 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:31
|
|
http://www.msnbc.com/news/988442.asp?0cv=CB10
LOWER FEDERAL COURTS ruled Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore violated the Constitution’s ban on government promotion of religion by placing the 5,300-pound granite monument in the rotunda of the state Judicial Building. In two appeals to the Supreme Court, Moore argued that lower federal courts do not have authority over a state’s chief justice.
Moore was suspended as chief justice for defying a federal court order to remove the monument. He goes on trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on Nov. 12 on face judicial ethics charges for his refusal to comply with the order.
Despite his refusal to comply with the order, the monument was wheeled to an out-of-the-way storage room in August. Two weeks of protests by Moore’s supporters followed. In recent weeks, demonstrators have carried the cause to the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court, with one protester dressed as Moses and carrying cardboard tablets.
The Supreme Court’s order is not a ruling on the thorny question of whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed in government buildings or in the public square. It merely reflects the high court’s unwillingness to hear the appeal.
LOWER COURTS DIVIDED
Lower courts have splintered on the issue, allowing depictions of the Ten Commandments in some instances and not in others.
Moore challenged the high court to settle the question once and for all, and accused the justices of ducking their responsibility to clarify murky questions about the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court recently took on another divisive case about government and religion. Sometime next year, the justices will hear the case of a California atheist who objects to the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Constitution sets out no absolute divide between God and government, and Moore argued that his Ten Commandments display was in keeping with the religious vision of the nation’s founders.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not actively endorse religion in general or favor one faith over another. The same amendment also guarantees an individual’s right to worship as he or she pleases.
The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar bans on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.
BITTERLY DIVIDED
Two years ago, the high court divided bitterly over whether to hear another case testing whether a different Ten Commandments monument could be displayed outside a civic building.
The court opted at that time not to hear that case, but four justices nonetheless staked out a position on the issue.
The three most conservative justices said they found nothing wrong with display of that monument outside the building housing local courts and prosecutors, city leaders in Elkhart, Ind. The setting reflected the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The monument, "simply reflects the Ten Commandments’ role in the development of our legal system," Rehnquist wrote for the three.
He noted, "a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures, adorns the frieze on the south wall of our courtroom."
At the opposite ideological end of the court, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the words "I am the Lord thy God,' in the first line of the Elkhart monument’s inscription are rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference, Stevens wrote then.
In the Alabama case, lower federal courts ruled that Moore violated the Constitution’s ban on government promotion of religion by placing the 5,300-pound granite monument in the rotunda of the state Judicial Building.
In two appeals to the Supreme Court, Moore argued that lower federal courts do not have authority over a state’s chief justice.
Lawyers for Moore’s legal opponents did not file any response to his appeals.
The case is Moore v. Glassroth 03-468.
I just have one comment.
quote:
"I am the Lord thy God,' in the first line of the Elkhart monument’s inscription are rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference, Stevens wrote then.
|
Tell me, does that citation favour Judaism, or Christianity? I think that it can be true for both religions. Therefore, the Ten Commandments do not favour one religion over another.
Secondly I'm very chilled by Elkhart's phrasing. "expresses no particular religious preference' Is this now unconstitutional, to merely express a religious preference?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
MtG:
So Judaism and Christianity are the same religious preference?
|
Is Christianity a single religious preference? Tell that to Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, who insist my Catholic anti-Christ pope loving ass is hell-bound.
Who was Christ descended from? What is the historical origin of Christianity?
It is mere semantics to claim there isn't a great common heritage between the two religious systems.
quote:
Do you have any commentary about the dissenting opinion?
"simply reflects the Ten Commandments’ role in the development of our legal system," |
In Judge Moore's case, he was very honest that it was his Christian God's role that was being celebrated. Nothing else need apply.
Dissenting opinions have no force of law, let alone dissents from denial of cert, which is what you have here, but CJ Rehnquist fails to distinguish that in the Supreme Court building in Washington, the frieze of Moses and the ten commandments is only one part of the docorative work in the theme of sources of law, and that there are many other representations there of other lawgivers and sources of law.
In Judge Moore's case, and in the Elkhart case, it was pretty clear by the proponent's own words that they intended to promote Christianity through their public (official) authority, but the City of Elkhart plaintiffs started some of that semantic heming and hawing that probably really doesn't please God that much. At least Judge Moore has complete honesty, consistency and integrity going for him. Unfortunately for him, that worsens his case because it makes the violation more clear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I am all for throwing out the separation of Church and State and establishing the USA as a Christian nation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:31
|
|
Chegitz- American law is derived more from Anglo-Saxon and Norse origins. Scottish law derives from a more 'Roman' model, as does French.
Jimmytrick, if you're happy to see the United States 'refounded' as an avowedly Christian nation, then just make sure you belong to the right variant of Christianity.
Up until 1835, anti-Catholic laws were in existence in American states- the erection of the Washington Monument also being delayed by the anti-Catholic 'Know Nothing' movement offended by the gift of a block of marble from Pope Pius IX.
And as MTG pointed out (in a case I was also familiar with) being a peace loving Quaker wasn't a bar to the God loving Puritans deciding that if you crossed the town boundaries, you'd find yourself doing a mid air jig.
Poor Mary Dyer of Newport, Rhode Island- hanged on Boston Common, on June 1. She had already watched the public execution of two fellow Quakers. The only female Christian martyr in the United States- killed by fellow Christians. Ironic.
At the time of his signing of the Declaration of Independence, Charles Carroll was banned from holding public office in his home state of Maryland because he was a Catholic.
Similarly, Jews first came to the northern colonies in 1624, when two Jewish men and one woman arrived in Virginia. Although there were approximately 1 500 Jews in the Colonies on the eve of the revolution, in none of the colonies were they allowed to hold office or vote.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Actually a LOT of canon law has formed somewhat of a basis of American law. Canon law was the first place you had legal rights to confront your accusers, etc (as long as you were a believer, of course).
American law is influenced by canon law and Judeo-Christian ethic, as well as pagan Roman law (which influenced canon law) and pagan Greek law, etc, etc. |
well, what i gather from che's original statement was that our laws stem from the traditions of the roman empire. it's still funny, though, to say that it's from "rome", or the "latinate", since those are more often used for canon law than secular civil law. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2003 02:56
i'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that canon law is the basis of american civil law? 
.
|