Skip to comments.Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal
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.
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 ...
Answer me this: If a football coach leads his students in prayer, does that constitute an endorsement by the state of Christianity? This is common sense stuff here (don't expect liberal elitists snobs in black robes to have common sense).
First - the opinions you reference on prayer are about leading others in prayer - not the right of a person to pray. You can't find a single decision that prohibits a citizen from praying.
Wrong. Moore hasn't tried to force his Prostestantism on anyone. He merely posted the 10 commandments. So, go remove decalogue from the Supreme Court forthwith or admit that the ruling is schizoid. There is no avoiding it.
Third - As I have said above, ad nauseum - I agree that those Commandments relating to our conduct toward others are a foundation of moral and civil law. But Nos. 1-4? Are they the foundation of all law? If so, whose God is the one true God? Whose Sabbath must be observed under the law? Is the Catholic view, the Protestant view, or the Jewish view of graven images controlling? What about those citizens who don't subscribe to any of those?
The D of I certainly recognized God's ultimate moral authority - the Christian God. That is clear from thefounders' writings. Commandments 1-4 have to do with man's relationship to God, and 5-10 have to do with man's relationship with other people. Clearly, one cannot enforce 1-4 - these are matters of conscience between a person and God. Therefore, logic and practicality and common sense dictate that our laws must be concerned with the behavior of people as it affects other people. Remember, the purpose of govt is to secure our rights - right to life, liberty, etc. Can you deny that murder is wrong, than stealing is wrong, that lying is wrong, that adultery is wrong? By the way, there were blasphemy laws in our early republic.
But this court went out of its way to make clear that it didn't view that and other cited examples as violating the Constitution. Not that it could have, since this court can hardly overrule the Supreme Court.
What seemed to impress this court about this monument was the "in your face" aspect of it. The bigger and more blatant the endorsement of religion (as well as the newness of it), the more likely it's going to be found in violation of the establishment clause.
That seems like a fairly common sense standard to apply, which is why I disagreed with you on that particular point.
Again, who are you kidding? There have been other rulings pulling down 10 commandments (Kentucky for example). Are you going to assert that anywhere the 10 commandments are posted it is related to the attempted establishment of a state religion? Let's not obfuscate the intent of these judges - they are looking for an excuse to stamp God out the public square anywhere they find it.
It is a wonder that you are so quick to criticize a decision you clearly know little about.
Ever heard of a blue law?
Look, rant and rave all you want about a decision you haven't read and don't understand. It is useless to debate it if all you do is make general statements that do not reflect what these judges did.
Finally, one thing should be clear. A bunch of people here continually reference the Declaration of Independence. I love the Declaration of Independence. But it is NOT THE LAW.
If you would bother to read the case, this court addressed that very question.
Anyone who knows the true history of our nation (and hasn't been indoctrinated in liberal lying revisionist history - you know the govt. school version that says our founders were deists and that our nation is not founded on Christian moral principles), knows that the Constitution was written to secure the rights declared in the Decl. of Independence. One is a declaration of moral principle, the other is the legal instrument that secures those rights.
That'd be section V. If one bothers to read the case, that is. It's towards the end, so it may be a struggle to reach that point.
Yep, that makes a lot of sense.
I'm sure you'd be surprised to know that these three judges are all good Christian Southern men. But you'll probably just say it ain't true 'cause they're godless and then call them some names.
Why not just read what they ruled before you go off on them?
Let me ask you a question. When you were a Marine, weren't you required to obey orders? And were you allowed to decide for yourself whether those orders were consistent with the Marine code of conduct, the Constitution, or anything else? Or did you just have to follow them, as your duty?
Think about that, read the opinion, and get back to us.
Either that, or we could amend it to read
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except for the one (insert name of poster) personally prefers, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
10 X 0 = 0. If there's no constitutional violation in the expression of a particular belief, then expressing it louder isn't going to create a violation. The court is simply making up the law as it goes, not applying it impartially. It's the typical pattern with activist judges. There's no rhyme or reason to the way they rule; they just find one or two aspects of the case before them that they can latch onto, and then pretend that they've discovered a legal principle. Except it's missing the most important ingredient - PRINCIPLE!
In all their pseudolegalistic attempts at justification, one simple fact stands out: Nobody's rights were being violated. Now they may have imagined that their rights might be violated as a result of this particular expression, but until they can show that they actually are being violated, they don't have a legitimate case.
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.