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 ...
Go Chief Justice Moore! Where can we donate to his legal fund? He'll need it. Bail?
What do you mean, "whatever"?
The Ten Commandments is ordered removed by judicial fiat--not because of, but despite the First Amendment as it was designed.
Suppose it were replaced with a statue of two (fully dressed, for the sake of nominal modesty) men or two women, hands on chest or breast and thigh, engaged in a passionate kiss. Simply name the piece of excrement "The Gay Dawn" in honor of the Lawrence decision so that it can be fobbed off as symbolic of civil rights. Or how about a statute of a late term abortion entitled "Dr. Carhart's Loving Hands" (approriately draped so that the act of murder is strongly suggested but not depicted) would there be any legal basis whatsover for a court to order either statue removed? Absolutely not.
But posting the Ten Commandments is an abomination, all the machinery and rage of government is enlisted to remove it from the public sphere.
Black is white, and up is down. There is a backlash developing. I intend to encourage it.
Typical.
Well ok, what law was being written by Moore then? The First Amendment only seems to place limits on Congress to keep them from creating a state religion, like the one they fled from in England. A reading of some material from the Founders would prove that this is indeed the case.
I can dream can't I? Maybe a couple of news outlets will carry the picture of a couple of Christians trying to stand in the way of this tyranny. These Christians will simply go limp, have the plastic zipties placed on their wrists, and will be carried to a nearby bus for processing and be released later. Meanwhile the Marshals will gleefully remove the granite and by the next day the nation will be more interested in Laci's murder or J. Lo & Ben Affleck's relationship
I think your second paragraph is more accurate. There'll be a symbolic protest, people will get arrested and hauled off to jail, the Marshalls will come in and remove the statue and Judge Moore will have to contend with a contempt citation--probably more than one--and get slapped on the wrist.
As if that somehow matters. Do you think the numerals represent Clinton's 10 greatest BJs or something?
Sir Gawain - your argument is addressed and dissected completely in the text of the opinion. Read it.
A 20th Century liberal Supreme Court refashioned the First Amendment into the Judeo-Christian-despising weapon that it is today. It wasn't always so. You possess modern ignorance in abundance.
Funny, the Ten Commandments displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court never seemed to have that effect on thier decisions. You're reaching for pie in the sky. Until the recent advent of fearful, politically correct automatons in our country walking around posing as Americans, all of our Law Schools taught that all modern law evolved directly from the Ten Commandments , (which, by the way, they did). Includng murder, adultery, stealing, and lying. Honoring your parents and giving your affection to your wife or husband instead of "the girl/guy next door aren't bad moral traits either. Nor is honoring God a bad thing. Who could possibly be intimidated or distressed by this beautiful moral code? Only the enemies of God.
Different religion. You go to a Federal Court House in Dearborn Michigan. A muslim gets appointed chief judge there. The community is mostly muslim. He installs a monument with Islamic justice moral codes written upon it.
Are you going to feel like you can get a fair trial as a Christian in that building? It is a tacit endorsement of a religious faith. If you bothered to read the opinion, they hung him on his own words. He was specifically not endorsing Judaism, because he used King James, and not the traditional Jewish interpretation of the commandments. For them: It is do not murder, rather than do not kill.
He said he was doing it to proclaim that all laws come from his Christian God. Yet, you for some reason are baffled as to why non-christians feel not very secure in their ability to go there and get equal treatment under the law?
The best test for any of these laws are the opposite foot. If the judge was a scientologist, a mormon, a Hindu, a jehovah's witness... would you feel comfortable with them giving a tacit approval of their faith, broadcasting it to potential jurors, while they are judging you? I wouldn't. The court agrees.
This guy campaigned on the ten commandment thing. He did not inform the other 8 justices that he was putting the plaque up. He waited until the dead of the night, and the only people allowed to be there was a film crew from "Coral Ridge Ministries" who were allowed to film it's emplacement for a fundraising drive. This was not a tough decision for the 11th circuit to make.
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.