[Bruce H]

Ten Commandments Judge Removed From Bench



By KYLE WINGFIELD, Associated Press Writer

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore was ousted Thursday by a judicial ethics panel for defying a federal judge's order to remove his 2 1/2-ton granite monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse.


The state Court of the Judiciary unanimously imposed the harshest penalty possible after a one-day trial in which Moore said his refusal was a moral and lawful acknowledgment of God. Prosecutors said Moore's defiance, left unchecked, would harm the judicial system.


Moore, whose stand has made him a hero to religious conservatives, had been suspended since August but was allowed to collect his $170,000 annual salary. He was halfway through his elected six-year term.


"I have absolutely no regrets. I have done what I was sworn to do," he declared, drawing applause from dozens of supporters at the courthouse.


"It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty. That's all I've done. I've been found guilty," he said.


Moore said he had consulted with his attorneys and with political and religious leaders and would make an announcement next week which he said "could alter the course of this country." He did not elaborate. He could appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.


If his removal stands, Gov. Bob Riley would appoint a new chief justice to finish the term, which expires in 2006.


The governor issued a statement saying he was "disappointed and concerned that the federal courts continue to attempt to remove references to God and faith from public arenas. All of us must, however, respect the workings of our legal system and trust that it remains the best in the world."


Presiding Judge William Thompson said the nine-member court had no choice in its decision after Moore willfully and publicly ignored the federal court order. "The chief justice placed himself above the law," Thompson said.


A federal judge had ruled the monument was an unconstitutional promotion of religion by the government. A federal appeals court upheld the ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) refused to hear Moore's appeal. The monument eventually was rolled to a storage room on instructions from his eight fellow justices.


"Whether we agree or not with a court's decision, at the end of the day, when the courts resolve controversies, we respect those decisions," said Attorney General Bill Pryor, who prosecuted Moore.


Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the three groups that sued Moore over the monument, said the action of the court and attorney general were courageous.


"They stood up to a popular political figure and said no one is above the law. We intend now to file a complaint with the Alabama State Bar Association asking that Moore be disbarred," Cohen said.


The Judicial Inquiry Commission filed the complaint about Moore's defiance with the Court of the Judiciary, a panel of judges, lawyers and others appointed variously by judges, legal leaders and the governor and lieutenant governor.


On Thursday, Moore said he had no animosity toward the court. But, he said, unless the states stand up, "public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us. In God we trust will be taken from our money and one nation under God from our pledge."


Greg Sealy, head of the Sitting at His Feet Fellowship in Montgomery, an inner-city mission, said it was the "darkest day" he has seen in America since he moved to the United States from Barbados 23 years ago.


"They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore," he said.


The chief justice testified he was fulfilling his duties and promises to voters when he refused to follow the court order and said he did nothing to violate judicial ethics.

"Without God there can be no ethics," Moore, 56, testified.

He had also reiterated his stance that, given another chance to fulfill the court order, he again would refuse to do so. When one panelist, Circuit Judge J. Scott Vowell of Birmingham, asked Moore what he would do with the monument if he were returned to office, the chief justice said he had not decided, but added: "I certainly wouldn't leave it in a closet, shrouded from the public."

In closing arguments, Assistant Attorney General John Gibbs said Moore's public refusal to obey a court order "undercuts the entire workings of the judicial system."

"What message does that send to the public, to other litigants? The message it sends is: If you don't like a court order, you don't have to follow it," he said.

It was as a circuit court judge in the 1990s that Moore became known as the "Ten Commandments Judge," after he was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) for opening court sessions with prayer and for displaying a hand carved Ten Commandments display behind his bench.

He said Wednesday that when he ran for chief justice in 2000, his entire campaign was based on "restoring the moral foundation of law." He added that it took him eight months to personally design the monument, which he helped move into the judicial building in the middle of the night on July 31, 2001.

Jones asked Moore why he didn't just go ahead and move the monument as Thompson ordered.

"It would have violated my conscience, violated my oath of office and violated every rule of law I had sworn to uphold," Moore said.




May he be the first of many activist judges removed from office.

[Scottmkiv]

Somehow, I don't think he minds. I think he is going to use this, and the popularity it gives him, to run for political office.

[Bill Hook]

This is his ticket to the Governor's office, esp. since no one I know from 'Bama cares much for Riley and his attempted tax increase.

[ravinraven]

I tuned into FOX news and heard Judge Moore's lawyer say that the judge swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the USA. He did not swear an oath of fealty to any federal judge.

It appears to me that the atempt is afoot [it always has been] to make the state courts subservient to the fed courts. In our original system of government, the sovereignty of the states meant something. One of the first swats at sovereignty of the states was the amendment that took the choosing of US Senators away from state governments. In late years, the attempt to get state courts to toady to the federal courts is another step down that slippery slope.

Just think how much easier it would be for the anti-liberty crowd to only have to buy off or intimidate one court system at the top in order to have all the state court systems fall like dominoes in a line when comes the day that you have to turn in your guns.

Maybe Judge Moore has something going here.

On the lighter side: Judge Moore DID create a hostile work environment by placing a monument that said "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not lie" where politicians and lawyers would have to look at it each day.

The judge should have stuck to diddling interns. That seems to be acceptable to courts, congress and the loons. And who else is running the country?

ravinraven

[DaveB]

Oh, well. Now maybe they'll have to look for somebody who actually understands the Constitution. I wish them luck.

db

[4v50 Gary]

I wouldn't mind being suspended with salary either.

More seriously though, I was reading one Revolutionary War soldier's diary and religious service and needs of the army was well met during the war. The extent to which the Continental Congress supported religion went beyond the "ceremonial" blessings performed at the opening of today's Congressional sessions. Makes me kinda think how our founding fathers would look at it today.

An alternative solution would be to bring out more stone carvings and collectively called them "art" and as we know, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Had he had an elk (reindeer), vertically challenged individual (dwarf), another weight challenged (fat dude in red suit) and some candy canes, it would have passed muster with the Supremes.

[Wildalaska]

Good for the ethics panel!

WildruleoflawAlaska

[BOBE]

One point is being missed here. Judge Moore does know enough about the constitution to know that Myron Thompson had no constittuional authority to get involved in a state issue.

Bill Prior is is using this to further his political future, (read wants Sen. to reconsider his nomination to a fed. appeals court. Look what a good boy I am.) He will not get my vote next time.

[ojibweindian]

I tuned into FOX news and heard Judge Moore's lawyer say that the judge swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the USA. He did not swear an oath of fealty to any federal judge.

Only partly correct; Moore took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of Alabama.

Moore is pretty much a hero in this state. He may no longer be a judge, but I'm pretty sure that he'll end up our next governor. Many are saying that he could unseat Shelby and become senator. At this point, either is a good possibility.

[ojibweindian]

Bill Prior is is using this to further his political future, (read wants Sen. to reconsider his nomination to a fed. appeals court. Look what a good boy I am.) He will not get my vote next time.

A number of listeners to WVNN's morning show are saying the same thing. Pryor's stint as Attorney General for this state ends after this term. By coming out against Moore, Pryor angered quite a few Republicans in Alabama.

[Phantom Warrior]

I'm disappointed to see many people bashing Pryor for carrying out the order to remove Moore's controversial monument by making it seem like did it to curry favor or gain public recognition. I belive Mr. Pryor is a an honest, deeply principled man. He made the decision to carry out that order, despite the fact that he personally disagreed with it, because he felt that the rule of law must trump personal feelings. As the Attorney General he was obligated to remove that monument after the federal ruling. We are quite willing to criticize liberal activists for ignoring the rule of law whenever they feel like it. Why shouldn't we hold conservatives to the same standard?

For more on William Pryor and his feelings on the issue, check out an interview by World Magazine here (http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/09-13-03/cover_1.asp).

[p35]

First, Roy Moore was working in well-deserved obscurity until a few years ago when he started this "10 Commandments" nonsense in his courtroom. It took him to the Chief Justice job, and this may well take him further. I don't believe he's doing all this out of religious conviction- political ambition is more like it.

Second, didn't Jesus have some pretty harsh things to say about people who made public displays of piety for political advantage? WWJD?

Third, if Alabama could exempt itself from the Federal constitution by arguing state law, they'd still be making blacks ride in the back of the bus and use "colored only" drinking fountains, and denying them the right to vote. This issue was decided once in 1865 and again in 1968. This was never a personal issue with the federal judge, no matter how hard he tried to make it one- he knew before he started this that he was in the wrong, and he couldn't find another judge, from his own court to the Supreme Court, that thought he had a leg to stand on.

This guy is nothing but a demagogue, and I hope we never hear from him again.

[son of a gun]

A judgehttp://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/navigator/chop.gif that defies a court order, if some one defied his court orderhttp://smilies.networkessence.net/s/otn/violent/smileydies.gif

[Standing Wolf]

Speaking strictly as a lifelong atheist: I'm infinitely less worried about religious paraphernalia on public property than the flagrant anti-Christian bigotry of the leftist extremists.

[ravinraven]

I wondered as I heard that US Constitution thing if I had heard it right or they has said it right.

Wouldn't it be a fact that such a judge would support and defend both constitutions?

The big thing in my mind is the relegating of states to subservient positions although, as someone pointed out, segregation would still be the situation if some "subservience" had not reared up.

Well, let's see what happens next.

rr

[ojibweindian]

P35

It is an issue of state's rights and the Constitution. Just as you don't want the feds telling your state what to do an how to do it, neither do we. Or do you? Do you beleive that a federal judge can, or should, dictate to the states what it can and cannot do? Do you think that a ruling by a federal judge should supercede what is stated in a state's consitution?

If so, you're a statist.

Personally, if seccession were brought up again, I'd be all for it, and you and I would most likely be on opposite sides of the battle field.

[ojibweindian]

Another thing, how does the placing of a religious mounument in the State Courthouse constitute an establishment of religion? No one in the state of Alabama was forced to pay hommage, pray, tithe, or pledge allegence to this monument. It was not the focal point of a new religion sponsored by the state.

What it did do was point out the fact that the underlying principles expressed in the Ten Commandments were influential in the writing of the 1901 Alabama Constitution.

Moreover, most of the people in this great state wanted that monument there. And we don't want some dork federal judge telling us we can't have it.

One other interesting thing; now there is a move to have Moore dis-barred. You would figure that these schmoes would have been happy with having the monument removed. Nope, they want Moores figurative head on a platter.

I think that the removal of the monument, the ouster of Moore, and the preliminary move to have him dis-barred is a shining example of federally supported religious persecution.

[BOBE]

I seem to remember some folks getting their panties in a wad because a fed. judge said they could not proceed with some propsitions that the voters passed in California, Where does it stop. The the feds. are supposed to get involved only and when asked by the state.

[DaveB]

We administered a beating to this dead horse at

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37323&perpage=25&highlight=Roy%20Moore&pagenumber=1

Is it necessary to do it again?

db

[MrAcheson]

I don't know about whether this is grandstanding by Moore or not. Frankly I don't know the politics of the situation well enough.

I think the US Constitutional prohibitions on mixing religion and politics (or more accurately the current legal interpretation of those prohibitions) can be applied to the states via the 14th (right #?) amendment. As such saying he's a state judge not a federal judge means nothing. Likewise the US Government has the constitutional right to intercede on civil rights issues like this one as well no matter if its a "state" issue or not.

As an aside I think current interpretations of the freedom of religion clause of the first amendment are bass-ackwards. It was meant to keep the Congress from establishing a state church and the government from regulating religious expression. It was not meant to enforce government sponsored atheism in American public life. The government should not force a religion on people, but it should also allow people to freely express their religious beliefs in public. But instead of trying to work out an effective compromise for this, the courts are enforcing atheism (a religious choice sorry skeptical athiests) which is just as bad as enforcing some type of theism.

[Bill Hook]

didn't Jesus have some pretty harsh things to say about people who made public displays of piety for political advantage?


Matthew 6:1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

[cuchulainn]

In 99.99% of similar cases, I'd say, "Let the monument stay." However, this case is different, and that's Moore's fault -- he is giving the ACLU types a clearcut case of a goverment official crossing the line to "respecting establisment."ojibweindian: Another thing, how does the placing of a religious mounument in the State Courthouse constitute an establishment of religion? It doesn't. Nonetheless, Moore's action was RESPECTING the establishment of religion (which is what the 1A says). Given that Moore explicitly invoked his authority (see long quote below) as a government official to place one religious branch above others, it constituted government action RESPECTING the establishment of religion. The government placing a religious branch above others is a step towards establishing a religion -- thus it is RESPECTING the establishment of religion.

:) by they way.MrAcheson: The government should not force a religion on people Moore -- in this case -- IS the government. :)


***************************

from: http://www.morallaw.org/presentation.htm

Presentation of the Ten Commandments Monument at the Alabama Supreme Court

Speech Delivered by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, August 1, 2001

By the authority vested by the Constitution of the State of Alabama in the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and as the administrative head of the judicial system of the State of Alabama; and

By the authority vested by Alabama Code Section 41-10-275 in the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court as the Authorized Judicial System Representative of the Unified Judicial System of the State of Alabama; and

By the authority vested in the Chief Justice as such Authorized Representative under the lease of the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery, Alabama;

I am pleased to present this monument depicting the moral foundation of law, and hereby authorize it to be placed in the Rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

<snip>

[buzz_knox]

I presume that in keeping with the spirit of the federal order, the US Supreme Court will promptly remove the religious symbols (i.e. the Ten Commandments) from the various locations in which they are found in the Supreme Court building?

[ojibweindian]

Okay then, by barring the display of any religious monument, the federal government is supporting atheism, a humanistic belief system, instead of theism. That's just as bad.

The federal government has no business, then, in lending support to any belief system, regardless of theistic, or atheistic, roots.

[ojibweindian]

I presume that in keeping with the spirit of the federal order, the US Supreme Court will promptly remove the religious symbols (i.e. the Ten Commandments) from the various locations in which they are found in the Supreme Court building?

It would be great if there was some sort of consistency in situations such as this. If the Ten Commandments can be barred from public display in a public building, then so should every other display of a belief system. Also, any promotion of any sort of belief system should be abolished. For example, this means no PSA's concerning Kwaanza, Ramadan, etc.

Also, evolution should not be taught as the "evidence" for evolution is just a specious as the evidence concerning creationism. It is an atheistic way of explaining human origins as much as creationism is a theistic way of doing the same. The explanation of human origins is a part of the humanistic belief system as much as it is a part of a theistic belief system.

To be fair, if one belief system is to be excluded, then all should be excluded.

However, that is not happening. Only Judeo-Christian belief systems are taking it on the chin from the feds.

[Daniel T]

Okay then, by barring the display of any religious monument, the federal government is supporting atheism, a humanistic belief system, instead of theism.

Um, good try, but no. The removal of any and all religious artifacts does not promote atheism in any way. The erection of a monument stating there is no god or gods or deities would promote atheism. This, obviously, has not been done.

[Daniel T]

Only Judeo-Christian belief systems are taking it on the chin from the feds.

You might have a point if there were a monument glorifing Kwanza that was allowed to remain. Did you see one?

Poor Chistians. Even as a majority, you're still persecuted.

[ojibweindian]

Um, good try, but no. The removal of any and all religious artifacts does not promote atheism in any way. The erection of a monument stating there is no god or gods or deities would promote atheism. This, obviously, has not been done.

But the promotion of evolution over creationism in the public schools is a promotion of humanism over theistic belief systems. The feds are supporting the teachings of one belief system over another.

The promoting of alternative lifestyles in the public school system is a promotion of humanism, so is "safe sex" education.

These teachings are a part of humanistic beliefs, and are in direct oppostion to theistic belief systems.

The removal of any theistic monuments in public buildings is an attempt by some to further the promotion of humanistic thought at the expense of theistic beliefs.

[ojibweindian]

You might have a point if there were a monument glorifing Kwanza that was allowed to remain. Did you see one?

Nope, but my daughter has been told by "educators" that safe sex is appropriate. Funny that these same educators never bothered to mention abstenence.

Humanism = good, theism = bad, right?

[azthistletoe]

The evolution vs. creationism debate doesn't hold any water. One is an attempt by science to explain the world we see, and one is an attempt by theology to explain the world we see. I find it appropriate that they teach science in science class and theology in theology class, don't you?

...my daughter has been told by "educators" that safe sex is appropriate. Funny that these same educators never bothered to mention abstenence.

I don't see how this is humanism vs. theism.

[Daniel T]

ojibweindian, first I want to apologize for my snarky comments.

Second, I don't think that we are ever going to reach any common ground. Evolution is not a belief system. It is a theory, because it best fits the data that the human race has available to it. There is no faith involved. If new evidence is found that, when examined via the scientific method, contradicts the theory of evolution, the theory will be modified. So far, no evidence has. To continue to refer to it as a belief system is to totaly misunderstand what a scientific theory is.

[MrAcheson]

The removal of any and all religious artifacts does not promote atheism in any way. The erection of a monument stating there is no god or gods or deities would promote atheism. This, obviously, has not been done.

This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that the people behind the removal of displays and observances are almost always athiests promoting a secular agenda. I don't mean the leftist politicos giving the issue face time, I mean the people who actually file the lawsuits. I have never heard of a Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim complaining about the 10 Commandments in a court building or prayer in schools or filing lawsuits to have them removed. Most theists in the US are becoming capable of compromising and keeping their religious observences generic enough to avoid offending each other. You can teach my kids all about Ramadan and Passover as long as the big two Christian holidays are not about a fat man and a rabbit. Heck you can even teach my kids about athiesm in between religious holidays. I'm fine with that as long as the representation is fair.

Athiesm is not the middle ground between religions, it is in many ways a religion to itself with its own philosophic "atheology". Somehow even as the various religions are working to tolerate each other, the athiests are being intolerant of all of them all at once. Is it that hard to sit by yourself for 15 seconds thinking about whatever you want while other people pray in the morning? Or let me pray quietly to myself at a busstop without proclaiming that I am "forcing my religion" on you?

But that is neither here nor there. Moore was wrong and this thread has gone way off topic. Sorry since it was partly my fault.

[buzz_knox]

It is a theory, because it best fits the data that the human race has available to it. There is no faith involved. If new evidence is found that, when examined via the scientific method, contradicts the theory of evolution, the theory will be modified. So far, no evidence has. To continue to refer to it as a belief system is to totaly misunderstand what a scientific theory is.

Actually, you are incorrect. Most scientists profess that it's a theory, but it taught as uncontrovertible scientific fact. They don't question whether it's true or not anymore. Microevolution is well-established but evidence for macroevolution is actually fairly scarce, as you will never find true transitional forms which would be required to establish macroevolution factually. And yes, I'm well aware of the proposed transitional forms. It is yet to be established adequately, though, that they were not in fact related but separate species. Yuu can't say one came from another except by reference to a perceived timeline, and coming later does not make one a descendent. When faced with this fact, many scientists simply brush it off.

All in all, the "reality of evolution" (as opposed to the theory of evolution) has taken on an identity of its own as essentially a faith.

[ojibweindian]

This whole thing would be a non-issue if the feds completely kept its nose out of belief systems altogether. But it hasn't.

Schools should be about three things; reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Local, state, and federal government should keep its noses out of social engineering and stick to its responsibilities and powers as enumerated in its constitutions and by-laws.

Offering preferential treatment to one group at the expense of other groups is a sure way to create discontent and encourage radical actions, as we have seen time and again.

If Moore's actions serve one purpose, it should illustrate that government has no business whatsoever in promoting or supporting a belief system over another.

[MrAcheson]

Second, I don't think that we are ever going to reach any common ground.

You are probably right... But here goes :D

Evolution is not a belief system. It is a theory, because it best fits the data that the human race has available to it. There is no faith involved.

Sort of. Science itself has an inherently secular belief system. You aren't allowed to conclude that "God did it" because that answer is too vague and not especially meaningful. If God is the creator and sustainer of the universe then "God did it" is the answer to every question. This is why evolution is better science than creationism. One of the big reasons evolution is still around is that there isn't anything else to replace it with except intelligent design (creationism) which is "bad science."

If new evidence is found that, when examined via the scientific method, contradicts the theory of evolution, the theory will be modified. So far, no evidence has.

With all due respected evolution has been modified so much that Darwin would barely recognize it. While natural selection still remains, everything else in Darwin's original theory has been scrapped. We haven't found a system of abiogenesis, or enough fossil record support, and Darwin's system of inheritance was wrong, etc.

Evolution did not pass any of its original falsifiers that Darwin put forth, but its still around because the alternative was not scientifically and philosophically acceptable. When darwinian evolution began failing its falsifiers it simple evolved into something else so those falsifiers didn't matter. They scrapped darwin's system of inheritence for genetics which works pretty well (and produced a falsifier evolution can pass) and introduced punctuated equilibrium to account for lack of specific fossil evidence (but ignored a bunch of other fossil records details that still don't work). Evolution is a pretty poor theory in places (its still an analog theory in a discrete media), but if its all you've got you have to go with it.

[MrAcheson]

This whole thing would be a non-issue if the feds completely kept its nose out of belief systems altogether. But it hasn't.

Unfortunately as soon as you start running schools its hard to keep your nose out of belief systems. Which is why vouchers are a great idea.

[cuchulainn]

ojibweindian: If Moore's actions serve one purpose, it should illustrate that government has no business whatsoever in promoting or supporting a belief system over another. I agree. That's why Moore -- a.k.a. the goverment -- had to be stopped.ojibweindian: This whole thing would be a non-issue if the feds completely kept its nose out of belief systems altogether. But it hasn't. No, it would be a non-issue if Moore -- a.k.a. the government -- had not used his offical powers to promote and support a belief system over another. Moore started it, and blaming the feds is rather like blaming the cops for the arrest of a corrupt fellow officer.ojibweindian: Okay then, by barring the display of any religious monument, the federal government is supporting atheism, a humanistic belief system, instead of theism. No.

I do agree that theism and atheism are competing in our culture. But look at it through this rough analogy: Two rival gangs are in competition for a neighborhood. Gang-1 does something illegal, and the cops stop them. Does stopping Gang-A mean the cops are supporting Gang-B? No. Is there nontheless an unavoidable side-effect of Gang-B's power increasing through the cops' action against Gang-A? Yes (this is what you are observing), but that does not mean the cops should allow illegal activity by Gang-A.MrAcheson: This would be true if it wasn't for the fact that the people behind the removal of displays and observances are almost always athiests promoting a secular agenda. And that's the crux of the confusion over this matter. That is occuring, and is wrong. However, Moore's case is different in that he invoked his authority as a government official to promote a religion -- this is something quite different from your run-of-the-mill anti-religious-icon case.

Moore is purposely obfuscating the issue and using people's correct annoyance as cover. I see it rather like this analogy: Say (for the sake of argument) that the courts are biased against black men. Moore is rather like a truly-guilty black man who plays on his community's disgust about other black men being persecuted in court.

[Daniel T]

buzz_knox:

Actually, you are incorrect.

No, I'm not. "Macroevolution" and "microevolution" are terms that biologists use as shorthand, and have been co-opted by creationists. "Macroevolution" is merely the result of a lot of "microevolution" over a long period of time. There is no difference between the two except scale.

...

ojibweindian:

If Moore's actions serve one purpose, it should illustrate that government has no business whatsoever in promoting or supporting a belief system over another.

Agreed. Now if we can just agree on was constitutes a belief system... :)

...

MrAcheson:

With all due respected evolution has been modified so much that Darwin would barely recognize it.

That's probably why it's properly known as evolution, and not Darwinism. :) When I said "new evidence is found that...contradicts", I meant it. Of course the theory is going to be modified. That's how theories work. Data will be found that contradicts parts of the theory. So, the theory is modified to include that data. That's supposed to happen. Nothing has come to light that disprove the entire theory.

That's about as much time as I'm willing to spend debating evolution. I don't really care much what my fellow gun enthusiasts believe in, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me, which comes back to the whole "10 Commandments in the halls of secular justice" thing.

[Cosmoline]

To me the 10 Commandments themselves are a non-issue. What's more disturbing by far is a federal court of appeals ordering a state court administration to do something to the courthouse or face fines. The CONGRESS is strictly forbidden from ordering legislatures from doing or not doing anything. They can BRIBE, but they cannot come out and order. Why can federal courts do what Congress cannot do?

I was taught that state and federal systems are NOT in a master/servant relationship. On matters of state law the state supreme courts are supreme. On matters of federal law the US Supreme Court is supreme. But when one branch orders another court to do something or face a fine, you've got deep problems with federalism. Could the Alabama Supreme Court order the US Supreme Court to force the alteration of some monument at the local district court building which makes an inappropriate reference banned under state law? I doubt it.

[Cosmoline]

To clarify, I think the Federal courts could freely hold that the 10 Commandments violated the First Amendment, but the second the federal court tries to do anything about it they've crossed the line. It just needs to sit there. Otherwise you've got a federal court kicking around what's supposed to be a sister court, not a lesser court.

[MrAcheson]

Is it a master/servant relationship? Kinda. Sometimes they are separate and don't share jurisdiction, but if the two interoperate the Feds are always the boss. Civil rights issues are one of those things where the Feds have legitimate jurisdiction over the states.

[Cosmoline]

The feds have exercised jurisdiction based on civil rights statutes, but whether it was legitimate is another matter. This case, though, is analogous to a federal court ordering the state justices to hire more dark-skinned law clerks! It's a direct intrusion on the administration of a sister court, and IMHO violates basic principles of federalism.

[ojibweindian]

agree. That's why Moore -- a.k.a. the goverment -- had to be stopped.
And the feds shouldn't be stopped?

No, it would be a non-issue if Moore -- a.k.a. the government -- had not used his offical powers to promote and support a belief system over another. Moore started it, and blaming the feds is rather like blaming the cops for the arrest of a corrupt fellow officer.
Moore didn't start it. The feds did decades ago. Their promotion of a humanistic belief system over theistic belief systems predated the actions by Moore.

I do agree that theism and atheism are competing in our culture. But look at it through this rough analogy: Two rival gangs are in competition for a neighborhood. Gang-1 does something illegal, and the cops stop them. Does stopping Gang-A mean the cops are supporting Gang-B? No. Is there nontheless an unavoidable side-effect of Gang-B's power increasing through the cops' action against Gang-A? Yes (this is what you are observing), but that does not mean the cops should allow illegal activity by Gang-A.
Gang-A, theists, is getting their chops busted while Gang-B, humanists, gets a pass on damn near anything.

And that's the crux of the confusion over this matter. That is occuring, and is wrong. However, Moore's case is different in that he invoked his authority as a government official to promote a religion -- this is something quite different from your run-of-the-mill anti-religious-icon case.
His "promotion" of a "religion" is just as bad as the feds promoting humanistic beliefs. Either the feds apply consistency here, or they should shut the hell up.

[p35]

Okay, I'll say it: I'm a Buddhist. Buddhists (mainstream at least) don't pray. I won't take up space with all the reasons for that here. If you want to pray, that's your business. I do not believe, though, that the government should be allowed to force me or my kids to do something inconsistent with my religion, or to use my tax dollars to promote a religion I don't share.

I also have to point out that there's a unconscious arrogance in claiming that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all morality. 2000 years BC, Buddha was teaching the Five Precepts (for lay people, monks have to follow over 200):

I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech (ie slander, gossip, and lying).
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

I believe there's a similar set of rules in Islam. These are not particularly Christian ideas, in other words; thousands of years of experience have shown that there are positive and negative forms of behavior regardless of the theistic framework you put them in.

[cuchulainn]

ojibweindian: And the feds shouldn't be stopped? Yes, they should be stopped where that applies. However, the feds' wrongs elsewhere don't make Moore right here -- and Moore should not be allowed to use the feds' wrong actions as cover for his own.ojibweindian: Moore didn't start it. The feds did decades ago. Their promotion of a humanistic belief system over theistic belief systems predated the actions by Moore. No, Moore started this action. That the feds do bad stuff does not excuse Moore's being bad too.ojibweindian: Gang-A, theists, is getting their chops busted while Gang-B, humanists, gets a pass on damn near anything. But the answer is not to give Gang-A a pass -- it is to treat both equally by apply the same "separation" standard to both.ojibweindianHis "promotion" of a "religion" is just as bad as the feds promoting humanistic beliefs. Yes it is. But that doesn't mean he should be allowed to get away with it.p35: I also have to point out that there's a unconscious arrogance in claiming that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all morality. 2000 years BC, Buddha was teaching the Five Precepts (for lay people, monks have to follow over 200): Indeed, and American Law is NOT based on Judeo-Christian law -- although the two happen to agree in many cases.

Amercan law, ultimately, is derived from the laws of the pagans.

American law comes from English law, which comes from Roman, Germanic and Celtic laws. All those had the 10C-type bans (no murder, no theft, etc.) long before Judeo-Christian ideas entered Europe.

Moore should have erected a statue of Jupiter if he wanted to be accurate.

[Diamondback]

I am always amazed and more than a little appaled when I hear someone treat the Articles and Amendments of the Federal Constiution like a buffet table: serving up and digesting only those sections of the Constitution that fit their own particular moral and political appetite. For instance the "Brady Bunch" will argue that the Second Amendment applies to only a Federally regulated militia. They maintain there is no inherent right of the ordinary citizen to "bear Arms"........and certainly NOT to possess or own an Assult Weapon ( whatever the hell that is ! ). Likewise there are those who assert that seperation of chruch and state is only allueded to in the First Amendment .........and any way , the founding fathers were essentially Christian so it doesn' apply to our religion.
The Constitution is not a piecemeal document that can be manipulated
and molded to our own personal moral and political beliefs. It's a slippery slope folks! To maintain that a large "rock" bearing the Ten Commandments may reside in the lobby of a courthouse, that a judge sworn to uphold the Federal Constitution may defy a court order becaue of his religious beliefs, that the individal states , their laws and courts, take precedence over Consitutional authorithy opens the door for the frightened and uneducated "Brady crowd" to continue to whittle away at our RTBA ! Where will it stop !

[Glock Glockler]

Interesting, but if we were to strictly follow the constitution like you say we should, what are we to make out of that pesky "Congress shall make no law" bit?

I'm not a big fan of this Judge but I fail to see how Congress is making any law by having that chunk of rock in the building.

[MrAcheson]

P35,

Yeah technically the Code of Hammurabi is the begining of the law and moral codes not the Ten Commandments. On the otherhand I doubt anybody here can repeat the Code from memory. Something about flooding my neighbors fields means he gets to kill me? I dunno.

On the otherhand, Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, wasn't born until somewhere in the 6th to 5th century BC, so how was Buddhism around in 2000 BC(E)? Hinduism and Judaism might be contemporaries, but Buddhism is not.

[ojibweindian]

But the answer is not to give Gang-A a pass -- it is to treat both equally by apply the same "separation" standard to both.
The answer is that neither should get a pass. Unfortunately, humanists get to shout forth their belief system while theistic beliefs get their hatches battened down.

As a result of this unfair treatment, we get Roy Moore. And, I'll wager, it'll get tons worse as more and more people get pissed off.

My actual stance is that there should be no preferential treatment, in any way, shape, or form, of any belief system by all levels of government.

But that won't happen. So, as a result, we get abortion clinic bombings, Roy Moore, religious terrorism, etc.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. As a society, we will get what we asked for...

[jimpeel]

It'd be a hoot if the governor reappointed him to the post. :neener:

[mountainclmbr]

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


Why is the "suspicion" of the first part more important than the iron fisted violation of the second part?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would be very proud. As would be Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, .....too many to mention.

The Liberals are not pro choice...they are pro control.

[Diamondback]

The First Amendment prohibits a state supreme court judge from hauling a rock with the Ten Commandments written on it into the lobby of a state court house just like it prohibits that same judge from hauling that same rock into a Buddist temple. It's not that hard to figure out....unless your "hell bent" on impossing your personal religious beliefs on everyone. And then what comes next "Pilgrim"....burn the Witches ?

[p35]

It's kind of an extension of the old rule that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. No one's telling Rockhead Roy that he can't freely practice his religion. It's when he started forcing others to practice it as well- first making every juror participate in prayers for divine guidance, then turning the public courthouse into a religious display promoting his religion- that he crossed the line. There's just no issue of infringing his right to exercise his religion at all.

[Solinvictus70]

Moore is merely posturing for his own benefit. Good riddance, but he'll be elected to another state office where he can defy the rule of law.

[ojibweindian]

It's kind of an extension of the old rule that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. No one's telling Rockhead Roy that he can't freely practice his religion. It's when he started forcing others to practice it as well- first making every juror participate in prayers for divine guidance, then turning the public courthouse into a religious display promoting his religion- that he crossed the line. There's just no issue of infringing his right to exercise his religion at all.

The government crossed the line when it forced school systems to teach evolution over creationism; neither should have been taught as they both are diametrically opposed versions of the origins of man from two diametrcally opposed belief systems. "Safe sex" and abstenence education falls under this, as well.

This started years ago when the humanistic belief system gained support by the feds. Moore's actions are an understandable response by members of a theistic belief system tired of having their values trampled upon.

I don't think that school prayer, bible study, creationism, et al should be conducted in, or taught in, school systems, but then, neither should evolution, "safe sex" education, alternative lifestyles, et al.

[Solinvictus70]

"The government crossed the line when it forced school systems to teach evolution over creationism; neither should have been taught as they both are diametrically opposed versions of the origins of man from two diametrcally opposed belief systems. "

No, these views are not diametrically opposed at all. The Bible does not say HOW God created the earth and owing to His infinite nature, I would imagine 5 billion years would not matter to him at all and might even be comparable to, I don't know, six days. :D


The difference between the two beliefs is that one is based upon direct observation of current life forms and fossil evidence. The other is a matter of pure faith that is peculiar to one set of religious beliefs. Now, which method of learning is apt to produce results when applied to practical aspects of life? More importantly, as one belief is pure religion, which should be taught in schools?

[ojibweindian]

The difference between the two beliefs is that one is based upon direct observation of current life forms and fossil evidence. The other is a matter of pure faith that is peculiar to one set of religious beliefs. Now, which method of learning is apt to produce results when applied to practical aspects of life? More importantly, as one belief is pure religion, which should be taught in schools?

There are enough inconsistencies in the evidence supporting the theory of evolution to require a certain amount of faith to subscribe to that point of view. For every viable point that can be used to refute creationism, one could counter with an equally point to refute evolution.

[p35]

The evidence for creationism is about as strong as that to support the Hindu belief that the world sprang fully formed from the forehead of the goddess Shiva (or was it Brahma? I have trouble keeping the Hindu deities straight). Anyway, would you support giving equal time to the Hindu creation myth? How about the local Indian's belief that the world was brought into existence by the trickster god Coyote? Once you start teaching supernatural beliefs is science class, where do you stop? I've never heard anyone argue for teaching supernatural creation myths in science class that weren't their own personal religious beliefs- which is exactly why doing so violates the Constitutional prohibition on government promotion of a particular religion.

[ojibweindian]

Anyway, would you support giving equal time to the Hindu creation myth? How about the local Indian's belief that the world was brought into existence by the trickster god Coyote? Once you start teaching supernatural beliefs is science class, where do you stop? I've never heard anyone argue for teaching supernatural creation myths in science class that weren't their own personal religious beliefs- which is exactly why doing so violates the Constitutional prohibition on government promotion of a particular religion.

I think equal time, meaning 0.00, should be given to all of them. School systems should teach biology, not theological or atheological interpretations of the fossil record. I don't think human understanding of the inner workings of creatures big and small would suffer at all.

[Solinvictus70]

So how should the fossil record be interpreted, as Satan's method of deception?

[rock jock]

Matthew 6:1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
Context! Context! Jesus was condemning the practice of the Pharisees, who would go out of their way to make sure everyone knew they were fasting, among other things. He never condemned a a believer making a public profession of his faith. Now, maybe some of you can discern this man's true intentions, but somehow, since I believe only God can see a person's heart, I doubt it. Instead, I think you are reading your own personal bias into his actions.

[azthistletoe]

Evolution is science, sorry. Science in science class. I don't see the problem with this. Science also says that certain things don't happen - like laws of physics being broken. However, you believe God can perform miracles, correct? Miracles that defy the laws of science, correct?

If your belief systems disagree with what science teaches, that's fine and dandy. Science is not the end-all answer to everything. But in science class, teach kids science.

PS: Would you have a problem with there being a monument to Muhammed in Moore's courthouse?

[Bill Hook]

Context! Context! Jesus was condemning the practice of the Pharisees, who would go out of their way to make sure everyone knew they were fasting, among other things. He never condemned a a believer making a public profession of his faith. Now, maybe some of you can discern this man's true intentions, but somehow, since I believe only God can see a person's heart, I doubt it. Instead, I think you are reading your own personal bias into his actions.

Huh?

Many phony "Christians" do the same. The verse I quoted implies that God will be the judge of these, not men. Let those who believe set an example of their beliefs with their deeds and not their words. One wonders why believers must go around making professions of faith, if not to showcase their piety; God know those who are believers already.

Judge Moore should become a missionary in Africa, where he can put his faith to use, not milking this incident for higher office and financial reward. I bet you $5, come next election cycle, Moore will be running for office in AL. Ka-CHING! $$$$$

[ojibweindian]

Evolution is science, sorry. Science in science class. I don't see the problem with this. Science also says that certain things don't happen - like laws of physics being broken. However, you believe God can perform miracles, correct? Miracles that defy the laws of science, correct?

azthistletoe

Something to ponder upon:
http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html#3

Maybe it's not enough to convince you that evolution is faith-based as much as creationism, but it is an interesting read, don't you think?

[ojibweindian]

So how should the fossil record be interpreted, as Satan's method of deception?

Maybe as a hypothesis? That's all evolution really is. There are enough holes in it to not take it seriously as a theory.

[Waitone]

Where is a moderator when you need one.

Judge Moore is a political animal. He cooked up the the monument as a way of stoking support and laying the groundwork for a future run at some elected office.

I have no sympathy for a "Christian" who manipulates beleivers for his own selfish ends.

Shame we can't find people of character willing to run for office.

[azthistletoe]

Most (if not eveyrthing) on that page is incorrect. They even use Jack Chick as a resource. I could link you a few pages to talkorigins, but that's not the point.

We know that stars are far away. We know their light takes billions of years to get here. What this has to do with theology, you tell your kids. Science is not about theology, science is about finding out how things naturally occur. Evolutionary theory is what the scientific body accepts at this time. What you do with that theologically if your choice, but in science teach kids science.

[ojibweindian]

Science is not about theology, science is about finding out how things naturally occur. Evolutionary theory is what the scientific body accepts at this time. What you do with that theologically if your choice, but in science teach kids science.

Yep. At one time, science taught an earth-centric view of the solar system. It also stated that the earth was flat. These were considered as incontrovertable fact. Global warming is now being taught as incontrovertable fact, dispite the lack of a preponderance of evidence to prove or disprove global warning.

My point is simple, if it can't be proven as fact, it shouldn't be taught as fact.

[azthistletoe]

How is evolutionary theory being taught as a "fact"? Wait, what is your definition of fact? Seems like all this is is semantics. Almost everything in science is a theory.

[Wildalaska]

I cant beleive that here in the 21st century, using computers and smashing atoms, that we are actually having a debate on the propriety of the theory of evolution being taught in schools...

WildnowondertheylookdownatusAlaska

[ojibweindian]

I cant beleive that here in the 21st century, using computers and smashing atoms, that we are actually having a debate on the propriety of the theory of evolution being taught in schools...

It is one of the most basic of civil liberties; what beliefs one wants to stuff into the noggins of one's children, without the intrusion of the government.

If evolution were indisputable fact, then I would be all for teaching it, same for creationism. However, because neither are incontrovertable and are both diametrically opposed attempts to explain the origins of existence, neither should be taught as fact, nor do I think that either has any place as part of a primary school's cirriculum.

[azthistletoe]

So should we not teach the stars' light takes millions of years to get here as well? Is that not also diametrically opposed to a young earth?

[ojibweindian]

So should we not teach the stars' light takes millions of years to get here as well? Is that not also diametrically opposed to a young earth?

We should teach what is demonstrable fact.

With this question, are you implying that I advocate the teaching of a creatiionistic viewpoint? I don't. I advocate teaching what is known, not what is supposed.

[Bill Hook]

There goes subatomic theory, as the best anyone has done thus far is show that atoms exist in an easily verifiable way (Scanning-Tunneling microscopy). The rest is predictive, using cloud chambers, charge and mass differences, etc.

[Wildalaska]

Well lets see, get rid of quantum mechanics, relativety, plate techtonics, carbon 15 dating....

Hey the earth is flat!!!

WildteachreligiousbeliefathomeAlaska

[ojibweindian]

Mocking?

Okay. Next time spell relativity correctly.

Now that the fun is over, I do not advocate the teaching of any belief system to children in a primary school setting. That should be done by parents. Primary school should be about the the three R's, not philosophical treatises on relativistic morality, the meaning of life, etc.

The wonderful world of contemplating the why, wherefore, and how of our existence should be done in a post-secondary setting.

[ojibweindian]

There goes subatomic theory, as the best anyone has done thus far is show that atoms exist in an easily verifiable way (Scanning-Tunneling microscopy). The rest is predictive, using cloud chambers, charge and mass differences, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't "Scanning-Tunneling microscopy... cloud chambers, charge and mass differences" produce some objective, quantitative results that are repeatable?

I don't see how one can quantitatively prove, or disprove, either creationism or evolution. Most evidence for either is speculative.

[Bruce H]

In an ideal world we would drop the mans granite monument on his egomanical head. In the United States we will elect him to office where he can do even more damage.

[Bill Hook]

I don't see how one can quantitatively prove, or disprove, either creationism or evolution. Most evidence for either is speculative.

Mutation rates can be calculated, via extrapolation. So it is in subatomic physics, as no one has seen a proton, neutron, or electron, let alone a quark or neutrino.

[ojibweindian]

Mutation rates can be calculated, via extrapolation. So it is in subatomic physics, as no one has seen a proton, neutron, or electron, let alone a quark or neutrino.

Gathering metrics is a great way to explain the behavior of something, but it doesn't explain how something came into being.

[dustind]

Its good that this guy was removed from bench, he ruled based on his religious views not law. That should have been the focus not the statue that was only evidence of his bias.

[rock jock]

Evolution and the age of the earth are two separate issues. The first may be dependent on the second, but the second does not necessarily support the first.