Judge (Moore) Appeals Call to Remove Decalogue

AP ^

[Dallas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala. --

Chief Justice Roy Moore filed notice Tuesday in federal court that he will appeal a judge's order that he remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

"Federal district courts have no jurisdiction or authority to prohibit the acknowledgment of God that is specifically recognized in the Constitution of Alabama," Moore said in a statement announcing the appeal.

Moore's spokesman, Tom Parker, read the statement at a news conference Tuesday in front of the 5,300-pound granite monument.

"For a federal court to say we cannot acknowledge God contradicts our history and our law," Moore said in the statement. He did not attend the news conference.

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order found the monument violates the Constitution's ban against government establishment of religion and gave Moore 30 days to remove it.

One of Moore's attorneys, Phillip Jauregui, said part of the chief justice's appeal would be based on the argument that Thompson did not have jurisdiction.

But an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, said plaintiffs would win again on appeal.

"I think what we heard today echoed of George Wallace," Cohen said. "He said the federal courts have no authority to order him to do anything Alabama law doesn't require him to do. Whatever views Moore has about this, federal law is supreme."

The notice of plans to appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was filed in federal district court in Montgomery.

Moore moved the monument into the rotunda in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001, with a film crew from Coral Ridge Ministries documenting the event. Moore, a conservative Christian, attracted national attention as a circuit judge in Gadsden when he refused to remove a wooden Ten Commandments display from a courtroom wall. During his campaign for chief justice, Moore was often referred to as "The Ten Commandments judge."

A lawsuit was filed in October 2001 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of three Alabama lawyers who said the monument violated the constitution.

During a weeklong trial in October, Moore testified that he believes the Ten Commandments to be the foundation of American law. He said he installed the monument, which also includes quotations from historical figures, partly because of his concern that the country has suffered a moral decline over the past 40 or 50 years as a result of federal court rulings, including those against prayer in public schools.

[Texas_Jarhead]

yea, I thought the George Wallace comparison was dirty too. Not surprising though. In that little memo from the SPLC earlier this year they stated that they would make the case 'dirty' so no judge would dare touch it.

[judgeandjury]

So states could mandate that all its residents have to be one religion, or that those of a certain religion would have more or less advantages, preferences, or restrictions?

You neglected to explain how a state would go about mandating these things. Do you honestly believe that politicians would even attempt to pass legislation such as this?

[judgeandjury]

Until then, your interpretation is meaningless, and you are irrelevant.

Who cares what you think. You are no more relevant than any of the other posters on this thread.

[MissAmericanPie]

"I think what we heard today echoed of George Wallace," Cohen said"

No, Cohen, you infintesible organism, what we hear today is an over reaching, oppressive, Federal judiciary that would make Stalin green with envy, backed by a lawless, over reaching Federal monstrosity busy grinding under it's heels, and actively attempting to slip the chains of the Constitution that grants them "limited" authority.

[Tom Bombadil]

This is the judicial branch of the state government placing religious texts in the center of a government building

said religious texts being at the historical center of the legal system represented by that building. Your purity is one that would eat it's own history.

[jlogajan]

The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law

Which is why even state established religions are now forbidden -- since such state laws would violate the equal protection of the rights of members of other religions.

You all can dream on, but the USSC will never allow blatant religious displays on federal, state, or local government property.

[jlogajan]

to strip government of every form of "religion" is to establish the religion of Atheism

Nonsense. The state must remain neutral on spiritual questions. Neutrality does not equal endorsement of any religion or lack thereof.

[Imal]

Which is why even state established religions are now forbidden -- since such state laws would violate the equal protection of the rights of members of other religions.

Where is equal protection under the law being violated? There is a major difference between plunking down a grotesque stone in an Alabama courthouse and denying people equal protection under the law.

Where is the basis for a claim here? Who is being denied equal protection under the law?

All I have seen presented so far is vapid innuendo. I would very much like to see something concrete, since I am against mixing church and state.

Dreaming? I wish.

[calenel]

"The state must remain neutral on spiritual questions. Neutrality does not equal endorsement of any religion or lack thereof."

Exactly right. So, to force the removal of any artifact that has religious implications or connotations is the endorsement of "lack of religion" - atheism, which is a religion.

[Catspaw]

You neglected to explain how a state would go about mandating these things. Do you honestly believe that politicians would even attempt to pass legislation such as this?

Our state (Wisconsin) passes amendments to the state Constitution this way:

ARTICLE XII. AMENDMENTS.

SECTION 1. [Constitutional amendments.] Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either house of the legislature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and referred to the legislature to be chosen at the next general election, and shall be published for three months previous to the time of holding such election; and if, in the legislature so next chosen, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit such proposed amendment or amendments to the people in such manner and at such time as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become part of the constitution; provided, that if more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submitted in such manner that the people may vote for or against such amendments separately.

If the premise is that a state can establish a religion and the federal government cannot interfere, and if Wisconsin wants to establish a religion, first the legislature would have to amend Article 1, Section 18, then establish a religion. If it passes both houses twice, then it goes to the voters. The voters pass the constitutional amendment or amendments, it's a done deal.

[Dallas]

Do you think the Feds are violating the 10th ?

CNN: Supreme Court may tackle Ten Commandments

You asked somebody else THIS QUESTION earlier....

[jlogajan]

to force the removal of any artifact

Sheesh. The state is trying to force the installation of a religious artifact. It ought to get slapped down good and hard.

[Catspaw]

Thanks for the link. The next time I have a couple months free, I'll wade through all the cases and let you know.

This case is going to involve just more than Judge Moore putting a fairly ugly monument (it's too stolid for my tastes and it certainly could have been done more artfully) of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court. Besides the 1st Amendment, it will involve the 10th and 14th. I'll wait until the briefs are filed--and hope that they're found on line--watch/read the oral arguments and read the decision that comes out of the Court of Appeals and possibly the Supremes. I'm more interested in how each side presents their side of the case and how the Courts rule.

[calenel]

"The state is trying to force the installation of a religious artifact."

If that were the case, then I would agree with you. But a judge, who has by custom the right to choose the decor in a particular state courthouse, is installing the artifact. The state is not the "offending" party. If the state were to require a religious display, or prohibit one, that would be interference in the free exercise of religion.

Suppose we take this to its logical conclusion: A Jewish judge could not wear a yarmulka. A Sihk could not wear his turban. No religious jewelry of any kind, visible or not, because somebody might inadvertantly be exposed to it (your crucifix slips out of your shirt, offending the tree-worshiper contesting a parking ticket). You could not carry your pocket Qu'ran around because you might drop it or leave it lying around where somebody will see it. And so on.

The only issue to be considered is whether or not the judge issues rulings consistent with the written secular laws. The judge has no leeway (or should have none) to decide a case based on their religious views or, for that matter, the religious views of the people involved in the court.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

'...the label "The Moral Axis of Evil"'

Where is the morality in SPLC, AUSCS and ACLU? These are people/groups who base their existance/purpose on religious immorality, the denial of God's right to have anything to do in the affairs of man.

We understand "Axis of Evil", perhaps the label should be "The Immoral Axis of Evil".

Perhaps one day the Constitution will be correctly understood and applied on this question relating to "separation" of Church and State.

Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where in this 1st Ammendment does it say "Freedom from religion"? Where in this 1st Ammendment does it say that any religious reference is barred from Government buildings (Federal, State or Local) or barred from public schools? It says only that
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .
2. Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .
3. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .
4. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of the press . . .
5. Congress shall make no law . . .prohibiting/abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law . . .prohibiting/abridging . . .the right of the people . . . to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What part of prohibit/abridge do we not understand? What part of free exercise do we not understand? based on Article 1 how can I be prohibited in having any reference to God in my Government building (Federal, State, Local); in having or saying a prayer or reading the Bible in my public school setting?

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"Why aren't those same people mad when the state of Alabama forces people to read a Christian text?"

The issuance of the "Ten Commandments" by God to Moses does not make it a "Christian" text . . . a Jewish text, maybe, but it was not issued just to the Jews (descendents of Judah) but to all of the Children of Israel (Jacob, son of Issac, son of Abraham).

[mikesmad]

Exemption from zoning laws when building religious facilities

This is too broad to address. I have seen churches and strip clubs both ask for exemptions from zoning laws. Each request has to be looked at upon its own merits and a local decision made.

enacting the President's "Faith-based charity" initiative

You will find Christians all over the map on this one. I am opposed from this prespective - The federal government should not be involved in charity period. Then there would not be an issue of religious versus non-religious.

Repeal Roe v. Wade

You betcha. Totally ingoring any religious or scientific reasons to oppose abortion, this is just plain bad law. This is not a federal issue at all. Repeal it and send it back to the individual States where the law belongs.

allow Navitity scenes on public property

I don't see a problem with this at all. If a private group installs it, maintains it, and removes it. Then why is there a problem. This applies to a Hanakkuh disply, Ramadan display, or any other as long as it meets common sensibilities of the community (nude depictions of Roman orgies may be fine in San Francisco but not where I live).

Have marriage defined as a union between a man and woman

That's what marriage is. The gay community is the one trying to redefine it. I am not a lawyer but I am pretty sure that anyone can sign contracts, assign death/survivor benefits, etc. with/to others no matter their gender/relationship.

Outlaw same sex sodomy

Although this is clearly a States rights issue again. I have no problem removing these laws from the books as long as it occurs in the privacy of the parties homes. I support keeping laws on the books about public sex, no matter the genders involved. My small children should not be exposed to this.

Prohibit cloning and fetal cell research

I oppose using the bodies of aborted babies for any reason. I can support the use of fetal stem cell research if the cells come from cord blood or placenta if the parents give permission.

Allow churches to openly endorse political candidates (just like the dems do now)

I don't see a problem with this or any other application of free speech. What is a "church"? A group of like minded people. There are some that are going to vote their way no matter what anyone says, there are some that will take the pastors position into account, and there are some that will vote exactly the way the pastor says. That is no different than the "general public" listening to political ads, what their boss says, what their spouse thinks, etc.

As a right wing fundamentalist Baptist I can sum it up this way. I want the Federal government to strictly abide by the Constitution of the United States. That means they are severely limited in what they can do. Each State has much more flexibility in what it can do. Once we get to the State level then you are right I have much more influence at what is allowed/disallowed (just as you do).

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Believe it or not, you have that choice; it is your choice if you choose to read it as "blah blah blah" . . . and whether you choose to believe it, or not, one day you will stand before Him.