01-09-2003 04:17									#301
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Mordoch, I would find it incredulous if the Supreme Court would decide this case on the basis you suggest. The description of the display by its creator states that the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Western Law:

"MacNeil submitted the following description to the Supreme Court Building
Commission for the “Eastern Pediment”:
Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group—
left — is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The “Youth” is brought into both these groups to suggest the “Carrying on” of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left — The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right — Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left — Study and pondering of judgments. Right — A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale — The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare.
The East Pediment by Hermon MacNeil
The East Pediment
Updated: 8/18/2000"

	01-09-2003 04:44									#302
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ned Mordoch, I would find it incredulous if the Supreme Court would decide this case on the basis you suggest. The description of the display by its creator states that the Ten Commandments are fundamental to Western Law: "MacNeil submitted the following description to the Supreme Court Building Commission for the “Eastern Pediment”: Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment. Flanking this central group— left — is the symbolical figure bearing the means of enforcing the law. On the right a group tempering justice with mercy, allegorically treated. The “Youth” is brought into both these groups to suggest the “Carrying on” of civilization through the knowledge imbibed of right and wrong. The next two figures with shields; Left — The settlement of disputes between states through enlightened judgment. Right — Maritime and other large functions of the Supreme Court in protection of the United States. The last figures: Left — Study and pondering of judgments. Right — A tribute to the fundamental and supreme character of this Court. Finale — The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare. The East Pediment by Hermon MacNeil The East Pediment Updated: 8/18/2000"

Frankly, US law dosn't have much to do at all with Confucius. The way the description states things suggests that The Ten Commandments are at most used selectively, and certainly the description does not eliminate the argument that they are merely an inspiration for current US Judicial law. I would be VERY curious to find out how often "The fable of the Tortoise and the Hare" is used as a basis for making actual case law decisions. It appears to me to be merely a reminder to be careful and deliberative when making judicial decisions.

	01-09-2003 06:17									#303
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Mordoch -

quote: Two key things are that the Ten Commandment in the Supreme Court building does NOT show any of the actual commandments, just numbers.

Why is that key? Does the absence of written words mean we no longer understand what the tablets represent?

Ramo -

quote: Like court administrative practices. Don't see how that's so different from a law passed by a legislature

You don't see a difference between "Congress shall make no law" and administrative practices employed running the daily functions of the judiciary? Are you put in jail for not reading that monument? No...see a difference now? C'mon! I went thru this with MtG, the Framers weren't talking about "administrative actions" that lack the force of law when they prohibited "Congress" from making laws respecting an establishment of religion. Frankly, you guys are reaching for excuses and I don't understand why.

quote: We're no longer living in the 18th century. There are things like executive orders that are equivalent to laws in many ways.

Whether or not an execuitve order has the force of law is irrelevant to this issue.

quote: The courts don't take that position.

Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, citing the fact the courts are corrupt does not mean the 9th Amendment has been legitmately re-written or amended. It still says what it says and no amount of BS from the SCOTUS will ever change that...

quote: That's irrelevent. Once again, if you really want to take it literally, there are no state or local congresses.

Does the 14th Amendment apply the 1st Amendment to the various state legislatures or not? If it does, then the "literal" language used in the 1st Amendment applies to the states' version of Congress.

quote: Except there are laws on the books that are quite frightening, and the only thing stopping me from being arrested is that the police and courts are subject to the First Amendment. I don't want to be picked up because some ******* cops and judges want to use the "criminal anarchy" law in Texas.

The police and courts are not charged with the power to make laws, so why would a restriction on law making power mention the police and the courts? That's why the 1st Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law" and that's why applying that language to the states requires a bit of logic. We're into this part of the debate because you guys insist on re-writing the 1st Amendment to include non-legislative bodies that by definition lack the constitutional authority to make laws.

quote: I never said it did.

You asked:

quote: Honestly, I don't know how you could possibly support the legitimacy of a government whose courts and executive institutions don't need to respect freedom of speech or religion, etc.

If you weren't talking about this monument, then what purpose was served by your comment? Are you now saying this monument does not violate your religious freedom. If so, that would seem to indicate that the 1st Amendment remains intact if the monument stays put.

quote: Have you taken a look at the US code lately? Like the Espionage Act is still law, that for instance could easily get you thrown in prison. If the executive and judicial branches weren't constrained by the First as you believe they should be.

Why do you keep raising other issues? We're talking about a piece of stone, not this act or that act.

	01-09-2003 07:31									#304
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It would indeed be interesting if the national media would take their camera's over to the US Supreme Court and focus them on Moses and the Ten Commandments. I wonder how the plaintiffs in the Alabama case would react?

	01-09-2003 08:30									#305
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Hell, I'm a libertarian who is very keen to violations of religious freedom (just another reason I oppose the drug war) and I can see that this monument neither violates anyone's religious freedom nor "establishes" religion. And when there is ambiguity, certainly not on this issue, I'll side with religious freedom...always... I wouldn't care if every member of Congress and the SCOTUS got up and professed an undying devotion to Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha and littered the Capital with religious symbols (with their own money of course) - that makes absolutely no demands on you and me - and that is how we determine whether or not religion has been established...

Unfortunately, "shall make no law" has been re-written to mean "shall make no expression".

	01-09-2003 08:40									#306
	Put an end to popups!

Ned:

Moses is depicted as part of a group, holding a tablet that includes NO WORDS. As has been pointed out ad-naseum, the comparison is spacious.

Bezerker:

quote: I wouldn't care if every member of Congress and the SCOTUS got up and professed an undying devotion to Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha and littered the Capital with religious symbols (with their own money of course) - that makes absolutely no demands on you and me - and that is how we determine whether or not religion has been established...

Actually, that last bit is where the courts, and the vast majority of posters here disgaree with you. England has a state religion: no one in England is forced to be an anglican, yet the State has an established religion. So having an outright demand made on you is NOT the sole measure of the establishment of religion.

Thankfully, whether you feel a demand on you or not is irrelvant to the law in this land.

	01-09-2003 09:37									#307
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Actually, that last bit is where the courts, and the vast majority of posters here disgaree with you. England has a state religion: no one in England is forced to be an anglican, yet the State has an established religion. So having an outright demand made on you is NOT the sole measure of the establishment of religion.

Just how is the Anglican Church "established" in England and just how does this monument establish religion here?

quote: Thankfully, whether you feel a demand on you or not is irrelvant to the law in this land.

That's the point, if there is no law, there is no demand. If there is no demand, there is no law. WRT this issue, demand and law are synonymous...

	01-09-2003 11:06									#308
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: the Roman Goddess Justitia is displayed in virtually every courthouse in the Western world. Does this display of a Roman Goddess mean that the courts are endorsing paganism?

Don't be dense . No one puts up Justitia with the intent to back the Roman religious practices, but rather because she stands for 'justice'. It is quite obvious that Moore's intent here is to push the Christian religion.

quote: The fact that Moore resorted to throwing the monument up at night without consulting anyone should be a big clue that he knew his actions weren't on the level.

Yep, exactly. Even he knew it was wrong, since he did it under the cloak of night and not telling any of his fellow justices about it.

	01-09-2003 11:12									#309
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Just how is the Anglican Church "established" in England and just how does this monument establish religion here?

The Church is an arm of the government, its head being the head of state, if that head is ceremonial in both aspects. So England has a state church (so do a few other European states). Interestingly enough, they turn out to be relatively areligious places (like sweden). That is what an 'estalbished Church means" (specially if you look at why so many religious refugees came to the America's). "Establishing" religion does NOT mean the same as forcing everyone to pray or be a part of the state religion: it does mean creating a tie between the civil powers and ecclesiastical ones.

	01-09-2003 12:16									#310
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

GePap, clearly the US Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments with other basic sources of Law, including Confucius (who is leader of a Chinese religion) and Solon. This display clearly is about the Law aspects of the Ten Commandments, not about the establishment of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions.

Displaying the Roman Goddess Justitia is not about establishment of the Roman religion.

So why is displaying the Ten Commandments by itself all about the establishment of Christianity? Clearly, if it is, then it violates the Constitution. But, as we have seen here, the Ten Commandments by themselve have been recognized a source of Law in Western Civilization.

Absolutely everyone here who opposes the display constantly cites Moore's intent and Moore's statements. They are complaining about Moore, not about the Ten Commandments per se. Otherwise, to be consistent, one would have to object to their display on the Supreme Court. One would also have to object to the display of Confucious, a Chinese religions figure. One certainly should also object to the display of Justitia, a Roman Goddess of all things.

	01-09-2003 22:06									#311
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ned So why is displaying the Ten Commandments by itself all about the establishment of Christianity? Clearly, if it is, then it violates the Constitution. But, as we have seen here, the Ten Commandments by themselve have been recognized a source of Law in Western Civilization. Absolutely everyone here who opposes the display constantly cites Moore's intent and Moore's statements. They are complaining about Moore, not about the Ten Commandments per se. Otherwise, to be consistent, one would have to object to their display on the Supreme Court. One would also have to object to the display of Confucious, a Chinese religions figure. One certainly should also object to the display of Justitia, a Roman Goddess of all things.

Again, the display in the SC is decorative, not placed right smack were everyone coming into the building, no matter their business, will run up against it. For the umteeth time, the examples you give are NOT similar. How many people who see Justitia even KNOW what she is, beyond an personification of law itself? And confucious, like Moses, is placed well out of the way of people as a deocrative motiff in the SC, not a giant 2.5 ton monolith in everyones way.

Now, Judge Morre put in that piece of granite in for all the wrong reasons. He had every right to place it IN HIS OFFICE, IN THE PASSAGEWAY TO HIS PRIVATE OFFICES, or anywhere else to show his individual deovtion. Right smack in the most pucli part of the building? No, speically given what his intent was. Every copurt that has seen this has ruled against Moore, including 8 of his collegues. If you want to bring a suit against displaying Justitia..fine, do so and see how far you get.

	01-09-2003 22:25									#312
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned GePap, clearly the US Supreme Court displays the Ten Commandments with other basic sources of Law, including Confucius (who is leader of a Chinese religion) and Solon. This display clearly is about the Law aspects of the Ten Commandments, not about the establishment of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem religions.

For the upteenth time, the SCOTUS building does NOT display the Ten Commandments, it displays Moses holding the tablets (on which the Commandments do not appear). That is because Moses was a historical lawgiver, like Confuscius and Solon. It has NOTHING to do with any religious conotations, only legal.

Moore's display was intentionally and inheritly religious. It featured not only the commandments, but other quotes that were based on god. There's no way to view the monument as some sort of historical marker and separate it from Moore's views, except through a lot of disingenuity and specious reasoning.

Oh wait, seems that's what's being done...

	01-09-2003 22:58									#313
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: the Roman Goddess Justitia is displayed in virtually every courthouse in the Western world. Does this display of a Roman Goddess mean that the courts are endorsing paganism? Don't be dense . No one puts up Justitia with the intent to back the Roman religious practices, but rather because she stands for 'justice'. It is quite obvious that Moore's intent here is to push the Christian religion.

It would be refreshing if someone could argue the issue without talking about Moore and his "intent." The issue is the Ten Commandments, not Moore. Moore's intent should be completely irrelevant to the legal and constitutional issue.

	01-09-2003 23:05									#314
	Increase Your PM Length

One can not separate Judge Moore form the case, since he IS the case. That's lie saying : 'can someone plsea stop talking about the facts of the murder and focus on the issue of calling this murder..."

But to move beyond this case, which is pen and shut, thanks to judge Moore's fat mouth:

The US mentions God all over the place: but it never happens to meiton Jesus anywhere, or Mohammed, or any of the prophets of Israel, or this or that. Only if one believes in the Trinity does God equal=Jesus and the Christian faith. And that goes fuly with the fact that the US government does not recognize any one faith, or sect of a faith as having more inherent value than another: it stand equally behind the religion, or irreligiosity of all of its citizens, given that fact that it gives it citizens the freedom to choose any sect, or avoid all sects, according to the free will of the citizens. This monument is an afront to that. As Has been pointed out, the SC does not even list the commandments on its table, and for good reason: how many of them are actually law? 3 (murder, theft, false witness), and you can find those on Hammurabii's code as well, or Roman codes of Law. The first two commandemts are utterly secterian in nature: they negate the validity of faiths that disagree with this one (what is a hindi to do about graven images?) as such, it runs counter to the spirit of this country, and the consitution in not taking sides with any sects, to insure that the freedom of all sects remains.

	01-09-2003 23:13									#315
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So a statue of Mohammed is OK, but the display of anything he wrote is not OK? We can display Confucious, but not Jesus Christ. We can display Moses with blank tablets, but not the Ten Commandments themselves?

This kind of hair-splitting is nonsense! The First Amendment cannot condone such idiotic reasoning.

I was watching the news last night. One of the reporters on a panel did make the observation that virtually every public building in the United States is festooned with religious symbols of one kind or another. Roman and Greek Gods, Mohammed, Jesus Christ, Moses, the Ten Commandments. He asked the simple question, "If this is wrong, where does it all end?"

Our money mentions God. So does the pledge of allegience. The Declaration of Independence says our basic rights are endowed by the creator.

Legislatures everywhere open their sessions with prayer. Chaplains are on the payroll of the armed forces. Even the US Supreme Court begins its sessions with a prayer, IIRC.

I cannot remember an inauguration that did not begin with a prayer. Every president invokes God.

Is this all to be squashed in the name of the First Amendment?

A fair person would have to say that our founding fathers would be aghast at even the thought of such extremism.

	02-09-2003 00:23									#316
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

"So a statue of Mohammed is OK, but the display of anything he wrote is not OK? We can display Confucious, but not Jesus Christ. We can display Moses with blank tablets, but not the Ten Commandments themselves?"

As I wrote somewhere in this thread, the issue is who can display what. If everyone can just say I can put up anything I want in the court building as long as I pay for it, fine. Then Moore can have his 10 commandments, an atheist can have a model of an atom or whatever, a muslim can bring a crescent or a display of the 5 pillars, and an agnostic can just not care.

Now Ned, can everyone display religious symbols at his/her pleasure in the courthouse?

	02-09-2003 00:29									#317
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned So a statue of Mohammed is OK, but the display of anything he wrote is not OK? We can display Confucious, but not Jesus Christ. We can display Moses with blank tablets, but not the Ten Commandments themselves

Well, have you ever seen any statues of Mohammed? NO,cause that is a graven image and against his very teachings. My guess is then, that a statue of MOhammed could only serve to allientae Muslims ad could not possibly be seen as an endorsement of Islam. As for the writing, anything in which he does not call those that disgaree with what was written as infadels and heretics, or as sinners would be just fine.

quote: This kind of hair-splitting is nonsense! The First Amendment cannot condone such idiotic reasoning.

The issue here is not the 1st ammednment but the estabishment clause. And yes, the 1st ammendment and other do go into such gairsplitting, that is what courts are for.

quote: I was watching the news last night. One of the reporters on a panel did make the observation that virtually every public building in the United States is festooned with religious symbols of one kind or another. Roman and Greek Gods, Mohammed, Jesus Christ, Moses, the Ten Commandments. He asked the simple question, "If this is wrong, where does it all end?"

Let me guess, Fox news? Greek and Roman gods are sysmbols of a dead religion, and thus are jnot in any sense religious anymore. Again, symbols of Mahoammed are against his very religion, so what could they possibly be? And he is wrong, in that his is not a black and white issue: there is a continuum, (as wth everything) and the courts thankfully do not share his simple mind. As I said earlier, a non-denominational mention of God (aka, some rgeater force than us, eprhaps creator, perhaps not) is fine. Curcifixes and Cressent moons and sdtars of david are more iffy. IN geenral, they can not be prominently displyed on top of gov buildings, the veranddas and so forth. Even in a courtroom that is comming pretty close t not being Kosher.

quote: Our money mentions God. So does the pledge of allegience. The Declaration of Independence says our basic rights are endowed by the creator.

And this creator is NOT specifically the Christian, Jewsih Muslim, or anyone elses specific GOD, and thus it is OK. Plus, yu forget the addition of it to the pledge was in 1954, and espressly an anti-communist act,, and the courts should have removed it long ago.

quote: Legislatures everywhere open their sessions with prayer. Chaplains are on the payroll of the armed forces. Even the US Supreme Court begins its sessions with a prayer, IIRC.

As was already stated by others, this is at the request of the legislators, and if any legisletors refused or asked for the service stopped, they would be, since they are a courtesy, and NOT mandated. No one could avoid looking at this 2.5 ton mostrosity, it was not sublte and it was uninvited.

quote: I cannot remember an inauguration that did not begin with a prayer. Every president invokes God.

The president does NOT have to invoke God. And presidents can say whatever they want ina speech: they could not put a crucifix on top of the WH.

quote: Is this all to be squashed in the name of the First Amendment?

Sorry, establishment clause, NOT 1st ammendment.

quote: A fair person would have to say that our founding fathers would be aghast at even the thought of such extremism.

Given how many of them were deaist (and given the ample proof against this notion ALREADY CONTAINED IN THIS THREAD), this point is moot.

	02-09-2003 01:01									#318
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

GePap, why are you making distinctions between the 1st Amendment and the Establishment Clause?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

	02-09-2003 01:10									#319
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Becuase at issue is not the whole ammendment, but what establishment of religion means. I this case the courts have said (and i think correctly) that acts which in some way say that the state endorses this one sect or religion over others is a violation of this. Judge Moore by his act clearly sought to favor one religious sect. And posting the words of the commandments right smack in public space (thus giving it the notion of an endoresement) is aso favoring a sect, given the anture of at least the first 2 commandments.

	02-09-2003 13:35									#320
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Gepap -

quote: The Church is an arm of the government, its head being the head of state, if that head is ceremonial in both aspects. So England has a state church (so do a few other European states). Interestingly enough, they turn out to be relatively areligious places (like sweden). That is what an 'estalbished Church means" (specially if you look at why so many religious refugees came to the America's). "Establishing" religion does NOT mean the same as forcing everyone to pray or be a part of the state religion: it does mean creating a tie between the civil powers and ecclesiastical ones.

As long as religious folks are allowed to run for office, there will always be ties between religion and government except maybe in communist countries, but it would seem that for the head of state and the head of the church to be the same, a LAW was made requiring this association. And that's the ENTIRE point - a LAW must be made for a religion to be established and there was no law made by the placement of this piece of stone.

quote: Becuase at issue is not the whole ammendment, but what establishment of religion means.

Exactly! So how do we define that word? We look at the context - and the context is "Congress shall make no law". You guys see the word "establishment" and think the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall not respect the establishment of religion". That isn't what the 1st Amendment says!!! It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

	02-09-2003 14:21									#321
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Moore's monument was NOT religious in nature.

Suppose Moore had placed a big block of granite in the entrance of a courthouse, with an inscription that read:

quote: HERE IS THE LAW. 1. Never, under any circumstances, drink Pepsi. 2. Do not play baseball on Saturdays.

...and so on.

Surely that monument would be deemed inappropriate for a courthouse? Since when can a judge abuse his authority as a representative of the state to declare his personal preferences to be laws?

If for no other reason, the monument had to go and Moore had to be suspended. He was quite openly motivated by a desire to "make laws" that he had no mandate to make.

	02-09-2003 16:27									#322
	Get a bigger avatar today!

My God Jack, representatives of government constantly share their beliefs about what the law should be. Now, do you have actual evidence he was trying to make laws? For example, did he jail an atheist for not believing in God? His mandate is to interpret the laws written by the legislature and determine if they violate either the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution, so unless you have proof he has interjected his religious beliefs into his interpretations in violation of those documents, you're just grasping at air. Why?

	02-09-2003 18:18									#323
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ramo No, it's a noun. A verb doesn't have an article before it. If it were used in the sense that you refer to, it would say "Congress shall not establish religion."

You must have a terrible time reading Shakespeare, where the meanings of some words as we understand them today are completely the opposite of their meaning when they were written 400-odd years ago.

	02-09-2003 18:23									#324
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GePap Becuase at issue is not the whole ammendment, but what establishment of religion means. I this case the courts have said (and i think correctly) that acts which in some way say that the state endorses this one sect or religion over others is a violation of this. Judge Moore by his act clearly sought to favor one religious sect. And posting the words of the commandments right smack in public space (thus giving it the notion of an endoresement) is aso favoring a sect, given the anture of at least the first 2 commandments.

Christianity and Judaism are hardly sects in this country.

	02-09-2003 18:41									#325
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: My God Jack, representatives of government constantly share their beliefs about what the law should be.

It's pretty unusual for public figures to have their personal views carved into granite, entitled "Commandments", and placed in a law court.

quote: Now, do you have actual evidence he was trying to make laws? For example, did he jail an atheist for not believing in God?

He, and his supporters, DO appear to be arguing that the Ten Commandments should be actual laws. And I'm fairly sure that he would want to jail (or possibly even execute) atheists, because that is precisely what the first and highest of his "laws" requires him to do. If he didn't agree with this "law", then why pay to have it carved into his granite block?

It is his stated position that atheism is unlawful. Stated in a block of granite carved and placed at his command. Why should I not believe him?

quote: His mandate is to interpret the laws written by the legislature and determine if they violate either the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution.

...And, according to him, he has an additional mandate from his God to make the Ten Commandments law.

quote: ...so unless you have proof he has interjected his religious beliefs into his interpretations in violation of those documents, you're just grasping at air. Why?

I'd say I have some pretty rock-solid evidence for that, yes. Are you seriously arguing that Moore does NOT regard the Ten Commandments as a set of laws, and does NOT regard them as at least equal in authority to the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution?

This is a guy who actually believes that God Almighty gave these laws for all to follow, and truly believes that those who supposedly used deadly force to impose these laws were doing the right thing!

You seem to be arguing that a "law" isn't actually a "law" unless it goes through official channels. This would allow (for instance) a future dictator to assemble a private police force to impose almost any set of rules he likes without violating the constitution, because they're "not laws".

	03-09-2003 00:07									#326
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Jack -

quote: It's pretty unusual for public figures to have their personal views carved into granite, entitled "Commandments", and placed in a law court.

They aren't just his personal views, they are part of the foundation of religions and legal codes shared by the vast majority of people in this country. Btw, the stone sat outside the courtroom. I suggest you read my first post back on p1 or 2 for my views of Moore since I've already dealt with his faults, the question is whether or not the stone violates the establishment clause and I don't care to defend the character of a man I know only from a few appearances on television and whom I already find dis-ingenuous.

quote: He, and his supporters, DO appear to be arguing that the Ten Commandments should be actual laws. And I'm fairly sure that he would want to jail (or possibly even execute) atheists, because that is precisely what the first and highest of his "laws" requires him to do. If he didn't agree with this "law", then why pay to have it carved into his granite block?

What they "appear" to want and what they actually want are not the same. I've never heard Moore suggest all 10 of the commandments should be legislated, and since he doesn't have the power, your point is moot. Btw, that bit about you being fairly sure he wants atheists jailed or executed requires proof too unless you want to continue delving into the irrational... Btw, atheists aren't violating the 1st Commandment.

quote: It is his stated position that atheism is unlawful. Stated in a block of granite carved and placed at his command. Why should I not believe him?

For the same reason he has never suggested (to my knowledge and yours I'm sure) dis-respectful children or people who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Jesus said "do unto others" but I've never heard any Christian demand that people who don't do unto others face the weight of the law.

quote: ...And, according to him, he has an additional mandate from his God to make the Ten Commandments law.

Where did he say that?

quote: I'd say I have some pretty rock-solid evidence for that, yes.

How long shall we wait for it?

quote: Are you seriously arguing that Moore does NOT regard the Ten Commandments as a set of laws, and does NOT regard them as at least equal in authority to the US Constitution or the Alabama Constitution?

It doesn't matter what he thinks, his thoughts are completely irrelevant to the matter of constitutionality.

quote: This is a guy who actually believes that God Almighty gave these laws for all to follow, and truly believes that those who supposedly used deadly force to impose these laws were doing the right thing!

Lots of people believe that, so what?

quote: You seem to be arguing that a "law" isn't actually a "law" unless it goes through official channels. This would allow (for instance) a future dictator to assemble a private police force to impose almost any set of rules he likes without violating the constitution, because they're "not laws".

If a law does not go through official channels, the law is unconstitutional because only Congress has the authority to write laws. As for some future dictator, would not his dictates carry the same weight as the law? As I repeatedly told others in this thread, using euphemisms for laws - if it walks and talks like a law then it is a law - has no bearing on this matter because a piece of stone is not a law. No one is threatened with fines or jail for ignoring the stone, so why try to equate a stone with actual laws? Do manger scenes require us to bow down and acknowledge Jesus when we walk by? You guys don't seem to understand that before religion can be established thereby violating the 1st Amendment, it must be legislated.

No legislation = no establishment

	03-09-2003 03:35									#327
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Jack - It doesn't matter what he thinks, his thoughts are completely irrelevant to the matter of constitutionality.

This is BADLY wrong. The intent of individuals is a vital component of the United States' judicial system. The intent of the people who wrote a particular law or a constitutional passage is considered a very key component of judicial interpretation. I.E. if situation X appears to be clearly illegal under law Y upon a straightforward reading of a law, it may not be considered so if the Judicial Branch of government determines that the people who wrote the law clearly were thinking about something else entirely and not that situation since situation X would have never come up when the law was written.

The law makes a huge distinction between someone accidently causing the death of another and a carefully planned cold blooded killing. The actions of the protesters also make it very clear that they consider the monument to a be a religious object. (One protester actually seemed to commiting the sin of idol worship when he yelled out when refering to the Ten Commandments Monument and the workers removing it "You shall not touch our god!" ) I find it disturbing how little you seem to know about how our judicial system operates, you may want to consider taking a constitution law class at some point.

	03-09-2003 04:25									#328
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

On the intent issue, will the radical left be satisfied by a ruling from the Supremes that a display of the Ten Commandment in public buildings is OK, citing its own building as an example, but in this case the display was unconstitutional because of Judge Moore's intent?

Again, going into Judge Moore's "intent" puts him personally on trial. Can the 1st Amendment extend to render unconstitutional the opinions of one member of government?

	03-09-2003 04:29									#329
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If by display you mean a table that is numbered but does not actually include the commandments, that is part of the decorations, why not?

As for Judge Moore, he is an acting officer of the court, who's job is to uphold the laws of Alabama and the US: one of those laws is that objects endorsing any religious sect in public buildings is verbotten. Judge Moore broke his very owth and the law of the land, and his prozelatizing piece should be removed, and placed either in the mans ffice, or in private regions of the building, if it stays ion the building long term.

	03-09-2003 04:31									#330
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ned Again, going into Judge Moore's "intent" puts him personally on trial. Can the 1st Amendment extend to render unconstitutional the opinions of one member of government?

Certainly the intent and opinions stated by legislaters can be a key component of determining whether a law is unconstitutional. I.E. a law setting up voluntary prayer in public schools could very well be ruled unconstitutional because the sponser of the bill said during the debate over whether it should be passed that the bill "was designed to create a school enviroment where students are encouraged to welcome Jesus into their hearts." A law clearly dirrected against a specific group, even if not outwardly stated in the law itself, may very well be ruled unconstitutional because of the obvious intent of those who wrote the law.