Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[general_re]

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.

My very first response cited the enjoyment of a particular sort of liberty by Judge Moore that he denied to others - namely, the liberty to express his beliefs in a public space, which he denied to others who sought the same rights. Hopefully, now that you understand my position a bit better, we can indeed move on ;)

If you want to discuss how the 14'th Amendment incorporates the establishment clause, which it does these days, we can begin with Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 303 (1940), move on to Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947), and close with a discussion of Justice Brennan's concurrence in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963). That should either put you right to sleep, or give you lots to read :^)

When John Locke ventured in 1689, "I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other," he anticipated the necessity which would be thought by the Framers to require adoption of a First Amendment, but not the difficulty that would be experienced in defining those "just bounds." The fact is that the line which separates the secular from the sectarian in American life is elusive. The difficulty of defining the boundary with precision inheres in a paradox central to our scheme of liberty. While our institutions reflect a firm conviction that we are a religious people, those institutions by solemn constitutional injunction may not officially involve religion in such a way as to prefer, discriminate against, or oppress, a particular sect or religion. Equally the Constitution enjoins those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends where secular means would suffice. The constitutional mandate expresses a deliberate and considered judgment that such matters are to be left to the conscience of the citizen, and declares as a basic postulate of the relation between the citizen and his government that "the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand . . . ."

- Justice Brennan, Abington School District v. Schempp

[floriduh voter]

So you're going to stay up all night trying to beat the system? LOL If you succeed, let me know.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Also, scripture dictates how Jesus handled the sinner...He loved them by showing compassion and forgiveness.

He didn't just love the Jews/Hebrews.

What kind of testamony are you giving if you just loved one kind of person?

Love the sinner, hate the sin!

[jethropalerobber]

Had it not been a major, MAJOR political embarrassment for the Democratic Party for Gov Davis to be recalled in humiliation, the ACLU would have never even approached the subject.

i suppose that is a possibility but i think you're reading the situation incorrectly.

davis himself is no doubt embarassed by his lack of support, but the democratic party is loving this - all of the possible outcomes are a win for them.

[jethropalerobber]

Furthermore, without reading the Alabama Constitution, I can tell you right noe it is being mis-interpreted by those who wish to take God out of our culture - namely socialists-atheists.

the party that brought the suit was jewish, not athiest.

Please post the constitution you refer to if you are going to use it for personal attacks.

RTFT - it's all there.

[Roughneck]

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.


Yes, indeed. We should continue to pray, have hope for, live by example, for all those without Christ. My POINT is, we are not to associate with them in general. Heck. I aint tring to start trouble, or act like holier-than-thou, but the 1960's peace-nic driven view of christianity is BS.

Giving in to non-christian views about how christians should behave, or how they should believe, or who they should love, or how/if they should be angry, has caused christians to loose the "Christian Warrior" stance and replace it with vanilla pudding -everyone is good crack-pot, satanic practices such as ABORTION, HOMOSEXUALITY, etc. Accepting this stuff as the norm is againts God and his teachings.

There are certain things christians Should not, under any circumstances, aproove of, and certain people they should not associate with - avowed atheists are only one example. It is not a christians job to save people - it is GODS JOB - we can only pray, live by example (ie your statement)and hope it is ordained that they come around.

Do you see AT ALL what I'm saying?

I'll have to get the scrpture I'm refering to OK? will try to post it on Monday.

[Theodore R.]

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

I don't think the Constitution says anything about "one faith" or "other faiths." It's not there -- only in the mind of triumphant liberals. The word "Christian" is not in the Constitution -- neither is the expression of liberals: "separation of church and state."

[inquest]

If you want to discuss how the 14'th Amendment incorporates the establishment clause, which it does these days, we can begin with Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 303 (1940), move on to Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947), and close with a discussion of Justice Brennan's concurrence in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963).

Cantwell dealt with the free-exercise clause, not the establishment clause, Everson supported my view of the first amendment (it did not find a violation in the case before it), and your quote from Brennan made no mention of the 14th amendment.

[Technogeeb]

I am offened by people trying to make this a Christian country. Religions have been the cause of more deaths and wars then any other cause in history.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. In the last century alone, more people died because of socialism (national and international) than have ever been killed by religion.

[WOSG]

" Obviously the gov't isn't telling US Cellular to omit Christmas trees, but they are afraid of lawsuits, the ACLU, and the generally oppressive atmosphere towards any religious expression. "

Yes, it needs to be explained clearly that suppressing voluntary public religious expression is SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH. Another example are the school officials who FORBID student valedictorians from evoking religious sentiments in commencement speeches. Amazing. The ACLU is at the forfront of destroying these 1st amendment rights, because their interest is in perverting the constitution not defending it.

As I said in another post ...

What I do have a problem with is the fascistic idea that all public expressions of religious sentiment are out of bounds simply because they (by necessity) fail to be all-inclusive. *Any* expression fails to be all-inclusive, so this is a recipe for supressing *any* religious sentiment in public. That is repressive, anti-freedom and and anti-religious bigotry.

[WOSG]

US Supreme Court, 2003:

" .... but WE DO."

[lugsoul]

Only if you believe there is only one view of who that Creator is.

Well, you've made yourself pretty clear, if you don't see such practices in Muslim countries as being an "establishment" of religion. With that kind of interpretation, you may as well take the establishment clause out of the Constitution.

[smith288]

Sir, with all due respect, I am not going to go out of my way and shun people or not try to reach them because they sin . Thats what the Pahrisees did. You HAVE to associate with them like a Doctor has to associate with the sick.

I have not, nor will I ever accept homosexuality, murder, theft, et al as normal behavior. All are sins. All are in need of Gods word and the love of Jesus Christ. So while I understand you are on the good team as a brother in Christ, I strongly urge you to put up arms in Christ in the form of love and in witness. Because when those evil people see you slam the door, they label you and Jesus as hateful thus lowering the chance that they may in the future, seek Christ as their final refuge.

[missyme]

Why did you find the need to tell me this?
Are you making assumptions that you don't believe I love my neighbor?

[inquest]

Only if you believe there is only one view of who that Creator is.

Really? What if you don't believe there's a Creator at all? Is that not a religious belief? If so, then why isn't belief in a Creator a religious belief?

Well, you've made yourself pretty clear, if you don't see such practices in Muslim countries as being an "establishment" of religion. With that kind of interpretation, you may as well take the establishment clause out of the Constitution.

I've made myself clear as to the distinction between the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause, and I'll do it again: the first prohibits government from setting up a religious organization, the second prohibits it from interfering with other people's religious activities.

[First Amendment]

What I do have a problem with is the fascistic idea that all public expressions of religious sentiment are out of bounds simply because they (by necessity) fail to be all-inclusive.

And obviously no expression of religion can ever be all-inclusive (such as the sub-human who recently - and I believe - successfully challenged some religious expression somewhere, saying HIS religion wasn't allowed expression. His "religion"? Phallus worship, which he invented, and wanted to display a giant penis as an object of worship.

*Any* expression fails to be all-inclusive, so this is a recipe for supressing *any* religious sentiment in public. That is repressive, anti-freedom and anti-religious bigotry.

I am convinced that this anti-religious bigotry is a fully conscious plan by the leftist/secular-humanist/liberal/social Darwinis/homo-nazi/feminists etc. No doubt about it.

Some have expressed on this or other threads that it is only Christians who are targeted. I beg to differ. Orthodox Jews have supported Moore, and look what happened to Dr. Laura's TV show - and she is banned in Canada. People would not call me a Christian, so I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak. But any attack on moral absolutes (which all come from revealed scripture, one way or another) is an attack on all religion.

[lugsoul]

And your view of the Establishment Clause not only is inconsistent with every court interpretation of it - ever - but it is also out of step with the view of the very persons who wrote it. There is not a single mention, anywhere, of the level of "organization" that is required for a government endorsement of religion to rise to the level of a violation of the Establishment Clause. Perhaps your view is like Judge Moore's - that we all get to interpret the Constitution in the way that best serves our own ends.

[WOSG]

Islam is definitely a religion in the sence of "Organized religion". Moreso that even any Christian sect.

I find it quite offensive when ignoramuses even on FR, who know neither the theology of Islam nor Chirstianity, compare "fundamentalist" Christians with Islamic fundamentalists, as if "strong belief" made them alike.
Bull-hockey! Does the "strong belief" of fundamentalist Libertarians and fundamentalist Marxists mean that Marxism is the same a Libertarianism??!?

The real fundamentalist Christians of 30AD -300AD had *no* political power and were persecuted by the state.
In Byzantine Empire, the Church and State were closely linked, and ye tthe emperor and the bishops were separate and had different domains. For that empire there was an official religion and so theocratic disputes becaem political disputes and vice versa. In the West, it became more of a separation - twin powers, the king and the ecclesiastic orders, representing the duality of the kingdoms on earth and in heaven. Consider Henry II vs Becket and Henry VIII vs Thomas More.
The middle ages' theology, even through Locke, is imbued with that division, and the Renaissance on represented the break of faith and reason in the two realms.

Yet from DAY ONE, Islam was about political leaders (Mohammed on down) using "revelation" to guide matters of state and rule the people. There are no "two realms" to an Imam of that persuasion; fundamentalist Islamic thinking is *inherently* theocratic, in a different way from Christianity, whose theocratic inclinations were constructed well *after* Christ.
Some of this I am sure has to do with the lessor Greek philosophic influence on Islam, relative to the heavy Greek philosophic influence on the West.

Whereas Jesus himself expressed the division between God and state ("render unto Ceasar .."), I am unaware of something comparable in Islam.

[general_re]

Cantwell simply began the process of incorporation, without itself being the be-all and end-all on the subject - you want to start from the beginning, right? ;)

Everson supported my view of the first amendment (it did not find a violation in the case before it)

Not finding a violation is hardly the same as agreeing that the establishment clause does not apply to the states. To wit:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

- Justice Black, Everson v Board

And perhaps Brennan's opinion would have been more clear to you if I had included the next paragraph:

I join fully in the opinion and the judgment of the Court. I see no escape from the conclusion that the exercises called in question in these two cases violate the constitutional mandate. The reasons we gave only last Term in Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 , for finding in the New York Regents' prayer an impermissible establishment of religion, compel the same judgment of the practices at bar. The involvement of the secular with the religious is no less intimate here; and it is constitutionally irrelevant that the State has not composed the material for the inspirational exercises presently involved. It should be unnecessary to observe that our holding does not declare that the First Amendment manifests hostility to the practice or teaching of religion, but only applies prohibitions incorporated in the Bill of Rights in recognition of historic needs shared by Church and State alike. While it is my view that not every involvement of religion in public life is unconstitutional, I consider the exercises at bar a form of involvement which clearly violates the Establishment Clause.

[lugsoul]

If you are contending that I compared Islamic fundamentalists to evangelical Christians, you need to go back and read my posts.

My discussion of Islam was in response to Inquest's contention that, in order to have "establishment" of a state religion, you need to have an organized religious structure. My response is that Islam - a very loosely organized religion with no central dogma, no hierarchy, no ordination, and no officially designated religious leaders is "established" as the state religion in a couple of dozen countries.

At no point did I make the comparison you rail against.