Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I see you are new to looking at postings...This is your posting on #511

Well can you think of any other code to live by that would be better than the Ten Commandments?

I responded

...You need to lay off that dope!!!

[inquest]

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.

The "church" in "separation of church and state" doesn't imply organization?

You're simply inventing a straw man when you talk about "the level of organization" that's necessary. You can't establish a church that isn't organized, otherwise there's no establishment.

Speaking of being out of step with the persons who wrote the amendment, your continued insistence on equating religion with religious belief does exactly that. Madison defined religion as "the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it." In other words, mode of worship. And by logical extension, the apparatus surrounding it.

[kkindt]

The government of a people can be used to promote the one true faith if the government is organized by those who hold to that faith. There is nothing wrong with a government promoting faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. BUT there is nothing wrong in having a government that is setup to be neutral regarding which religion is to be promoted and that refrains from passing laws against any particular religion - unless that religion itself promotes violence against those of another religion or that religion seeks to disallow the practice of other religions by using violence.

What this judge did was setup a monument on which the words of then ten commandments are written in a public building that he had the authority to decorate in what way he saw fit.

Putting commandments on the building or in the building do not establish a religion by law.

[lugsoul]

Wow - that is an impressive stretch. You must work on that every day.

First - as you well know, "separation of church and state" is a shorthand phrase and does not appear in the Founders' discussions of the Constitution prior to ratification.

Second - your insistence that a church must have some undefined level of "organization" to be an "established" state religion is disproved all over the world. There are even many Christian denominations that do not have the level of organization you require.

Third - your reinterpretation of Madison's words borders on the dishonest. I can have duties to my Creator, and discharge those duties, without ever having a single contact with an organized Church. He never said anything about the level of "organization" which would qualify a religion as one which can be "established" and you know it.

[lugsoul]

"The government of a people can be used to promote the one true faith if the government is organized by those who hold to that faith. There is nothing wrong with a government promoting faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior."

And which one would be the "one true faith" for purposes of your freaky view of the Establishment Clause?

[WOSG]

"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. "

Yes.

Consider the alternative: Making polygamy *legal* is a terrible thing if its done under Sharia? And yet the US Supreme Court has comes so close to calling such behavior a fundamental human right anyway (i mean gay sex, polygamy, what's the difference?).
SO if Gray Davis and NAMBLA and the Wiccan league and HumanistsForFreeSex got together and passed a law saying any group of N people could get married together, what is constitutionally wrong with that?

And so what you can do on the basis of materialist, secular belief you *cant* do on the basis of a monotheistic religious belief? Why? Why is one motivation held to a different standard? Why is monotheism suppressed in such a way?

The point you really need to make is: What does Sharia *forbid* that specifically violates the 1st Amendment?
I'll tell you what - Blasphemy. In Pakistan, they have given the death penalty to people who "blaspheme" Mohammed.

Sharia is evil NOT because it imposes nutty clothing restrictions, although any sensible modern country would reject such laws, it is EVIL precisely because it violates the Freedom of Conscience and Free Excercise of Religion of non-believers in Islam.

Let's put it another way:
If the State of Alabama decided to pass a law Enforcing the Ten Commandments. Lying, stealing, honoring Ma and Pa, etc., anything that didnt violate free speech and free exercise and other rights would be *acceptable*. But the part about obeying God, not taking his name in vain, and glorifying Him on Sabbath - clear 1st Amendment violation.

To deny the right of legislators to have religious motivation is to deny them *their* rights of democracy and representation, etc. YOu need to look at *what* they do , not *why* they do it.

"Do you disagree that government empowered thugs running the streets demanding that women wear burquas ..."

We have government empowered thugs demanding that women dont show their boobs in public. Just another line-drawing.

"because Allah [supposedly] says so would be an establishment of religion? "

Yes, I disagree.

Why should motivation matter? Separate the act from the motivation. What if the secular humanists decide to impose the "Burqua" rule -- is *that* okay? What if Congress was bribed by burqua manufacturers to pass the law, with NO religious intent at all. Does it suddenly make it *okay*, just because the intent was secular?

Again, the Burqua thing is nutty and could be considered violating 1st amendment rights simply becaus it restrict 'free expression' so much, but BY ITSELF it is not an 'establishment' of religion. JMHO.

[WOSG]

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

The Constitution doesnt say that. Which text are you referring to?

[WOSG]

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

Good question.

[general_re]

I cited a few cases up above that more or less capture the state of the law. Check up there.

[lugsoul]

"And so what you can do on the basis of materialist, secular belief you *cant* do on the basis of a monotheistic religious belief? Why? Why is one motivation held to a different standard? "

"What if Congress was bribed by burqua manufacturers to pass the law, with NO religious intent at all. Does it suddenly make it *okay*, just because the intent was secular?"

It doesn't make it "okay" but it is not unconstitutional. The simple reason is that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of a uniform code of SECULAR beliefs. It does, however, prohibit the establishment of religion. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders.

[lugsoul]

One more thing. If you don't like intent as a standard, you need to amend the Ten Commandments. A few of them are expressly prohibitive of INTENT, not action.

[jwalsh07]

I cited a few cases up above that more or less capture the state of the law. Check up there.

You posted judicial activism run amok. Now I know you don't have a problem with judicial activists but that's what you posted.

The same displays and prayers that were Constitutionsl for the first 170 years of the union are now Unconstitutional.

When was the Constitution amended in the twentieth century making such a thing possible?

[commonerX]

"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."

I disagree, in all of history most reasons one group attacks another is because one group doesn't believe in the same religion as the other, so they see them as a threat to them and their God. True Stalin a Socialist is responsible for 20 million deaths, but most those deaths were not do to promoting socialism, but Stalin's paraniod delusions and intolarence of anyone who didn't see things his way. All the deaths attributed to Hitler could be argued that they are religiously motivated, the Jews, the Gipsies (pagans). But, if you go back through history most conflicts are over religious deferences. What the total number killed throughout history no one really knows, how many were killed in the Crusades,how many christians killed at the hands of Rome, Religious motivations in history is as simple as one group believing they have some devine right, given to them by their God, over another. You have to look at the whole picture why does one group wish to eleminate another in history in most cases it boils down to religious motivation or intolarence of others that don't believe.

[WOSG]

I think a shroud be placed on the Ten Commandments, with a plaque on top to explain:

"This shroud is being placed on this Ten Commandments monument in compliance with a Federal court order due to a lawsuit instigated by the ACLU. The shroud will be removed and the source of American laws will be revealed when the Federal courts once again poperly recognize the rights of Free Excercise of Religion to extend to public officials in their capacities."

"The courthouse isn't Roy Moore's personal playground, and he has no right to treat it as such. " nonsense, he is the administrator of the building. It *is* his personal playground! If he painted it lime green and put a playground out back, he would be well *within* his rights. Heck, he could have a statue of Ronald McDonald and you wouldnt be complaining. The only possible offensive thing he can do that gets your goat is EXPRESS A RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT.

[inquest]

Cantwell simply began the process of incorporation

Of the free-exercise clause, not the establishment clause.

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

Being as legally well-read as you are, I'm sure you're aware of the distinction between holding and dictum, no? In any case, let's examine Justice Black's obiter checklist, shall we?

- "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church." Justice Moore hasn't done this.

- "Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." No law has been passed, and he hasn't aided any religions, as religion is defined by Madison ("the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it.") If he had, then "In God We Trust" would be guilty of "aid[ing] all religions".

- "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." Check.

- "No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance." Check.

- "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." One would be hard-pressed to call Moore's monument a "religious institution", so that passes.

- "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa." Check.

------------------

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

Still no mention of the 14th amendment therein.

[missyme]

You really have some nerve.
You know nothing! especially about me. People that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You telling me to lay off dope is like me telling you lay off the booze!

Your the one who needs to Love Thy Neigbor! as well as not to judge As ye shall be judged!

I have a right just as much as you do to be on Free Republic. My commnets are my opinions, that is my right as a human being in this world.

I am not hurting anyone but I can see you are sure trying to do that to me. Shame on you!

[WOSG]

"i suppose that is a possibility "

A possibility with 99.9% chance of being right.

The ACLU is totally hidden-agenda driven, take nothing of what they do at face value; to fail to see this is to be blind to them.

Check my other posts on the ACLU's sordid history.

[general_re]

You posted judicial activism run amok.

That's pretty much Moore's defense too - putting his hands over his ears and shouting out "LALALALALALA...I don't have to listen to you...LALALALALALA"

Doesn't seem to be working out too well for him thus far.

[inquest]

First - as you well know, "separation of church and state" is a shorthand phrase and does not appear in the Founders' discussions of the Constitution prior to ratification.

You said "not a single mention" regarding the level of organization. You made no reference to the timing. And it is cited widely, as you well know.

Second - your insistence that a church must have some undefined level of "organization" to be an "established" state religion is disproved all over the world.

It's "disproved" only by your interpretation of what goes on in those other countries. You call it establishment. I call it limitation of free exercise. We discussed that above.

Third - your reinterpretation of Madison's words borders on the dishonest. I can have duties to my Creator, and discharge those duties, without ever having a single contact with an organized Church. He never said anything about the level of "organization" which would qualify a religion as one which can be "established" and you know it.

I wasn't saying he was. I was quoting him as a way of countering what appeared to me to be your view that "religion" and "religious belief" are synonymous. That's what I believe is at the center of our disagreement.

[general_re]

Being as legally well-read as you are, I'm sure you're aware of the distinction between holding and dictum, no?

Sure. You can pick up with Lemon v Kurtzman for the last piece of the puzzle, if you like.

Still no mention of the 14th amendment therein

Read the opinion he was concurring with, then - I suggested Brennan simply as an overview of the issues involved. The context was a public school's requirement for the reading and recitation of Bible verses at the beginning of each school day. Not to spoil the surprise of reading it or anything, but how do you think they presumed that the establishment clause applied to a local Pennsylvania school district? ;)