Roy.

Still calling yourself a bright, eh?

Moore is not crazy, he just knows what will get him elected. As a trial judge, he endured an ACLU lawsuit that ended up requiring him to remove a small plaque of the 10 Amendments from his courtroom. He took that issue as his running platform and won election to Chief Justice in Alabama. He carried through and put his thumb in the Eye of the Federal Courts and the ACLU. He's been prosecuting this case in a manner to reform 1st Amendment law to the text of that document (yeah, right), or to lose and win further state-wide office (more likely, IMHO). He's done everything possible to make this the extreme factual scenario to be resolved under the current wavering 1st Amendment tests (the jurisprudence is in flux). The irony here is that the fresco above the US Supreme Court bench, in the courtroom where the cases are argued, depict Moses with two tablets of the Decalogue.

So the highest Court in the land has a depiction of the devine origin of the Decalogue, legal, but the words alone are illegal. Come again?

Dean, you are right.

Read 10 Commendments, my brain fart.

For what it's worth, I too agree with you Dean. First ammendment issues notwithstanding, what has happened to tolerance in this country?

Dean,

Interesting take, though I vehmently disagree. There IS a conflict with the First Amendment which is what allows all people to worship freely, without government interference. When officers of the government use their official position to ordain a particular religion as not just their personal faith, but as something that is and should be common to everyone (though it isn't), they cross the line. No one should care what religion Roy Moore is or what he displays in his personal office, but when he uses public space that does not belong to him to put forth his personal religious views he's gone too far.

Steve,

Small factual point. Moore was not forced to remove the ten commandments from his courtroom in Etowah County. The case was thrown out because the plaintiffs lacked standing (basically they could find anyone with daily business in the courtroom who objected enough to sue).

Also, the display in the Supreme Court is not a 2 ton block of granite and also includes representations of Confucious, Hamurabi and other law givers. The words are not illegal, what Judge Thompson found was that the type of display and Moore's own statements about why it is there is what makes it unconstitutional.

If he really just wanted the ten commandments in the courthouse, he could have accomplished that within the boundaries of the law. He did it in a way that forced a confrontation.

Yelena of the Chicago Report chimed in a couple of days ago.

I disagree. If the commandments had been there since construction, or put there with the aproval of the state legislature that would be one thing. But I believe judge Moore overstepped his authority in putting them there, and more in putting them there when and how they were brought in.

I think the pedestal was intended as a statement of preference for a religious tradition and churches based on that tradition, and I think it functioned in that manner. And I think Moore intended it to be offensive, which is inappropriate for a public servant in his public function.

Forcing Judge Moore to remove the original plaque was wrong, and an example of everything that is being said about the current monument, but IMO the monsterous thing Moore installed in the court house got the fate it deserved and warranted by being moved to a back room.

I disagree with you on this one. If everyone was a Christian, or if there was representation for all religions in the courtroom, fine, but to represent one religion over another is akin to saying that religion is best.

It is, in my mind equal to saying a certain race is best. Equal representation under the law can not be exclusive,it must be inclusive to follow the spirit under which it was written.

Furthermore, the idea of politicians using religious fodder to gain attention, is tugging at people's heart strings. Use the issues at hand. It's a media ploy, an advertising gimmick. It's what politicians who have no substance do when they can't hold their own of their own merit--they play the emotion or in this case the 'God Card.'

If I were a Christian, or a Muslim, or Jew, or of any other religious persuasion, I would not want some politician controlling my celebration or observation of my deity. That's why American was founded--religious freedom--separation of church and state. Let us not go backward. Ugh!

Kristopher, Judge Roy's monument also is inscribed with 14 other texts - non-biblical - of foundational documents that explain the historical bond of American legal tradition and practice to Judeao-Christian ethos. I agree, Judge Moore had a defensible display - providing a historical context not just a biblical argument, but he is prosecuting his case in a manner contrary to current "theory" and ignoring the potential "fig leaf" of historical relevance in order to pursue his own agenda.

Thank you for the correction as to the result of the original suit, but isn't it a stretch to that the two attorneys who brought this suit were harmed, and so this case should also have been dismissed?

Katherine: Hey. That's just what I think. I could be wrong.

But I don't think I am, or I wouldn't have said it.

Ain't that life? :-)

If you read the opinion, Judge Thompson walks through this part of the case carefully. It's not a stretch when two of the plaintiffs were forced to change their lives to accomodate the monument. They purposely avoided the building and incurred expenses by conducting research over the internet, instead of visiting the law library, etc.

I have seen the monument in person, long before the campers showed up. You can read the 14 statements here.I work about a block away from the Alabama State Judicial Building. He is making the unconventional argument, and it's a losing argument.

Come on Kristopher, the monument was in the Rotunda, I've been told to read the inscription you had to walk up to it, I have to rely on press pictures, but the words do not seem to be in neon. The two attorneys are arguing that merely passing by the monument (a large rock - the size of a small desk) injured them so much that they could not bear to enter the law library. Does that really pass the laugh test. Judge Thompson notwhithstanding (I carefully chose that word, about as carefully as the good judge walks through the facts) there is no right not to have your feelings hurt.

The judge did not require an oath of allegiance prior to entery into the building, the attorneys were not even required to look DOWN at the top of the monument, and could easily walk pass without seeing the offending words. The Amendment reads: "Congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion . . . "; it says nothing about donated displays. The Judge is losing the case on purpose for political points.

Katherine,

That's why American was founded--religious freedom--separation of church and state.

Uhhh, that turns out not to be the case.

First of all, as someone else pointed out, the words "seperation of church and state" appear nowhere in either the Consitution or the Declaration of Independence.

What the First Amendment says, precisely, is this:

"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."

At the time that that Amendment became law, 12 of the 13 states had an OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT CHURCH. The purpose of this particular segment of the First Amendment was to prevent Congress from mucking about in what everyone considered a matter for the individual states to decide.

Further, the First Amendment pertains ONLY to Congress. It does not forbid, sayyyy, Pennsylvania from passing a law abridging the freedom of speech.

You also need to look at the Tenth Amendment, which says this:

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Among other things, this Amendment shows that the Framers considered the States as being SUPERIOR to the United States, since they "delgated" some powers to it and "prohibited" others.

Together, these two amendments say that Congress has no authority WHATSOEVER in matters of religion, but that state governments DO have such authority. (The state governments also have the power to, for instance, abridge the freedom of speech.)

At this point, you are thinking that I'm nuts, but I'm not. The Fourteenth Amendment dealt with this problem, thusly:

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

Thus, the Fourteenth is generally interpreted to extend the restrictions on Congress to the individual states. But notice that there is no mention of any "establishment of religion" in the Fourteenth Amendment. A case could be made (and I suspect it WILL be made before this Alabama mess is over) that Federal instituions have no say over the States when it comes to any "establishment of religion".

What it all comes down to is that Judge Moores display of the Ten Commandments is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT forbidden by the Constitution of The United States.

However, it IS clearly and explicitly forbidden by the Constitution of the State of Alabama, in much more specific detail than the US Constitution uses.

It is absolutely not possible that Judge Moore is unaware of this. Therefore, Judge Moore is perpetrating some kind of scam. i won't speculate on his motives, but personally, I cannot conceive of any outcome that I would consider positive if he should win.

Gary,

I stand corrected. Thank you. So, let's go forward. How should it be? Shall we be inclusive or exclusive? And if so, who should decide which religious mementos we include? It seems like an utter nightmare as is evidenced by Judge Moore's actions. Courtrooms are a judicial place of business, yes? I vote for keeping religious artifacts in the churches that would most appreciate and honor them. Just my 2 cents.

Dean,

I love that we can agree to disagree. Thanks for letting me state my opinion. Your writing is inspirational and always makes me sit back and think.

Katherine

Here's one Brights' (me) take on the issue:

I consider the old testament a work of literature. I would put it nearly 90 pure fiction. That being said, it is hardly inappropriate to adorn a courthouse with one of the great works of literature. In fact, even though I reject the divinity of Jesus and even the existence of God, I take no offense at the presence of the 10 Commandments at the courthouse. However, think there are probably only a handful of people living now that truly follow the teachings of Jesus at written in New Testatment. I certainly don't think there is such a thing as a capitalist Christian, and I feel that Judge Moore is obviously using this issue for his own sake. If he followed the commandments and the teachings of Christ, it would be a moral contridiction to grant divorce or sentence people to death in his court. What an asshole.

Tim the Soldier

Katherine, I took note as to what you had to say and it touched me in a different sort of way. One was your line about different races. I felt what you were saying and you as well as Dean are fine writers.
Anyway, I am a christian and I do agree with you about Dean. I got mad a few times as I watched my television or read the news somewhere. My heart strings got pulled here and there. I knew about this long ago being a christian from a news alert from a Dr.James Kennedy that I admire. He runs Coral Ridge Ministries out of Florida. Anyway, I signed a petition regarding this monument. I was just so tired of things being thrown out. I listened to the judge very closely with a clear and clean heart. Then I would listen to rebuttals.
Well, it's like when I read your notes. I feel all sorts of things and here is where I agree with Katherine again, even though close to a year ago I signed that petition- your writings are inspirational, and like Katherine I too sit back and think.

"By the way, I feel exactly the same way about school prayer...."

Most conventional mainstream folk do, that is because it's generally the prayers and artifacts of their beliefs that are used. I'm willing to bet it would be considerably different if a Vodoun priest organized a blood sacrifice for the opening of the new library wing in your town.

I am not christian and have absolutely no desire to to stand in a crowd at the opening of an event or in the gallery of my legislative assembly and listen to or participate in invocations to the god of some other belief structure - although I may indeed have the desire to go to the event or watch the proceedings of government.

Neither do I have any interest in having my children subjected to religious propaganda from an outside belief system in a public education system my tax dollars help fund.

Have any of you who are pro-Moore actually read the text of the court decision? Seriously, have you? It really doesn't sound like many of you have.

Because *EVERY* argument that's been brought up here in favour of Moore was considered and discarded. They court even considered the dissenting opinion in Lemon, with the much stricter test regarding what constitutes establishment, and Moore's sculpture still didn't pass that test.

The decision in Glassroth vs. Moore rests firmly on sound, current, binding legal precedent. The decision is good law. It's not bad law just because you don't like the decision.

"Thou shalt not have on to thee any graven images..."
- 2nd Commandment -

So... am I the only one who sees the hilarious irony of it all? :0)

It is a little-noticed fact that the SCOTUS has, in recent decades, insinuated itself into the dominant position among the 3 branches of govt. Oddly enough, someone has noticed: an obscure little Republican rep from Indiana named John Hostettler. He leans heavily on The Federalist, in which it is clearly stated that the legislative branch, being closest to the people and controlling the purse strings is, when push comes to shove, dominant. Pursuing that notion, he persuaded the House to pass, on July 23 by a bipartisan vote of 260-161, an amendment to the House appropriations bill forbidding federal marshals to disburse any funds for enforcement of the ruling of the 11th Circuit. Already moot, since the Congress is in recess and the deed is done. The Hostettler gimmick is reminiscent of the famous Boland Amendment, which said to Reagan Thou Shalt Not Commit Anti-Communism in Nicaragua, and led to the famous kerfuffle in re the Weinberger-Poindexter-Ollie North-Richard Secord enterprise.

This Hostettler is sure to be ridiculed as some kind of clown, but he bears watching. He seems to be determined to rein in some of the goofier antics of appeals courts. IMO, it's too bad he chose this issue, which is a loser in light of the sad fact that judicial distortions of the 1st Amendment are now carved in granite. If he persists, we may see the end of the current rule: "The Supremes have spoken. All prostrate themselves and repeat after me: 'I pledge allegiance to the gut feelings of the Five, and to the Living Constituton for which they stand.'"

Dean,

You've got this one pegged exactly right: in a truely sane society, no one would give a damn if the good people of Alabama decided is ok to have something carved on a rock.

Because, dear people, thats what this is - words carved on a rock. Some are religious, some aren't; its just words, people. Words carved on a rock have not, to my knowledge, caused a great deal of repression in human history...from what I can gather, its usually human beings who do the repressing, not carved rocks. Though perhaps further investigation is necessary.

We do need to reign in the Courts, as they have entirely overstepped their constitutional bounds and are relentlessly interefering with our right to self-government.

Wouldn't atheists who believe in the First Amendment better serve themselves by lobbying to have a statue of Madalyn Murray O'Hair displayed just as prominently?

How should it be? Shall we be inclusive or exclusive? And if so, who should decide which religious mementos we include?

Why be EITHER inclusive or exclusive? Why make a decision about "religious mementos"? It's not governments business in the first place, that's what the First Amendment says.

The government should not be making distinctions between different religions, including atheism (also known as secular humanism).

So someone complains, so what? We pay too much attention to the whiners these days, WAY too much.

Meanwhile, this whole Moore thing is bogus. He very deliberatley planned this whole thing, and because he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt how the courts were going to rule, he even planned his response to that. Bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus, bogus. There is nothing to discuss here, because we have been HAD by Judge Roy.

It's not a stretch when two of the plaintiffs were forced to change their lives to accomodate the monument.

Now wait a minute -- they were forced to avoid the rotunda? Why? Were they afraid if they walked through the rotunda while the monument was there, they might get Jehovah cooties?

Dean: In regards to the questions I asked, what if *only* the Koran were represented? What if *only* the Wiccan doctrine was engraved on the front of the courthouse? What if a Judge who was Islamic decided that he wanted Sharia Law (which he considers to be highly religious) carved in stone and put in the courthouse? And no other religion was represented on that stone?

what if *only* the Koran were represented? What if *only* the Wiccan doctrine was engraved on the front of the courthouse?

Sure! Why not? I see no problem with that at all. It's not an "establishment of a religion," it's not a threat to anyone's freedom, and it seems like a perfectly appropriate thing to do if it reflects the general sentiments of the state, county, or wherever it's at. :-)

My view is currently a minority opinion among judges. I recognize this. I'm not so sure my view won't gain increasing acceptance over the next couple of generations, because I think modern America's fear of religion is wildly out of proportion to the threat it supposedly represents. I think--I hope--future generations will feel the same way.

Like Dean, I too am a "bright", or more descriptively, an affiliate of apatheism (which holds that 'theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing', per H L Mencken.)

I see the continuous efforts to remove the symbols of religious belief from public places, pledges of allegiance which include references to a deity, and similar actions, all as an effort to enforce political correctness as defined by a collection of leftists, few of whom are truly interested in the civil liberties of those who disagree with them.

Is Judge Roy Moore making a last stand over his stone tablet with the ten commandments for his own political purposes? Maybe. And if "maybe" nudges over in "probably", why not? Who in public office did not use self-promotion to get there?

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Minor point That was Dietz who wrote the post linked. Second if Moore had allowed other symbols of law history such as the code of Hammurabi to stand with the monument, I would bet the court would have said the religious implications were incidental not substantive and allowed the display to stand, Moore specifically rejected this compromise.

The Supreme Court in the 1879 case of Reynolds v. U.S. said that Jefferson's description of the wall of separation of church and state "may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.".

In 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared again that, "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

To me, the acceptance of the principle as a valid description of the First Amendment religious liberties by the Supreme Court seems to give this more weight.

In addition to the people who point out that the phrase "separation of church and state" don't appear in the U.S. Constitution, I'd like to add that the phrases "religious liberty" and "fair trial" don't appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, either.

The Supreme Court has also delivered a handy 3-part test, known as the "Lemon Test", to determine whether something is constitutional under the First Amendment's religious provisions:

1) Does it have a secular purpose?
2) Does it have the primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting a particular religious view?
3) Does it avoid excessive entanglement of government and religion?

If the act in question fails one or more of these three tests, it is considered to be unconstitutional.

ScottC:

As you correctly state, the judgement in Glassroth v. Moore rests partially on the test that you quote from Lemon v. Kurtzman. (It also relies on Marsh v. Chambers).

It's interesting to note, though, that Judge Thompson considers the stricter "prosletyzation" test proposed by Justice Kennedy, one of the strongest critics of Lemon, in Kennedy's dissent in Allegheny v. ACLU. Thompson quotes Kennedy:

coercion need not be a direct tax in aid of religion or a test oath. Symbolic recognition of accommodation of religious faith may violate the Clause in an extreme case. I doubt not, for example, that the Clause forbids a city to permit the permanent erection of a large Latin cross on the roof of city hall. This is not because government speech about religion is per se suspect, as the majority would have it, but because such an obtrusive year-round religious display would place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion.

Judge Thompson concludes that Moore's sculpture not only fails the Lemon test but also fails Kennedy's stricter "prosletyzation" test:

Justice Kennedy's proselytization test is met here. Both in appearance and in stated purpose, the Chief Justice's Ten Commandments monument is an "extreme case"; it is nothing less than "an obtrusive year-round religious display" installed in the Alabama State Judicial Building in order to "place the government's weight behind an obvious effort to proselytize on behalf of a particular religion," the Chief Justice's religion.

And, yes, Thompson does consider the fact that some of the commandments are secular:

While the secular aspect of the Ten Commandments can be emphasized, this monument, however, leaves no room for ambiguity about its religious appearance ... While the quotations on the monument's sides are non-Biblical, they still speak solely to non-secular matters ... The only way to miss the religious or non-secular appearance of the monument would be to walk through the Alabama State Judicial Building with one's eyes closed.

Nobody who has posted on this thread in support of Moore has pointed out any specific problem with Thompson's logic, reasoning, use of legal precedent, or legal analysis in this case.

Sean Kinsell,

Regarding lobbying for a statue of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, something like that was tried. Let me quote from Thompson's judgement in Glassroth v. Moore:

Others have requested that the Chief Justice add additional items to the rotunda, requests that the Chief Justice has denied because the proposed items did not comport with the moral foundation of law theme. Alabama State Representative Alvin Holmes requested the inclusion of a monument containing Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, a request that the Chief Justice denied. In denying this request, the Chief Justice stated, "The placement of a speech of any man alongside the revealed law of God would tend in consequence to diminish the very purpose of the Ten Commandments monument." Additionally, an atheist group's request to display a sculpture of an atheist symbol--an atom--was denied by the Chief Justice as inconsistent with the rotunda's theme.

(Emphasis mine.)

Real Christians understand the message of Jesus which is love.

Take the incident of Jesus and the Centurion.

Centurions kept boy slaves for sexual gratification while in the field.

Yet Jesus said the Centurion's faith was a wonder.

How can that be?

I think cub4bear's last post above neatly laid out the pertinent Constitutional issues. Before the 14th Amendment, he'd be on solid ground and there would be no question that he could have his silly rock.

And seeing as how Judge Moore had to be aware of them, and explicitly passed on several ways he could have kept his monument in place by adding documents from other faiths (or even Dr. King!), we can conclude that, as he is an elected judge, that he is pandering to his base for re-election.

Full stop, end of story.

Tim: I certainly don't think there is such a thing as a capitalist Christian . . .

Whyever not? Christ taught us to serve one another in gratitude for the gift of salvation, going so far as to wash the feet of his disciples and instruct them that "the last shall be first."

Capitalism goes a step further and forces us to serve one anothers' market-demonstrated needs, lest we starve and die. It's like Christianity with consequences.

I fail to see any contradiction.

I keep reading all these posts about this being a Christian plot to take over our courts or something. Last I checked Moses was a Jew.

Also, in the words of Paul Harvey, "For all of you out there who seemed to be so concerned with the actions of Judge Moore, which of those comandments do you take exception to?" "Good day!"

IF GOD CAME DOWN FROM THE HEAVENS AND GAVE MOSES THE 10 COMMENDNENTS WHY IN THE 10TH COMMANDMENT DID GOD NOT FORBID MAN FROM HAVING SLAVES REGARDLESS OF SEX ORGIN COLOR OR ANYTHING ELESE AND WHY WAS THE CIVIL WAR FOUGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE. ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE NORTH ANTI-GOD AND THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH VERY GOD CONSCIOUS. AS AN ENGINEER WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS THAT HUMANS ARE TO USE FOR THEIR CONDUCT? IF THE 10TH COMMENDNENT IS WRONG WHAT MAKES THE OTHER 9 HAVE ANY CREDITABLITY. WILL SOME SEXUAL TELLECTUAL OUT THERE ON THE WONDERFULL WORLD WIDE WEB PEASE GIVE ALL OF US DOES THE 10TH COMMENDMENT REALLY MEAN WHAT IT SAYS? CHARLESTON WV

Also, in the words of Paul Harvey, "For all of you out there who seemed to be so concerned with the actions of Judge Moore, which of those comandments do you take exception to?" "Good day!"

I object to 7 of the Commandments. The only 3 I agree with are the ones about killing, stealing and lying, although I will take exception even to these in some circumstances (killing in self-defense, telling harmless lies while not under oath).

The other 7 are useless as far as I am concerned. So what if I want to work on the Sabbath? So what if I think my neighbor's wife is hot?

I would like to ask the parties involved
in removing the commandments, 'What specifically
is it about the 10 commandments you find "offensive"?

Do you prefer to worship man rather than God?
Do you prefer to dishonor your parents?
Do you prefer murder over living and let live?
Do you prefer stealing?
Do you prefer plundering and coveting anothers
wife or husband?
And you have no objection to having any of the above done to you???

Hmmm, strange aren't they. Only 'evil' is
offended by morality and ethics.

What about the cross of Christ?

Sincerely,
Ron K