Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[Roughneck]

Love your neighbor as yourself,

Uh, not true. We are called to love our christian brothers and sisters, those in communion with us as christians. We are only to respect non-christians. This can be found in revelations and Romans, if I get the time, I'll look up specific scripture.

[general_re]

I hate to jump in here but cant help it.

Believe me, I know exactly how you feel ;)

Christains are being forced to accept things THEY dont believe, among them homosexuality and abortion. But we want to have the Ten Commandments posted in rememberance of how our laws were founded, and everyone throws a titty-baby fit!

Roy Moore can have the Ten Commandments tattooed on his forehead if he likes. He can put up billboards all over the country if he wishes. He can have millions of copies printed up and hand them out to every man, woman, and child in the state of Alabama if it interests him. The only thing the Constitution says he cannot do is use his office to promote them to the exclusion of other faiths.

This is not, to put it mildly, a seriously oppressive condition placed on him. Personally, I think he should be able to put the Commandments in the courthouse if he wants - where he went wrong was when he decided that he couldn't promote his beliefs without stacking the deck in his favor, and made sure that only the Commandments were displayed on property that rightfully belongs to all the citizens of Alabama, and not to Roy Moore.

[lugsoul]

If you want to argue that Islam is not "established" in Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or a couple of dozen other places, go right ahead. Please try. My statement is an accurate description of the way religious leaders come to be such in that faith. I'm sorry that it is not what you are used to, but that is the way it is. Not every faith works like yours.

As far as "how" it is established, the primary ways are - use of the power of the state to impose "law" which is decreed by the faith, and use of the power of the state to impose social pressure to promote the practice of Islam. Ever heard of the "Committee for the Promotion of Virture and Prevention of Vice?"

The point is the same. A religion doesn't have to have ordination, a hierarchy, or a building to be "established." The First Church didn't have those things either, you know, but it was no less a religion for it.

[smith288]

The fact that you either don't really know why or decline to say why is odd. But hey, it's an odd site sometimes. People come here to read these articles and posts and comment on them. Most don't think they are being picked on when asked a sinple question about their post.

Im not refusing to answer you because I dont have a position in a logical sense. I am not answering because the debate has been discussed over and over and over. If you still dont see why its a pity based on this debate discussed, then you just dont read peoples posts with a similar position I hold.

You dont have to agree with me. But im sure you understand (not sympathize) the position of people who support Moore.

Again...the debate has been discussed, the positions have been laid out. My addition to the topic would be like adding sand to the beach.

[smith288]

Uh, not true. We are called to love our christian brothers and sisters, those in communion with us as christians. We are only to respect non-christians. This can be found in revelations and Romans, if I get the time, I'll look up specific scripture.

Uh... We are to love our neighbor as Jesus did. We are to open our doors to sinners and those who know not of Christ. That is the true love to our neighbor. Not just be a nice person, but be an example to your neighbor of Gods love.

[Roughneck]

Does anyone here know that supreme court justices are not really appointed for life?

They are appointed for "a term of good behavior" we need to get rid of rotten judges. NOW. They are obviously not behaving.

[OXENinFLA]

http://www.andalusiastarnews.com/display/inn_news/news082201.txt


">>>>Judge Myron Thompson said 'Can the State acknowledge God?' He said that the 'acknowledgment of the Judeo-Christian God crosses the line between the permissible and impermissible, and that the acknowledgment of God is to violate the Constitution of the United States.'"

---

Did he actualy say that??

"and that the acknowledgment of God is to violate the Constitution of the United States.'"



AHHHHHHHHHHH What does an aneurysm feel like?

[Protagoras]

Im not refusing to answer you because I dont have a position in a logical sense.

So your postion is an emotional one? You do have a postition. That position is that it was a pity.

I seem to recall that you said earlier that you were not emotional about it even though I didn't imply that. Oh well, carry on. It's not personal.

[OXENinFLA]

Does anyone have the official court ruling from this renegade judge?

[Liberty Wins]

"The only thing the Constitution says he cannot do is use his office to promote them to the exclusion of other faiths."

Ahem. Does the Constitution really say "Justices" in the first amendment? I thought it referred to CONGRESS.

[Roughneck]

Article III.
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

http://www.constitutionalfacts.com

[Roughneck]

The only thing the Constitution says he cannot do is use his office to promote them to the exclusion of other faiths.


OK Then, tell me this. If the problem is with the Judge, not the commandments, why should the commandments be removed?

[general_re]

I'm never going to escape this thread, am I? ;)

The Bill of Rights doesn't refer to your county sheriff, either. Nevertheless, we've all decided that the Constitution should prevent him and the feds from beating a confession out of you. Perhaps you don't think that's a good thing. I dunno.

[Roughneck]

Uh... We are to love our neighbor as Jesus did. We are to open our doors to sinners and those who know not of Christ. That is the true love to our neighbor. Not just be a nice person, but be an example to your neighbor of Gods love.


We are absolutely to open our doors to those who do not know Christ - NOT those who reject him!

[general_re]

I don't think they should be removed. I think the rotunda should be opened up to other displays, subject to minor restrictions in the name of good taste. And if that's not allowed for some reason, the Commandments should come out too. The courthouse isn't Roy Moore's personal playground, and he has no right to treat it as such.

[Liberty Wins]

"They are appointed for "a term of good behavior" we need to get rid of rotten judges. NOW. They are obviously not behaving."

Roughneck, we may not even have to go that far. Don't underestimate the influence of an outraged public on the Supreme Court.

In 1996 the USSC set aside an initiative passed by Colorado voters that forbad special rights for homosexuals. After a clamor for impeachment of the six judges responsible, those same six Justices suddenly became ardent defenders of the people's elections and in a subsequent decision unexpectedly and unanimously chastised a lower court that had overturned a statewide election in Arizona.

It's not just one or two or several issues - - people are fed up for the abuses of the past 40 years.

[inquest]

there is no such right in the 14'th Amendment that you infer ought to exist

Already you've begun to misread me. There's no "ought" about it. If equal protection means that officials can't make religious displays without allowing other religious displays, then it does (not "ought to") mean that they can't make secular displays without allowing other secular displays. I'll put it simpler form:

Mr. Government Official wants to say P because it's important to him. You want to say Q because it's important to you. Mr. Government Official gets to say P. You don't get to say Q. Inequality, plain and simple. There is no way around that, regardless of the specific nature of P and Q.

Now, you can either talk about the equal-protection clause, or you can talk about the establishment clause. They are not the same. The only possible way that any portion of the Bill of Rights can be covered by the 14th amendment is if it comports with the language thereof. The phrase "equal protection" is left without elaboration. Realistically, it only means just that - equal protection, not equal treatment. But we've accepted the legal fiction that it does mean equal treatment. Furthermore, it's understood to mean equal treatment by any type of law (such as those which impose heavier burdens on certain racial/ethnic groups), not just those that relate to the Bill of Rights. Again, there's no "ought" or "should be" or any of that subjective garbage. It just plain is.

And as I explained yesterday, the courts agree with me about the EP clause. They don't use it as the vehicle for incorporating the BOR. The 11th Circuit court didn't pursue the "equal protection" angle at all. So that makes it seem rather curious to me to hear you talking about "settled" law when you're completely making up your own legal arguments.

And now you may answer my question directly: by what right doeas Judge Moore enjoy the power of the state to promote his religion, while simultaneously denying that freedom to others?

By the same right he'd be able to use the power of the state to promote his secular views while simultaneously denying that same "freedom" to others.

[OXENinFLA]

official court rulings

Found them....Gotta love FNC

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95313,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/082103_alabama_court.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/glassroth_v_moore.pdf

[MineralMan]

"Unless you left out the two words in an obvious manner, to attract attention to your non-belief, or to deliberately cause hurt to someone else, you were wronged in the worst way. It still seems you handled it in a proper manner - I'm not sure I could have done the same in your position. "

No, I speak the pledge quietly. One thing I've noticed, though, since the controversy over the "under God" thing is that people seem to feel like they must overemphasise those words now when they say the pledge. It's too bad.

The way I feel about it is that we should have a Pledge of Allegiance that _all_ US Citizens can say with whole-hearted support. We did have that, and it is the Pledge I say.