• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

The fact that Mr. Moore installed in a public courthouse a two-and-a-half-ton granite block decorated with stuff cribbed from a religious scripture is an event bound to invoke the separation of church and state. I mean, how much more blatant a violation need the guy dream up? The fact that the cribbed material is the "ten commandments" is really irrelevant. It could as well be passages from the Torah or Koran in languages unreadable by any who might see it. I'm sure that if Mr. Moore paid for the thing, he will enjoy having it parked next to the plot he has reserved in the local graveyard. So he hasn't entirely wasted his money.
 
Richard G said:


The Declaration of Independence, the foundation of the Constitution, clearly mentions God.
Click to expand...

You've not answered the question. Where does the U.S. Constitution acknowledge the existence of God?
 
I expect this point has been brought up elsewhere, but the references in the Declaration to "Nature's God," "Creator" and "divine Providence" are inconsistent with, and are not an endorsement of, Christianity.

It is always startling to learn how many people think otherwise. Apparently the thinking is that, "If the Declaration refers to any divine power, it MUST be referring to the God that I worship." This notion is seriously flawed.

The very idea of Independence was contrary to established Christian religious doctrine, which held that the king ruled by divine right. The Declaration asserted, however, that it is "the Right of the People to alter or abolish" government, and government is not a matter of divine right at all. The power of government does not come from the Almighty, but comes "from the consent of the governed."

The rights endowed by the Creator -- "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- are not Biblically based.
 
renata said:
He refused to remove the monument, and is appealing to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Oh, I hope he does!! The Supreme Court will slap this loser back to his trailer park so fast he won't know what hit him.
 
Re: Re: Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Oh, I hope he does!! The Supreme Court will slap this loser back to his trailer park so fast he won't know what hit him.
Click to expand...
Very likely. But it is also possible that he might get some sympathic words from at least one Justice on the Court...

... whose name shall remain ...

... Scalia.
 
Re: Re: Re: Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

Brown said:
Very likely. But it is also possible that he might get some sympathic words from at least one Justice on the Court...

... whose name shall remain ...

... Scalia.
Click to expand...

And his butt boy Clarence, who always votes the way daddy does!
 
At least one article pointed out that he could have applied for another stay, so he would not have to move the monument untill his next appeal is settled. But he didn't do that, which means he wants the confrontation between christians and the law. Most likely to help elivate his political/religious career.
 
a_unique_person said:
Could we just compromise and let him put up five commandments?
Click to expand...
As someone else on this board mentioned, I don't see why we couldn't compromise and let him put up all ten commandments, as long as those commandments were the Bill of Rights.
 
Okay, so how do the Feds enforce this ruling? Send in the national guard to remove the monument? Throw Moore in jail for being in contempt of court? What are the options?
 
Upchurch said:
Okay, so how do the Feds enforce this ruling? Send in the national guard to remove the monument? Throw Moore in jail for being in contempt of court? What are the options?
Click to expand...

That's a great question, and one I was wondering about. What happens if everyone remains intractable?

JK would tell us that it would end up in a pitched battle (literally) at the courthouse, but is it more likely that the Feds will just forget the whole thing?
 
In Alabama judges are elected, not appointed (as in some states), therefore, I would say that Moore has created this crisis in order to lay the ground work for future campaigns.
 
richardm said:

That's a great question, and one I was wondering about. What happens if everyone remains intractable?

JK would tell us that it would end up in a pitched battle (literally) at the courthouse, but is it more likely that the Feds will just forget the whole thing?
Click to expand...
Advice for those wise enough to heed it: Don't mess with the Feds.
 
Richard G,

You are only paying attention to half of the "religion" portion of the first amendment. There are two clauses, the "establishment clause" and the "free excercise clause." It is the former, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion..." that is in play here. As has been pointed out, the Alabama Constitution contains similar language, but even if it didn't, this clause does apply to the State of Alabama through this section of the fourteenth amendment:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

There is a tension between the "free excercise" and "establishment" clauses, but it is fairly clear that a line has been crossed here. As pointed out earlier, Judge Moore can pray at home, he can pray at church, he can pray in the street (a "traditional public forum"), he can even pray at work, in chambers.

He can not, however, allow his official duties or the government facilities to be entangled with religion. The large granite monument of a specific set of religious rules in the entryway of a public building most certainly fits this description.

By the way, the Declaration of Independence is, in no way, shape or form the "foundation" of the Constitution. They are both important in a historical and political context, however, only the Constitution has legal effect, and the documents have little to do with each other.

Upchruch,

I doubt highly that this administration is going to "federalize" anything top enforce this particular federal order. It is also unlikely that Judge Moore will face jail time for civil contempt. The Federal Court order will likely be enforced by the leveling of fines against Judge Moore in his official capacity, which will be payable, I believe, by the State of Alabama.
 
Ricomise said:
Upchruch,

I doubt highly that this administration is going to "federalize" anything top enforce this particular federal order. It is also unlikely that Judge Moore will face jail time for civil contempt. The Federal Court order will likely be enforced by the leveling of fines against Judge Moore in his official capacity, which will be payable, I believe, by the State of Alabama.
Click to expand...
Ah, that was the other punishment I was thinking of. Could they not only level fines but also with hold federal funding?
 
arcticpenguin said:

Advice for those wise enough to heed it: Don't mess with the Feds.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. But still, what could they do if he refused to play ball? Keep fining Alabama until they vote him out? I can't believe that they would remove the sculpture forcibly!

Er... Would they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom