Moses Image (With 10 Commandments) Adorns U.S. Supreme Court Building

Self ^ | 8/20/2003 | Angkor

[angkor]

With regard to today's refusal to hear the case against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, the court has at least delayed a legal decision about defacing its own hallowed halls.

It is likely well-known to the justices that the East Pediment of the Supreme Court showcases the image of Moses bearing the two tablets upon which the 10 Commandments are enscribed. In fact, Moses is front and center and indeed the largest figure in the entire sculpture.

Ironically, the Chief Justice's offices are immediately behind this portico.

Moses center stage on the USSC East Pediment, brandishing his illegal "Ten Commandments."

The sculpture, "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Herman McNeil contains the following elements (in McNeil's own words):

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group— left — is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The “Youth” is brought into both these groups to suggest the “Carrying on” of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left — The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right — Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left — Study and pondering of judgments. Right — A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale — The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.

[cornelis]

Moore, of course, will not do this,because he believes these expressions to be inferior to Christianity. . . you're probably right in this

and therein lies the problem. your problem, that is.

The state cannot prefer one religious expression over another. That's baloney. They do. All the time. There is no content neutral law.

[Southack]

"His refusal to allow other images is what makes his case and argument legally distingishable from just his right to have a display. That point is not at issue, at issue is his right to display only his chosen religius symbols and exclude all others - that is what Moore is fighting for."

Moore is entitled to his own tastes in decoration. Your initial point might be valid if he was denying others their rights to freely express their religions in areas in which they are entitled, but as for the building in question, only Moore has the authority to decorate it.

[sinkspur]

The state cannot prefer one religious expression over another. That's baloney. They do. All the time.

When?

[narses]

Ping.

[general_re]

Ah, well, when the Constitution becomes a religious icon, venerated for its holy nature, I suppose we will have to make room for those who wish to worship other governing documents as well. Perhaps my Con Law texts will gain some value when they become guides to the Holy Writ...

[narses]

"Help me out here, what is the specific law that denies Judge Moore his personal religious freedom of expression?"

The one that says that our Constitution is dead, that only anti-God athiests can do things like that and that Christians are scum.

[Southack]

"The state cannot prefer one religious expression over another. That's baloney. They do. All the time. When?"

In God We Trust is one religious expression, as is Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me, yet the state and federal governments clearly write laws that give preferential treatment to one of those expressions over the other, as can be seen on our currency. QED.

[cornelis]

Law, by its very nature, is religious. If it is not grounded in something higher than itself (supposing it is a blank slate) it grants itself divinity, higher than the top of the Lincoln memorial.

When? Whenever the unsouled humunculi hope to sterilize authority of the god problem.

[TheOtherOne]

No, the state can't pass a law respecting one establishment of religion over another.

Many people, including me, believe that having a single religous symbol in a Supreme Court building, to the exclusion of other symbols is creating the impression of establishment - which I believe is itself prohibited by the Constitution. I would not feel like I was in a neutral courtroom if there we a giant Quoran, or Torah, or 10 Commandments I passed on the way in. And yes, it is quite a different impression when there is a multitude of symbols/religions represented. It is the issue of having a single viewpoint that is the nexus to establishment.

[narses]

The Eagles have placed thousands of these on government property in small towns across our land. You claim that is wrong. Sad.

[tpaine]

Help me out here, what is the specific law that denies Judge Moore his personal religious freedom of expression?
-hack-




Read much?


From the article posted at FR:

Judge keeps Ten Commandments

 "A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002.
On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion.

[mrsmith]

The Supreme Court, where they held religious services during our first three administrations; the Capitol buiding where they held religious services attended even by some guy named Thomas Jefferson...

My how the Constitution changes without being amended.

[TheOtherOne]

but as for the building in question, only Moore has the authority to decorate it.

That is precisely the point I dispute. In his home - fine, on his lawn - fine, in his private office - fine. In the PUBLIC rotunda of the Supreme Court building - nope. That is not his to decorate in his personal religion to the exclusion of all others.

[tpaine]

No, it's sad that you are weird enough to think I "claim it's wrong".

[F16Fighter]

"But they would have no case if Moore agreed to include the Hammarabic code, and Solon, and Confucius in his display."

Just what the h*ll do ANY of these belief systems have to do with American law, tradition, and heritage??

Shall the peoples' honoring of their ancestral Founder's Heritage be considered verboten in your 'New World (State) Order'?

[tophat9000]

Has he banned other displays?... do you have a link?

The ten commandments are part of three religions, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim so are foundational laws of a good part of the world...

But I have no problem with Hindu and Buddhist foundational laws being add if you want.... but then again how much influence in our cultures did they have?

Lets be realistic all early cultures had a belief in a god or gods and most foundational laws in these cultures had some connection to belief in a god or gods.... Even our days of the week our months of the years have the names of gods

It not about god to me its about trying to erase history .... there are forever intertwined to remove god erases historical fact

But again has he banned other displays?... do you have a link?

[July 4th]

Tablets just like these are located above the head of Rehnquist in within the court itself. I really wish they would have stepped in to settle the debate...although their track record lately is not so hot.

[F16Fighter]

"My how the Constitution changes without being amended.

Behold the genesis of enforcing the 'New World (State) Order.'

[general_re]

I have a sneaking suspicion that if Judge Moore had chosen to decorate the rotunda with Penthouse centerfolds or a portrait of Joseph Stalin, this notion that "only Judge Moore can decide what goes up" would fly right out the window without a second thought...

[Southack]

"Many people, including me, believe that having a single religous symbol in a Supreme Court building, to the exclusion of other symbols is creating the impression of establishment - which I believe is itself prohibited by the Constitution."

Did you review Post #53, and do you claim that the Supreme Court was violating the Constitution in 1790 by displaying only a quote from Leviticus?