Movers Haul Away Ten Commandments in Montgomery

FOXNews.com ^ | Wednesday, August 27, 2003

[NWO Slave]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A chorus of demonstrators joined an irate man in screaming "Put it back!" Wednesday morning after a monument of the Ten Commandments was wheeled away from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

"Get your hands off our God, God haters!" yelled the wildly gesturing, red-faced man who initiated the chanting.

Workers used a dolly to move the 5,280-pound granite marker from the rotunda to another, undisclosed place in the courthouse building.

Meanwhile, a Wednesday afternoon hearing to consider a lawsuit to keep the monument in the rotunda was canceled.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Mobile on behalf of a Christian radio talk show host and a pastor, says forced removal of the monument would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

Christian Defense Coalition Director Patrick Mahoney told the crowd of demonstrators that he wasn't told where the monument had been taken.

Because of its size and weight, the marker was presumably moved to another location on the ground floor of the building.

Mahoney said the monument would not be covered, and that he would be allowed inside to see it once it was moved. Mahoney said he was informed of the plans by building manager Graham George.

Mahoney didn't know whether the monument's new location would be accessible to the public.

The federal court had said the monument could be in a private place in the building but not in the highly visible spot in the rotunda directly across from the building's entrance.

Protest organizers asked the crowd outside not to rush the building or do anything else except pray. Some people seemed to be listening, with dozens kneeling, bowing or lying face-down in prayer in front of the judicial building and on the steps before and after the monument's removal.

The marker was wheeled away in a matter of minutes.

A federal judge in Montgomery ruled last year that the monument, which Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore (search) installed two years ago, violates the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion and ordered its removal by Aug. 20. The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to hear Moore's appeal.

But Moore refused to comply. Eight associate justices voted Aug. 21 to remove the monument, and Moore was suspended the next day.

Attorney General Bill Pryor, defending the associate justices, filed a motion Tuesday afternoon to dismiss the latest lawsuit, saying the Mobile court lacks jurisdiction and the complaint lacks merit.

About 150 monument supporters marched on Pryor's office Tuesday, demanding he resign for supporting the associate justices' decision. Seven representatives were allowed inside to meet with Pryor's chief deputy for about 20 minutes. The rest remained outside, chanting, "Resign now! Resign now!"

Gatherings of pro-monument demonstrators outside the judicial building have grown each day in the past week to at times number in the hundreds.

People seeking removal of the monument from its public site had said they were grateful that it was finally being moved, a week after the deadline set by a federal judge.

"This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law and respect for religious diversity," the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said before the monument was rolled out of the rotunda. "Perhaps Roy Moore will soon leave the bench and move into the pulpit, which he seems better suited for."

Lynne's organization was among groups suing to remove Moore's monument, which he installed without telling the other eight Supreme Court justices.

Demonstrators promised to keep up their protests of the removal.

"If it takes 75 years to reclaim this land for righteousness, God find us and our children and our children's children ready," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the national clergy council.

Affirmative Action Judge Opposing Judge Roy Moore

[RoughDobermann]

This is really, really, really getting on my nerves: "Would she have taken it if her parents hadn't forced Christianity upon her?" There is something quite vile about this sentence, this question.

I'm sorry if my question upsets you, but IMO, it is a valid question, not vile.

[PleaseNoMore]

Yes, this was an NC public school.

[PleaseNoMore]

Would I? Yes I would. That does not negate the fact that symbols, icons, books and all things Christians are targeted more often than items representing witchcraft, Islam etc.

[vikingcelt]

The media focussed on that one particular man to show Christians in a bad light. They did it to show Christians as fanatics. It's just more of the same old propaganda. I found it quite sickening to be forced to watch that. They DID NOT have to have their stupid cameras totally focussed on that one man. I also don't blame that man for being angry. While I was watching this whole charade this morning I felt pretty much the way he did. Angry...and infinitely sad.

[MineralMan]

"Would I? Yes I would. That does not negate the fact that symbols, icons, books and all things Christians are targeted more often than items representing witchcraft, Islam etc."

Great. Then we're both on the side of freedom of expression. But, really, overzealous school folks are forever trying to ban something, whether it's Marilyn Manson t-shirts, Wiccan symbols, or Bible verses on clothing. I don't know that any one class of this sort of thing gets more attention than any other.

The only answer is to either allow all that is not obscene or go to school uniforms. Personally, I think the uniforms are a good idea.

[vikingcelt]

Well, I do not find it a valid question. Why do you choose to use the words that you do? "Forced" for example. You make it sound like Christians tie their children up and beat them and then lead them on a forced march to church. I still find it a vile question. But what I find especially vile is when parents "force" atheism on their children or attempt to...like that Michael Newdow guy who wanted his daughter not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. His ex-wife and his daughter wanted no part of what he was doing and, in the end, what it boiled down to was he was using his daughter, his own flesh and blood, in his quest for G-dlessness and against her wishes.

[PleaseNoMore]

In no way am I asking this sarcastically but why do you read it? I am curious.

[nfldgirl]

We save ourselves via observance of God's law.

And therein lies the heart of the matter. We (all mankind) can never fully, totally, observe the "law" of God, 100 percent of the time, totally, each second, of every minute, of every day. Because to be 100 percent compliant, we'd have to be as holy as God and we can never be as holy as God, because of our humanity. And thank God that I don't have to rely on my "holiness/my righteousness" to save myself, because as sure as I'm chatting on this thread, I'd be lost to eternal damnation. Does that mean I don't try to live a holy life. Of course not! I strive daily to live my life as God would want me to, but because of human nature, my human condition, I can never measure up to God's standard, and I know this. And I thank Him for providing a way to still accept me as His own, INSPITE of my human frailty. I know I could never be good enough to save myself in accordance with God's standard. God knew this as well, and that is why He made a way for our salvation INSPITE of ourselves...this through the person of Jesus Christ, the Messiah--the Savior--God in the flesh, for me, for you, for the Greek, for the Gentile, for the Jew, for all mankind. WHAT AN INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL LOVE STORY!

[babyface00]

You made the assertion. Its patently unbelievable. If you don't want to defend it with facts, that's fine.

I've seen figures that indicate just the opposite, so unless you want to show me some that contradict what I already know to be true, I'll have to assume you are just making it up.

[nfldgirl]

Probably not. And your point is....?

[RoughDobermann]

Probably not.

Thank you.

And your point is....?

Since you fianlly answered my question, I'd hope that you would be aware of what my point is...

[PleaseNoMore]

I agree with that as well. Sadly, my son's HS allowed the STUDENTS to vote on that and it was, not surprisingly, voted down.

[nfldgirl]

This is certainly not evidence of a conspiracy to take away Bibles.

I never said there was a conspiracy to take away Bibles. I merely responded to someone else's inquiry that prompted a reminder in my head about this incident that happened a couple years ago. And why does everything have to be a "fight" for someone. Like I said before, I think he did the right thing removing his children from a government school. I wish a lot more Christians would have the courage to do the same.

[MineralMan]

"In no way am I asking this sarcastically but why do you read it? I am curious."

How could one not? It is a document, and one of the few, that exists that covers a period of human history from about 4000 years ago to 2000 years ago. You have to read the history with a grain of salt in your teeth, of course, but it's one of the few documents we have that originates in that period.

Further, it has been a strong force in affecting Western civilization, both for good and ill. More history.

I've also read the ancient scriptures of Hinduism and Buddhism, and for the same reasons. Again, how could you not, if you have any interest in history or society?

I read the Bible (KJV) for the first time, cover to cover, when my grandmother gave me one for my 10th birthday. I've read it front to back five more times in my life, plus lots more partial readings when something occurs to me. About every 10 years I do this, just to refresh my memory. I've also read Thoreau's "Walden Pond" many times. I read it every year on my birthday, and have done so since I turned 14. That makes 44 readings so far in my life.

There are a few other books I reread from time to time...books that are somehow important to my life or of extreme historical interest.

Thanks for asking.

[the right side jedi]

The left and the activist justices that subscribe to the "keep religion out of public life" philosophy tell us that it's oppressive for homosexuals to keep it in their own home but oppressive to all if Christians don't.

As homosexuals go out of the closet, it seems Christians are getting shoved in.

[MineralMan]

"I agree with that as well. Sadly, my son's HS allowed the STUDENTS to vote on that and it was, not surprisingly, voted down."

Silly school. They should have asked the parents. Just think of the monetary savings. Personally, I like school uniforms, as long as they're not totally dorky. Dark slacks or skirts for girls, dark pants (jeans OK) for boys, and light-colored shirts. Nothing too short. Nothing too long. Not a particular brand, or anything, but similar clothes for all students.

Now, I'd not like ties on boys, since nobody wears the darned things in real life anymore.

[RoughDobermann]

Well, I do not find it a valid question. Why do you choose to use the words that you do? "Forced" for example. You make it sound like Christians tie their children up and beat them and then lead them on a forced march to church. I still find it a vile question.

Well, if the child was not ASKED if she wanted to go to church or learn about Christianity, what else was she BUT forced? Would goaded, coerced, guilted, tricked be any better? How about "strongly suggested"?

But what I find especially vile is when parents "force" atheism on their children or attempt to...like that Michael Newdow guy who wanted his daughter not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. His ex-wife and his daughter wanted no part of what he was doing and, in the end, what it boiled down to was he was using his daughter, his own flesh and blood, in his quest for G-dlessness and against her wishes.

I don't like to see a child FORCED into accepting any religion or pseudo-religion, or lack of one.

[lugsoul]

I have never stated that separation of church and state was a legal basis for these decisions. That phrase is not relied upon by the courts in this case. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

[Syncro]

First let me say I have not read this thread, nor do I hve the time on inclination to.

My comment is this:

What did Moses do with the first stone tablets he brought down from Mt. Sinai?

He threw them to the ground and broke them. Why? Because the people did not have the patience to wait for him to come down from the mountain with the message from God. Instead they made a Golden Calf to worship.

Maybe this is happening again.

[ellery]

And with them, the idea that there are concepts which transcend the authority of the State.

Is the seat of legal power in the state really the right place to promote the TRUTH that there are indeed concepts that transcend the authority of the state? Is the chief justice of the state supreme court, who is getting paid to rule on state law, the right person to be promoting that in his official capacity and workplace?

WWJD? He did not go to Rome to install statues -- he ministered to people, and persuaded them.