cuchulainn
Member
The neo-nazis are not promoting government action. There's a difference between the neo-nazis who want the government to leave them alone (on guns at least) and Moore who wants to base government action on religion.
The 10 Commandments & Alabama
- Thread starter CMichael
- Start date
- Status
Keith
Member
Personal slurs are a violation of both the letter and spirit of THR. Please refrain from this sort of behavior.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
That's what it says. He hasn't passed a law, and he certainly hasn't established a religion.
He has put up a monument with a religious theme; a very general judaeo-christian theme. He is freely exercising his religious views in accordance with the first amendment.
Now, if the people of Alabama don't like the judge, they are free to fire him and appoint someone else - and maybe the new head-dude-in-charge of the court house wouldn't care to have the monument where it is. That will be up to him, not up to a federal court.
Keith
Mike Irwin
Member
"Personal slurs are a violation of both the letter and spirit of THR. Please refrain from this sort of behavior."
Come again, Keith? Then why question my psychological make up as you did with this quote?
"Then you are very easily frightened! Perhaps you should see someone about that?"
That's a bit hypocritical on your part, don't you think?
Come again, Keith? Then why question my psychological make up as you did with this quote?
"Then you are very easily frightened! Perhaps you should see someone about that?"
That's a bit hypocritical on your part, don't you think?
Mike Irwin
Member
Once again, Keith, the Constitution is no longer the final word in this matter. It hasn't been for over 150 years.
You're attempting to apply strict Constitutional reading when you know that that is impossible given over 150 years of State, Federal, and Supreme Court rulings.
The Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be a static document.
You're attempting to apply strict Constitutional reading when you know that that is impossible given over 150 years of State, Federal, and Supreme Court rulings.
The Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be a static document.
Keith
Member
I can only point out that YOU claimed to be frightened by me. So, I was only responding to a statement you made about yourself.
If you don't want people to comment on your emotional state then you shouldn't volunteer such information...
Keith
Keith
Member
Oh lord! The eternal cry of the liberal: "The constitution is a living document"...
An argument trotted out every time someone wants to defend a new attack on civil liberties.
The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of "Suggestions" that can be overridden, modified or discarded every time some bliss-ninny rallies the rabble with cries of doom!
Keith
Mike Irwin
Member
Tell me this...
If the Founders never intended for the Constitution to be modified, why did they establish a mechanism for just that process?
And why, then, did they establish the Supreme Court as the arbiter of judicial issues (Constitutional law is, by definition, a judicial issue).
Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"I can only point out that YOU claimed to be frightened by me."
Once again, Keith, you fail to quote accurately or comprehend completely. You have a certain and apparently natural felicity for that. I didn't claim to be frightened by you. I said your abilities, or lack thereof, are frightening. There's a big difference.
"Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening."
If the Founders never intended for the Constitution to be modified, why did they establish a mechanism for just that process?
And why, then, did they establish the Supreme Court as the arbiter of judicial issues (Constitutional law is, by definition, a judicial issue).
Article III, Section 1:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
"I can only point out that YOU claimed to be frightened by me."
Once again, Keith, you fail to quote accurately or comprehend completely. You have a certain and apparently natural felicity for that. I didn't claim to be frightened by you. I said your abilities, or lack thereof, are frightening. There's a big difference.
"Your inability to grasp the differences between a courthouse as a functionary of the state (government), and the judge as a functionary of the state, as opposed to a group of people worshiping at a state building, is truly frightening."
bobs1066
Member
Mike, Cuchulainn, DaveB, it's like arguing with a stump that's on fire. Save your breath for other things.
bobs1066
"map est non tractus"
bobs1066
"map est non tractus"
Keith
Member
Yes, I think it's a terrible ruling and clear affront to civil liberties! And if this is typical of this judges rulings, then (if I was a citizen of Alabama) I'd support his removal from office.
But it has nothing at all to do with this monument or the first amendment arguments surrounding it. Even knuckleheads and bigots have civil liberties!
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
Then why are you interpreting the 1st more narrowly than it reads in order to support Moore's violation of the civil right of the people to be free of laws "respecting the establishment of a religion."
You wish to interpret the 1st to read something other than what it reads. You wish to interpret to read something like "shall not officially establish or fund" (based on your previous posts).
There is more to "respecting the establishment" than the actual establishment.
The 1st DOES NOT READ simply "shall not establish."
Keith
Member
You can modify the mechanics of how the government does business.
But you can't dissolve the Bill of Rights with an amendment because civil liberties are not granted by government. Civil liberties are merely recognized as inherent "god-given" rights above and beyond the scope of government.
Personal insults and attacks are a violation of the letter and spirit of THR forum policy. Please refrain from this sort of behavior.
Thank you.
Keith
Keith
Member
I'm not. READ the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law..." I'll cede that this statement would apply to the state congress' and to lesser governmental bodies within the state. But, NOBODY has passed a law!!!!!
" ... respecting an establishment of religion" What religion has been "established"? Baptist, Catholic, Jewish? What religion is "established" by this stone tablet in the court house?
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
Keith,
(edited for clarity)
Then you must support the government's funding of religion.
Using your logic -- separation is not required because it is not mentioned -- is the same as the logic that funding is not barred because it is not mentioned
Funding is not establishment -- "Hey, we're just funding it because we like it, but we aren't establishing it. You all are free to practice your religion as you see fit."
Are you saying that judicial law is exempt from the 1st? He doesn't get to hide behind the fact that his laws are not passed by a legislature? The 14 Amendment expanded the 1st not only to the states but to the other branches (executive and judicial as well as legislative).
READ the 1st in its proper context -- with the 14th.
(edited for clarity)
Then you must support the government's funding of religion.
Using your logic -- separation is not required because it is not mentioned -- is the same as the logic that funding is not barred because it is not mentioned
Funding is not establishment -- "Hey, we're just funding it because we like it, but we aren't establishing it. You all are free to practice your religion as you see fit."
Moore is making laws based on his religious beliefs -- including a law that the courthouse will be used to promote a particular religion. (That the 10C are recognized by three separate religions is beside the fact that he is promoting Christianity).
Are you saying that judicial law is exempt from the 1st? He doesn't get to hide behind the fact that his laws are not passed by a legislature? The 14 Amendment expanded the 1st not only to the states but to the other branches (executive and judicial as well as legislative).
READ the 1st in its proper context -- with the 14th.
Keith
Member
Really? Where did I say that?
Then perhaps you can cite this law? I have misplaced my copy of the Alabama statutes, so I'm relying on you to provide the proper citation.
Not at all. As I stated above when the judge was quoted as ruling against the lesbian on the grounds that her way of life was offensive to god (or whatever he said) - such a ruling is clearly unconstitutional and should be overturned.
But, because a judge makes a poor ruling in one case does not mean that every ruling or decision he has ever made is wrong. It's a silly argument!
Keith
Keith
Member
I don't believe anything I've said would be counter to the 14th.
Yet, even if I had, I'd be right! You can not "amend away" civil liberties expressed in the Bill of Rights.
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
When you said that only establishment is barred by "respecting the establishment." Funding is not establishment. Using your logic, funding is allowed.
I'm taking your logic to its end. If separation is not covered, then funding is not covered.
Edited to add: I'm well aware that you've said funding is not allowed. I'm making a point.
The law is his order that the statue be placed there. When the 1st was expanded to include judges and executives, "law" was expanded to include decisions and orders.
Just because a judge's action is not an official "statute" doesn't mean it is exempted from the 1st/14th.
Indeed. Who made that argument?
My question was to your insistance that I read "congress shall make no law" I was wondering if you were limiting the first to the legislature.
cuchulainn
Member
A government official's attempt to establish a religion by placing a religious icon in a government building is not a civil liberty.
Government officials' official actions are not protected by civil liberties (their priviate acts are protected, but this was not a private act).
:banghead: Keith
Member
That's pretty strained logic. Particularly, since it was funded religion which was the very target of the establshment clause! The issue underlying the clause was the Church of England, and the objections all non-members had to funding this church through various taxes and levies.
I find it difficult to even comment on this. By this logic, his "I Love Jesus" coffee mug is a violation of the first amendment since it is publicly displayed on his desk in his gubmint office.
And of course, this all makes a mockery of the second half of that statement: Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of religion". Doesn't the judge have a right to freely exercise his religion? Isn't the prohibition an infringment of that right?
AGAIN, you can not "intrepret" the first half of the sentence to mean the second half has no meaning! This is the same logic that the bliss-ninnies use when "reasoning" about the 2nd amendment.
Keith
Keith
Member
Establish
Main Entry: es·tab·lish
Pronunciation: is-'ta-blish
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English establissen, from Middle French establiss-, stem of establir, from Latin stabilire, from stabilis stable
Date: 14th century
1 : to institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
hmmm....
Keith
cuchulainn
Member
Oh, I agree that funding is not allowed.
I'm making a point. You insist that we cannot point to "separation of church and state" because it is not mentioned. Yet you point to funding which is not mentioned.
You are being inconsistent. When we interpret, you say "Gee that's just like a liberal not looking at the text and nothing but the text." Then you turn around and add interpretation beyond the plain text.
I'm not making the point as a jab at you. I'm making you undertand that our interpretation is the same as yours.
Funding IS "respecting the establishment."
Joining (failure to separate) IS "respecting the establishemnt
He isn't placing the mug on public display with the intent to tell people that his decisions will be made based on religion. He has done so with the staue. With the statue, he hasn't simply made an decision about what he'll have in his private (yet government provided) office. He has made an order to publicly promote a religion using a government facility.
The mug is not an official action. The placement/defense of the statue is.
Yes the judge has that right. That right does not extend to violating the rights of others by using his official government capacity to promote a religion.
Goverment promotion is not exercise. It is establishment.
The 1st is not limited to the actual establishment. It includes actions "respecting the establishment" -- like funding, promoting or joining.
Intune
Member
Keith, please read these drafts and tell me, if you were a Constitutional scholar or Alabama Supreme Court justice how you would rule on the Moore case.
First, per your example I'll begin with a definition.
Conscience-
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts
DRAFTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1)
Amendments Proposed by Rep. James Madison of Virginia (June 8, 1789)
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Amendments Reported by the House Select Committee (July 28, 1789)
Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
"The freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Amendments Passed by the House of Representatives (Aug. 24, 1789)
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Amendments Passed by Congress (Sept. 25, 1789)
Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Keith, look how the Second changed. If you were the aforementioned Constitutional scholar or judge and someone came to you 100 years ago and said that their religious beliefs exempted them from service in the militia and you KNEW these drafts existed, how would you rule?
First, per your example I'll begin with a definition.
Conscience-
1 a : the sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's own conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good b : a faculty, power, or principle enjoining good acts
DRAFTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS (1)
Amendments Proposed by Rep. James Madison of Virginia (June 8, 1789)
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clause 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
Amendments Reported by the House Select Committee (July 28, 1789)
Art. 1, Sec. 9--Between Par. 2 and 3 insert, "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."
"The freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Amendments Passed by the House of Representatives (Aug. 24, 1789)
ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and the right of the People peaceably to assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Amendments Passed by Congress (Sept. 25, 1789)
Article the third . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article the fourth . . . A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Keith, look how the Second changed. If you were the aforementioned Constitutional scholar or judge and someone came to you 100 years ago and said that their religious beliefs exempted them from service in the militia and you KNEW these drafts existed, how would you rule?
Keith
Member
It's hard to follow your logic on this. If government funds something then they have clearly "established" it. You can't establish an army unless you fund it.
Oddly (or not), I would argue that having a paid "Congressional Chaplain" (or whatever his title is) is counter to the establishment clause since his position is both funded and established by congressional statute.
I fail to see how a rock in an Alabama court house is a violation, while a paid congessional chaplain is not... I'll have to ask a liberal to explain it to me.
You're inserting your own "interpretation" again. The rock in question does not say "Our decisions will be based on the following ten Commandments:..."
And in fact, any ruling citing the ten commandments instead of secular law would be overturned.
The judge can say whatever he wants about god, religion, Jesus, Buddha, Allah.., whatever. He only violates civil liberties when he cites god as the source of a ruling - and in that case the ruling would be unconstitutional, not some rock in the foyer.
Keith
- Status