Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

self | August 21, 2003 | Gargantua

[Catspaw]

I see that your vulgarities continue.

[maxplunder]

I'm not angry I'm just Disgusted.

[maxplunder]

Who on Earth said that you couldn't???

The $#!@#$ COMMUNIST, MARXIST, AETHIEST, ACLU LOVING, SUPREME COURT LAW WRITING DEMOCRATS

[Gargantua]

Wow, and 20-20 vision, too!

Seriously, you think "bite" is a vulgarity? Then how do you eat a sandwich without profaning? I apologize, you hump.

[Doe Eyes]

As an example, suppose Louis Farrakan wants to place scripture from the Koran, carved in stone, on the grounds of his local Courthouse. Would you have a problem with that?

[Budge]

First, what is to prevent Louis Farrakan from doing just that?

Would you have a problem with that?

Actually, no I wouldn't -- as long as Christians are granted the same right, which originally they had.

Therein is where the problem lies.

[Catspaw]

Now I'm a "hump? How barnyard uncivil of you.

[Migraine]

The majority of this nation is Christian. Yet we cannot show our faith publicly.

I totally empathize with you and rue the day when what was originally written and intended became a bludgeon against us. Meanwhile, the nation has become what it wasn't -- particularly with an invasion from Asia which has brought with it strange mindsets, beliefs, philosophies and (yes) religions which believe justice comes around only after several lifetimes. History and sociology have overtaken our religious underpinnings so that now, what was intended to prevent any particular Christian DENOMINATION from holding a preeminent place, has become the fulcrum used to pry Christianity ITSELF from its foundational position, even to the point of denying that it ever was so.

I, like you, abhor this fact of life and history -- but it is undeniable. Meanwhile, we need to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, and take measures to write Christianity into public life subtly, if need be.

[vaudine]

your theoretical sophistry is ingenuous and quite the argument put forth in the schools today. The 10 Cmdmnts as the traditional roots of our inalienable rights obtain here. The Constitution says no establishment of religion, not concrete signs that you harbor a religious belief system.
vaudine

[TheBigB]

Your silly attempt to dazzle with big words aside, the rest of your post doesn't even address my point. The initial statement Our Congress is strictly and explicitly probitied by our Constitution from passing any laws prohibiting the free excercise of one's religion is what I was referring to...whether you feel that our laws are explicitly written to address Judeo-Christian religions is only your opinion. If we only go by the above statement, no laws could be passed if one person says, "Hey, that law inhibits the free exercise of my religion."

[Migraine]

I beg your pardon? Wouold you care to explain what you wrote here?

I was referring to the fact that part of the first commandment (the graven image prohibition) is in the Catholic Church deemed acceptable, as stated in catechisms:

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

2132 The Christian (Catholic) veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

So. I was referring, to the best of my ability, to the fact that there are religious traditions or denominations which might not find the prohibition of images agreeable; thus the posting of that commandment in a place where the law of the land is ruled upon might make it seem that the government was favoring one religious tradition over another. Have I misspoken?

[Looking for Diogenes]

If Judge Moore's religion (Christianity) demands that he spread the Word of God (and it does), then the issuance of a legal order which deigns to prevent him this religious right is both unconstitutional and out of order in the extreme.

OK, if you're interested in debating this point, I'll jump in.

Placing a state in a publicly owned building is not a religious right. Judge Moore is free to place such a statue in his home or private office. As a private citizen his freedoms are guarantted by the Constitution. But when he acts as a government official he loses his right to do whatever he feels like. He becomes an agent of the state and his actions are bound by the Constitution.

This is the same for other clauses of the same amendment. Judge Moore, acting privately as a parent, is free to tell his children that they may not criticize the government. But he may not in his official capacity as a judical officer order those same people not to criticize the government.

[TigersEye]

From this Washington Times article.

"A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion."

The following display, on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court Building (government property), would seem to me to be affiliated with a religion.

inscription reads - "Justice, the guardian of liberty."

It not only depicts the Ten Commandments tablets it even shows the Jewish prophet Moses holding them. If my limited knowledge of Judaic and Christian Scripture serves me, Moses claimed that God made these tablets and gave them to Moses to be the law of His (God's) and Moses' people.

That ought to qualify it as affiliated with a religion. Two religions, in most people's minds. Does it fail to meet the definition of 'display' or does the Supreme Court Building fail to meet the definition of 'government property'? What is the exception here and who or what is the authority that governs that distinction? Is there a law that makes one Constitutional and the other not? Is it the ruling of a judge or judges that makes it so? But how can that be? This is a nation of laws not of men, right?

If the Thompson ruling stands on the criteria given above then the SC's Moses and Ten Commandments has to go too. So does the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

"And ye shall make hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee."
This inscription, cast into the Liberty Bell in August 1752, is an excerpt from Leviticus 25:10.

Get out the chisels and fire up the forge, boys. It's time to give this country a facelift!

[daveoverpar]

God, if I am allowed to invoke his name, I do wish we would stop giving the ACLU any more ideas.
Actually, Judge Moore is prostelytising by placing the monument in the Supreme Court rotunda. The Jehovah Witnesses would not be allowed to hand out their literature in the Supreme Court rotunda and therefore the monument does need to be moved. Judge Moore can have it in his office.
We tried to get in to the building when we were in Montgomery on Confederate Memorial day, but it was closed as that is a state holiday here in Alabama. Being a state employee I do appreciate all the holidays I can get. All you ever see of the monument on TV is the ten commandments. There are other inscriptions that I have not been able to see. Are there any sites that have pictures of all four sides?

[Liz]

The vestige of liberal-imposed "moral-neutrality," is the non-judgemental culture devoid of oppobrium against wrongdoing.

Sicko libs get off on moral relativity that obliterates the clear line between right and wrong. How else could the conniving Clintons and their acolytes have gotten away with all their crimes?

The hidden agenda of the religio-phobic ACLU, People For The American Way, Planned Parenthood American United for Separation of Church and State, etc, despite their high-faluting reasoning, is to decimate all references to morality b/c in their small, inferior, insular minds morality equates to the dreaded sectarian religious beliefs.

How very successful they have been. Everyday we see the moral relativity agenda's outcome as we experience the unimaginable crimes and the collapse of a once-thriving culture's moral underpinnings.

[TigersEye]

Actually, Judge Moore is prostelytising by placing the monument in the Supreme Court rotunda.

That's part of the establishment of his religion and it has been infringed on.

Jehovah Witnesses would not be allowed to hand out their literature in the Supreme Court rotunda ...

Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Chief Justice of Alabama. His purview grants him greater access to the court than they have and a say in the furnishings of the building. Besides it has historical merit and he isn't forcing anyone to confront the monument. It is silent and immobile, people can walk right around it and ignore it. Not so with Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Here is how the architect who designed the Eastern Pediment described it.

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The ?Eastern Pediment? of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group? left ? is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The ?Youth? is brought into both these groups to suggest the ?Carrying on? of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left ? The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right ? Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left ? Study and pondering of judgments. Right ? A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale ? The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. Architectural Details of the Supreme Court

There is a lot more going on then just a depiction of Moses and the Decalogue.

If Moore had made a general tableau of the history of the Law, then it would have been comparable to the Supreme Court's pediment.

[TigersEye]

I have read that. What does it have to do with what I posted? The 11th Courts ruling says nothing of general tableau's or the history of law. It speaks only of 'displays, on gov. property, promoting or affiliated with religion.' By itself or with a group of secular images Moses and the Tablets fit the bill. The inscription on the Liberty Bell isn't accompanied by anything else.

There is more to it than that though. The Alabama State Constitution's preamble invokes the 'power of Almighty God' in just those words. Judge Moore was putting that sentiment into a stone monument. It is an establishment of his religion to invoke God's name and power and glory in his daily activities. It is his oath of office to uphold the Alabama Constitution. This is one of his ways of doing it and it reflects the same invocation as the State Constitution. The supreme law of Alabama.

The federal Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in the 1st Amend. and it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" in the Tenth Amendment. It can't be prohibited by the Constitution for a State to invoke God's name, or a person, because it says without caveat that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." How can the federal court intervene in a State's matter and rule where there is no law made and a prohibition against making one?

What has happened to Judge Moore's "free exercise thereof;..." What has happened to his "freedom of speech"?

[Looking for Diogenes]

Intent is an important factor in the law. The Archtect of the US Supreme Court building said his intent was to portay our heritage of "fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East." Moore said his intent was to reflect "the sovereignty of God over the affairs of men."

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law in all 50 states, even Alabama. You may not believe that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights binding to state and local governments, but the US Supreme Court does and has since at least 1947. You are free to fight for the repeal of the 14th Amendment if it offends you.

A policy or act is the same as a law, insofar as the Bill of Rights is concerned. If a policeman confiscates the press run of a newspaper he is not creating a law but he is still violating the 1st Amendment.

This judge, acting in his official capacity as an officer of the court and an agent of the government, violated the U.S. Constitution. As a private citizen he could have erected the same monument on private property and there would not have been a violation. The First Amendment rights of Roy Moore, private citizen, are intact. The Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of Alabama does not, as an official, have any First Amendment rights.

[Gargantua]

"He becomes an agent of the state and his actions are bound by the Constitution."

Fine. So tell me where in our Constitution Judge Moore is prohibited from paying with his own money to put a statue in front of his courthouse.

The only religious prohibition outlined in our Constitution says that Congress shall pass no law regarding any religion, nor shall Congress pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Again, where in our Constitution is Judge Moore prohibited from paying with his own money to put a statue in front of his courthouse? Take your time.