Ten Commandments on Display Has No Legal Standing

sierratimes.com ^

[Joe_October]

Fascinating discussion. Better than I could have possibly heard on television or the radio. Well done all.

But, I keep hearing this come down to a 1st amendment / ten commandments thing. I had a few questions that maybe are important. (And maybe not.)

I realize that the base argument is whether the 1st amendment requires that no religion be expressed, but since the 10 commandments are part of the basis or our law, they should be allowed. Someone asked if it was okay to post the Koran but unless it is part of the formation of the United States, it sort of falls out. The Constitution and the Bill or Rights refer to religion explicitly. It's lately come into vogue to wish it wasn't so, but it was.

But, I was more interested in the details. I heard that the other Alabama justices could not over-rule Moore and just remove the monument (or hunk of stone or piece or art or history if you like) because he had some special privilidge as the head justice. That being said, does Moore have a special authority due to his position? Who picks the carpet and if they pick Moses Green for the rugs could someone sue to have the carpet removed in favor of diverse orange or conservative blue?

Could he put a rock painted with obscenities in the lobby and say it represented diversity and it would be okay? How does he have special authority to accept gifts to the court house and who gave him the keys?

Now, I don't mean to trivialize but somewhere Moore has been granted special privilidge by the State to take some special action. And with this priviledge/responsibility, there is some mechanism to fix it.

I don't care for a Federal justice ordering a State to take action (it isn't really a law so he's not really breaking a law is he? -- could the Federal justice order him be put to death? -- what's the limit?).

I realize their are hidden agendas and secret motives (too sinister for me to understand) but Moore's performance in adherence to the law should be judged by his actions in the court not by his interior design work. The matter would all go away if we focused on what was important over whose feeling were hurt? The only reason that anyone cares is that everyone cares (oh yea that made sense.)

If Alabama granted him the authority to make changes to the building and spend money, he could do as he wishes in my opinion. If he has taken action the court which hurts your rights, those actions should be reversed. If he is a detriment to his State, he should be recalled by the people or not re-elected (if his position is not permanent).

Putting a rock in the foyer which says be decent to each other doesn't harm anyone. In fact, it sort of helps you because you know what the Judge expects. But, if Moore was not authorized to do that, it should be corrected quickly by the State. Everyday we have to live with little slights on our own personal touch stones, some by the government, some by the idiots that are the face of our government. Is our world made better by screaming at ever preceived slight?

Moore put this up as a positive expression of his faith. So what if he did it to tweak the muslims and atheists of the world. It would all go away if the atheists just said Amen brother. What a great world we live in when all we have to fight about is if we can display 10 (sorry as a previously poster pointed out 9) pretty good rules to live by.

Are people really intimidated because Moore is not afraid to say he's a Christian? Please.

The real problem is that these guys can now put anything they want in the court houses. Neon Coke signs, Get your Penis enlargement vitamens here, You too can have hair a mile long if you just use this cream signs. The system should have a fix for that and it will soon have one.



Finally, nothing to do with the questions above (purely secular). Pardon those of us that have found a little religion. As imperfect as we are, you do realize that we are trying to share with you the most important thing that we know. Yea, I know Pork Rinds are pretty good and Angelina Jolie is pretty hot, but we are people that are trying to help you find the most important thing in the Universe bar none. And our notion of the heavens is one where we all like each other and accept each other's failure and imperfections. Our faith is based on redemption, that you can foul up and we will accept you as if it never happened. And not because we might foul up worst, which we do, but because it is the right thing to do. Does it matter or aid in understanding if it described as a man in a white beard who makes us do it. Or, we read it in a book. It's not that important. Now in translation, it might have become garbled and confused but it's just that simple. As I said, excuse my weakness in being able to describe it or if we get a bit zealous. It is personal but not in a bad way.

[djf]

"Diversity" is a tool of the power elite. The last thing they want to happen is for people to realize they actually have lot in common, as long as the people think others are different and have different values, then the power is maintained, by national war and class warfare. The single most difficult problem they have facing them is the ideals of a bunch of farmers 200+ years ago. And make no mistake, those ideals were set upon 700 years of English common law.

[djf]

Actually, it says "Congress shall make no law...". Since Congress didn't make a law, some might think the first amendment is irrelevent. But when they said that, what they really meant was they reserved the right to the people and the states to determine their religious charter. Not some judge who doesn't know his maxims from a hole in the ground. Right of conscience.

[strela]

There is no sense looking for a legal loophole to save the Ten Commandments anymore

Doesn't something first have to be lost or in some form of jeopardy before it can be "saved"?

God has no legal standing left in today's courts, government, or much of society.

Isn't God big enough and smart enough to fight His own battles?

[f.Christian]

Good News For The Day

‘But I say to all of you: In the future, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the mighty One.’ (Matthew 26:64)

"If the universe is moral, (and the fact that such a person as Christ existed, is strong evidence that it is), then what Jesus said about himself and the future, must come true. If morality has an infinite source, and backing, then the moral excellence of Christ will ultimately... triumph---over evil."

"I know some very agreeable people. I know some that I would call gentle giants. But their easygoing spirit is never a threat to greed and corruption. Kindness, patience, understanding, and love are not better than envy and bitterness, if they only ever exist as counterweights to their opposites. A good man who is content to coexist forever with badness, and wrong, cannot be a good man in any absolute sense."

"The goodness of Jesus is surpassing because he not only sorrowed over sin, and was outraged by it, he set himself against it, and warned his enemies that by suffering for it, he would rise above it, and eliminate it."

"If our universe is a moral one, then Jesus' values can never be viewed in any offhand way. Rather, he must be seen as a hazard to every act, motive, system, institution, or law, that is not in sympathy with him. A question that governments and their constituents ought to ask is: Are we making laws; invoking policies that clash with Christ and the direction of his Spirit? If so we are building badly. The universe itself will not back us. The future belongs to Christ-and to all who follow him."

[Maelstrom]

You still have it founded in Law...

...this time...using your interpretation...in Social Security.

[Maelstrom]

Sure...and when they said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

They *actually* meant that it could be taxed, sued, and regulated out of existance and the the rits to keep and bear arms is the sole purview of the government.

C'mon. You need something more than your statement. But I think you're getting there.

[vannrox]

.


"...The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation..."

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788


.

[Maelstrom]

Whoops

Abe Lincoln put an end to that now...and the 14th Amendment encapsulated it setting up unbreakable bonds against the states, shackling them into slavery under a Master Central Government.

[Maelstrom]

Your argument is weak.

"Kindly conduct yourself to the next state park, for example. Once there, begin to pray."

For how long will that be legal? There's already a shifting line in the sand that shouldn't be there at all. However, you fail the test of analogy. The monument isn't a prayer, it's a work of art with a Biblical theme.

In some towns, if such a thing can be visibile to the public, even on PRIVATE PROPERTY, it's outlawed. (Nativity scenes) This is censorship, both there, and in Alabama. The censorship only has a single logical source: anti-religious bigotry.

IF Judge Moore is the source of your upset, you prosecute Judge Moore and refrain from persecuting all that see benefit or no harm from the mere presence of a work of art with Biblical themes.

[jwalsh07]

Here's a clue on why you lost our little personal tet-a-tete. You failed to answer one direct question or post the name of one individual whose rights under the Alabama constitution were abridged.

Come back again. You never know, some day you may have some substance to add to a debate.

I doubt it but the Lord works in mysterious ways.

Cheers.

[petitfour]

Is everyone ready for a class action lawsuit against the US Supreme Court for promoting religion and the notion that there is more than one god by having a whole bunch of religious icons on the adornment for the building in which their court resides?

There's a lot of sand blastin' that the Taliban needs to undertake in DC if they want to remove religion from the town square.

[Pahuanui]

Here's a clue on why you lost our little personal tet-a-tete. You failed to answer one direct question or post the name of one individual whose rights under the Alabama constitution were abridged.

Please, you're embarassing yourself in exposing your ignorance regarding legal matters. The subject of an individual Alabama citizen's right being infringed is irrelevant here. If you can't see that, that's not my problem.

Come back again. You never know, some day you may have some substance to add to a debate.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, Sport. Or talk about things waaaaaay over your head.

I doubt it but the Lord works in mysterious ways.

I'd agree. He's deluded you into thinking you know what you're talking about. Cheers.

[Pahuanui]

Your argument is weak.

To a weak mind, perhaps.

"Kindly conduct yourself to the next state park, for example. Once there, begin to pray."

For how long will that be legal?

Ah, I see. So you're aware of some nefarious plot to stop praying in state parks. Quick! Call the newspaper!

There's already a shifting line in the sand that shouldn't be there at all. However, you fail the test of analogy. The monument isn't a prayer, it's a work of art with a Biblical theme.

Not according to the judges superior to your boy in Alabama.

In some towns, if such a thing can be visibile to the public, even on PRIVATE PROPERTY, it's outlawed. (Nativity scenes) This is censorship, both there, and in Alabama. The censorship only has a single logical source: anti-religious bigotry.

I don't think so, and without specifics, your point is moot.

IF Judge Moore is the source of your upset, you prosecute Judge Moore and refrain from persecuting all that see benefit or no harm from the mere presence of a work of art with Biblical themes.

I don't have to, I have other judges already acting on it.

And citizen, if that's your idea of art....

[Maelstrom]

It's only art

Far more so than obscenity that is legal under the guise of "art"

[Robert_Paulson2]

actually NO.
folks who don't even have kids are being supported by the SS system. so they are being honored by the theives who stole it via the social security tax... taking it away from kids who do have parents, so they have less for their families including their own mom and dad.

that is clearly NOT the meaning of " (you) honor THY father (singular) and mother (singular). Instead your socialist religionist buddies have substituted the old "rob anyone who has a job, to pay for all of our(plural) fathers(plural), mother (plural) and a host of other folks (plural, as in disabled drug addicts included) who don't even have children..." and the dupes who believe this is a fufillment of God's law, would be the same "feel-good socialists" who want their RELIGION codified into law, and enforced on others by the IRS.

that means clearly we are actually dis-honoring our individual parents as individual children, at gunpoint, and have substituted another perversion in its place... which is my point.

WE DONT have the ten commandments as the basis for our current laws. Nor did we at the outset... not fully, or accurately. You wanna go back, you gotta go back ALL the way.

the social security system is NOT founded in God's Old Testament Law, or New... but then again, you knew that... in fact, it has turned out to be a violation of the commandment "thou shalt not steal" as well as the one for individuals to "pay for their parents" and such...


but for the religioucrats and "religion in government" crowd, any thing goes to try and keep those illusions of righteousness...

[MissAmericanPie]

Here is the point, neither we, nor our forefathers ever agreed to submitting ourselves to any government whatsoever in which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the ultimate authority.

And we have no intention of allowing the three branches of government to over reach their authority over us and our Constitution, as is being attempted hourly, daily, yearly.

If we the people decide that all appointed and/or elected officals must pass by and kiss the great toe of the Grand Poobah every morning before they enjoy exercising the power we have granted them upon the general public, we have a right to demand they do that exact thing as a public show of their keeping in rememberance that they are not where the buck stops, if that is what we had chosen to place in the Constitution instead.

The Constitution we agreed to and our forefathers founded was based on the God of Abraham's principles and commandments. We do not intend to let them wiggle out of our agreement by their attempt to bury the evidence from the face of man as if that agreement does not exist, or never existed.

[exnavy]

I believe your commentary is right on the money, the existance of this object containing the commandments is NOT the business of the federal anything.

Many people commenting here seem to forget, the Gubment is restricted by the constitution, not the people.

[Pietro]

"Here is the point, neither we, nor our forefathers ever agreed to submitting ourselves to any government whatsoever in which the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the ultimate authority."

That is a truly great statement. Thanks!

[djf]

No, I pretty much nailed it. If you paraphrased the first amendment, it would go something like this: Congress shall make no law, pro or con, regarding religion.

They are out of the picture. And since Congress can't make a law, the Supreme Court can't decide the issue.

The "United States" has no standing.