Ten Commandments monument controversy

[Guest JMA]

Top Alabama Judge Vows Commandments Fight

By BOB JOHNSON

 

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama's top judge refused to back down in his fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument and lashed out at his colleagues who ordered it removed from the rotunda of the state judicial building.

 

``I will never deny the God upon whom our laws and country depend,'' Chief Justice Roy Moore said in a fiery defense of the 5,300-pound granite marker, as supporters cheered and prayed on the building's steps.

 

The monument was still in the building's rotunda early Thursday evening, and court officials did not say when or where it would be moved.

 

U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who had ruled the monument's placement violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine, has said it could be moved to a private place still within the building. He had threatened $5,000-a-day fines if Moore left the monument in the public rotunda.

 

 

Moore installed the monument two years ago and contends it represents the moral foundation of American law.

 

 

``Not only did Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God as well,'' Moore told his supporters Thursday.

 

 

The chief justice had appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the removal order, but the court rejected it Wednesday. Moore said Thursday he would file a formal appeal with the high court soon ``to defend our constitutional right to acknowledge God.''

 

 

``I cannot forsake my conscience,'' he said.

 

 

His supporters, meanwhile, promised to block any effort to remove the monument.

 

 

``We will kneel at the doors. We will prevent forklifts or trucks from coming in,'' said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, which is organizing around-the-clock demonstrations.

 

 

Moore's eight colleagues on the state Supreme Court intervened after Thompson's midnight deadline for removing the monument passed and the monument remained. In ordering the monument moved, the justices said they were ``bound by solemn oath to follow the law.''

 

 

Justice Gorman Houston said all eight instructed building manager Graham George to ``take all steps necessary to comply'' with the removal order. George declined to comment when asked when, how or where the monument would be moved.

 

 

Attorney General Bill Pryor filed a notice with the federal district court after the justices' issued their order and said he believed that would remove any risk of fines.

 

 

Taxpayers ``should not be punished for the refusal of the chief justice to follow a federal court order,'' he said.

 

 

A partition was put in front of the monument early Thursday but was removed after about three hours. Houston said the building manager may have erected it to comply with the order.

 

 

Gov. Bob Riley said in a statement that he supports public displays of the Ten Commandments, but also supports the decision of associate justices to ``uphold the rule of law.''

 

 

In his speech Thursday, Moore said he was ``disappointed with my colleagues'' and lashed out at ``this so-called rule of law'' that they cited. He said such blind obedience would have allowed slavery to continue.

 

 

Richard Hahnemann of Huntsville, the monument's sculptor, said he expects voters to remember what the justices did come election day.

 

 

``They have their opinion. Justice Moore was elected by the people to do what he did,'' Hahnemann said.

 

 

Richard Cohen, an attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center - which sued along with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State - praised the eight justices.

 

 

``Their courageous actions reflect that Justice Moore is a disgrace to the bench and ought to resign or be removed from office,'' Cohen said.

 

 

Still, protesters outside the building said they were willing to stand in the Alabama heat and risk arrest for days or weeks to keep the monument inside. Twenty-one were arrested Wednesday night on trespassing charges for refusing to leave the monument when the building was closing.

 

 

Stephen Hopkins, pastor of Burnet Bible Church in Burnet, Texas, was one of those arrested. He said he was willing to be arrested even though he has 10 children.

 

 

``This is a great hypocrisy,'' Hopkins said. ``This is an assault on God. They're saying we're going to cover up God.''

Source: Wal-Mart Connect News

 

As a native of Alabama (and a supporter of the separation of church and state) this whole situation is very embarassing to me. I'm interested in what everyone else thinks about this situation.

[NoCalMike 0]

this is one of those situations where, if someone handed me a paper to vote remove or not, I would probably vote to remove it, but overall I just don't give a shit whether it is there or not really. I mean who is honestly offended by this? Does anyone think they aren't getting a fair trial by way of the ten commandments?

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Wal Mart is a source of news now? The idea of that is just plain scary.

[Guest JumpinJackFlash]

I'm a christian.....I love the ten commandments. I like the statue....I mean is was made so well.....Just forget about whats on the statue on think about how good it looks.....I would love to have that in my house! Why don't they just have every religion represented in that place...whatever it is....supreme court house or something? At least don't destroy the statue...put it in a church if you must!!! ......One thing I'm sick of though, is the fact that the ACLU keeps fucking people up the ass, wether or not they have anything to do with this!

[Vern Gagne 0]

Does anyone think they aren't getting a fair trial by way of the ten commandments?

I'm sure some defense attorney would use that for their client.

 

"Your honor it's come to my attention that one jurors was unaware that murdering someone is wrong. Until they read the 10 commandments posted outside in the rotunda".

[MrRant 0]

Just another example of a million people being ok with it and 5 having a problem with it. It all started when Christmas Plays in school turned to "Winter Plays".

[Guest Ray]

Just another example of a million people being ok with it and 5 having a problem with it. It all started when Christmas Plays in school turned to "Winter Plays".

A million people liking it doesn't make it right...

[Guest TheGame2705]

Just another example of a million people being ok with it and 5 having a problem with it.  It all started when Christmas Plays in school turned to "Winter Plays".

A million people liking it doesn't make it right...

Doesn't make it wrong though.

[Guest Choken One]

Winter Plays fits better with the Fall Play, Spring Play, Summer play motief anyways...FUCK xmas play.

 

I hated "CHRISTMAS BREAK" which was bullshit...The christians get 18 days off but the Jews have to go to school on their holiday? FUCK that SHIT!

 

And I'm not even jewish but damn it that would meant more days off school...

 

Oh well...Who gives a fuck about this SERIOUSLY?

 

I take a piss on the fucking Commandents but It won't bother me to see it sticking by a courtroom...but yeah it's a bullshit thing anyways...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I used Judaism as an excuse to ditch school once. It happened to be Yom Kippur, or Rosh Hashana..I don't know which.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Just another example of a million people being ok with it and 5 having a problem with it.   It all started when Christmas Plays in school turned to "Winter Plays".

A million people liking it doesn't make it right...

Doesn't make it wrong though.

It does it if it goes against the separation of church and state.

[Firestarter 0]

"There's a town in Alabama that wants to abolish all laws except the Ten Commandments."

"I saw it."

"Well, they're gonna have a problem."

"Because the Constitution prohibits religious activity in any form connected to Government?"

"Good point! Two problems."

"Sam, I'm busy here."

"I just mean that some of those Commandments are pretty hard to enforce... Leo, did you know there's a town in Alabama that wants to -"

"Yes."

"What do you think?"

"Coveting thy neighbour's wife's gonna cause some problems."

"That's what I said. Plus, if I were arrested for coveting my neighbour's wife, I'd probably bear false witness."

 

- The West Wing, Take Out the Trash Day

[Guest EsotericMaster]

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I think it is dumb. let's take down the sign that says "don't kill, don't steal, honor your parents". that is certainly information we don't want to pass out to everyone that enters that court.

 

the ten commandments are historic, as one of the first set of laws. as part of history, it should stay. it is in the supreme court in washington.

Edited August 22, 2003 by EsotericMaster

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It says more than that though.

 

The good messages about love and respect come secondary to the dogmatic mumbo jumbo.

[Dr. Tom 0]

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

And if someone has no religion, what then? It's OK to foist the most popular on them?

 

let's take down the sign that says "don't kill, don't steal, honor your parents".

As well as the one which reads, "I am the Lord Your God. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me." You can't pick and choose which commandments to display, and you have to take the dogma with the common sense.

 

Of course, I think if Judeo-Christian artifacts are going to be removed, then those of other religions need to suffer the same fate for the sake of consistency. We already have enough double standards without selectively choosing which religion not to display.

 

the ten commandments are historic, as one of the first set of laws. as part of history, it should stay.

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that they are religious in nature. The only reason "In God we trust" remains on our currency is because the Court decided that was a secular saying, not a religious one. I don't agree, but I also don't care that "In God we trust" is on the money in my wallet.

[Guest BDC]

Actually, the Supreme Court blew off a case about "In God We Trust" being on money for two reasons. One, it's a secular saying and two, it's downright trivial. They basically told the people hoisting the suit to find a better case if they wanted to pursue this.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Bullshit.

 

That only works when your religion is the "big" one a majority of Americans subscribe to.

 

Do you think he'd allow something from the Koran in the Bible? No. He's actually said he wouldn't allow it in interviews.

 

If he did, do you think the people organizing prayer vigils right now would instead be screaming about seperation of church and state and how that thing must go? Oh, you *BET* they would!

 

the ten commandments are historic, as one of the first set of laws.  as part of history, it should stay.

 

It's only history if you believe in the Bible as fact. Otherwise, no. It's not a part of history. There is a reason why we call religion "faith", because you can't really sit and prove everything in the Bible or these other religious works really happened, you simply have to make a personal belief choice.

 

The monument should be moved to a Church, and placed in the front lawn with some flower beds planted around the side. It would be just as pretty there, and more importantly, appropriately placed.

[Justice 0]

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Bullshit.

 

That only works when your religion is the "big" one a majority of Americans subscribe to.

 

Do you think he'd allow something from the Koran in the Bible? No. He's actually said he wouldn't allow it in interviews.

 

If he did, do you think the people organizing prayer vigils right now would instead be screaming about seperation of church and state and how that thing must go? Oh, you *BET* they would!

No, it's true. Thomas Jefferson later made a statement about "Seperation of Church and State" to the Danbury Baptists. "Seperation of Church and State" technically never appears in the Constitution, it's only a interpretation used by many people.

 

Then again, it's an interpretation I like to follow, though in moderation. To me, this isn't that big a deal. Christ, if I'm in a courthouse for whatever reason I probably have bigger concerns than 'OMG That's a Christian or Jewish sign of power!"

 

I think the most valid point made right now is Tom's regarding the first Commandment with the whole "I am the Lord and you shall praise no idols but me (Paraphrased there)" deal. That holds a bit more water than just the hostility for it being a monument with some religious meaning behind it.

 

It's only history if you believe in the Bible as fact. Otherwise, no. It's not a part of history. There is a reason why we call religion "faith", because you can't really sit and prove everything in the Bible or these other religious works really happened, you simply have to make a personal belief choice.

 

Actually, considering how far back even the belief of these has gone, the general moral code outlined in the 10 Commandments could easily be considered history. Now the events surrounding their creation, those may not be. But the Commandments themselves not history? I would say you are wrong there.

[Guest Retro Rob]

I think what it comes down to in most cases is that if whatever religious symbol/monument/saying that has been brought up over the past several years is that when it is YOUR religion, you aren't bothered by it. But what about the rest of us? The 10 Commandments means nothing to many American citizens. Like someone said earlier, if a part of the Koran was there in place of the 10 Commandments, people will be fuming. Even if that part of the Koran were a moral code similar to the Commandments, it wouldn't matter. But since the majority agrees with the Commandments, they don't see any reason to move it or take the beliefs of others into consideration. I guess it’s alright to shove religious garbage down our throats when it doesn't inconvenience the majority. I mean some people were actually pissed off because following 9/11 some college professor assigned his students to read parts of Koran so they could better understand what motivates the Muslim religion. Isn’t this all a little hypocritical? It’s OK when we tell you about our God, but once other beliefs come into play it is no longer a public service but a slap in the face.

[Ripper 0]

I do have to admit, when his lawyers raised the point of the greek goddess of justice having a statue outside of this and most other courtrooms, it gave me a pause as to why he couldn't keep his bigass plaque in his courtroom.

 

 

I still say, though, that if I was in court, the LAST thing I would be worried about is if the word God is in the room somewhere.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I do have to admit, when his lawyers raised the point of the greek goddess of justice having a statue outside of this and most other courtrooms, it gave me a pause as to why he couldn't keep his bigass plaque in his courtroom.

Are we talking about the plaque or the monument here? I'm guessing the plaque, but recognize they're two different things.

 

The guy has clearly stated he's not going to theme it to "laws of ancient religions" by adding other religious texts or anything, he simply wants a large symbol of Christianity in the middle of it all. To make it worse, it's a symbol that specifically states This God > That God.

 

The guy is a fundie. I personally would not mind him taking up his battles except this daily fine he's incurring is coming out of Alabama taxpayers instead of his personal wallet.

[Ripper 0]

Oh, as a Alabamian...heh...that just sounds funny...um...As a Alabamian I think it is ridiculous they are allowing this shit, and lets be frank, if they wanted to take down that thing, they could just go in there, arrest all the dumbasses and break it.

 

Lets see if I can remember this. There was a really old plaque their and it they said that it could stay because of the history surrounding it. Then he brought in this FREAKIN HUGE as version of it and thats the one they want out of there.

[Justice 0]

I guess it’s alright to shove religious garbage down our throats when it doesn't inconvenience the majority.

Who is shoving it down your throats? They aren't forcing the people to read them or even acknowledge them in any way. This isn't some Neo-Facist Christian Conspiracy to turn everyone towards the word of Christ.

 

But since the majority agrees with the Commandments, they don't see any reason to move it or take the beliefs of others into consideration.

 

They do, but it doesn't mean that if one person complains it should be changed. The majority rules, it just doesn't have the power to squelch the minority opinion.

 

It’s OK when we tell you about our God, but once other beliefs come into play it is no longer a public service but a slap in the face.

 

You see, the problem is the Commandments could be considered somethign with actual legal meaning. They are pretty much the basic foundations of our laws, outside of a select few. Have you tried to look at it from a historical perspective rather than a religious perspective?

 

I mean some people were actually pissed off because following 9/11 some college professor assigned his students to read parts of Koran so they could better understand what motivates the Muslim religion. Isn’t this all a little hypocritical?

 

No, because they are allowed to have their opinion. Notice they didn't actual do anything about it because they weren't in the majority and all they CAN do is bitch. The professor still went on his ways, gave the assignment. So what? Explain to me how you are any different from those who were pissed at the professor. And saying "Because they are in minority" isn't an answer.

 

I think what it comes down to in most cases is that if whatever religious symbol/monument/saying that has been brought up over the past several years is that when it is YOUR religion, you aren't bothered by it. But what about the rest of us?

 

The rest of you? Are you all as uptight about this stuff?

 

And to Jobber:

 

Are we talking about the plaque or the monument here? I'm guessing the plaque, but recognize they're two different things.

 

The guy has clearly stated he's not going to theme it to "laws of ancient religions" by adding other religious texts or anything, he simply wants a large symbol of Christianity in the middle of it all. To make it worse, it's a symbol that specifically states This God > That God.

 

The guy is a fundie. I personally would not mind him taking up his battles except this daily fine he's incurring is coming out of Alabama taxpayers instead of his personal wallet.

 

Just because that's his reason doesn't mean there aren't others. Just because the KKK supports something means it's automatically evil because there may be other less-biased reasons for it. I find it something that could be construed as a symbol of the timelessness of the law. Would you agree to that, given that the 1st Commandment was removed?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I would just like to know how this violates Separation of Church (not religion) and State?

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The majority rules, it just doesn't have the power to squelch the minority opinion.

It's amazing how many people have forgotten this in favor of "minority rules".

[Guest Retro Rob]

You see, the problem is the Commandments could be considered somethign with actual legal meaning. They are pretty much the basic foundations of our laws, outside of a select few. Have you tried to look at it from a historical perspective rather than a religious perspective?

 

Maybe the reason I and most others look at it from a religious perspective is because most of the commandments are based on religion or morals/values.

 

 

"I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me."

 

No legal meaning here....

 

"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"

 

Or here....

 

"Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day."

 

Unless America has a Sabbath day... nothing...

 

"Honor your father and mother"

 

Ooooo... wouldn't want to get caught mouthing off to my parents. Who knows what would happen to me legally.

 

"You shall not murder"

 

I'll give you this one.

 

"You shall not commit adultery"

 

Even though it may be morally wrong, legally it is A-OK.

 

"You shall not steal"

 

This makes 2.

 

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

 

.....

 

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife."

 

.....

 

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods."

 

......

 

So that makes 2 out 10 that actually have SOMETHING to do with the laws of the United States of America. 3 of the 10 are based solely on religion. The other 5 are all moral dillemmas that people have differing opinions on and the government stays out of. If you want to use the historical/legal excuse, we already have a document that fills that position better than the 10 Commandments, it's called the Constitution. I don't see how the Commandments can be considered a basic foundation of our laws and how only a "select few" are not.

 

The bottom line is that this document, or any other religious document for that matter, does not belong in front of a federal institution because it shows blatant favoritism/preference towards one system of belief.

[Justice 0]

If you want to use the historical/legal excuse, we already have a document that fills that position better than the 10 Commandments, it's called the Constitution.

 

Just out of irony, have you ever read it? Because your argument literally holds no water under the Constitution if you really want to go to it. Where is the endorsement of a specific religion by the state? There isn't any. Is this being forced upon anyone in any way? No. Bare bones, there's no argument.

 

And I'd be willing to bet there's a copy of that in there as well.

 

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"

 

.....

 

Actually, that WOULD be significant, especially in a court of law because that is basically Perjury right there. I'm surprised you didn't catch that.

 

And yes, the Commandments could be considered a legal document of historical significance because it shows that the law is basically the moral code of society, and that's it at it's bare bones.

 

The bottom line is that this document, or any other religious document for that matter, does not belong in front of a federal institution because it shows blatant favoritism/preference towards one system of belief.

 

What, all of Judeo-Christianity? How many sects and belief systems do we have included THERE?

[Guest JMA]

I would just like to know how this violates Separation of Church (not religion) and State?

It's a huge Judeo-Christian symbol in a goverment building. Clear enough? The fact is this, if a symbol just as big and just as expensive was made but was from a different religion the fundies would get pissed. It's typical of these douche-bags who think their religion is superior and everyone else is a "heathen." Jerry Falwell and Alan Keyes have even come down here to defend the commandments.

[Guest SP-1]

There's a vast difference between religion and faith. Religion is a set of rules, sctrictly followed, usually with a supernatural purpose.

 

Faith is merely a hope in what is mostly unseen. Any Christian that's taken any time to study what they claim to believe will quickly say that religion does nothing to save you. Nothing. Faith and religion are not one and the same.

 

As for this whole controversy, we live in a country where majority tends to rule. This is sometimes bad for religious things and sometimes good. I find it fun that when it's bad for religious affairs, most people love it. But when it's good, everyone gets their panties in a bunch. We all have to roll with the majority punches, that's just the way it is.

 

I don't care whether the monument stays. Taking it out of a courthouse will not remove it from the hearts and minds of those who seek after God. From there, it can never be erased or removed.

[Firestarter 0]

Well, wasn't that special.