Panel Rules Justice Moore Failed to Respect & Comply with Law; Judge removed from Supreme Court

If he is now saying it's about decorations, he's gutless.

He never said that before, he stuck by his principles, and he took the consequences. If he's recanting, then it's really been a total waste of time and an awful lot of money (at least $1 million spent by Alabama taxpayers on this so far).

His point all along has been his insistence that it's a matter of free speech. He has specifically said that "he" must acknowledge God. He does have to acknowledge that God is acknowledged in the Alabama constitution.

Paraphrase: He must ADMIT that God is ADMITTED TO in the Alabama Constitution.

He chooses to ADMIT it in many ways, no doubt, to include using his prerogatives as chief justice in the decorating choices for the court building.

It's just a piece of rock art admitting an invisible God and it has God-words written on it.

It admits to God, just the same as the Alabama constitution.

I agree with your comment.

Recently the head of the American Bar Industry ("ABA") was on C-SPAM and told of the efforts of the ABI in helping emerging governments write their Constitutions.

I thought great, just great, then Mc Donalds (and many others) can be sued for serving "too hot" coffee!

I think the idea of RE Lee being their center escaped everyone initially. I might be convinced that Lincoln figured it out after the Wilderness.

It is clear that Lincoln figured it out early on. He fired McClellan for not going after Lee's Army after Antietam (he let them get away). He told McClellan over and over "the enemy is there" and to go after The ARmy of No. Va, but McClellan had the "slows"; and Lincoln was highly ticked at Meade for not pursuing Lee after Gettysburg. Also, Burnside made a hopeless attack at Fredericksburg because Lincoln was looking over his shoulder; and Hooker's aim at Chancellorsville was to destroy Lee's Army but he lost his nerve and was clobbered.

The construct of the words, “an establishment of religion,” and the alternatives that were offered in the tortuous debate over those words make the 1st Amendment’s intent clear. Contributing to this well-recorded history of what was intended by the 1st Amendment is the wealth of information regarding its principle architects, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. See Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance or Virginia’s 1785 Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia for an in-depth understanding of just how clear our Founding Fathers were in the intent of the 1st Amendment. And, of course, you can also reread Jefferson’s famous “Danbury letter” in which he used the phrase, “a wall of separation between church and state.” (Roger Williams had beat him by nearly 100 years in developing that phrase, but both men came to their mutual conclusion after experiencing the sadness of American religious persecution).

Well, what a long-winded diatribe you present here. It's full of errors. I will just address the errors I have noticed at first glance and leave the rest to posterity. ;)

First, the letter to the Danbury Baptists is a pathetic piece of evidence for you, since that letter supports my position on religious freedom. Jefferson used that phrase in the context that the Baptists would be protected from a tyrannical government, not vice versa. So, let's be clear - you and your secular-humanist pals have twisted Jefferson's intent in that letter. It's clear that the founders wanted to PROTECT THE CHURCH from the state - the church is people and people need protection; whereas the State is a nonentity and needs no protection. Get it? Why don't you just post the entire letter here so that we can all see that I am right! All you have done is taken one phrase (out of context!) from one letter and you build an entire doctrine on it beginning in 1947! Where was this doctrine prior to 1947 – I don’t see it. I see just the opposite. I see Congress granting money for missionary trips, I see Jefferson attending church in the chambers of Congress, I see a slew of founding fathers giving credit to GOD for the victory in the Revolutionary War and declaring a national day of Thanksgiving around the same time that the 1st amendment was being ratified, I see the founders declaring over and over that morality comes only from RELIGION, and without morality (virtue), the system WILL FALL APART. And that is precisely what is happening thanks to miseducated people like you. You have been handed a line of crapola and you bought it hook, line and sinker because that is what you wanted to hear, because that is consistent with your worldview. Like worldviews flock together like birds of a feather. But Truth is truth, and truth exists independent of worldview.

Furthermore, the "wall of separation of church and state" does not appear even one time in the Congressional debates on the 1st amendment from Sep. to Nov. 1789 - not once! The records are all available - look for yourself.

Finally, Jefferson was not an "architect" of the 1st amendment - he was in France during this time. He wasn't here and did not participate in the debates.

But a thoroughly debated, carefully expressed and obviously intended 1st Amendment was OK with the states… because they did not intend that Amendment to apply to their own state laws!

Alabama’s Constitution which gives acknowledgement to God is absolutely in line with the Declaration of Independence which also acknowledges God and states that basic rights come from a Creator. (by the way, the Constitution was written to “secure” those rights!). Perhaps you would like to declare the Decl of Indep. Unconstituitional? Roy Moore was merely honoring HIS OATH to that Constitution. Why has the Alabama Const. not been declared illegal? What law did Moore break? All he did was acknowledge God - he didn't declare a State religion (which he cannot do anyway – only liberal judges try to usurp authority for themselves not given by the Constitution). Cite the law he broke.

The 1st Amendment was clearly intended to prevent the establishment of a national denomination or church. Virginia had established a State church (Episcopal) around 1660 which had to be repealed, an effort that was led by P. Henry and others. The 1st amendment was not intended to suppress anyone’s religious expression or acknowledgement of God – that’s why there is also the free exercise clause. That’s why this phoney doctrine didn’t even appear until 1947’s Everson ruling. I don’t know what records you are reading, but it must be records that are in your own mind.

Religious activity is not equal to establishment of a religion. However, suppressing religious activity is a violation of the 1st amendment (e.g. stopping prayer at school graduations with the threat of 6 months in jail if the name Jesus is mentioned – that’s TYRANNY). A judge does not equal Congress, and a decalog does not equal making a law.

Moore didn’t break any law except the UNLAWFUL ruling of a bad judge. His ruling was unlawful because it was contrary to the organic law which itself acknowledges God. Judges are not supreme, the RULE OF LAW is supreme and the rule of law is clear – God is acknowledged in the Decl. of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Deal with it.

exmarine said: each person is a moral agent who can agree or disagree with the culture-at-large and make moral decisions against the cultural norms, so each person is his own culture because each person has a set of morals that may not agree with the politically correct
Modernman said: If you say so, but people who stray too far from society's rules get punished until they modify their behavior. You don't have to believe society's rules, but you do have to follow them.

Don't you see...individuals make their own moral decisions - cultures don't! Each person decides his or her own beliefs, so it is utterly illogical to say that cultures decide by force. All cultures can do is force someone to SAY that they are toeing the politically correct line, but a culture DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to make anyone believe ANYTHING. Therefore, your cultural system falls apart under the logic of individual belief. Individuals hold individual moral beliefs and many times such codes are CONTRARY to the culture they live in. You can't explain that in your system without chucking your system. Need examples? Thus, your system is refuted quite easily as it does not account for personal moral belief. No government can dictate to any persons conscience by force. People believe what they want...period.

Where does that sense of ought come from that you have? The culture? Every person is a moral agent who makes moral decisions. You make moral decisions every day (will I or will I not run that red light?) - and the culture has nothing to do with it - you decide.

exmarine said: You are a moral relativist by your own testimony.

Modernman replied: Sure, but I believe that my moral system is the correct one. Nobody has been able to convince me otherwise.

Can't be the correct one. That is making a universal observation about a system of morality that is not universal (it's cultural - remember?) This is a contradictory statement. You cannot say your GROUPTHINK system (your system is nothing more than Orwellian GROUPTHINK) is correct as that implies that it is universally true. In your system, you cannot logically make any universal statements about the nature of morality without self-refutation. You cannot say that cultures decide what is right and wrong as that is also a universal statement.

Furthermore, which culture within our culture is correct? There are many cultures within America - Christian, secular-humanist, feminist, earth worshippers, animal worshippers - which culture is correct within our culture? There is no such thing as a monolithic homogenous moral culture. Isn't it the one YOU agree with? All you can do is make observations if there is no universal moral standard - you cannot make any universal conclusions about morality without contradicting yourself. If we take another country by force, we can impose our legal system, but not our morals - you can't force people to believe anything. You can make the observation that one country defeated another, or you can observe that a certain culture has a certain general belief, but you cannot logically make any conclusions about morality based on force, and you cannot conclude that morality is cultural. The observations do not provide that information. You have made a philosophical leap not based on observable evidence. Personal belief is hidden from cultural scrutiny and cannot be enforced. Actually, logic proves my system and disproves yours, as does human experience, human intuition, and human practice. All of these militate against moral relativism. Moral relativism is indefensible.

Keep talking and I'll keep dismantling your pathetic system.

Bottom line: You have confused observation of moral behavior with the natura of morality. You cannot logically make conclusions about the nature of morality from the behavior of people. Observation and moral truth are two different things. Just because a person or group of people is behaving in a certain manner does not mean that this behavior is what they OUGHT to be doing. That is obvious. Morality has to do with OUGHT. You have a sense of OUGHT. Before you take ANY moral action, you first think about what you OUGHT to do. Even you must do that and you cannot deny it. Observation of behavior does not equate to truths about the nature of morality. But you have made some selected observations and jumped to invalid conclusions about the nature of morality based on those observations. Can't do it because you are erecting a universal moral standard - and there can't be any universals in your system.

Marquis De Sade said: "What is is right." He said that because he knew he could not make any universal claims about moral truth if no standards existed. If no standards exist, then what is is right. Period. That means that Osama is right, Hitler was right, Jeffrey Dahmer was right, and if I steal your stereo and kick you in the knee, I am right as well. :) YOu can't win this argument.