Ten Commandments monument controversy

[Guest SP-1]

We all have to roll with the majority punches, that's just the way it is.

How fucking lame. If that was the attitude we took with our country then only white men could vote today.

1. My point is correct. Deal with it. Bringing the racial revolution into it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, a majority rule is in effect in this country.

 

2. A part of a post where I more or less said that the monument's presence doesn't change what people believe one way or another. If you take notice instead of automatically setting your sights on someone that you seem to THINK is arguing a specific point, how about read the entire post and realize that I haven't been arguing about the monument and the specific thing in question much at all. My posts were mostly part of a rabbit trail that JMA and I went off on.

[Justice 0]

Just for a reference, a picture of the actual thing:

 

 

Again, I don't find that incredibly overbearing or anything...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

1. My point is correct. Deal with it. Bringing the racial revolution into it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, a majority rule is in effect in this country.

Think of the greater majority here.

 

Alabama taxpayers, all across the state, are paying for Moore's little crusade here. Those daily fines for each day the monument sits in the courthouse are distributed among all the citizenship.

 

The deadline passed two days ago, so it's $5,000 a day until the 27th, when it reaches $10,000 a day. If it's still there September 3rd, $20,000 a day.

 

Do you truly think a majority of Alabamans all across the state are willing to incur these fees to keep the monument there? Do you think a majority are for this?

[Justice 0]

1.  My point is correct.  Deal with it.  Bringing the racial revolution into it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, a majority rule is in effect in this country.

Think of the greater majority here.

 

Alabama taxpayers, all across the state, are paying for Moore's little crusade here. Those daily fines for each day the monument sits in the courthouse are distributed among all the citizenship.

 

The deadline passed two days ago, so it's $5,000 a day until the 27th, when it reaches $10,000 a day. If it's still there September 3rd, $20,000 a day.

 

Do you truly think a majority of Alabamans all across the state are willing to incur these fees to keep the monument there? Do you think a majority are for this?

I do agree with Jobber here. While the decision may not have been the best one, the judge's conduct afterwards was indeed uncalled for. He is a justice of the law, not of himself, and he has a duty to fulfil that, no matter his feelings on the matter. Thankful it looks like he's getting his right now...

[Guest JMA]

There are even Southern Baptists here (in Alabama) who want the thing out. So it isn't Christianity vs. Atheism or anything. I'm really glad Moore has been suspended. Hopefully the monument will be removed before Monday. I say hopefully because if it isn't the fines will start coming.

[Justice 0]

Well, after all this fuss about it I would think they would. Especially if it's going to cost them money. But how many complaints came from before this is what I'm really thinking of...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

But how many complaints came from before this is what I'm really thinking of...

A condensed history of it all is in the complaint report. Here's a copy courtesy of Faux News.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

My only thought is that if they are going to get rid of this, they should probably ban the Pledge of Allegience (or remove the phrase One Nation Under God) , re-do money to take out the words In God We Trust, and they should probably remove all Religious Content from the library of Congress.

[Justice 0]

But how many complaints came from before this is what I'm really thinking of...

A condensed history of it all is in the complaint report. Here's a copy courtesy of Faux News.

So were those complaints from both the ACLU and the Seperation of Church and State Society (Or something like that)? What I'm saying is, how many local people complained before this. This isn't shown in that report really, and I don't think anyone outside of those two groups really had a problem with it.

[Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620]

Sorry, but seperation of church and state, PERIOD. There is no other reason to argue the point.

[Justice 0]

Sorry, but seperation of church and state, PERIOD.  There is no other reason to argue the point.

Again, there's nothing in the Constitution that actually says this. The only thing that suggests this would be a speech by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists years later and that's about it. The Constitution was pretty vague when you really look at it.

[Guest JMA]

My only thought is that if they are going to get rid of this, they should probably ban the Pledge of Allegience (or remove the phrase One Nation Under God) , re-do money to take out the words In God We Trust, and they should probably remove all Religious Content from the library of Congress.

The original Pledge didn't have the phrase "under God" in it. That was added in the fifties, I think, by a Catholic group called the Knights of Columbus. I think it will be taken out eventually. Ditto for money.

[NoCalMike 0]

The Monument is not even the issue here anymore. Have you heard this idiot judge talk? He gives off the vibes that anyone thrown in front of him on a trial would get the automatic, "WWJD" type of judgement, except he would skew his own interpretation of WWJD to his own liking.

 

The monument is just a piece of rock, but it is the Judge's obviously infatuation with fundie chritianity that needs to be kicked out.

[Justice 0]

The Monument is not even the issue here anymore. Have you heard this idiot judge talk? He gives off the vibes that anyone thrown in front of him on a trial would get the automatic, "WWJD" type of judgement, except he would skew his own interpretation of WWJD to his own liking.

 

The monument is just a piece of rock, but it is the Judge's obviously infatuation with fundie chritianity that needs to be kicked out.

Exactly. Well put, Mike.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So were those complaints from both the ACLU and the Seperation of Church and State Society (Or something like that)? What I'm saying is, how many local people complained before this. This isn't shown in that report really, and I don't think anyone outside of those two groups really had a problem with it.

The lawsuit over the plaques by the ACLU were in 1995. They were chucked out over lack of any kind of substantial evidence. There have been lawsuits in the past year or so that are different. Here's a big PDF on the recent one, Moore vs Glassroth

 

And also, some commentary on the monument itself, since we've discussed the religious implications of it all:

 

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions...ssrothMoore.htm

 

Chief Justice Moore unveiled a 5,280-pound granite monument in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, which houses the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Civil Appeals, the state law library, and the Alabama Administrative Office of Courts. This was done without consultation with other justices and after everyone left for the day. The monument was placed alone in the center of the rotunda and anyone entering the building has no choice but to immediately see it.

(...)

It was clear that the purpose of the monument was in no way, shape or form secular. Moore himself made that evident when, at the public unveiling, he stated that it was there to remind people that the moral foundation of American law came from the Judeo-Christian God. Moore also made this purpose clear in trial over the monument:

 

In his trial testimony before this court, the Chief Justice gave more structure to his understanding of the relationship of God and the state, and the role the monument was intended to play in conveying that message. He explained that the Judeo-Christian God reigned over both the church and the state in this country, and that both owed allegiance to that God. ...The Chief Justice also explained at trial how his design and placement of the monument reflected this understanding of the relationship of God and the state. His design concerns were religious rather than secular in that the quotations were placed on the sides of the monument instead of on its top because, in keeping with his religious belief, these statements were the words of man and thus could not be placed on the same plane with the Word of God. Similarly, he rejected the addition, along side the Ten Commandments monument, of a monument containing Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, not for secular reasons but because the speech was not "the revealed law of God."

[Lando Griffin 0]

Is America a Christian nation?

 

Quiz: What do you know about the separation of church and state?

 

Which Ten Commandments should I follow?

[Justice 0]

That quiz is a neat one. I got 17 on it (Damn me for considering creator a reference to religion, because I should have realized it isn't).

 

The Commandment thing is interesting as well, though they are relatively the same even if the Protestant and Hebrew version are a bit more specific with what they say. Basically the Catholics push #1 and #2 together while the Hebrews and Protestants push #9 and #10 together.

 

But my argument is, without the Judge (Which it looks like rightfully most of the heat is aimed at), the monument is harmless. It itself isn't a violation of Church and State. You'd have to have the madman behind it pushing it to be one, but without him it's something that is completely legal.

[cynicalprofit 0]

I have one major question about all of this, how can these people afford to hang out in front of this thing and NOT go to work? I have to bust my ass to get by, I dont have time to hang out in front of some statue. Are all these people on welfare or something?

 

Secondly it should be removed, it shows a bias towards people of faith who believe in the ten commandments, where as people like me, dont believe in those rules. Hence its favortism(sp)

 

Where they going to sue the state of AL

5000$ a day, or just the 1 guy? I could never realyl figure it out when cnn was talking about it.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I have one major question about all of this, how can these people afford to hang out in front of this thing and NOT go to work? I have to bust my ass to get by, I dont have time to hang out in front of some statue. Are all these people on welfare or something?

These people are putting their sense of religion over their sense of country. It's not inconceivable they'd put it over sense of job, too.

 

Although, FWIW, there's some really well-off people over there. You might remember Alan Keyes from his MSNBC show "Alan Keyes is Making Sense" which died a quick death against FNC, although the predictable groups are blaming a vast left-wing conspiracy for pressuring it off the air. Bullshit, as proven how Michael Savage lasted months until falling on his own sword, but anyway...

 

Jerry Falwell is over there, and his organization makes a lot of money. I would be shocked if Pat Robertson wasn't over there too, and he made billions when Saban Entertainment (the Power Rangers people) bought his Family Channel network years ago (that network is now owned by Disney and still runs Robertson's 700 Club program as part of a contract so tight even Disney can't get out of it.)

 

Religious Right = Living large and in charge

[Guest EsotericMaster]

why would there be any other religious monuments in an American court? the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. both houses of congress pray to God before every day's session. the Ten Commandments are posted atop the ceiling in the Supreme Court in Washington. the declaration of independence, mentions God a few times.

 

Amendment I

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

the govt. cannot prohibit this from being displayed in front. as long as it does not interrupt anyone's rights, constitutionally there should be no problem. The govt does not endorse any religion; they speak of God in a secular sense. most religions worship a God. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, witches, etc....... It is too broad a stroke to say "This is Christian, let's get rid of it". if you want to get technical, the Ten Commandments are from the Old Testament, before Christianity even existed.

 

if you want to get into a historical background, I think it was proven that there were slaves in Egypt. who set them free? I am not clear on any new archeological studies on this, maybe someone could explain this?

 

I find it sick that if I have a manger set on my lawn around Christmas time, the ACLU can sue me to take it down. (that happened last year to some people). this is a democracy, majority rules. as long as what you do, or what you say, does not interfere with anyone else’s personal freedoms, there should be no lawsuits.

 

too many judges take it upon themselves to interpret the constitution with their ideologies. Judges should be sworn in every 8 years so we can prevent wacky judges from both sides being able to rule from their own beliefs. imo the constitution is not a "living document", it is written very clearly; let's just follow it as intended by the founding fathers. I also believe that certain rulings from the Supreme Court can be taken to congress and voted on, as a safety procedure. it would clear alot of this crazy stuff up.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

The only way we know that the 10 commandments even exist is through the Bible, a religious text adhering to ONE religion.

WHAT?!? Are you serious?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

the country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs.

*sigh* No. This country was founded on the belief that there is a creator. As for what creator to worship, the founding fathers left that up to the people to decide for their own. Don't forget the ancestors came over here so they could practice whatever religion they wanted to.

 

both houses of congress pray to God before every day's session.

 

But they don't HAVE to.

 

the Ten Commandments are posted atop the ceiling in the Supreme Court in Washington.

 

But they are symbolic. Moore is one of these "What Would Jesus Do?" types that is taking this very literally. In fact, we've talked about how this monument would be largely symbolic if it weren't that he has made it quite clear that he considers the monument a form of worship instead of a form of symbolism.

 

the declaration of independence, mentions God a few times.

 

And as you sort of stated below that quote, just saying "God" in a general context does not explicitly imply THAT God. If I said "Dear Christ in Heaven," then I'm yes that narrows it down to that one God. But to say "Dear God" could mean whatever God I believe in, be it THAT God, or Budha, or Allah, or whatever.

 

the govt. cannot prohibit this from being displayed in front.  as long as it does not interrupt anyone's rights, constitutionally there should be no problem.

 

The problem is not only that pesky first amendment which specifically imples the Judeo-Christian God as the only real God, but also that it's owned and been put there by a guy who's going around the bend on this.

 

He is not simply saying "This is a symbol of justice," he's specifically outlined it as recognition of his faith.

 

I find it sick that if I have a manger set on my lawn around Christmas time, the ACLU can sue me to take it down.

 

Bring me a source on that. I can't believe that could happen if you own the property it's placed on.

 

this is a democracy, majority rules.

 

And again, we've discussed this angle, too. Alabamans from all around are paying for Moore to "acknowledge God." Maybe the majority of those folks don't want to.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

Bring me a source on that. I can't believe that could happen if you own the property it's placed on.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billore...o20021207.shtml

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71990,00.html

 

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publicati...dfs/brf3-20.pdf

 

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtm...98/12/22/113524

 

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/500213.shtml

 

http://www.lc.org/OldResources/nativity.htm

 

parody

 

http://www.tpwmi.com/acluxmas.html

Edited August 23, 2003 by EsotericMaster

[Justice 0]

the Ten Commandments are posted atop the ceiling in the Supreme Court in Washington.

 

But they are symbolic. Moore is one of these "What Would Jesus Do?" types that is taking this very literally. In fact, we've talked about how this monument would be largely symbolic if it weren't that he has made it quite clear that he considers the monument a form of worship instead of a form of symbolism.

But it doesn't matter. We are referring to the monument, not the person. It's not whether the person's actions are wrong, it's whether or not the monument itself is unconstitutional. It doesn't matter what Moore says, it's whether or not the thing itself is okay or not.

 

And again, we've discussed this angle, too. Alabamans from all around are paying for Moore to "acknowledge God." Maybe the majority of those folks don't want to.

 

No, we didn't. The thing itself was not paid for by tax dollars at all. This is stated. They may have objections right now since it is costing them something, but otherwise it didn't seem as though anyone cared outside of three workers (Were they lawyers as well?) there. I highly doubt this was of anyone's concern before this incident.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Bring me a source on that. I can't believe that could happen if you own the property it's placed on.

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billore...o20021207.shtml

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71990,00.html

 

http://www.limitedgovernment.org/publicati...dfs/brf3-20.pdf

 

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtm...98/12/22/113524

 

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/500213.shtml

 

http://www.lc.org/OldResources/nativity.htm

 

parody

 

http://www.tpwmi.com/acluxmas.html

I read about five of those. They all read that you could put a nativity scene on YOUR own property without having to worry about anything. The ACLU only cares about when a state funded nativity is put up. Therefore, no one will sue for for putting up your Christmas decorations.

[Guest EsotericMaster]

yes. as long as you have a secular object along with it.

[Guest Retro Rob]

yes. as long as you have a secular object along with it.

Not if it is on private property. For instance, your front lawn.

[Guest Retro Rob]

From one of the articles you provided...

 

In a privately-sponsored nativity scene, there is no need for secular symbols of Christmas to be displayed within the same context of the religious symbols. A privately-sponsored nativity scene can stand alone, with no display of Santa Claus, a reindeer, a Christmas tree, or other secular symbols.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

links

Well, the first two are written by The Media Whore, so I'm going to have to hope that the others provide less spin than Mr. No-Spin.

 

The next two are about 1998 while the Whore's is dated 2002, but whatever. Limited Government link talks about a "community center" but provides no info as to exactly what it is and whether it's city-controlled or a private enterprise.

 

NewsMax link is all about city displays. The only one that seems odd to me is the Texas one about "The REAL reason for the season," as that sounds tackier than some Santa and reindeer, but little information is provided about the case itself. My assumption is that the nativity was owned by someone and the city gave them the room to display it, so the Atheist wanted equal time for his own display as well. The Fairfax County, VA bit also sounds ridiculous, but since it's only source is word of mouth to the author, there's no way to validate that as fact.

 

My schools have used the phrase "winter break" since as long as I can remember. It was never meant to avoid an ACLU lawsuit, but simply to be nice to the kids who's families don't celebrate Christmas.

 

ukrweekly.com article: It's hard to take the author seriously when he at first complains about public school recitals changing their song list. Appearantly, the removal of these songs are entirely about the ACLU trying to sue people. Not a single one of them is because maybe the school administration decided it would be the best solution to not exclude students of other cultures. There ARE a lot more of those than there were in the 1950s.

 

The article by lc.org pretty much explains it all out to you. If taxpayers are going to afford to buy and put up a nativity scene on public land, there should be equal room for other decorations of general holiday nature. Taxpayers who don't believe in the message that nativity scene sends shoudln't be spending money on that, so to make it easier regular Santa/Reindeer style displays are given as much room.

 

 

 

I mean, really, you're telling me that you wouldn't mind if your local government filled up public land with a celebration of, say, Kwanzaa, and nothing else, and you were partially footing the bill?

[Guest EsotericMaster]

if they wanted to have a kwanzaa display on city property, i would not protest. good for them celebrating their beliefs. that's just healthy for everyone. i am all for everyone to practice his/her religion, without people complaining.