11th Circuit Refuses Ten Commandments Appeal

Associated Press ^ | August 19, 2003 | Bob Johnson

[Selmo]

'Ten Commandments' Justice Loses Again

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - A federal appeals court declined Tuesday to lift an order requiring the chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building by midnight Wednesday.

Chief Justice Roy Moore immediately asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider what it had just decided, until the U.S. Supreme Court can rule on a petition by Moore to intervene.

Moore, who installed the 5,300-pound monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago, contends it represents the moral foundation of American law and that a federal judge has no authority to make him remove it.

The 11th Circuit earlier this year agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, who held the monument violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion.

Moore's supporters announced plans for a series of protests that an organizer promised would be "Christ centered, peaceful and prayerful."

Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said the protests would begin with a prayer vigil on the steps of the court building at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday.

"Every minute that monument stays in the building after Aug. 20 is a victory," Mahoney said.

Thompson has said he may fine the state about $5,000 a day if the monument is not removed by the end of the day Wednesday. He has said it would be permissible for the monument to be moved to a less public site, such as Moore's office.

[sinkspur]

Disrupting our cohesion, and setting one Freeper against another, on issue after issue.

If you want everyone to agree with you, buster, start your own website and regulate who gets on.

You are free to not respond to or read my posts, if you can't stand a difference of opinion.

Shutting people up is characteristic of fascists, Aussie. I never figured you for a fascist.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"You I guess, no one else."

So you were appointed spokesman for everyone else, were you Luis? Or just for the comprehension challanged?

[candeee]

Why did you choose FR for your posts? Surely it has never been a secret that this is a conservative forum. Do you deny you are here because it gives you a rise? Otherwise, why are you here?

[sinkspur]

Why did you choose FR for your posts? Surely it has never been a secret that this is a conservative forum. Do you deny you are here because it gives you a rise? Otherwise, why are you here?

To learn stuff and have fun.

Why are you here?

[F.J. Mitchell]

"He simply doesn't 'get it'. "

So he pretends.

[WOSG]

My repeated point is that any diversion into 'intent' is irrelevent and not at all part of the constitution. The word "intent" is not in the 1st Amendment. The term "Free Exercise" is. To deny Judge Moore his right to express his view of what this display means to him is to deny him his Constitutional rights.

The Courts and anti-religious group like the ACLU have successfully create a double-standard where some thoughts and "intentions" are THOUGHTCRIME and are forbidden. It is a discriminatory double-standard. I made the point that "MLK Boulevard" can be decalred in a city - it is a worshipful behavior and a testimony. Can we have "Jesus Saves" Avenue? No. Why is one a free expression and another ThoughtCrime? It's due to an attempt by the anti-religious to turn ANY RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION no matter how innocuous, voluntary, non-coercive and tame, into a so-called "establishment".

Judge Myron and his ruling are wrong.
This is a violation of the constitution first amendment free excercise and free speech rights of religious people in this country.

[WOSG]

"But I thought that the Ten Commandments was the sole basis for every law in America,"

Historially speaking, that is our heritage indeed, not the Vedas.

YOu are doing a bait-n-switch between "ethical/moral codes we started from" and "ethical codes that bear a resemblance to our own". Two different things!

"Why Judge Moore himself has rejected placement of monuments to some of those other heathen religions inside that courthouse.... "

Which he should have every right to do. There is nothing in the constitution that demands a religious testimonial has to follow an "all or nothing" rule.

[lugsoul]

Intent is built into the very ten commandments you hold up as the foundation of all our laws.

If you don't believe that, just try to distinguish "murder" from "kill." Or define "covet."

[Free Raven]

I don't accept your premise.

Sinkspur, It doesn't actually matter as to what you personally do or do not accept.

If you are unable to read and understand the U.S. Constitution then I would suggest that you attempt to aquire some education for yourself.

This country is doomed if the posters that I see here like yourself actually hold opinions that are widespread across this land.

You are not an American if you do not believe in the U.S. Constitution, you are not an American if you do not believe in the Bill of Rights. You do not become an American simly by living in a certain geographic location (although many corrupt politicians would say othwerwise). Americans are those people whom live in the United States of America and follow its constitutional laws. These laws are founded on the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And those documents in turn are founded upon the bible and the Ten Commandments. This nation was not founded as a Godless nation, it was founded as one nation under God. The justices and politicians that are in favor of doing such things as removing the Ten Commandments from public display (which in fact violates the first ammendment) and those whom seek to ban all firearms from public ownership (which violates the second ammendment), those whom advocate unwarranted searches and unjust bails and the many, many other things that corrupt politicians do today are committing TREASON against this nation! I say that it is time that we go down to this courthouse armed and stand for our nations constitution and it's Bill of Rights! It is funny, I hear so called conservatives all of the time stating that the second ammendment protects all of the rest but if anyone actually suggests using the second ammendment in defense of the others then these same cowardly people, whom call themselves conservatives, come out and cry that such an act would only cause us to lose our right to bear arms! Well if that is how these people really feel then they have already lost that right and all of the rest! I fear that we truely have become a nation of men raised by women, a nation of grovelling, selfish cowards. When will the men return to my country and restore it's Constitutional government!

[WOSG]

lugsoul, I've gone through this on several previous posts.
Intent distinguishes differnt kinds of torts but it shouldnt create a tort ('sticks n stones' and all that). Well, it *couldnt* that is until looney ideas like "hate crimes" and legal theories have been proulgated by enemies of freedom (eg ACLU). Part of the same legal theorizing that has given u the abomination of "hate speech" has fed into this bogus view that a religious "intent" can turn innocuous behavior into something 'evil'. (That was introduced by the "Lemon" decision that has fed many of the absurd anti-religious Federal court rulings. It bogus and wholly outside the scope of proper constitutional interpretation.)

Making "intent" a tort by itself is THOUGHTCRIME!
That is the way of "hate speech" and violations against people's first amendment rights.

How is Judge Moore's display any more harmful than the US Supreme Court's display of the SAME 10 Commandments? It is not more harmful. Who is harmed, in either case? The reality is this: To make religious expression itself a burden this heavy on officials' actions is to violate their own First Amendment rights of Free expression and Fre Excercise.

[lugsoul]

"How is Judge Moore's display any more harmful than the US Supreme Court's display of the SAME 10 Commandments?"

Talk about having been through it on other threads... Geez.

The SCOTUS display includes Mohammed, Confucious, Solon, Justinian, and 15 other "lawgivers", religious and secular. It does not serve the purpose of promoting one faith to the exclusion of others.

Moore will not allow other displays, because nothing is on a par with the Word of his God. “You'll find no documents surrounding the Ten Commandments because they stand alone as an acknowledgment of that God that's contained in our pledge, contained in our motto, and contained in our oath.” - Roy Moore

Also, SCOTUS doesn't use its display to proclaim that persons of other faiths have rights because our God lets them have rights - "Americans are free to worship other Gods only because the Judeo-Christian God, and the Judeo- Christian God alone, allows for freedom of conscience." - Roy Moore

Finally SCOTUS does not contend that its legitimacy is dependent on the frieze on the wall - "I have no intention of removing the monument. To do so would, in effect, result in the disestablishment of our system of justice in this state.” - Roy Moore

If you can't see the difference, then you aren't looking.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..you are free to not respond to or read my posts, if you can't stand a difference of opinion...

Thanks, but what I was observing is that to be different in opinion is your primary reason for posting here. Ever thought of spending your time in something you'd find more fulfilling?

Quilting For Beginners

[WOSG]

You hav eobfuscated but havent answered the question:

"How is Judge Moore's display any more harmful than the US Supreme Court's display of the SAME 10 Commandments?"

what is the harm?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..this country is doomed if the posters that I see here like yourself actually hold opinions that are widespread across this land...

Excellent post, Raven, but I might mention 'holding opinions' is not something with which we can accuse the poster 'Sinkspur.' 'Taking a contrary position solely to attract attention' is a charge that sticks, though. Cheers, By

[sinkspur]

Thanks, but what I was observing is that to be different in opinion is your primary reason for posting here.

Tell that to the minions around here who have labelled me a "rabid Bushbot." It also appears that there are more than just a few people here who think that Moore is wrong.

[wimpycat]

'Taking a contrary position solely to attract attention' is a charge that sticks, though.

That seems to be the whole point of the subject of this thread. Judge Moore is taking a contrary position solely to attract attention...or, to put it euphemistically, to "raise awareness".

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..Judge Moore is taking a contrary position solely to attract attention...or, to put it euphemistically, to "raise awareness"....

You guys have no proof of that.

We, however, have a welter of evidence to support our stance- in particular, the way the same names show up time and again, whenever there's a remote opportunity of bashing Christians.

Right, Wimpy?

[wimpycat]

Are you accusing me of Christian bashing? Are you serious?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..are you accusing me of Christian bashing?...

No.

Shame to see you running with that pack, though.

[wimpycat]

I hardly think making ONE comment--a sum total of ONE--out of all the dozens of Judge Moore threads (I've stayed off them until now), qualifies as "running with that pack". You don't know my thoughts on this whole thing one way or the other. Nobody does.

It IS possible to disagree on a minor point without disagreeing on the major point, you know. And vice versa. This isn't an all or nothing proposition. I've seen reasonable arguments put forth on both sides by people I know to be Christian.