Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

The Islamic countries are all messed up because they don't seperate church and state.
We were founded on that principle. Don't we remember history?
Do we want to be like them?

"Acting so much like the man they hate"--Kid Creole ("There's Trouble in Paradise")

"I heard we have a space program when you sing you can't hear there's no air,
Sometimes I think I'd kinda like that,
And other times I think I'm already there."
--They Might Be Giants
 
Re: America's Bamiyan Buddhas

crocodile deathroll said:

If it is what I suspect, a proxy crusade then it may be setting an very danger precedent

CDR
Click to expand...

There is no precedent being set here. This is one man taking a very extremist position with no legal authority to support it, and a few hundred supporters of his foolish cause.

Where is the precedent in that? That's like proclaiming the Heaven's Gate nuts who wore Nikes and jogging suits and killed themselves somehow set a precedent.

There have always been extremists in society. They do not affect the mainstream in any significant way, except to alienate themselves from it.

AS
 
To Upchurch:

Wow...its just Wow...

You just gotta read that thing twice to 'get all of it'.

Do you get the feeling that these people actually LIKED to hear themselves talk? No TV or Radio, I guess this is the result.

Geez, my writing today is a little long winded, but this stuff is down right abusive and pounding with retorich, be it complete and precise as it is...I still felt as though I was trudging through it.

'I' was feel'n Madison, and I see this and EVERY other example of a God embosed government entity as an 'abuse'. I don't want them using MY BELIEF in God to garner support for most ungodly places.

I wish THIS argument was a part of the National Debate.
 
Re: To Upchurch:

King of the Americas said:
Wow...its just Wow...

You just gotta read that thing twice to 'get all of it'.

Do you get the feeling that these people actually LIKED to hear themselves talk? No TV or Radio, I guess this is the result.

Geez, my writing today is a little long winded, but this stuff is down right abusive and pounding with retorich, be it complete and precise as it is...I still felt as though I was trudging through it.
Click to expand...

Well it's clear that Madison felt very deeply about the issue - but you're right, they did kind of go on and on (and on).

Oh btw, I'm not the Upchurch... :D

To condense, I suppose Madison's points 3, 5, and 6 comprise the argument that you advanced against Moore.
 
no way he'd ever back down or admit error because that would ruin his book deal and his future appearances on the lecture circuit (i'm sure both forthcoming)
 
Here's a great example of how far out there the supporters of Moore really are:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-22-alabama-justice_x.htm

Sealy, a Moore supporter, believes just the opposite — that the commission has undermined the very purpose of the judicial system.

"How can we try people in court for stealing when we are not upholding the document God gave us that says, 'Thou shalt not steal,'?" he said.
Click to expand...

Umm, probably the same way that we can arrest people for speeding without having the bible say, "Thou shalt not speed."

Are they really so clueless?

OTOH, as I have often said, if these people don't know it's wrong to steal without the 10 commandments telling them so, then I hope they keep believing in them.
 
His own argument is fallacious.
Removing that 2 ton atrocity has nothing to do with not upholding anything. He can have whatever he wants in his chambers.
Like banning prayer in schools. As JFK said the simple solution is to pray at home and church.
So there was no justice coming out of that courthouse before he snuck his stone in? He obviously thinks he's god and knows better than anyone else.
And under his pea brained thinking you can't prosecute people without his religious icon being there. Guess a lot of people will have good grounds for appeal.
And how about his hair? Bad transplants.
If god wanted him to have hair he would have given him some.
Let's all say it together......"Hypocrite."
Bet if we knew the truth we'd find some real dirt on this self-righteous twit. That's how it always is.
 
Tony said:
As far as Im concerned there is no constitutional question (with this particular issue). The constitution is clear.
Click to expand...

You are either deliberately avoiding the question or evidencing a severe lack of understanding of the point...

When you have two opposing parties someone must have the authority to make that distinction. Even if it is "self-evident" a formal decision is still needed.

How would you say these issues should be resolved? You say it depends, ok how about this issue?

You can't simply give your solution to the issue, because that defines no process for resolving similar issues. Unless you are setting yourself up as the official arbiter.
 
I have a question.

Seeing as the supporters have decided to block all exits so no one can remove the rock, the question is begged: who paid for the thing?

If Moore paid for it, that's one thing.

However, if this was paid for by the state, then the solution to getting it out is pretty simple, if callous. Since the exits are being blocked such that a 2.5 ton statue can't be removed, break it into smaller pieces. It would save the state being charged huge money for keeping it there.
 
Re: Re: America's Bamiyan Buddhas

AmateurScientist said:


There is no precedent being set here. This is one man taking a very extremist position with no legal authority to support it, and a few hundred supporters of his foolish cause.

Where is the precedent in that? That's like proclaiming the Heaven's Gate nuts who wore Nikes and jogging suits and killed themselves somehow set a precedent.

There have always been extremists in society. They do not affect the mainstream in any significant way, except to alienate themselves from it.

AS
Click to expand...

The Bush administration makes no secret of is war on Islamic millitant extremists, but is a kind of crusade be fought by proxy by US fundie xtian xtremists against all Muslims. Franklin Graham leads the charge.

IMO Franklin Graham will be all for the 10 commandment stones, he would like to ones just like them erected ouside the Whitehouse. He believes Christians need to show the differences between their faith and Islam, and this ten commandment affair is only a start.
 
Re: Re: Re: America's Bamiyan Buddhas

crocodile deathroll said:


The Bush administration makes no secret of is war on Islamic millitant extremists, but is a kind of crusade be fought by proxy by US fundie xtian xtremists against all Muslims. Franklin Graham leads the charge.

IMO Franklin Graham will be all for the 10 commandment stones, he would like to ones just like them erected ouside the Whitehouse. He believes Christians need to show the differences between their faith and Islam, and this ten commandment affair is only a start.
Click to expand...

I don't get how Christian fundies' support of Moore's monument has anything to do with Islam or our supposed war on Islamic militant extremists. How is the Ten Commandments legal battle a crusade against radical Islam by proxy? I don't understand.

They really don't have anything to do with each other. You don't have to be a Christian to see the danger to Western civilization that Islamic militant extremists pose. Hamas and Al Queda and other Arab terrorist organizations make no secret of their hatred of the U.S. and the rest of Western civilization. They would love nothing better than to see us wiped off the face of the planet.

The Ten Commandment affair is only a start? A start of what exactly? A resurgence of Christian fundamentalism? Not really. These people are extremists, not moderates. They do not represent a broad base of support.

There is no broad based uprising of Christian fundamentalism. The fundies are a fringe subset of Christians in the U.S., albeit a large fringe subset. The broad middle is pretty tepid by comparison.

The President wasn't elected because of his deeply held faith. One could argue he was elected in spite of it. He was elected because he's the anti-Clinton.

I just don't see this Moore thing as anything but a lone ranger idiot championing a made up cause and pandering to his found supporters, who fell for the bait and behaved quite predictably. It's not indicative of anything greater.

AS
 
AmateurScientist said:
I don't get how Christian fundies' support of Moore's monument has anything to do with Islam or our supposed war on Islamic militant extremists. How is the Ten Commandments legal battle a crusade against radical Islam by proxy? I don't understand.

They really don't have anything to do with each other. You don't have to be a Christian to see the danger to Western civilization that Islamic militant extremists pose. Hamas and Al Queda and other Arab terrorist organizations make no secret of their hatred of the U.S. and the rest of Western civilization. They would love nothing better than to see us wiped off the face of the planet.
Click to expand...
To borrow a point from Bill Maher: There is a benefit to having disputes like this resolved in public, as the resolution shows that this nation is not officially a "Christian nation." Some Islamic extremists would like to paint their hatred of the USA in terms of one religion versus another... but events like this show at least an aspiration of religious neutrality in the national and local governments of the USA.
 
Shinytop said:
The idiot judge paid for it, or at least the state did not.
Click to expand...
If I remember right (and others should feel free to correct me), funds for the monument itself came from private donations, spearheaded by a religious broadcaster.

However, other costs associated with the monument were borne by taxpayers. Cleaning, repair and maintenance, for example.

Another cost (and not a small one) was insurance or liability-related cost. Children like to play on monuments of that size, whether they are roped off or not, and a fall could cause serious injury to a child (and a serious liability problem for the state). In addition, the weight of the monument was a serious concern, as there was (and still is) some question as to whether the floor can support it. Damage to the facilities due to the excessive weight could be extensive. Also, it has been suggested that the monument may impede an evacuation of the building. Risks such as these are a burden on taxpayers.
 
Brown said:
However, other costs associated with the monument were borne by taxpayers. Cleaning, repair and maintenance, for example.
Click to expand...
With respect, how much cleaning, let alone repair and maintenance, could a stone like the one in question possibly require?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
With respect, how much cleaning, let alone repair and maintenance, could a stone like the one in question possibly require?
Click to expand...
Well, that depends on whether people leave it alone. As courthouse janitors can tell you, not all visitors are respectful of government property. Some of them intentionally or unintentionally get dirt, chewing gum, soft drinks, food, etc., on statues, monuments, exhibits and other ornate things in the building.

This particular monument includes engraving, and it would take some work to remove material that got lodged in the engraving.

If people left the thing alone, then all the janitor would have to do would be to dust it at night, maybe wipe it to get rid of fingerprints from folks who touched it.
 
Late, yeah, but a headline from Friday:

Ala. Judge Relents on Monument

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 22 -- After defying a federal court order and drawing hundreds of cheering Christian activists to this capital city, Alabama's crusading chief justice conceded today and said that he will not try to block the removal of his 2-ton Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of the Supreme Court building.

"He will not interfere," Stephen Melchior, the lead attorney for Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, said in an interview.

...

Moore's suspension and the slow realization that he is powerless to stop the monument's removal did not deter demonstrators, many of whom clung to hope that a miracle would change the outcome of a case that has ignited passionate debate for months and solidified the chief justice's iconic status among Christian conservatives.

"Maybe they can move the monument, but they can't take it out of our hearts," said Rich Kendall, 52, who stood steps from the courthouse doors with a 10-foot-tall wooden cross that read "Jesus Died For You."

It increasingly appears that the monument will be moved to a nonpublic area of the court building. Associate justices have even been investigating whether it is heavy enough to crash through the unreinforced floors in private offices and elevators. Despite those signals, activists outside the courthouse remained wary that the monument would eventually be taken out of the building. They are maintaining 24-hour watches and vowing to risk arrest to keep it inside.

"The monument is not coming out with us here," said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, which has spearheaded the demonstrations.

...
Click to expand...
 
There may be a disturbing trend here. Some of those protesting the removal of the monument seem to be trying desperately to keep the attention of the media. I hope that the increase in inflammatory rhetoric, which seems to be intended to draw media attention, does not incite anyone to violence.
 
According to CNN and AP, a group has filed suit to prevent removal of the monument:
Attorneys prepared to ask a federal court in Mobile to block the removal of the Christian monument.

The lawsuit on behalf of a Christian talk show host and [sic] would name as defendants the eight associate justices who last week overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore and directed that the federal court order be followed, said attorney Jim Zeigler.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to be creative, but I cannot think of how such a lawsuit could be well-grounded in fact and law. I wonder what arguments will be used to try to convince a district judge that he can nullify an order from a higher court.

I also wonder whether the "talk show host" has standing to sue, or is from Alabama. This report does not say whether the "talk show host" employs television, radio or some other medium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom