Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

[Upchurch]

I can't believe that they would remove the sculpture forcibly!

Er... Would they?

Well, if Moore continues to defy the government and the law, what is the alternative? One the presedence is set that you don't have to obey the Supreme Court, where does that leave us?

For the good of the country, Moore needs to comply. He can still fight it to the fullest extent possible, but he needs to obey the judicial system.

 

[Richard G]

Bible thumping or not the foundation was laid by the founding fathers. Congress also authorized a chaplain which to this day offers prayers before the opening of the session. This position is paid by government. In practice this does not violate the separation clause or it would have been abolished years ago. THAT is why government can exercise religion without establishing it. Websters defines "Establish" to institute as law permanently by enactment or agreement, Posting a set of the Ten Commandments on a building doesn't make them "The Law," rather it is a way of exercising it by display. Free exercise thereof, IS in the bill of rights. It is called the First Amendment, and it was manifested to provide for free expression of religion.

Elected officials do not cease to be citizens because they are in office. And they may excercise and express their religious beliefs while there.

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.

Displaying the Ten Commandments does not violate any of this law you have quoted.

 

[toddjh]

Elected officials do not cease to be citizens because they are in office. And they may excercise and express their religious beliefs while there.

Sure they can. As individuals. I have no problem with Moore being a Christian. If he wants a granite monument of the ten commandments, he can go ahead and put it on his lawn, like any other citizen could. He doesn't own the Alabama courthouse, nor his office -- what gives him the right to put a two-ton granite monument on state property? Would any other citizen be able to do this? Would a Muslim or Wiccan person be free to put an equivalent monument of their choice on the courtroom floor?

Of course not. It is Moore's position as an agent of the government which he is using to maintain this object of religious expression, not his rights as an individual citizen. Once he decided to use government funds and government property -- and the laws which give him the authority to do so -- it stopped being about his personal rights.

Displaying the Ten Commandments does not violate any of this law you have quoted.

The monument is sitting on government property. It is being maintained with government (= tax) dollars. Read the religious freedom clause of the Alabama constitution again.

Jeremy

 

[Brown]

This report from CNN (and AP), if accurate, is rather disturbing:

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told thousands of supporters Saturday that he would be guilty of treason if he didn't fight to keep a monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state judicial building.

"Treason?" Perhaps the honorable judge doesn't know the meaning of the word. At best, he overstates his case... to the point of absurdity. Or perhaps he uses the word "treason" in the "Ann Coulter sense," i.e., as descriptive of a thing with which he personally disagrees.

"Let's get this straight. It's about the acknowledgment of God," Moore said in front of the Alabama Capitol.

If that's the case, your honor, I don't want to hear your lawyers making any arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court that the commandments monument is about some sort of "historical" basis or that it has a secular purpose. Also, your honor, you know damn well that what is at issue is not merely an acknowledgment of a deity in general, but acknolwedgment of a particular deity, along with commandments specifying how and when this specific deity is to be worshipped.

Falwell said Moore is right to defy Thompson's order if he believes he is obeying God.

Falwell should have added, but probably did not, that Moore should also resign from the judicial branch, because he is unwilling to carry out the duties of a judge.

"Civil disobedience is the right of all men when we believe breaking man's law is needed to preserve God's law," Falwell said.

Civil disobediance also involves being willing to accept the consequences of your acts, such as being willing to go to jail and having a criminal record for the rest of your life. Sounds like the reverend Jerry is urging this course for others, rather than for himself.

CNN mentioned a counter protest that included "about 35 atheists." Whether the "atheist" label was self-assigned or whether the label was assigned by those who supported Justice Moore was unclear from the report.

 

[mgidm86]

From the article:

Moore had appealed Thompson's order, but a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against Moore, saying in part that his argument echoed state's rights claims of segregationists such as Alabama's Gov. George C. Wallace in the 1960s.

Yeah no kidding! First we get the bible in the courthouse, then we start to dip into it every now and then for advice on how to keep "them" away from "us". Oh yeah, don't forget about the Union Jack up on the roof too! We wanna keep everyone guessing!

I guess if he still has legal options he is free to exercise them, although, judging by his own comments, he seems happy to publicly defy the law and authority. Thumbing his nose at the feds in such a way is pretty poor behavior for a judge, even one from 'Bama...DOH! What a maroon!

 

[hammegk]

Oh, this looks like fun! Can anyone spell "Civil War II"?

 

[Cinorjer]

Moore is doing nothing but playing good old Southern Populist Politics. My psychic prediction is that the man will eventually be running for a higher elected office such as Governer. Take a Southern Fundamentalist population, get them worked up over state's rights versus the Feds, mix in a big dose of that Old Time Religion, and you have a winning ticket.

Moore knows he's going to lose the legal battle, unless he's truely deranged and incompetent. But, he wins either way where it counts. He's either the hero who put Christ back in the courts, or he's the hero who fought a valient but losing battle against those Godless Humanist Federal courts.

Just one more reason why I'll never visit Alabama.

Jerry

 

[tamiO]

Just one more reason why I'll never visit Alabama.

Jerry

You should at least visit us sometime. The countryside is beautiful and the beaches are gorgeous!

You are spot on with the win win situation Judge Moore has created.

 

[gnome]

The Founding Fathers intent was to prohibit the goverment from controlling, or preventing the people from excercising religion. The opposite is occuring today, with courts trying to squash, and ban any display of faith or religious belief.

Ok, Richard... if you're really willing to stand behind your words, I want you to answer two simple questions with a yes or a no answer.

Question 1: Do you recognize a distinction between "any display of faith or religious belief" and displays on public property created by someone using their official capacity?

Question 2: If your answer to question 1 is "Yes." do you feel that distinction is irrelevant to the legal problem here?

If you really want to convince us, you have to answer the tough questions and not evade them.

 

[Peach Jr.]

Sort of on the subject:

Did anyone watch "Saturday Final with Lawrence O'Donnell" yesterday? Penn Jillette is one of their panelists. When they got to the segment of the "winners and losers of the week", Mr. J. picked Judge Moore as his winner of the week. The transcript isn't up on MSNBC yet - I'll try to get on and post it tomorrow when it does - but the gist of his statement was this.

Since the judge said he was following god's law and not man's, he should feel free to step down so he can continue to follow god's law instead. Merely my sad recollection of the discussion...

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Even if the judge (to use the term loosely) were right on the substantive legal issue, a judge willfully disobeying a court order is wrong, stupid, and harmful to the rule of law and the authority of judges everywhere.

The position that placing the ten commandments is not enough to show official sponsorship of a state religion is not, per se, an unreasonable one (though in this case, in context, he appears to be wrong), but that is all beside the point.

A judge should not - cannot - simply refuse to follow a court order because he disagrees with it, any more than any other citizen. If he believes the decision to be wrong, he needs to fight it in the courts. He can fight it in the papers and court of popular opinion. He has a number of avenues with which to fight, and plenty of chances for publicity.

His refusal to follow the very laws that he swore to uphold when taking his position is a breach of trust. He has failed to follow the most basic tenets of what is still an honorable profession and calling. I hope that even those who might agree with him on the ten commandments strongly condemn his refusal to follow the law.

NA

Edited to fix typos - left some in to provide amusement

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, this looks like fun! Can anyone spell "Civil War II"?

Yes, just what mankind needs, another war over religion.

 

[Scorpy]

His refusal to follow the very laws that he swore to uphold when taking his position is a breach of trust. He has failed to follow the most basic tenets of what is still an honorable profession and calling. I hope that even those who might agree with him on the ten commandments strongly condemn his refusal to follow the law.

NA

Edited to fix typos - left some in to provide amusement

I wonder if that oath he took included something about "so help me God" and a hand placed on a Bible? If so, then his refusal to obey the law might be considered an affront to God as well.

 

[Marc]

I wonder if that oath he took included something about "so help me God" and a hand placed on a Bible? If so, then his refusal to obey the law might be considered an affront to God as well.

One article also comented on the possibility that his fighting over this monument might be a form of idolarity.

 

[ssibal]

The deadline is Wendsday, I hope every idiot trying to 'protect' the 10 commandments from being removed is arrested, especially Moore.

 

[hammegk]

Yes, just what mankind needs, another war over religion.

Nah, think States Rights vs Federal Rights. Just like the last US Civil War.

 

[NightG1]

Nah, think States Rights vs Federal Rights. Just like the last US Civil War.

What makes you think this anything to do with "States Rights" Is Moore the State of Alabama?

 

[hammegk]

What makes you think this anything to do with "States Rights" Is Moore the State of Alabama?

He is certainly representing States Rights in this case, which imo clash with Federal Rights -- Federal rights as currently expressed by SCOTUS opinions. And "opinions" have been known to change.

 

[Tricky]

I for one am quite glad that Moore is taking this to the Supreme Court, even though it is a tremendous embarassment to me as a native Alabamian.

A clear cut case like this will provide a precedent that will go a long way towards the separation of church and state. If the issue were "fuzzy" then it would not do so. If Moore backed down and let the lower court ruling stand, no national precedent would be set. Moore is the greatest friend we secular people have ever had.

Alabama has a history of helping good causes by providing bad examples. The extremism of George Wallace did more to combat racism than anything short of Martin Luther King.

 

[Brown]

A clear cut case like this will provide a precedent that will go a long way towards the separation of church and state.

I am not so sure that the case is clear cut.

Legally, Justice Moore's case is rotten, but politically, it is not. Does anyone think that John Ashcroft or his designated appellate advocate is going to criticize Justice Moore before the Supreme Court? (I'll bet Moore thinks of Ashcroft as an ally, and I'll also bet that Moore thinks he's got at least three Supreme Court votes in the bag.) Does anyone think that John Ashcroft will take an active part in the removal of the monument? (I'll bet Moore thinks Ashcroft will find some excuse for not carrying out the court's decision.)

The case will be painted as an example of a vocal minority trying to ram its will down the gullet of the majority. This sort of thing is always politically unpopular.

The case will also be painted as an example of government trying to destroy the Almighty.

Of course, the case involves no such thing. Private individuals and churches can display whatever version of the Ten Commandments they wish. On their own property. Maintained with their own funds. Insured with their own money.

However, too many people (and I'm not restricting this to Alabamians) appear to lack the intellectual capacity to draw a simple distinction between a private display and a public display. They seem to think that if the majority agrees with the religious message, then the minority ought to shut up.