Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

[pgwenthold]

According to CNN and AP, a group has filed suit to prevent removal of the monument: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.

Hmm, sounds like me that the argument is that the justices are not allowed to intercede on behalf of Moore to remove the monument. IOW, he has a right to be in contempt of court if he choses to be.

 

[hgc]

...

This report does not say whether the "talk show host" employs television, radio or some other medium.

Good question. I can picture that this guy has a little thing he does in the church basement where people gather after cake and coffee for a little "talk show" in which the "host" asks easy set-up questions of his "guests," all of which are already in lock-step agreement, because they got their opinions from the puppet-on-the-pulpit, who claims to have the puppet-master-in-the-sky pulling on his strings (exclusive of all else present), not an hour ago anyway. Oh, but it isn't hard to get this same stuff aired on AM radio or on cable TV too.

 

[hgc]

Hmm, sounds like me that the argument is that the justices are not allowed to intercede on behalf of Moore to remove the monument. IOW, he has a right to be in contempt of court if he choses to be.

This is the great unnoticed element of this. The other 8 clearly acted on Moore's behalf! He gets to save face, as in not giving in, and yet he doesn't have to go to jail for contempt, nor be the the cause of Alabama paying huge fines. They should have left him to stew in his own juices.

 

[Checkmite]

There is hope...

From the CNN article

At Frazer Memorial United Methodist Church, worshippers said they want the Ten Commandments in public life but have reservations about Moore and his handling of the dispute.

"It was forced down our throats," Debbie Stack said of the marker. "This has taken the focus off of God and put it on a man."

This marks a dissenting opinion from Christians that up until now has not been very public, or has been purposefully ignored.

 

[Brown]

An update, from Yahoo and AP:

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Mobile on behalf of a Christian radio talk show host and a pastor, says the forced removal of the monument would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

U.S. District Judge William Steele — the judge who ordered the monument removed — set a hearing for Wednesday on the lawsuit.

Is there a colorable argument that removal of the monument from public premises in any way affects anyone's freedom of religion? I see no such colorable argument.

Also, the plaintiffs may have serious problems with something called "standing to sue." They don't own the monument, and the monument is not on their property, so it's hard to see how they are affected in any way by the monument's removal. In general, only a person who actually has something at stake can maintain a suit.

Do not be surprised if the lawyers for the plaintiffs receive a rather unpleasant response from the court, much as Fox's lawyers did in their suit against Al Franken.

By the way, who is/are the "Christian radio talk show host and a pastor?" Are they two people or only one? Are they from Alabama? Actually, I'm glad I don't know who they are, since (if the AP reports are right) the purpose of the suit is to grandstand and to attract publicity.

 

[subgenius]

There is hope...



This marks a dissenting opinion from Christians that up until now has not been very public, or has been purposefully ignored.

That's what it'll take. Religious people standing up for seperation of Church and State.....its in the religious people's self-interests.....

 

[pgwenthold]

That's what it'll take. Religious people standing up for seperation of Church and State.....its in the religious people's self-interests.....

This is why I like to point out that many of the "prayer in high school" lawsuits have actually been brought by other religions, and not atheists.

For example, that famous case of prayer at high school football in Texas was a challenge by the catholics and mormons, who were p-o-ed that it was always the baptists leading the prayers.

In the same way, this case could have easily originated from the catholics as well, because the 10 commandments listed on the monument are not those of the catholic catechism.

 

[Brown]

This is why I like to point out that many of the "prayer in high school" lawsuits have actually been brought by other religions, and not atheists.

Very good points. This matter has been painted as atheists vs. Christians, but it might not really be that. Some religious groups insist upon government neutrality in matters of religion. Other groups insist on it only when they disagree with what the government wants to do.

 

[Brown]

The most recent story from CNN says that the new lawsuit alleges "that removing the monument would amount to a government endorsement of a 'religion of non-theistic beliefs.'"

Basically, pgwenthold's remark seems to summarize the argument: "Poor, oppressed christians, can't use the government to force their religion down everyone's throats."

One might also summarize the argument thus: "Unless the government shows special favoritism to Christianity, the government necessarily establishes atheism!"

It ain't gonna fly.

 

[Marc]

Very good points. This matter has been painted as atheists vs. Christians, but it might not really be that. Some religious groups insist upon government neutrality in matters of religion. Other groups insist on it only when they disagree with what the government wants to do.

I've noticed this too. Just today I read an article by Rev. Jerry Falwell that refers to the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State. In it he states

Its leader, Barry Lynn, has admitted to me he wants all civic references to the Almighty – including "In God We Trust" on our nation's currency – permanently exterminated.

Noticed he left out that it is Rev. Berry Lynn.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Its leader, Barry Lynn, has admitted to me he wants all civic references to the Almighty – including "In God We Trust" on our nation's currency – permanently exterminated.

I will take this opportunity to agree with the Rev. Lynn, and reitereate my position on the pledge of allegiance, the 'In God we Trust' on money, etc. I think it should all go, because there are people who will use each transgression as justification for the next.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Here's a bizarre commentary: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2586.html

In a recent piece of hate mail, I was taken to task for using the term God-given rights. "GOD doesn't give rights; the CONSTITUTION does," wrote the critic from Surf City, California. Actually, the constitution acknowledges the rights that are established in the Ten Commandments.

What rights do the ten commandments grant? It's all about your obligations (keep holy the sabbath, honor they parents) and prohibitions (thou shalt not etc.) I don't recall that the commandments grant any rights. They do a commandment by commandment analysis at the end of the article, and if their "logic" is quite twisted if they consider these to be rights.

Note the name of the site is intellectualconservative.com. They have failed to live up to their own name.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Though it seems to me the cost of maintenence on such a monument would hardly be more than incidental, I see your point. Actually, because of its controversial nature, this particular carving could very likely attract vandalism far and above the norm. Furthermore, I wouldn't put it past a 10 Commandments monument advocate to secretly deface it in the hopes of fanning the flames of controversy. Sad to say.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

While having rather copious amounts of bourbon this evening, I came to a rather frightening thought:

If Moore is found in contempt, and sentenced to jailtime, would Rev. Dubya, in his infinite "wisdom" grant him a pardon?

And if so, what would be the result for the country?

 

[Tricky]

Well glorioski! Houston has it's own Biblical challenge now. The bible on display at the entrance to a court house is not as "in your face" as the monument Moore erected, and it is being passed off as being more historical than religious.

Regardless of the outcome, though, I am happy to see that the Alabama case has given people the will to stand up against religious fundamentalists. Thank you, (ex?)-Judge Moore.

 

[Upchurch]

Well glorioski! Houston has it's own Biblical challenge now. The bible on display at the entrance to a court house is not as "in your face" as the monument Moore erected, and it is being passed off as being more historical than religious.

The thing is, in reading the article, the point of the statue in question isn't about establishing religion, as Moore's monument was, but instead about honoring a person.

There is a subtle but important difference.

 

[Checkmite]

The thing is, in reading the article, the point of the statue in question isn't about establishing religion, as Moore's monument was, but instead about honoring a person.

There is a subtle but important difference.

I agree with Upchurch here - the Bible wasn't put there to honor "God's place in our law", but rather as a memorial to a person. I believe that is acceptable, in the same way that I think a president swearing in on the Bible isn't bad - because more is made of the fact that it's the one Washington used, rather than that it's a Bible.

 

[Starrman]

"The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Mobile on behalf of a Christian radio talk show host and a pastor, says the forced removal of the monument would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. "

I wonder what the reaction of the Christian community would have been if it was a big stone Buddha or statue of Muhammad that he plopped in the courthouse.

 

[Brown]

If you want to read the Complaint that has been filed to maintain the monument, check out the PDF document at Findlaw.com. The Complaint is, in my judgment, laughable.

For those of you not used to reading legal pleadings, you might not know whether this is how a pleading ought to be drafted. This is not how a pleading ought to be drafted, unless one has an intent to seek publicity. The sort of extraneous material in this pleading (especially paragraph 1) is comparable to the crap that Fox put in its complaint against Al Franken, and most of it is not appropriate for a legal pleading.

In addition, some of the allegations in the pleading are ridiculous.

[Para. 17] To remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Alabama State Judicial Building is highly offensive to the plaintiffs in that God, and mention thereof, is being eradicated from the State of Alabama and this country in deference to the religion of nontheistic beliefs.

And who are these plaintiffs, that their offense gives them a legal right to sue? Well, one of them lives in Mobile, Alabama, and the other lives in Tallassee, Alabama, but pays regular visits to the Alabama State Judicial Building "for the express purpose of visiting the Ten Commandments Monument."

It is very likely that the defending attorney, or the judge on his own motion, is going to question whether these individuals have "standing to sue." What does the Complaint say about standing? Well, according to the Complaint, the plaintiffs are both aware of the monument and have read its full text. (Gosh!) And there's more:

[Para. 18] The plaintiffs believe that any attempt to remove the Ten Commandments Monument is an affront to their religious freedom and an attack on their Christian beliefs.

In their view, the Monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building is not an endorsement of religion. Quite the contrary:

[Para. 23] The removal of the Ten Commandments Monument creates an excessive entanglement of government with the religion of nontheistic beliefs and therefore violates the plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

[Para. 24] The display of the Ten Commandments Monument in the Alabama State Judicial Building does not create an excessive entanglement of government with religion.

These allegations present a serious problem for the plaintiffs, because the appellate court has already ruled that displaying the Monument is not appropriate. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have what would appear to be an impossible task before them: trying to convince a judge that they are likely to prevail in a controversy that has already been litigated and lost on the merits. The plaintiffs don't see this as a problem however, as their Application for a Temporary Restraining Order asserts:

...there is a likelihood that plaintiffs will prevail on the merits of the Application for Preliminary Injunction.

An attorney either has to have a lot of b*alls or a deficit of brains to make that assertion. I offer no opinion as to which is the case here.

The Application for a Temporary Restraining Order includes a memorandum (like a brief), which includes a plethora of preposterous assertions, including a discussion of the "standing" problem. Hold onto your hats:

In ... the event the Ten Commandments Monument is removed, the plaintiffs will be burdened not only by a change in their behavior, said change evidenced by no longer visiting the Alabama State Judicial Building for reasons more fully set forth below, but will suffer the affect [sic] of being ostracized from the community because of their stand in support of the Ten Commandments....

Incredible! Most lawyers would hang their heads in shame for making such assertions! Let me spell out what that means. These folks are saying, apparently with straight faces, that they will be harmed if they have to visit the monument somewhere other than the Alabama State Judicial Building. Even if the monument is moved to a church a block away, they will be harmed. Also, they make the astonishing argument that they will be harmed merely by not winning the suit! I find it hard to imagine any judge, no matter how sober, who wouldn't laugh out loud at reading that. But it gets even better:

Entry into the Alabama State Judicial Building by the plaintiffs, in the event the monument is removed, would be symbolic of bending a knee to Baal, a false god recognized by some of the nations written about in the Old Testament of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear as to the punishment that those nations received [as] a result of bending a knee to Baal; plaintiffs seek not the same treatment.

Stop it, you're breaking me up! Instead of establishing nontheism, the government would be establishing Baalism, and inviting the wrath of the Almighty?? The next thing you'll be saying is that the Ten Commandments came from the Founding Fathers instead of Moses!

The Ten Commandments Monument represents the foundation of jurisprudence given to this nation by our Founding Fathers for purposes of establishing laws not religion.

 

[pgwenthold]

The text that Brown posts here indicates fairly clear what I suspected from the beginning: the only goal is to keep going to court, no matter how frivolous the suit, just to stall the actual removing of the monument. The judge says "I'll address this Wednesday" and that gives them an extra two days.

No one in their right mind would think this will win, but all it has to do is to get heard to slow things down.