Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

AP on Fox News ^ | 8-21-03 | AP on Fox News website

[jethropalerobber]

They don't care about civil liberties of ALL Americans, just some of them.

i agree.

for some reason they *only* seem to defend those people whose civil liberties are being undermined.

weird.

[Sloth]

Last time I checked, churches were not a branch of the US government. The judicial system is.

That didn't help the Boy Scouts, did it?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Griswold v. Connecticut was wrongly decided in my view."

I've taken that same position on other threads.

But it's a huge leap to go from there to thinking the ACLU is on "a jihad to ... subvert the Constitution" or that they are an "America-hating terror group".

Yet that's what one reads on FR.

We can run an experiment if you like. I'll go to another thread and strike up a conversation about the ACLU and you can check the hostility/knowledge ratio on FR ;-)

[Roughneck]

My only comfort right now, is that in the end, Christains who put up the good fight FOR Christianity, will have a feast before them while the opposition will be watching.

These judges WILL go to Hades.

Also, are not any of the policemen that are arresting the Christians protecting the monument - Christians THEMSELVES?

If any Police Officer is called to persecute Christians, and he is christian himself, should be SHAMED.

Those officers should REFUSE to arrest the christian protesters if they are christian themselves. It is allowed, it's called civil disobediance.( or would be for a cause the left loves)

If not, they have no reason to call themselves christians - just hypocrites.

[jethropalerobber]

The ten comandments are not a religion but a basis for all civilized legal systems.

which commandments in particular are you thinking of when you say this?

[Tribune7]

for some reason they *only* seem to defend those people whose civil liberties are being undermined.

Unless you are an unborn child, or abortion protestor or gun owner or have a small business

[talleyman]

1992 R.A.V. v. Wisconsin An important First Amendment victory. A unanimous Court struck down a local law banning the display, on public or private property, of any symbol "that arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

Interesting contrast to all the anti-Christian lawsuits they're pursuing now, isn't it?
BTW, in your selective reporting (most of which is ancient history), you omitted their current representation of NAMBLA - why?

[BamaG]

He definately got into office because he picked a fight with the ACLU, and Alabamians by and large hate the ACLU. He is not, however, qualified for the job. He is a one-note johnny, playing the "ten-commandments card" constantly.


Interestingly enough, last night on WSFA (the local Montgomery Alabama tv station) they said that Moore refused all interviews with local stations, and would only talk to national media. That wouldn't be because its better to grandstand on national television then plain ole channel 12 here in Montgomery, would it?

[lugsoul]

"Not buying it."

It doesn't really matter if you do. Every court in the land recognizes that a government cannot behave unconstitutionally simply by not passing legislation in support of its unconstitutional acts.

[Catspaw]

No, that should be written, "...endorsing the lower court's decision..."

This denial by the USSC was an emergency appeal on the denial of stay, not the case in chief that Moore is appealling.

If I remember the time sequence correctly, just before and then just after the 11th circuit decision came down, Moore was asked by Judge Thompson if he wanted a stay. Moore declined to ask for one. Last Friday, the day before the rally, Moore changed his mind on the stay and asked the district court for an extraordinary stay, because the time period to ask for a stay had expired. Moore then appealled to the 11th circuit--twice--and they denied the extraordinary stay (I'm not sure if this was done Saturday or Sunday). That's when Moore made an emergency appeal to the USSC and they denied the request for an extraordinary appeal.

It was baffling then and it's baffling now why Moore refused to ask for a stay when he had the opportunity rather than go through all the emergency appeals.

[montag813]

Majority groups tend not to pass laws oppressing themselves. It's the minorities who are most vulnerable in a democracy and the Constitution is what protects them from the tyranny of the majority.

I understand your points. But I believe that this applies more to the ACLU of old. More and more they have taken and are taking a hard-left bias towards most cases they undertake. And the ones that never even make it to court are often the most damaging to the moral fabric of our nation. Like the case in which they forced a school which barred H.S. girls who got pregnant from being in the cheerleaders, to back down. You may think this is dandy. Think of the damage that these repudiations of basic morality do when multiplied hundreds of thousands of times throughout America. That there is NO moral code. That anything goes. That irresponsibility is rewarded. This seems to constitute the majority of what the ACLU does these days, not to mention their blantant partisan political efforts, such as in California.

[50sDad]

A lot of hostility towards the ACLU on FR stems from ignorance. This is a case in point.

Translation: I am smugly superior to you because you just don't know any better. I heard this same arguement from Leftist Liberal NEA members in my town when the school levy was voted down. It is never, "the people hate the Left and what it stands for", it is always "we failed to educate the public on how much smarter we are when it comes for whats good for them."

Any possible good the ACLU has done for anyone in the history of this nation has more than been undone by the stubbon, persistant, partisan attempts to drive every mention of God out of our government, and usually our history. The Founders had no problem with God in our halls of justice, our schools, and our public squares. 86% of those who signed the Declaration went on to publish religious tracts. Not even Jefferson spoke out about children learning their letters from Scripture on the public dime. We have gotten so much smarter in the last 50 years that we now can re-interpret history; we know better than the Founders what they really meant!

The Constitution is not a "living document". Like God, who the Founders knew helped found America, it is what it was and what it will be. It is cleaver lawyers who insist on stamping their own narrow and corrupt natures on what was and is a perfect document.

[Sci Fi Guy]

If a law says you can't do this but God's law says you can do it - then is the law the law?

Actually it's not a question of God's law vs Man's law. Judge Moore is upholding the Constitution of both the US, and his State. And he is doing it with the suport of the people who elected him. Our Founding Fathers authorized Congressional Chaplins ( a practice that continues today.) They did not consider that an establishment of a religion. Yet the other side is pretending that they meant that any mention of religion is an establishment of one. (Of course, they cannot prove which religion is being established, but they "know" it is?)

[Mo1]

Here's an interesting experiment you can try: wear a T-shirt with the 10 commandments in the courtroom and wait to see if anyone stops you. If they do, the ACLU will be all over it, fighting tooth and nail on your side and they'll win because they set the precedence in Cohen v. California.

I won't be holding my breath for the ACLU to run to my rescue and protect my rights

There may have been a day with the ACLU actually stood up for civil rights .. but those days are long gone IMO

[mabelkitty]

THE SOUTH SAID THEY WERE GONNA RISE AGAIN!!

NOW'S YOUR CHANCE!!

[PLOM...NOT!]

...why was it purchased with private donations? Why not use taxpayer money?

What does that have to do with anything??? We built our very "public" library all with "private" donations.

[libravoter]

I was unaware that the shift was this great...of course, I don't get my facts from A.P.

All right, I'll bite (since this thread is a feeding frenzy anyway) . . . are you saying it's wrong to get facts from the A.P.?

[inquest]

It doesn't really matter if you do. Every court in the land recognizes that a government cannot behave unconstitutionally simply by not passing legislation in support of its unconstitutional acts.

Now you're just going around in circles. You start off with a premise - that his action is unconstitutional - and then use it to "prove" your conclusion that...his action is unconstitutional.

I explained my reasoning, so now it's time to explain yours, if you can.

[beachn4fun]

I don't want "maybes" or "will bes" about the ACLU. I want to see more than one case where the ACLU actually defended the rights of the conservative Christian. Most of the cases I saw listed defended everything BUT! And, Lovell v. Griffin sure did not since many Christians do not believe in the Witness doctrine. It is viewed by some to be on the level of Buddism.