Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[inquest]

LOL - nothing like the smell of hyperbole in the morning. Judge Moore can tattoo the Commandments on his forehead and hire a squadron of airplanes to display them all over the state if he likes - what he can't do is use his office to promote them. If Pat thinks that's horribly oppressive, then he really needs to get out and travel some, so that he can come to understand what real oppression really looks like.

I really hate to say this, but once again, you're holding your opponents to far stricter standards than you're holding yourself. "Hyperbole" is conjuring up garish images of Ba'al statues in front of the state house and busts of grotesque demon spawns above the seats where judges sit and all kinds of other "horrible oppressions", all because Moore was allowed to display the 10 Commandments. As it is, Robertson's "hyperbole" is a lot closer to reality than yours.

[kkindt]

I would just add to this one more statement:
The commandments that they objected to being placed here, in case you haven't read them, are as follows:

etc.

SO that the ten commandments would be posted but as a part of an explanation of why they were removed!!!

WOW - WHy would that not work? At least the ACLU would have to launch another expensive legal battle over it.

Then after the court said this sign had to come down the next step would be to post that court's ruling in a public place etc. etc.

It would go on and on and the commandments would be there and the ACLU would spin its liberal wheels forever.

[general_re]

Nope, never gonna get out of here...

Let me start by apologizing for my tone last night. I got a bit snippier than was necessary, but I will try not to do it again. I am, however, human, and fallible, so perhaps you will grant me some leeway if I should stumble. ;)

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.

I strongly suggest you review the posts thus far. You suggested in 363 that:

IOW, in order to make the case that Moore's actions are unconstitutional, one would have to show that he abridged anyone's privileges or immunities, or denied anyone life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deprived anyone of the equal protection of the laws.

To which I responded in 379 thus:

Judge Moore used the platform of the courthouse to promote his own personal beliefs, thus enjoying the liberty to do so, and yet denied an atheist organization the same liberty when they sought to place a display - a sculpture or picture of an atom, according to the trial court record - representing their own beliefs in the same courthouse rotunda. Thus, Judge Moore has promoted his beliefs, yet denied the freedom of others to do the exact same thing.

Note, please, the denial of liberties angle, and the missing equal-protection claim. Your then replied in post 398 in the following manner:

Now, would you consider it a similar violation if he put up a copy of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech, while at the same time refusing a request to put up an address by George Washington? Does he have to accept every request for a display that someone wants to put up, no matter how irrelevant it is to the historical foundation of the country's laws?

My response, in post 455:

When his avowed intention is to celebrate his religious beliefs about what he sees as the moral foundation of the law, there's really no need to discuss things like the historical foundation of the law. Nevertheless, if he had wanted a display about the historical foundation of the law, he could easily do what has been done at the Supreme Court building, and display a variety of lawgivers from the ages, both secular and religious.

Your post 469, in reply:

Alas, we've wandered into hypothetical-land now.

And that's supposed to be some kind of effective counterpoint? Whenever you lay down a principle, you should be expected to be able to apply that principle to different situations. Otherwise, it ain't much of a principle, now is it? Would you care now to answer my questions?

Me again, in post 473:

A historical display does not implicate the First Amendment Establishment Clause, does it? Not to mention that the courts do not now, nor have they ever issued advisory opinions about what might happen in some hypothetical situation - all they can do is deal with the facts arrayed before them. Facts which, in this particular case, are clear as to what the intent of Moore was...

And then the post where the equal-protection issue is actually raised. Your post, #498:

We weren't talking about the establishment clause; we were talking about the equal-protection clause. If posting a religious view while excluding other religious views violates equal protection, does posting a secular view while excluding other secular views violate equal protection? That's what this boils down to.

My immediate response, in post 516:

The court ruled on the basis of the settled law regarding the Establishment Clause. If you want to muse to yourself about something they didn't discuss, and how you think the law ought to be, that's fine, but Moore has clearly run afoul of how the law is.

And finally, we arrive at the source of confusion, your post 550, which I have italicized for convenience:

"Settled" does not mean accurate. If it did, you wouldn't be talking about the equal-protection clause, because that's not what the court invoked. They invoked the due-process clause (which of course is even more ridiculous - he deprived someone of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"?).

I wouldn't be talking about equal-protection? Friend, I never was talking about equal-protection - you were, all along. You brought it up, and you have been attempting to knock it back down. I agree with you, for crying out loud - there is no equal-protection implication in this thing. It's all about the establishment clause, and whether or not the 14'th applies it to the states.

Now, I've dealt with you often enough to just chalk this all up to a massive misunderstanding, rather than a deliberate attempt to impute to me positions that I don't actually hold. I think you're way better than that, personally, and to contemplate that you might do such a thing purposefully does not comport with what I happen to think of you as a poster and as a person.

So, why don't we just scratch everything up to this point, and stake out our positions here more clearly, so that we can avoid this sort of thing as we go forward?

[inquest]

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?"

What you're describing would, in this country, violate the free-exercise clause, not the establishment clause.

[lugsoul]

You are kidding, right? Surely you are not contending that such things would not be an "establishment" of religion.

[First Amendment]

I realize that US Cellular is a private company and the gov't has to date issued no laws preventing private companies or businesses from celebrating religious holidays, but the oppressive atmosphere stemming from government through the courts is real. (Are you a libertarian, BTW?)

The courts have decided, assissted by their co-cospirator the ACLU, that schools and other governemnt owned buildings, institutions and even city parts (for cryin out loud) can have no religious displays or expressions. The ban on religious freedom is seeping into the rest of the public. Everyone is afraid of effending the one snotty atheist who will hook up with the ACLU and do a lawsuit.

Religion is becoming "dirty", something to be ashamed of, - hey, it's supposed to be in the closet, and murals glorifying sodomy are given the state imprimature (sp?). As in the city or state owned community building in Philadelphia which is proudly emblazoneed with a mural depicting the glorious history of sodomy. That's allowed. Boy Scouts in a publicly owned park? No way - as recently decided in San Diego. The reason stated? Because they "discriminate" against sodomites, they are a RELIGIOUS group and can't use the park.

[inquest]

Friend, I never was talking about equal-protection - you were, all along.

Your response at #379 to my challenge at #363 contained the following statement: "No more divine right of kings, please - Judge Moore does not have special liberties unavailable to everyone else. Such is the clear and explicit meaning of 'equal protection under the law'."

You didn't quote any other portion of the 14th amendment. If that was an oversight on your part, then that's perfectly understandable. We can start again if you want, beginning with my statement at #363.

[inquest]

Surely you're not contending that such things would not be an violation of the free-exercise clause. These are two different clauses we're talking about. They're not interchangeable.

[inquest]

Nice tagline, btw ;-)

[general_re]

Oh, for crying out loud - I'm not writing an amicus brief here. I'm simply trying to explain why I feel that the court made the right decision. You've taken a throwaway comment and turned it into the crux of my argument, when all along I've been specifically concentrating on and commenting on the establishment clause in a dozen other posts.

[lugsoul]

If the establishment of Sharia as the civil law is a violation of the free exercise clause, then you really need to go back and read Moore's words. The imposition of laws that prohibit the exercise of other faiths, however, would clearly constitute a violation of the free exercise clause. But Sharia provisions such as those allowing up to four wives would not violate the free exercise clause, as they do not mandate that anyone do so. Nor would a law providing for amputation as punishment for a crime, when those same crimes are crimes under the laws of other faiths. Adoption of Sharia would clearly, however, be an establishment of religion.

As for the 'committee' approach, again - some of their activities would infringe on free exercise, but the very existence of such an entity is an establishment of religion.

Do you disagree that government empowered thugs running the streets demanding that women wear burquas because Allah [supposedly] says so would be an establishment of religion?

[smith288]

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

No, we are to open our doors to even those who hate Christ. That is difficult and probably 99% of Christians dont do it, its pretty much recommended because anyone who doesnt believe in Christ, is a candidate TO believe in Christ. Never give up on those who give up on Christ. Our duty is to continue to have hope for the Godless for YOU may be the tool God uses to touch their soul.

[commonerX]

I agree, a persons belief in God is purely personal. There is no need for any government references to one religion or another. If someone has a stronge enough faith in what they believe they don't need government recognitions to feel satisfied. In my opinion people who insist that religious icons be put in or on government locations are really trying to make that particular religion an defacto official government religion. The government is for all people, and it works best when not aligning themselves with a single religious belief. If your religion motivates you to do good things more power to you. My motivation is to try to be the best person I can be. When I die I want people to be able to say, "he was a good, kind and generious person, we will miss him very much."

[smith288]

To those of you who believ that Juddge Moore was not establishing a law endorsing religion when he installed the monument; read what he said when he put it up:

Which religion is he endorsing? I searched all the words and didnt find:

• Christian
  
• Judaism
  
• Islam
  
• Christ
  
• Jesus
  
• Salvation
  
• Cross
  
• Mohammed
  

  Having a hard time which one he is endorsing...Can you help me out?

[inquest]

Oh, for crying out loud - I'm not writing an amicus brief here. I'm simply trying to explain why I feel that the court made the right decision.

Then we're talking about two very different things: what the law does say, vs. what it should say. My concern was with what the law does say. In order to argue that, I'd submit that our terms should be reasonably precise.

You've taken a throwaway comment and turned it into the crux of my argument, when all along I've been specifically concentrating on and commenting on the establishment clause in a dozen other posts.

Maybe I didn't make my position clear enough, but what I was saying is that the establsihment clause, if it can be applied at all, can only be applied through some language in the 14th amendment. In other words, simply quoting the establishment clause by itself isn't going to get you anywhere, since on its face it only applies to Congress. As I said at #363, in order to show that the ruling against Moore is correct, you'd have to show that he's either abridging somebody's privileges and immunities, or depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying the equal protection of the law. You seemed to go with the last, so that's why I based my responses around that.

Apparently it was just a misunderstanding, but now that (hopefully) you understand my position a little better, maybe we can have a more productive discussion.

[inquest]

Now we're travelling into a whole new territory - that of laws that are inspired by religious beliefs. I have absolutely no use for burqa laws, but they're not violations of the first amendment. If that were the case, then our own Bill of Rights would be in violation, since the Founders themselves clearly stated that our rights are "endowed by [our] Creator". Is that not a religious belief?

[floriduh voter]

I'll try the rubber pencil thingy as soon as I find a pencil. I bet it's not exactly the tilt-a-whirl but I can do it at home. lol

[floriduh voter]

We needed a little levity on this thread. The human body is amazing.

[inquest]

While sitting at your desk make clockwise circles with your right foot. While doing this, draw the number "6" in the air with your right hand. Your foot will change direction. NOW EXPLAIN THAT ONE!!

Great. Now I'm never going to get any sleep tonight.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Jesus did not specify "brother"or "sister". In those days, Samaritains and Jews with other Gentiles lived together in the region.

Love isn't how you feel, it's what you do...It's a verb, not an emotion!