Alabama Supreme Court turns on its chief justice

"Elysium" wrote:

A statue of homosexual coitus is the only analogous example. And, I wouldn''t support such a thing, so it''s not a related argument.

Is my sense of humor malfunctioning? That''s supposed to be a joke, right?

If not, then maybe the word ""analogous"" is just being used for its double entendre value and the word ""only"" was just an accident.

A statue with an excerpt of a marriage law allowing homosexual marriage would be a less extreme monument AND be more analogous given that both would then be textual representations of legal behaviors that not all citizens support.

And while some of what ral is saying may be a stretch, this is not apples and oranges, much less apples and rectal ruination.

The point, I think, is that modern culture is very supportive of the display of some ways of life while clamping down on others. The problem then is that the word ""religion"" has become so un-cool that any behavior not tagged as religious is allowed and often supported (for example, cross dressing) while things that pertain to common definitions of religion are seen as dangerous.

Um, your link doesn''t say:

"sapman" wrote:

the republican controlled Supreme Court has said without question that a 2 ton monument to the Baptist 10 commandments in the center of a government court house is an effort by bureaucrats to establish THEIR religion as the official religion in the state

In fact, it specifically states:

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such indoor and outdoor government displays

Your overt hostility to religion must have clouded your eyes as you read the article. I guess you were exaggerating a bit on your statement above, projecting your own views on reality.

God I hope you are kidding

I was trying to point out how ridiculous the people who are scared of seeing the 10 commandments really are. Two gay people getting married isn''t a threat to my rights and seeing the 10 commandments won''t convert any atheists. There isn''t a problem, especially a constitutional one, with religion in public life.

Given my propensity for hyperbole, Maddy, I''d not be quick to take anything I say too seriously, though I retain my position that the two examples are not similar.

The point, I think, is that modern culture is very supportive of the display of some ways of life while clamping down on others.

No, the point is that things which have no bearing on the process of law, and that can and have been used to discriminate in the name of law, those things which are only in this case a product of a single man''s crusade, that run counter to the decisions of that man''s fellow justices, don''t belong in prominently and symbolically displayed in a state courthouse.

The problem then is that the word ""religion"" has become so un-cool that any behavior not tagged as religious is allowed and often supported (for example, cross dressing) while things that pertain to common definitions of religion are seen as dangerous.

First, we''re not talking about religion, we''re talking about christian exclusivity. Second, cool has zero to do with it. Third, and particularly in Alabama, the perception of rejecting religion is a tad absurd. What has happened is that those people in Alabama, those justices who have seen fit to have this monument removed are certainly (I''d lay odds) devout christians who recognize that importance of creating an impartial, fair and balanced judicial system in which justice is blind. The foundation of our system, at least the modern system which is to me more desireable and seems to be to these judges, does not recognize christians as more important, more devout, more moral, and more worthy, but as equal members of the community. Clearly the ten commandments are symbolically important to people, and to you, and it is precisely for that reason that they do not belong in a forum where everyone is to be tried impartially.

To disregard it as simply being a popularity contest, or some element of social depravity, is to ignore the debate altogether.

Forgive me if someone has made this point already, I can''t keep up with these posts.

I find it interesting that we took this phrase ""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"" and interpreted it to mean a state can''t have a memorial to the ten commandments in a state building.

I know the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase to mean a definite separation of Church and State, but how is placing a memorial enacting a law or prohibiting the free exercise of religion"".

I''m seeing drastic predictions that if the ten commandments are placed there the judge will apply ""God''s law"". The Judge is still limited to the law on the books of the state and country and can be appealled if he did not follow it.

Like I said I''m sure this point was already made, but I wanted to put my two cents worth in.

A couple of other points, the Ten Commandments are the first ""codified"" laws ie. written. They are significant religiously and historically.

Another point, when the President prays to God for a solution to a political problem, is he acting unconstitutionally? I''m not trying to be outrageous, I''m just making a point that a Judge will often use his morals in making decisions. His moral structure may be grounded by a religious belief. Our protection from these abuses is the appellate system.

Got my post in before lockdown. Whoosh, I''m outta here!

In the end it is all about the establishment cause. The courts have held over and over that establishment means more than you can not have a law saying ""You must be an evangelical christian or else you must leave America.""

Establishment means politicians like Moore can not force their religion on the rest of us by putting huge monuments in public building where all Americans are forced to view it in order to get government services. If the Supreme Court felt any of these lower court rulings were wrong on law or precedent they would step in. They have not, thus the law is clear.

ralcydan I am not hostile to religion. I am hostile to YOUR religion. See my family came to the USA so we could practice our religion and when scumbag politicians like Moore try force their religion on us we stand up for our rights. You do not have to attend my church and I should not have to attend your church. But if politicians are allow to establish shrines in court rooms then I have no choice to avoid your god.

And don''t even tell you are fighting for ""freedom of religion."" If you had to go into a Federal court house and found a two ton monument to Mohammad you would be the first to go screaming to fox news about how Muslims were taking over and stealing your rights. The answer is keeping all religion out of the government. What is so complicated about this?

Yea these religious suits get silly but next time you want politicians to start setting up false idols to their gods you might want to look at the Middle East and remember what happens when religion and politics mix.

I agree with most of what you said Ely, well put. I stated earlier, and I still say it, I''m not trying to argue for Moore''s cause specifically. I don''t know a lot about the man, and have never intended to come across as a supporter of his. The issue at the heart of this controversy is what I started commenting on, and what I believe does deserve comment.

First, I think this is far too sweeping a statement

No, the point is that things which have no bearing on the process of law, and that can and have been used to discriminate in the name of law, those things which are only in this case a product of a single man''s crusade, that run counter to the decisions of that man''s fellow justices, don''t belong in prominently and symbolically displayed in a state courthouse.

Let me back up for a second, I actually sympathize with the sentiment expressed above, but I do not see it as a pracitically useful guideline. The complaint contained in that quote is characteristic of a modern society that wants protection from everything that might upset it. I am positive that no matter what you do to make your ideal courtroom as impartial as possible, there will remain something that some group of people could interpret, if they so chose, as symbolic of discrimination against them. I''d really like you to describe your completely non-threatening and purely impartial courtroom where nobody could enter and feel discriminated against. You say it like this is an obviously attainable goal, yet I don''t believe it''s possible.

If you really want to remove all things ""that can and have been used to discriminate in the name of law"" you''d have an empty courtroom with no people.

Again, though, in the case of Moore, he seems to be pretty far down the path of losing his case, and I''m not arguing that.

To the clever souls who keep coming into this thread to make insightful comments like, ""If it was a monument to the Koran, you''d scream bloody murder!"" I refer you back to the half dozen or so posts from days ago where most, if not all, of us supporting the display of a religious monument said that we would accept monuments and displays from a very wide variety of sources.

In this specific case, there are the added bonuses that the 10 commandments were an important backdrop to the founding of our country, and that they have legal significance.

Now, I''m not a baptist, and I''m also not saying Moore''s a great man. But even if every court in the land said that he couldn''t have a monument, does that mean that we''re no longer allowed to discuss the issue?

And, please,

those justices who have seen fit to have this monument removed are certainly (I''d lay odds) devout christians who recognize that importance of creating an impartial, fair and balanced judicial system in which justice is blind.

While the phrasing ""certainly (I''d lay odds)"" is curious enough, I don''t think I''ve ever heard anyone express such trust in public officials. I don''t think public, mainstream opinion is at all irrelevant in this case. I don''t think it is ever irrelevant in politics, and I really don''t see how you can suggest that it is.

"sapman" wrote:

Yea these religious suits get silly but next time you want politicians to start setting up false idols to their gods you might want to look at the Middle East and remember what happens when religion and politics mix.

Oddly enough, I do actually concur with sapman here. In a limited way, but it''s shocking enough as it is given the rest of his post. The problem is that you can never, and some of us would say, should never, separate religion from politics completely. Pretending that the two have nothing to do with each other is ignoring reality, and that can be dangerous. I''d rather be somewhat open about where our laws come from, the philosophies they are based on. Further, I''d like to be open about the influences on the people and the country itself. Monuments to MLK? Sure, bring ''em on. Might he have said things that offend some people? You betcha.

So the debate ends up being where that mix of religion and politics has to be stopped. Given that it can''t be eliminated altogether (there will be public officials who believe in religion), I''d rather not pretend it doesn''t exist by hiding it away.

As I have said many times before...laws exist to protect your person and your property, not your feelings. Sometimes I think that Eisenhower putting Earl Warren on the bench was one of the worst things to ever happen in America.

See my family came to the USA so we could practice our religion and when scumbag politicians like Moore try force their religion on us we stand up for our rights.

Sap, I don''t know where you are from, but what happened in your country when you didn''t practice the religion of the majority? Were there dangerous reprucussions? And if so, how is potentially having to look at a monument or a verse of Christian scripture even remotely comparable?

This country was founded on a certain basis of morality, which we believe is the best. Other peoples from other countries have died trying to get here because of the freedoms and protections that the US provides, right Sap? Why we feel the need to try and move away from that is beyond me.

And, for the record, Ral''s homosexual marriage analogy is perfectly on point with this topic. Anything that fits in the ''secular humanism'' worldview should be allowed on the pretext that ''even if you don''t like it, it doesn''t hurt you and it''s their right'', but applying the same statement to expression of religion is somehow going to brainwash or lead to the unfair persecution of non-believers? Hogwash.

And, for the record, Ral''s homosexual marriage analogy is perfectly on point with this topic.

No, it isn''t. The only way it would be remotely analogous would be if a gay judge erected a monument to the joys of homosexual marriage on goverment property. Ral''s notion that granting homosexual couples the same rights as straight ones means that the goverment is promoting a homosexual lifestyle and infringing on his right to choose who he f*cks still patently silly.

Ral''s notion that granting homosexual couples the same rights as straight ones means that the goverment is promoting a homosexual lifestyle and infringing on his right to choose who he f*cks

But you suggest that granting public officials the same rights as private citizens means that the government has established a state religion, somehow infringing on your right to choose to be an atheist, which is equally silly.

Government is made up of people, the vast majority of whom have belief in a higher power. They are elected as church-goers, they use prayer in decision making, and there are plenty of religious statments in public life, from the 10 Commandments being posted in the Supreme Court building, to the chaplain which opens each session of Congress with a prayer, to ""In God We Trust"" being a motto of this nation. None of these things infringes upon anyone being able to practice their own religion and none of this has established a state religion. There is no constitutional issue.

I would like for someone to make an argument that having the 10 Commandments posted infringes on their right to practce religion. I would love to see the reasoning behind that assertion.

"sapman" wrote:

If you had to go into a Federal court house and found a two ton monument to Mohammad you would be the first to go screaming to fox news about how Muslims were taking over and stealing your rights

Ah, snide assumptions - the core of any well-reasoned debate... I actually don''t think you''re much of a judge of character, since you think that posting the 10 Commandments is no different than ""killing blacks"" - so I won''t take your predictions of how anyone would act very seriously.

If you read the posts here, you will find that those supporting Moore have absolutely indicated that they would suport a Muslim''s right to do the same, from a Constitutional point of view.

I would like for someone to make an argument that having the 10 Commandments posted infringes on their right to practce religion. I would love to see the reasoning behind that assertion.

Well, of course you would, because that''s a pretty easy argument to refute. At least for me, that''s not the argument being made.

But you suggest that granting public officials the same rights as private citizens means that the government has established a state religion, somehow infringing on your right to choose to be an atheist, which is equally silly.

Who''s infringing on anyone''s rights? Private citizens can put whatever monument they want on their property, as can public officials. Private citizens can''t build any monument they want on government property, neither can public officials. Seems equal to me.

Naturally, a bleeding monument doesn''t infringe on my right to think what I want or choose any religion I want, or not having one at all. That doesn''t mean I''d like seeing a religious monument, explicitly put there to proclaim the glory of the christian (or any other) god, whenever I have to visit an official building. To grab a hold of the gay sex analogy once again, how would you feel about the erection of a pillar proclaiming the extasy of homosexual sex in front of a government building ral? More importantly, stand up for the right of the chap who raised it to do it?

At least for me, that''s not the argument being made.

But that is the argument Elysium. The very concept of the government establishing a state religion implies that there are benefits for those people that practice that religion. And no matter how you spin it, putting up a monument to the 10 Commandments doesn''t give special treatment or prevent someone else from worshipping as they please, any more than a gay marriage prevents a straight one.

You''re letting your personal feelings towards being preached to interfere with your logical thinking.

Answer these questions:

1) Do you think that burning the flag is protected under free speech?
a) If so, does burning the flag prevent someone else from being patriotic?
b) If burning the flag doesn''t infringe on my ability to be patriotic, how does putting up a monument interfere with your right to believe your own religious beliefs?

2) Do you think that telling someone that you are religious is protected under free speech?
a) If not, why?
b) If so, can a government official do that?
c) If so, is a government official saying they are religious the same as the establishment of a state religion?

3) Is there a difference between public acknowlegement of a religion by a state official and the official recognition by the state of that religion, with all of the incumbent tax benefits and other protections under the law?

I have more, but I want to see your responses.

To grab a hold of the gay sex analogy once again, how would you feel about the erection of a pillar proclaiming the extasy of homosexual sex in front of a government building ral?

Actually ALG, the public has had to see displays proclaiming the joys of homosexual sex, paid for with tax dollars, on public property, courtesty of the National Endowment of the Arts. And when the public protested, they were overruled by the courts because of free speech.

So why isn''t this monument afforded the same protections?

What kind of event was this? Some kind of art exhibition?

Yep

At least for me, that''s not the argument being made.

Then what is?

1) Yes,
a) Of course not
b) I''ve never said the monument interferes with an individual right to practice their own religion.

2) Of course
a) -
b) In private, of course. To a much more limited extent (and here''s where the difference in opinion begins) yes in a public context, particularly where appropriate, and particularly when it still applies to an individual expression of piety. The State Court House is not Judge Moore''s personal pulpit however for religious expression, it is not his to do with as he sees fit.
c) No, and again I''m not arguing that this is a constitutional issue.

3) Again, you''re presuming that I''m making a constitutional argument against the erection of this monument.

This is pretty much the end of what I''m going to say on the matter, because it''s really all down to opinions now and I''m not going to change yours anymore than you''re going to change mine. The main problems with erecting that monument is that it creates an air of bias, of discrimination, in the single most important forum where imartiality should exist. We ask of our judges to see everyman as equal who stands before them, and though we can''t change their personal biases and beliefs, we can ask them to create a venue that does not have tacit biases. That monument does just that. It says, ''we hold the Christian faith greater than others''. The State Court House does not belong to Moore, it belongs to the people of Alabama, and until either the legislature of Alabama steps in and votes to keep the monument, or a referendum passes in favor of it, I won''t see it as anything more than an inapporpriate personal crusade and an abuse of power.

The difference here is location location location. A state court house does not represent the ideology of one man, and so a personal expression of faith perverted as this has been into a general expression of the government is just wrong in my eyes. I have no problem with Moore being a religious man, or saying so, as long as he keeps that 1st person perspective. And so, if the state of Alabama is going to say ''we''re a christian state that wants the 10 commandments in our state courthouse'' then it should be up to more [sic] than one man to make that declaration.

My take on this is it comes down more to the whole federalist ""protecting the minority from the tryanny of the majority."" Are there more baptists than you can shake a stick at in Alabama? Yep. And they''re not having any problems practicing their religion. Does someone need to use any workplace that''s not a church to promote their religion, with whatever *incredibly significant* object or quote you might name? Not so much. Does their desire to do so outweigh my desire for them not to do so? Not so much.

And if part of my religious beliefs are freedom from proselytizing baptists...(which ironically, *are* part of my beliefs.)

We *don''t* protect the majority the same way we protect the minority. And yes the NEA gives grants even to people who want to put a big crucifix in a bucket of urine and call it art. But the NEA gave alot more money to art/music/theatre/literature that people probably would not be offended by; it just doesn''t get any press time.

Nicely said Ely. And if the ACLU were to argue as eloquently as you have, I wouldn''t have anywhere near the issue that I do with the case.

Once you said you weren''t arguing about the constitutionality of the case, I am more than willing to listen. You had me at Again.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Yep

Arf. The difference is in context, natch. Art exhibitions exist to take the works of private persons deemed interesting or important enough and make them availible to a wider audiance. A court house doesn''t. If judge Moore wanted to make some deep artistic statement with his monument to the ten commandments, he could''ve used the proper forum. After all, if you don''t like what''s currently on display in an art gallery, you can always vote with your wallet and don''t go to watch it.

After all, if you don''t like what''s currently on display in an art gallery, you can always vote with your wallet and don''t go to watch it.

My point is that the government has already decided to vote with my wallet by spending tax dollars.

My point is that the government has already decided to vote with my wallet by spending tax dollars.

Yeah, but there''s not much to be done about it is there, short of cutting all support to the arts. It''s damn near impossible to please everybody in any artform, and when you try you run the risk of becoming deathly dull.

short of cutting all support to the arts

Now there''s a fine idea.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Why does the state''s promotion of homosexual behavior through legalizing marriage not infringe on my right to determine my own sexual orientation? And if it doesn''t, how can you argue that public displays of religion by state officials infringes on anyone else''e freedom to exercise their religion?

You know, if you can go around accusing people of being anti-religious, can we start accusing you of being anti-gay?

ralcydan, are you saying your sexual orientation can be changed by the state allowing legal homosexual unions?

More to the point, as an atheist American, I would be very concerned about getting just due process in a court which explicitly implies it already thinks I''m going to hell.

You know, if you can go around accusing people of being anti-religious, can we start accusing you of being anti-gay?

Feel free to post the quote from me being anti-gay, and I will explain it. The only person I have called anti-religious stated that Moore wanting to post the 10 Commandments was no different than ""killing blacks"". He is welcome to explain away that gem of wisdom.

ralcydan, are you saying your sexual orientation can be changed by the state allowing legal homosexual unions?

Nope. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of those worried that the state is going to impose belief on them, merely by having to look at the 10 Commandments. Personally I think people are stronger-willed than that in both cases.

as an atheist American, I would be very concerned about getting just due process in a court which explicitly implies it already thinks I''m going to hell.

As our resident lawyer has pointed out, the courts still have to follow the laws of evidence and sentencing. If you really think that, you should try hard to stay out of trouble, as I would venture to guess 90-95% of judges in the country are religious people (the same percentage as the general population). Personally I am confident you would get a fair trial. I have never heard of a single case where an atheist was wrongly convicted by bible-thumpers who wanted to mete out justice on earth. Maybe you''re being paranoid.

"ralcydan" wrote:
short of cutting all support to the arts

Now there''s a fine idea.

Predictably, I disagree.

90-95% of Americans are religious people?

I think that should probably read ''90-95% of Americans say they are religious people.

And the cost of the war in Iraq in ONE WEEK more than equals the total federal dollar amount that goes to the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Smithsonian, the Kennedy Center, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, along with about a dozen others.

And they don''t even get Americans killed.