I therefore pose a question which I have stated time and again in the presence of Atheists and Agnostics; 'If you do not acknowledge the existence of God, why do you avowedly honor His holy name by using our money engraved with our creed of Trust?' In reality every anti-Christ pagan should cease utilizing our currency, printed with the Holy name on it and begin using some more godless means of commodity, until such a time as that, they will continue to implicitly worship the King of Kings. Let everyone who agrees with the illegal and immoral inhibition of Chief Justice Roy Moore consider those facts.
In reality we need look no further than the recent remarks of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, supporting leniency on criminals as a means of combating crime, to realize that what we have in this instance, and in our world at large, is not a battle of atheists versus Christians, but of simple right versus wrong. Todays "Judicial Dictatorship" within the Federal Government knows of no deities except those between their own ears, and they would rather promote the ideals of 'universal tolerance' than let a State Supreme Court Chief Justice uphold so antiquated and inhereltly flawed ideals as; "Thou Shalt not Kill" and "Thou Shalt not Steal". It is these, not laws, but basic tenets of civility that our current Anti-Christ judicial establishment takes issue with. After all how could we in good conscience acknowledge that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as a legally binding directive when we have killed our unborn babies to the point of making Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia look saintly by mathematical comparison.
Chief Justice Roy Moore is a true American Hero, and no court of "Judicial Despots" can ever change the historical particulars enough to disprove the validities of his contentions. Without the basic tenets of civility conveyed to us in the Mosaic Decalogue we are no different than the brutest beasts of the earth.
May The Almighty and Merciful Lord, who delivered His children from the bonds of slavery in Egypt, deliver us in like manner from the tyrrany of a despotic "Judiciary of Paganism", which shall surely not rest until we are equated at every instance with the animals. And may the words of God, The Ten Commandments, which are the target for censure by that same tyrranic cabal be so engrained in our hearts and minds that we may by God's Grace ever establish His true peace and justice through our actions and preserve His favor on our nation.
May God Bless the Rt. Hon. Roy Moore,
and may God Bless America.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP

[MarthaNOStewart]

HELLO IN THERE! What are you saying? Christianity? That has nothing to do with Ten Commandments, they are old testament law for Jews given to Moses on Mount while Jews were in Wilderness. Christ had not even come to earth at that time, and Christianity did not exist yet....WHERE ARE YOU PEOPLE AT...DEFINATELY NOT IN RIGHT PLACE IN HISTORY.
The Common Law in England during the 1600's was the basis of the law for New World Colonies by 1676, and all that other "intellectial spew" does not change that historical fact! What Moore (his being a christian is irrevelant, he could be atheist for all I care) said is that THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE BASIS FOR OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM,,,,THE MAN IS RIGHT! period.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Here's a hint - putting word in all caps makes you look like a shrieking loon before we even look at the first word of content. Let us get into your post before we decide that you're a fanatic.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

word=words

[MarthaNOStewart]

THANK YOU! I appreciate your wisdom here, and I don't have patience with them that you have. Maybe I could take a lesson from you, but I think what you have said is very valid and I want you to know that.

[MarthaNOStewart]

First of all Moses nor Joshua were Kings. You don't know the Bible, therefore are not qualified to discuss it.

[safisoft]

Again I never Robbed, Raped or murdered anyone (like many bibical "Heroes" not only did but it was condoned by God) and I have a good loving Relationship with my family. Why do I need your god to tell me that's good or bad. It's common sense.

Who says, "good loving Relationship with my family" is good? Who says, "robbing, raping, and murdering" are wrong? Aren't those simply culturally unacceptable? If you had lived in different parts of the world you would see that some of what you claim to be "common sense" is not at all "common".

Common man, you are making this too easy! You are new at this atheist thing aren't you? Tell you what, sit down for an afternoon and think about these questions, and get back to us all when you are ready to into a TRUE philosophical debate.

What are they teaching atheists these days?

[tortoise]

The Common Law in England during the 1600's was the basis of the law for New World Colonies by 1676, and all that other "intellectial spew" does not change that historical fact!

Hey genius, The Common Law wasn't from the 1600s, and it hasn't changed that much since it was first normalized sometime around the 12th century. Heck, there had been written versions for almost half a millenium prior to the 1600s. And The Common Law predates those first written codifications by at least another thousand years. The oldest documentation of the Common Law system was from the very first Christian missionaries to those lands, who noted that it was ancient when they arrived and found the system of law intriguing.

What, you think they invented Common Law in the 1600s? It had already been codified on paper (to the extent that Common Law is) before the Magna Carta. I think you've lost your grip on "historical fact". There is nothing "Christian" about English Common Law, it simply happens that the Common Law was fairly compatible with Christianity when that religion showed up later.

[qam1]

First of all Moses nor Joshua were Kings. You don't know the Bible, therefore are not qualified to discuss it.

Ummm, Quote me

"The bible is full of kings and blood thirsty tyrants like Moses and Joshua."

OK Moses and Joshua weren't kings but they were most certainly blood thirsty, baby murdering tyrants.

[MarthaNOStewart]

Your lack of common sense is showing, as noone said Common Law was created in 1600's. It was during this time that the new world was being developed, and Common Law, as it was at that time, is what is relevant to our development.
I don't have time to educate people who have no real interest in the truth so I will be ignoring your from now on.

[tortoise]

Your lack of common sense is showing, as noone said Common Law was created in 1600's. It was during this time that the new world was being developed, and Common Law, as it was at that time, is what is relevant to our development.

That's lovely. So how the hell do you equate something that is well documented (by the early Christians no less) to predate Christianity as being fundamentally Christian in nature? And you claim to have common sense? My whole point was that there is no relation between the Common Law and Christianity; these two things bumped into each other as a historical accident and neither had too much influence on the other. In fact, the Common Law expressly comes into conflict with some things many conservative Christians believe.

And you claim YOU could educate ME? Puh-lease.

[MarthaNOStewart]

I never claimed you could be educated by me or anyone else, I feel you have an unteachable spirit. As for Common Law, it is based on Ten Commandments, and you obviously have no idea where they came from....that has been proven by your confusing drivel. I am NOT impressed, and I am sure noone else is either! Have a nice day!

[tortoise]

I never claimed you could be educated by me or anyone else, I feel you have an unteachable spirit.

"I feel"? That is the kind of statement a left-wing liberal would make. I am eminently teachable, but you haven't even tried to support your case.

As for Common Law, it is based on Ten Commandments, and you obviously have no idea where they came from....

Then explain this one thing for me: Why does every source on the origins of Common Law in the British Isles have it predating the arrival of Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years? When the first real Christian missionaries first came to the British isles only hundreds of years after the death of Christ, they not only documented that the Common Law system of that land was ancient, but that there was nothing resembling a Judeo-Christian belief system there, only various odd pagan religions indigenous to that region.

If I'm going to believe your claim, you need to explain why every record, both from Christian and non-Christian sources, state that the Common Law predates the Judeo-Christian religion as we know it. How do you explain away the Common Law predating the birth of Christ? Granted the Ten Commandments predate Christ, but there was no evidence that the people of the isles had ever heard of such a thing according to the Christians that first went there. And indeed, the earliest sets of laws of that region that we have record of do not look like they were influenced by the Ten Commandments.

[MarthaNOStewart]

Common Laws of England were accumulated over many centuries. In England during 15th century(1600's), justices were using the Ten Commandments as a basis for their judgements, and Biblical Scripture was being quoted in their decisions. In mid 1600's the colonies were being established, and using the Common Law of England as their guide to establishing law. I gave the website of Yale Law School (Avalon Project) because it is most extensive collection of original documents I have seen online. At the end of "Charter for the Province of Pennsylvania-1681" there is documentation of where the originals are to be found. They tell you how to find the original documents they have used, and how they transpired in the formation of America.
I will add another reply due to lack of space to address the christian question.