Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal
Washington Post ^ | July 1, 2003 | Associated Press

Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian

ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

[snip]

Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.

[click link to read remainder of article]

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; roymoore; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 601-630 next last
To: TheCrusader
The Ten Commandments are every bit as much a part of the Christian religion as the Jewish religion. The Ten Commandments are taught in every Sunday School and Catholic CCD class in America.

///////////
The poster simply chose to focus on the (just slightly) Jewish origin of the Decalogue.
301 posted on 07/01/2003 9:50:09 PM PDT by BenR2 ((John 3:16: Still True Today.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MatthewViti
Beautiful graphic.
302 posted on 07/01/2003 9:50:38 PM PDT by sweetliberty ("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
but the decision was based on impartiality toward the establishment of religion by governmental authorities.

No, it's based on hatred toward religion.

303 posted on 07/01/2003 9:53:45 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
it is :]
304 posted on 07/01/2003 9:54:23 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I can envision the year 2400 when Islam or Gaia or some other religion has gained predominance in America. This ruling would protect me and uphold the Constitution.

Islam had nothing to do with the founding of this country. Gaia (do you mean earth worship?) isn't a religion, unless anything anyone believes in (tooth fairy, santa claus) is a religion.

305 posted on 07/01/2003 9:55:52 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: freeangel; pram
I believe you are right about those rules which govern our relationship with others; It is the first three or four that could present a problem (how they are numbered is not universally agreed): I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other God before me - remember, this was Yahweh speaking. No making of graven images? Well, Buddhism at least would seem to be in violation of this one, and I'm sure other faiths as well. Keeping the Sabbath Holy? (Again, the reference here was to the Jewish Sabbath - the change to the Christian Sabbath is too complicated to address here). These Commandments are at least co-equal with those prohibiting murder, theft, etc. - And those who practice faiths other than Judaism or Christianity are in violation of them.

Pram, I appreciate your Supreme Being view, and I don't know enough about Hinduism to know how well the position that Yahweh = Krishna will stand up. But it is not really any secret how most Christians would answer that question.

306 posted on 07/01/2003 9:58:07 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: MatthewViti
Your point?
307 posted on 07/01/2003 9:58:54 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
You make a great point. People in the majority now, don't want constitutional protections for religious minorities, because it doesn't affect them, right now, since their ox isn't being gored.

Straw man argument. I am a member of a religious minority and I welcome display of the 10 Commandments. It is an historical document, intrinsic to the fouding of this country, and I am not offended in the least by it. You're dragging in Popes, and Baptists, and what not. This is silly and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

308 posted on 07/01/2003 9:59:50 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: pram
"No, it's based on hatred toward religion."

What is your basis for this statement? Did you not see that the Court relied, in part, on Judge Moore's refusal to give "equal time" to other religious sources?

309 posted on 07/01/2003 10:00:34 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: SkooldBiDaStayt
Only 2 of them acknowledge Yaweh as the only God.

Not necessarily. I consider "Yaweh" to be one of the many names of the one Supreme Being. Even in the Bible God is given many names.

310 posted on 07/01/2003 10:02:25 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: pram
I acknowledged your view on this. What about my other questions?
311 posted on 07/01/2003 10:03:41 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: pram
Do not Hindus worship to idols or statutes of Hindu deities?
312 posted on 07/01/2003 10:06:15 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Do you people really believe that the Constitution endorses a theocracy?

Words mean things. Yesterday (or was it the day before? It's so exciting at FR!) someone posted the exact meaning of theocracy. Essentially it means rule by unelected CLERICS, PRIESTS or other offical religous dudes. It does NOT mean that judges or elected officials cannot be informed by religion.

313 posted on 07/01/2003 10:10:40 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: pram
Sorry - I guess I should have said Yahweh = Brahman. Showing my lack of knowledge of your faith.

With regard to the question of theocracy, have you read Judge Moore's testimony? He is not talking merely about being "informed" by religion. He is talking about exalting Christianity above other faiths and relying on it as the basis for law.

Since words mean things, will you answer my question about graven images in your faith?

314 posted on 07/01/2003 10:14:21 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
What I addressed was prohibiting the government from promoting the exercise of a specific religion.

The government is not prohibited from promoting religion, specific or not. It is prohibited from establishing a state religion, entirely different.

315 posted on 07/01/2003 10:14:23 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: pram
I see that it is your opinion that the government is not prohibited from promoting a specific religion to the exclusion of others. That view is contrary to the entirety of Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Do you really believe that a state can favor one religion over others under the U.S. Constitution?
316 posted on 07/01/2003 10:16:42 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
However, we have a slight problem because for my entire adult life the government has been promoting secular humanism to the exclusion of religion. What now?

In a sense, there are only two religions. One is the worship of God, the Transcendent Supreme Being, who is worshipped variously by all monotheists.

The other "religion" is the worship of His creation out of lust and envy, with the desire to usurp His position as owner and creator. Secular humanism is one way to describe the second religion.

317 posted on 07/01/2003 10:19:22 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
they would celebrate you choice of "diversity"
318 posted on 07/01/2003 10:31:28 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12; Kevin Curry

There is only one moral Law. You would find that Hindus are as repelled and disgusted by the cruel evil of homosexual sodomy as any Christian is.

319 posted on 07/01/2003 10:36:03 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Tell me, is there any difference in your faith between homosexuality and any other form of non-procreative sex? Do you believe that the government should be involved in prohibiting all non-procreative sex?

In the Manu Samhita, the original law book of the Vedas, (the "Hindu" scriptures), homosexuality is severely condemned - I believe the traditional punishment was death. Adultery was also condemned but not as severely. I don't suspect that many traditional Hindus expect the Manu Samhita to be enacted as law at this point in time!

But my beliefs - as well as universal morality - convince me that homosexual behavior should be against the law - not that cops should knock down doors (not a reference to the recent decision, that was a setup), but it should not be tolerated in public, promoted, be taught in schools, or given special consideration. It should go back to the closet.

320 posted on 07/01/2003 10:38:13 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: pram
Looks like you are slowly catching up. I've posted a number of questions for you. Gonna take a break and check back with you.
321 posted on 07/01/2003 10:39:03 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
lugsoul. What a name. Sick and weighted dead at the soul.

Your lord has named you well.

322 posted on 07/01/2003 10:40:01 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Mr. Curry, you are truly a class act. Got anything more?
323 posted on 07/01/2003 10:43:15 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul

You speak from ignorance. A Hindu who worships God with form does not view the clay idol as a god. Rather, he or she projects their immanent divinity onto the clay sculpture in order to worship God.

324 posted on 07/01/2003 10:46:43 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other God before me - remember, this was Yahweh speaking. No making of graven images? Well, Buddhism at least would seem to be in violation of this one, and I'm sure other faiths as well. Keeping the Sabbath Holy? (Again, the reference here was to the Jewish Sabbath - the change to the Christian Sabbath is too complicated to address here).

This is how I would interperet those commandments, in terms of my religous understanding:

I am the Lord your God. That is the Supreme Godhead speaking, known at that time by those people as Yaweh. He is/was known by other names at other times by other people. No contradiction.

You shall have no other God - don't worship mundane people (see graven images below), communism, tooth fairies, etc.

Graven images - that would mean don't worship idols - idol meaning that which is not God. Don't worship Britney Spears, a sports team, your TV, pornography, or money.

Sabbath holy? In the Hindu religion, there is a holy day that comes twice a month, for fasting and extra prayer and meditation. That fits.

325 posted on 07/01/2003 10:47:25 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Do you not believe that the Ten Commandments prohibit worship to an idol of God?
326 posted on 07/01/2003 10:49:38 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Did you not see that the Court relied, in part, on Judge Moore's refusal to give "equal time" to other religious sources?

I still don't see a problem. Why should someone - even a judge - be forced to acclaim viewpoints that aren't his? But that's only part of it. The 10 Commandments are historical and the founders of this country were tremendously influenced by them, and considered them actually necessary and basic to the functioning of the country.

327 posted on 07/01/2003 10:50:37 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The worship of an idol as proscibed by the 10 Commandments relates to those cruel religions which dotted the region thousands of years ago. Hinduism is not a pagan religion in my book, but is a highly advanced and valid religion. There are Protestants who wrongly charge that Catholics worship idols, too.
328 posted on 07/01/2003 10:53:25 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Do not Hindus worship to idols or statutes of Hindu deities?

I address that above - idols doesn't mean a statue or painting religious in nature. Look at icons of Jesus, Mother Mary and other saints in Orthodox Christianity. I've been in Catholic churches with statues of Jesus, Mary and saints which were revered. Idols mean statues or forms of something that isn't holy or spiritual.

(when I walk around at night and see the blue flickering light from all the houses, I joke about people worshipping at the blue altar! Now that is idolatry!)

329 posted on 07/01/2003 10:54:30 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: pram
I appreciate your view of those Commandments. I assure you, however, that your interpretation is not the dominant view of those Commandments in either the Jewish or Christian faiths from which they are derived. Nor are those views compatible with the religious views of those Commandments expressed by Judge Moore.

In the dominant view in Christianity, neither Buddha nor Yahweh nor Allah is God. And unless one's faith accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and accepts his teachings, one is not in compliance with these Commandments. And you don't get to pick and choose your Sabbath - it was chosen by God.

As I said, I appreciate your view. In Judge Moore's world, the judicial system of the State of Alabama does not.

I also asked whether you believe that, under the U.S. Constitution, a state can favor one religion over others. That is exactly what Moore claimed to do.

330 posted on 07/01/2003 10:56:00 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
And why is that charge wrong? Do the Jews, in whose faith these Commandments were issued, view the use of idols of God in worship as proper?
331 posted on 07/01/2003 10:57:55 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I also asked whether you believe that, under the U.S. Constitution, a state can favor one religion over others.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Doesn't say anything about what any of the states may do...

332 posted on 07/01/2003 10:59:19 PM PDT by Kryptonite (Free Miguel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: pram
It is not the proclamation of the Judge's views that is at issue. It is the proclamation of the state's views, with the Judge deciding which views are the state's, and which are not.
333 posted on 07/01/2003 10:59:33 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Do you really believe that a state can favor one religion over others under the U.S. Constitution?\

Promoting and excluding are two different things. One religion (Christianity in this case, especially since it is the principle religion of this country and the founders were mostly at least nominal Christians) can be promoted - or helped - without necessarily prohibiting other religions. If that happens, Hindus will be some of the first to be discriminated against, since unfortunately so many people who consider themselves Christians do not have the charitable or broadminded views I ascribe to.

At this point, I am a lot more concerned about bias against religion in general, using the false "seperation" argument than I am about Christianity becoming a state mandated religion.

334 posted on 07/01/2003 11:00:29 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The charge is wrong simply because Catholics do not worship statues. You are free to ask a priest if you do not believe me.
335 posted on 07/01/2003 11:00:44 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: pram

Well said. Moral-liberalism is a religion in itself, much as atheism is.

336 posted on 07/01/2003 11:01:43 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
It is not the proclamation of the Judge's views that is at issue. It is the proclamation of the state's views, with the Judge deciding which views are the state's, and which are not.

You mean, like the SCOTUS deciding that the US Federal view prohibits criminalizing sodomy, or permits racial discrimination in pursuit of diversity?

337 posted on 07/01/2003 11:03:45 PM PDT by Kryptonite (Free Miguel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
You speak from ignorance. A Hindu who worships God with form does not view the clay idol as a god. Rather, he or she projects their immanent divinity onto the clay sculpture in order to worship God.\

Not exactly right - more like this: Since everything is God's energy, a statue or painting depicting Him is not seperate from Him, and for a fully surrendered soul, they see Him in that form. It's not that they project by their own mind. God becomes that form. Kind of like the Orthodox view of icons, as far as I know.

338 posted on 07/01/2003 11:04:24 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
Kyptonite, that is an old argument that has been dispensed with by an entire body of constitutional jurisprudence. Simply stated, the admonitions of the 14th Amendment are incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states - that is, the Bill of Rights establishes some parameters of "liberty," and no state may deprive a citizen of that liberty.

Under your argument, a number of other things would also be permissible. For example, a state could pass laws limiting free speech. A state could establish a state religion. A state could restrict freedom of the press. Under the text of the First Amendment, only Congress is prohibited from doing such things. Do you think that state governments are allowed, for example, to criminalize open criticism of the state government? If your interpretation were correct, there would be no bar to a state doing so.

339 posted on 07/01/2003 11:04:53 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: pram
The Court stated as plainly as can be stated that, if the Judge had chosen to honor religious sources of law other than those which promote his own views, the display would be permissible. Why is this an attack on religion? Clearly, if the Judge had placed a monument to many different sources of religious law, it would be permissible under the Constitution.
340 posted on 07/01/2003 11:08:20 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite
I must have missed something when I read those opinions. Where did the Court rely on the views of one particular religion in reaching those decisions?
341 posted on 07/01/2003 11:09:39 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
In the dominant view in Christianity, neither Buddha nor Yahweh nor Allah is God.

Even if my understanding of the 10 Commandments may not be accepted by all, I still don't have a problem. And I think a lot of Christians might be more open minded - maybe not the judge himself. But I'd rather have a Christian who doesn't "believe" exactly the way I do but still accepts a basic moral code of behavior on the bench that the 6 moral relativists who just screwed us all the sodomy decision.

342 posted on 07/01/2003 11:09:52 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: pram
who screwed us all WITH the etc.

(note to self - proofread better)
343 posted on 07/01/2003 11:12:18 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
I've had those discussions, as I am married to a Catholic. I've heard lots of justifications for it. But not making any graven images of anything in heaven does not seem to allow for such interpretive leeway.
344 posted on 07/01/2003 11:15:11 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
The Court stated as plainly as can be stated that, if the Judge had chosen to honor religious sources of law other than those which promote his own views, the display would be permissible. Why is this an attack on religion? Clearly, if the Judge had placed a monument to many different sources of religious law, it would be permissible under the Constitution.

If the judge were to include every source of religious law, the display would probably take up the entire inside space of the building. But I don't see any problem with other sources, if someone puts them up. Then if Moore takes them down, that would be another matter. Isn't there some area between prohibited and mandatory?

345 posted on 07/01/2003 11:18:01 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: pram
Also, on the Sabbath - this is the Hebrew version of that Commandment:

4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honour of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

That doesn't seem to allow for honoring it every two weeks. And, as I said, this Commandment is at least co-equal with the others. If this were the law (as it has been recently in many places - including my childhood home in Alabama), keeping the Hindu sabbath only would be against the law.

As I said, I appreciate and understand your view of the Commandments. Many who want Christianity to be the basis for our civil law do not.

346 posted on 07/01/2003 11:20:37 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
What is your basis for this statement? Did you not see that the Court relied, in part, on Judge Moore's refusal to give "equal time" to other religious sources?

I'm basing it on the myriad attacks on religion in the courts all over the country - from religious displays on public property, to the wearing of religious symbols, relgious books verboten, prayers forbidden, etc. And most important, tradition morality based on universal religious principles scuttled.

(you're right - I'm catching up. Live near the Pacific.)

347 posted on 07/01/2003 11:21:47 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: pram
I'm not talking about every. This Judge refused ANY others, stating plainly that no others were on a par with his own sacred laws. That is why it was violative of the Constitution. In the very same opinion, the Court explained why other images honoring the Ten Commandments as a source of law are not a constitutional problem.
348 posted on 07/01/2003 11:22:32 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Sorry - I guess I should have said Yahweh = Brahman. Showing my lack of knowledge of your faith. \

In the Vedas there are many names for the Supreme - Brahman being more a descriptive term, meaning more or less "unlimited Supreme".

349 posted on 07/01/2003 11:23:24 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Advocating violence, are you?

Advocating violence isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the colonists hadn't advocated violence against British rule, there would be no United States today.

350 posted on 07/01/2003 11:24:13 PM PDT by judgeandjury (The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 601-630 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson