30-08-2003 01:10									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov However, he also did not seek approval or go through any official channels to place the monument there--he just paid for it himself and had it delivered privately. If anyone thinks that's acceptable, I'm going to go drop all the furniture I don't want from my move on the steps of city hall and defy anyone to remove it.

Uh... Boris... Judge Moore IS an official channel.

Chief Justices are the senior judicial officers of their states (as is Rehnquist at the Federal level), and have administrative duties with regard to their state court systems, and with regard to the court buildings in which their courts sit and the personnel that staff them. (senior or presiding judges at courts of appeal have similar administrative duties with respect to their courts and court personnel)

	30-08-2003 01:11									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Because it's in the Constitution.

Can you point this out to me? I can't find it. The only thing along these lines I can find is the 1st amendment which reads:

quote: 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.

Presumably it would have to be in one of the Articles, but searching the whole thing for the word 'religion' gives me only the 1st amendment?

	30-08-2003 01:17									#33
	Tired of ads?

There's nothing in the US Constitution saying it's wrong to have a monument of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. The only statement made regarding religion is in the First Amendment:

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.

The perception that a monument of this type acts as official endorsement is just that - a perception, and nothing more. Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything). Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

	30-08-2003 01:22									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Does the US constitution forbid religious monuments? I thought it just said that people could worship whatever they liked (ie. freedom of religion)?

It depends on the intent - at cemeteries, memorials, historical sites in context, no, it's not forbidden. One thing that simplifies this case is that Judge Moore is completely honest about his intentions.

In an interview, he stated directly that he wouldn't allow any sort of Islamic monument because "the Koran is not the law." In Judge Moore's view, the King James Version of the Bible is the supreme law and the source of American law - he has said that directly, and it's also reflected in his remark that the Federal judge who issued the removal order "placed himself above the law and above God."

	30-08-2003 01:22									#35
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Uh... Boris... Judge Moore IS an official channel. Chief Justices are the senior judicial officers of their states (as is Rehnquist at the Federal level), and have administrative duties with regard to their state court systems, and with regard to the court buildings in which their courts sit and the personnel that staff them. (senior or presiding judges at courts of appeal have similar administrative duties with respect to their courts and court personnel)

Had Moore been acting in his official capacity as Chief Justice, he would still had to have gone through some official means to get the monument there--paperwork, work orders, insurance, etc. As someone pointed out, if someone were to be injured by the monument, who would be liable?

By paying for it himself and having it installed himself, he didn't appear to be acting in his official capacity as judge, but rather as an individual choosing to deposit something on government property.

RJ:

The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the the 1st Ammendment is stating that the government can't endorse religious sects. It also ruled that posting religious doctrines like the 10 Commandments in official buildings counted as endorsing those religious doctrines, and was therefore prohibited.

	30-08-2003 01:22									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Addendum:

My consternation at the whole affair stems from the fact that a minority of people demand that God not be anywhere except places of worship, no place public. I think that's rather silly, even if I completely disagree with the particular message espoused by a religion.

However, the law (misguided as it may be) is the law, and must be obeyed. Thus, it was absolutely correct to have Judge Moore removed from duty, even if he felt he was doing the absolute correct thing by fighting to keep the monument. He had a duty to uphold the law, regardless of his personal feelings about it. He didn't, and now he's outta there, and rightly so.

For the record, many conservatives (like Pat Robertson) also think that the monument's presence did not violate the Constitution, but that Judge Moore was definitely wrong in continuing his fight as he did, and that it was proper and correct to remove him from duty.

	30-08-2003 01:24									#37
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by ajbera I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything). Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

	30-08-2003 01:24									#38
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by ajbera The perception that a monument of this type acts as official endorsement is just that - a perception, and nothing more. Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

This is, of course, patently false, since Judge Moore explicitely stated on numerous occasions that the very purpose of the monument is to endorse Christianity and proclaim the "truth" of his god. Now who's got the false perception?

	30-08-2003 01:32									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by ajbera There's nothing in the US Constitution saying it's wrong to have a monument of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse. The only statement made regarding religion is in the First Amendment: 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. The perception that a monument of this type acts as official endorsement is just that - a perception, and nothing more. Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace. I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything). Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

Only 200 odd years of jurisprudence has consistently taken the position that the Constitution is to be interpreted on the basis of intent, and not on contriving the narrowest semantic construction of the exact words. Courts have allowed ten commandments displays in government buildings, because as displayed, they haven't been official endorsements of a specific religion. Judge Moore, in his official capacity, has made it very clear that it is his exact intention that Christianity, and only Christianity (and most likely, as an evangelical fundamentalist, he doesn't consider Catholic or Orthodox Christians to be "true" Christians) as the supreme "law."

The issue IMO isn't the stone monument itself (I think it's great - it's a fantastic piece of marble, very well executed, and it should get prominent display in some appropriate place.), it's Judge Moore's openly avowed intended use of the monument, and use of the court building, to use his state office and his official power to profess the "true" religion and "the law."

Moore is like a modern day Cromwell.

	30-08-2003 01:32									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The SCOTUS has consistently ruled that the the 1st Ammendment is stating that the government can't endorse religious sects. It also ruled that posting religious doctrines like the 10 Commandments in official buildings counted as endorsing those religious doctrines, and was therefore prohibited.

That is such a weird conclusion to come to. To me it says nothing of the kind. But it is your country I suppose, so if everyone is happy with this....

Isn't it then in conflict with other articles? I mean, if the populace were to democratically elect a Christian isn't that also endorsing Christianity? Or what about a Christian party (or for that matter a Muslim party)? Would they just be prohibited from taking office?

Edit: Carter is a Christian isn't he?

	30-08-2003 01:35									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Isn't it then in conflict with other articles? I mean, if the populace were to democratically elect a Christian isn't that also endorsing Christianity? Or what about a Christian party (or for that matter a Muslim party)? Would they just be prohibited from taking office? Edit: Carter is a Christian isn't he?

Uh, no, because nothing prohibits a government official from being religious, or professing his religious belief. However, if he starts using his official position to promote a religious doctrine on government property (which is what Moore was doing), there's a problem.

	30-08-2003 01:37									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Had Moore been acting in his official capacity as Chief Justice, he would still had to have gone through some official means to get the monument there--paperwork, work orders, insurance, etc. As someone pointed out, if someone were to be injured by the monument, who would be liable? By paying for it himself and having it installed himself, he didn't appear to be acting in his official capacity as judge, but rather as an individual choosing to deposit something on government property.

Judge Moore's circumventing normal state procurement practices (however, at no apparent monetary cost to the state for the monument or it's installation) does not negate his role as the chief judicial officer of the state, and with statutory authority over the building staff. Hell, if Judge Moore wanted to display a couple of works by Salvador Dali, he has that authority too. His authority doesn't extend to someone else's courthouse or the governor's office, but as CJ, he's in charge of the bulding and the staff.

	30-08-2003 01:38									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov This is, of course, patently false, since Judge Moore explicitely stated on numerous occasions that the very purpose of the monument is to endorse Christianity and proclaim the "truth" of his god. Now who's got the false perception?

I was referring to the monument iteslf, and what it meant, rather than Moore's intent. In this case, Moore was wrong to use the monument as a promotion of fundy Christianity, as has been appropriately b!tch-slapped.

I can only assume, then, that had Moore kept his mouth shut, nobody would have had a problem with it and nobody would have tried to have it removed?

	30-08-2003 01:40									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I got a huge laugh at the Fundy who screamed "They're taking away our God." If God was that weak he'd have died long ago. They're upset because they can't use the monument to shove religion in people's faces. Instead of trying to live their lives congruently with their beliefs, they're shoving their beliefs in people's faces.

Being raised Jewish, I have deep respect for the 10 commandments, but also have respect for the vegitarians who are expressing Hinduism, the Buddhist monks who selfimmolated to protest Vietnam, and the atheists who turned away from religion because of hypocrisy and the kind of idiocy in Alabama. Some of these fundies are the kids of the "Christians" in the KKK, but to be fair, religion has gone a long way. A few years age, The Pope pardoned Galilleo.

Last edited by realpolitic on 30-08-2003 at 01:48

	30-08-2003 01:43									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Someone should found a religion called 'Linconism' proclaiming Lincon as the saviour. Then we could all complain that the $ bills are promoting religion.

	30-08-2003 01:52									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ajbera Because a minority of people in this country are not Christian or Jewish, they feel that such a monument amounts to coercion, exclusion, or they're afraid that the mere mention of "God" in a non-vague context will rupture the fragile minds of the non-Christian/Jewish populace.

And some Christians don't think that the government, least of all the judiciary, should be in the business of promoting any particular religious ideology.

quote: I'm an agnostic, and I have been an atheist at times. I am a firm believer in science and reason, and believe that faith should always be secondary to facts and logic when establishing opinions and choosing paths. Nevertheless, I find myself disgusted with people who demand that the monument be removed, or "under God" deleted from the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't believe it, don't look at/say it (I didn't say the "under God" part of the pledge when my faith dissipated, but I didn't think the entire pledge was undermined by its presence, and I certainly didn't feel ostracized or anything).

And I'm a Catholic, with a fair recollection of how the merger of secular and ecclesiastical power has been abused against one minority or another through much of history. My faith in God is strong, my faith in mankind is near non-existent.

I have no trouble with nativity displays at Christmas on public property; I think the entire "Pledge of allegiance" and the notion of influencing or coercing rote repetition of some loyalty oath is absurd, but the words "Under God" make it no more nor less so. I have no problems with crosses on public property within reason (not burning, and not everywhere you turn, but memorials such as San Francisco's Mt. Davidson or San Diego's Mt. Soledad are fine. I think people who get bent about the words "In God We Trust" on our money need to get a life, and when I had school prayer even in public school, it was an ok way to kill class time, because no possible homework could come out of it. But I think this monument needs to go someplace else. It's a beautiful piece of craftwork, and should go someplace where it will be maintained and given the public access and reverence such a piece deserves. A prominent spot in a public park across from the State Judicial Building would be fine. Not in the building, though.

quote: Religion plays much too important a part in peoples lives - every aspect of their lives - for it to be dismissed or swept under the carpet (in this case, relegated to a storage room). But, we have a contingent of whiners to appease, so I say we establish models of the laws of each and every religion, from 7th Day Adventist to Zoroastrianists, and have them installed in every courthouse, school, etc.

Why "whiners?" let's just make 'em wear an identifying patch, like the Taleban were going to do? If they're Godless athiests or Mohammedans, or those Anti-Christ cult brainwashed Catholics, they're all going to hellfire anyway, so who cares.

And ol' Judge Moore made very clear that only Christian monuments would be allowed, because "it's the law" and those other (false) religions "aren't the law."

	30-08-2003 01:54									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Someone should found a religion called 'Linconism' proclaiming Lincon as the saviour. Then we could all complain that the $ bills are promoting religion.

The Anti-Christ. You devil-worshiper, you.

	30-08-2003 01:56									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Rogan Josh: Don't give the ACLU any bright ideas!

	30-08-2003 01:59									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by ajbera Addendum: My consternation at the whole affair stems from the fact that a minority of people demand that God not be anywhere except places of worship, no place public. I think that's rather silly, even if I completely disagree with the particular message espoused by a religion. However, the law (misguided as it may be) is the law, and must be obeyed. Thus, it was absolutely correct to have Judge Moore removed from duty, even if he felt he was doing the absolute correct thing by fighting to keep the monument. He had a duty to uphold the law, regardless of his personal feelings about it. He didn't, and now he's outta there, and rightly so. For the record, many conservatives (like Pat Robertson) also think that the monument's presence did not violate the Constitution, but that Judge Moore was definitely wrong in continuing his fight as he did, and that it was proper and correct to remove him from duty.

Read the ten commandments, and you'll see the problem. It specifically states that one MUST worship the judeo-christian god.

	30-08-2003 02:04									#50
	Suffering from ads?

MtG, my tirade was against those (and there were many among my friends) who simply opposed the monument on the grounds that it was of the 10 Commandments. Thus, they opposed it simply because it was Jewish/Christian, not because Moore used it as an official endorsement; the simple existence of the monument compared to Moore's intent in having it installed.

I disagree with the former - it's perfectly fine (IMO) to put up a religious monument in a courthouse, especially since a) the majority of US citizens are adherents of those particular religions, and b) our nation's secular laws are derived from those religious laws.

I agree with the fact that Moore was wrong to use the monument as a way of promoting his narrow view, and agree with his penalty. But, I say again, I can only assume from the posters of this thread that they would have had absolutely no problem whatsoever with the mounument had Moore kept silent.

I think the monument is fine, as more than just a piece of art. Religion is a huge part of where we came from, and informs the actions, behaviors and outlooks of a vast majority of US citizenry, and a majority of that majority is Christian or Jewish. I don't believe the monument in and of itself is a promotion of Christianity above all others, it's Moore's desire and intent that makes it so. So, I say leave the monument, but boot Moore.

	30-08-2003 02:05									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by ajbera MtG, my tirade was against those (and there were many among my friends) who simply opposed the monument on the grounds that it was of the 10 Commandments. Thus, they opposed it simply because it was Jewish/Christian, not because Moore used it as an official endorsement; the simple existence of the monument compared to Moore's intent in having it installed.

See my above post.

	30-08-2003 02:08									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Read the ten commandments, and you'll see the problem. It specifically states that one MUST worship the judeo-christian god.

The first three religion-specific Commandments don't invalidate the remaining seven. Just as I ignored "under God" in the pledge, but not the pledge itself, I would ignore the first three Commandments, but not the entirety of the set as the basis for morality and ethics. Whether you believe in God or not, and whether you believe in the Judeo-Christian God, or not, it's still wrong to steal and kill, adultery tends to be destructive, as does covetousness, etc.

	30-08-2003 02:18									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I tend to think that 99% of what is said in all religious texts has a validity in terms of suggesting what the best course through life is, the best way to avoid destructive temptations, etc. It's just that once 'God' is brought into the picture, many of those who don't believe in that particular God feel it's acceptable to deny the validity of the entire set of guidelines. That's foolish.

One project I would love to do (but probably will never get around to doing so) is detailing the logical reasons for the guidelines established by religions, demonstrating taht those who follow those guidelines are more likely to be successful/heppy, whatever. To demonstrate the wisdom of religion without making one observe the God(s) Him/Her/Itself.

You need not espouse a particlular faith to demonstrate that adultery causes far more problems that it solves. Thus, one can demonstrate the 'logic' of fidelity, without having to give in to a higher power that may or may not exist.

If i ever do this I hope it will show that a) religion need not be a terrible and oppressive thing, and b) even without faith in a higher power, there are some paths and guidelines that are right and should be followed for the best chance of happiness and success. I'd also be very curious to see how this affects the divisions between the faithful and the non-believers, and socio-political factions, like libs versus cons.

Someday...

	30-08-2003 02:53									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ajbera I disagree with the former - it's perfectly fine (IMO) to put up a religious monument in a courthouse, especially since a) the majority of US citizens are adherents of those particular religions,

No, it's not fine. A government courthouse is not the place for a religious display, period. That the majority of U.S. Citizens are Judeo-Christian is precisely the point why such things aren't a good idea. The primary purpose of the First Ammendment was to protect religious minorities.

Putting up religious monuments and then giving preference to the monuments of certain religions is a government endorsement of a particular dogma, no ifs ands or buts about it.

quote: and b) our nation's secular laws are derived from those religious laws.

Prove to me that U.S. laws derive from the Ten Commandments, because history doesn't support this notion. First, not a single one of the Commandments is enshrined in the Constitution (although one could make a stretch to say "Thou Shalt Not Lie" is). In U.S. legal codes, only three are seen-- Not killing, not stealing and not lying (though the last one only applies in very specialized circumstances, i.e. perjury). Furthermore, the bulk of U.S. laws are derived from Anglo-Saxon law, which itself is predominantly based on Roman and other Pagan laws. I suppose then that, by your own standards above, we should only allow a shrine to Jupiter in courthouses.

	30-08-2003 03:16									#55
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Putting up religious monuments and then giving preference to the monuments of certain religions is a government endorsement of a particular dogma, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Giving preference is wrong. Putting a monument up is okay.

How much does it matter where a jurist believes the ultimate authority for a law comes from as long as he exercises the law as written?

Is it wrong to believe that theft is wrong because God says so rather than theft is wrong because men think so, as long as a judge is upholding the law as written?

Does it matter that a judge places the highest authority and source of law as the Judeo-Christian God as long as he/she follows both the letter and the spirit of the written law and applies it evenly and without prejudice towards both those of his own religious cohort and those of other faiths?

Although the issues are intertwined, I consider the monument and Moore's intent for it's usage as separate things. I think it was wrong of Moore to use the monument as explicit espousal of Christianity. I think it was fine for the monument to exist in the courtroom as a historic basis for law, as long as they were also willing to place monuments of other religion's laws in there as well. The Commandments can certainly be viewed from a historical perspective (as can the Bible) even if you have no belief whatsoeever in God.