Here is a stupid thought...what religion are the 10 statements representing? Am I missing something here? I see nothing that even qualifies a seperation question what so ever.

This thread is getting REALLY redundant. I think it would help if everyone read the entire thread before posting in this one. It's really hard to have a debate when some come in and merely parrot questions that have already been asked.

Hopefully this won't be construed as a redundant post, Jaime, but I feel it may help to remember the circumstances surrounding this case. Many people have recently resigned themselves to defending the placement of the monument, and presumably others like it, on the basis of representing a history of law in Western society -- the United States in particular.

This, however, wass not the purpose of the monument:CNN Ten Commandments Report

It's also not as though the Chief Justice has displayed an ability to separate his faith from his duty to justice in the court either:
Moore labels lesbian mother

The fact of the matter is that the monument was not snuck into the courthouse in the dead of night by Moore to serve as a history lesson to all those who might enter the halls of justice. The fact of the matter is that Roy Moore then actively prevented other displays from being presented alongside the monument (one by an atheist organization). Addressing the issue of other displays in the rotunda, Roy Moore is quoted as saying:http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religio...mre70103opn.pdf

Our question presented for debate:
"What is your opinion, is this just acknowledging a good set of rules that our morals, as a country are based on or is it crossing the line?"

I believe Moore provided the answer in regards to whether he was "just aknowledging a good set of rules" or not. Had that been the case, he likely would have been open to other such displays, and would not have insisted the case was a "duty to acknowledge God."

I think this monument is a harmless waste of some really neat sculpting material, to understand the crux of the issue you have to look beyond the symbol to the substance. Its not the icon that is at issue here but whether or not this thing actually endorses some form of religion over another, which is absurd. The display of the Ten Commandments was originally over them being displayed in a school and the expressed reason was that if kids saw it they might be inclined to do what the Ten Commandments say(I'll be glad to cite the case if anyone is interested). The issue was never over stealing, or bearing false wittness, it was over devotion to the God of Holy Script.

Id be uncomfortable making a statement like this if this were an isolated incident but attacks on religious expression of any kind in the public sector have become increasingly intolerable, judicially. This is diametically opposed to the original intent of the people who wrote, signed and ratified the Constitution and this is not just my opinion but an historical fact, disputed by no one. Courts are now rewritting laws to suit the mood of the moment and anti-religious sentiments are at an all time high. Dont get me wrong, I realize that case law is vital to our common law system and judge made law is essential. However, appealing to the First Amendment to censor religion is a gross perversion of the first right of all Americans to express their religious views publiclly. Its ironic that its considered a natural expression of the First Amendment to let a bunch of Nazi idiots stand on the statehouse steps and spout racist nonsense (like we had here last weekend) but its unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments. I personally find both perversions of the First Amendment disgusting and dangerous.

But the fact that the Nazis are on the steps while the commandments are inside the building is precisely the crux of the issue. The reason many Christians and Christian clergy support the removal of this monument is because if you allow one, you must allow all. It is the right of all citizens to express their religion. A public space cannot discriminate, however. If you allow a creche on the lawn of the courthouse, for example, you must also allow a Star of David, a burning cross, a Buddhist shrine. It is best to say that government buildings should contain no icons pertaining to religion. That way, no one can claim they have been "left out."

Where is this "attack on religion" happening? Last time I checked, over 90% of Americans claimed to be religious. No one is suggesting churches be abolished. No one is suggesting that people not be allowed to practice their faith, whatever that faith may be.

Our "founding fathers" were all rich white men. Should we allow a statue in the courthouse celebrating rich white men, specifically? Historically, it might matter that our system of law may have been derived from Mosaic law, but when we founded this country and based our system on the protection of individual rights, we put in place a system in which such a development as this seems almost inevitable - intentions of the founders to the contrary or not...

I am often amused if not edified by the retorts that I get on here. This country was founded by Christians and until the early 1900s, was considered essentially Christian . I'll just say that we don't have a Buddist, or militant racist heritage in America, we have a Christian one. The Ten Commandments embody that moral pillars of our Republic, its disappointing that this is ignored and disparaged. Its truly frightening that this expression of religious conviction with regards to moral consensus is now prohibited by law.

What do you mean prohibited, last time i checked no religion is allowed in the public arena, public arena in the form of the federal government like that law house. Not your church or the guy on the street handing out bibles. I think a separation of the two is called for.

I think any religious group can complain when their right to assemble or rights to practice a religion is made illegal.

Everyone brings up the forefathers and their religious background; they made the law so if you respect them so much you will listen to it. The government cant come out someday and say that they only are a Hindu government, or any other religion, its been gone over a thousand time why this judge is in breech of that. The man clearly stated that only his version of religion can be shown, and among other things kindly showed the world the dark side of religious bigotry. I don’t see how an intelligent Christian could even agree with this on the grounds of his case, to go further on it, do you think this would be a big deal if the thing was at a grocery store?

The town I live in and the general area has many signs and objects relating to the Christian faith, because they can do that. You cant though claim a federal government building that belongs to Americans as such a thing, its rather simple.

I'm glad we amuse you, and improve you spiritually at the same time, AP. It's nice to hear that.

This country was also founded by slave owners. Are you disappointed that heritage is not celebrated more? Indeed we do have a militant racist heritage, as well. Should we erect monuments to celebrate Indian massacres as well?

It seems you are experiencing a bit of tunnel vision here. You're upset that the part of our country's heritage you agree with is being "ignored and disparaged," but you're not speaking for the parts you don't like. Besides, I don't see how in anyone's eyes, with the exception of extremists who are trying to spin cases like this into a call for imposing their particular version of Christianity on everyone else, this case (or others like it) is attacking, ignoring, or disparaging religion in any way.



Judge Moore, or anyone else for that matter, is free to express their religious conviction when ever they want. If I were a judge, my own Buddhism would obviously inform my skills as a judge, but I wouldn't stick a statue of the Buddha in the courthouse.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." - Thomas Jefferson
Our country was not founded on Christian principals. Our country was founded on the principal of freedom from tyranny, of individual rights and responsibilities.

I still don't get how the Ten Commandments somehow breach the establishment clause of the Constitution. The only thing established in those principles as the fixture, so aptly put it, is 'Nature's Law and the God of Nature'. I don't want to get pedantic with this but with me the moral consensus is vital to freedom. I think anarchy is a viable form of government if the citizens are perfectly moral. If however they are breaking the unwritten laws then it becomes necessary to write them. I believe the Ten Commandments represent the moral import of Judeo Christian morality in America that is discernably different from the atrocities and injustices experienced in spite of, not because of, religious conviction.

I did want to clarify that when I said I was 'amused, if not edified,' I did not mean that in a derogatory way. I admit was a little sarcastic but usually debates like this one build me up (edify) me in my faith and even when they aren't well founded arguments, usually I can at least crack a smile at the satire. Thats all I meant. This is a really important issue right now I just wish I had more time for this debate.

Religion is being censored in America and this harmless statue being removed is prejudice pure and simple. There is a backlash for this kind of censorship, all moral standards become suspect. In other words you can take out Holy Script from the Republic but how how you going to replace the pillars of our Democracy. Where do we go to for the moral concensus of the rule of law then?

Here is a LINK to the Constitution of the State of Alabama.

The Preamble of that document states:

The monument is a testament to this declaration.

The Constitution of that state also invokes religious freedom:
Section 3

Again, no laws were passed here. This seems perfectly Constitutional. While no specific religion is "established by law", no "preference is given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination or mode of worship", no tithes, taxes or other money is given to any religion, there is no violation.

There is no censorship of religion in this incident. No one is telling Judge Moore that he can't worship God or practice his chosen faith. Just not in the courthouse.

Churches are where you should go if you want to read The Ten Commandments. Courthouses are a place where law, not religion, is the prevailing philosophy in practice.

The separation of church and state was a good idea when those "smart old white guys" as Charlton Heston would say, conceived it and it still is now.

Judge Moore is placing himself in the position of deciding which rendition of the ten commandments are orthodox. Which version is right?

"Families, churches, and synagogues, not Caesar, should make these fundamentally religious decisions." - Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

The Constitution of the State of Alabama acknowledges God and asks him for His favor and guidance.

This display is, in Moore's opinion, an affirmation of that.

I think he hurt his cause by being so strident and forceful. If he would have been a little calmer and more restrained in his defense of his actions, he would have had a greater chance of prevailing.

I think I will withdraw from this particular debate, I feel like I am beating my head against the wall...I really see this issue as clear-cut and the Federal Court ruling was wrong.

“Law must be based on a fixed standard. Man is not a fixed standard. The acknowledgement of God is the foundation of our laws.” Judge Roy Moore

"The acknowledgement of Almighty God is the basis for our justice system. It is the source of our law. It is the foundation of our country." Justice Roy Moore

Moore was implying that the people of Alabama should acknowledge the Almighty God in their judicial system. Let’s look at the word acknowledge.

1 : to recognize the rights, authority, or status of
2 : to disclose knowledge of or agreement with
3 a : to express gratitude or obligation for b : to take notice of c : to make known the receipt of
4 : to recognize as genuine or valid <acknowledge a debt>

Amendment 1 of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Establish:

to put on a firm basis :b : to put into a favorable position c : to gain full recognition or acceptance of

I have always believed the Constitution literally meant what is said - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

A little about Thomas Jefferson’s letter regarding separation of Church and State:

The Congregationalists in the state of Connecticut were the majority religion in that state. They were trying to use their power of numbers to enact laws, like making the Baptist get a license to practice their religion. The Danbury Baptist wrote Jefferson for advice.

Here are their words:

It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men -- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Jefferson then wrote:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

I interpret that Jefferson was emphasizing that the Congregationalists in the state of Connecticut cannot by virtue of being a majority church in that state infringe in any way upon the freedom of practice of their religion by the Baptists.

Thomas Jefferson also stated "I am for Freedom of Religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another..."

Justice Moore was insistent that the people of the state of Alabama acknowledge God. But not just God - the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and lastly, but by far least - Jesus. This is one sect of religion - the Christian religion. It is my opinion that he was, by his actions, doing the same thing the Congregationalists were trying to do to the Baptists. Trying to impose his brand of religion on EVERYone in the state.

Faith is a wonderful thing. Some people find it through organized religion, others through personal study so I hope no one interprets my posts to be against religion.

The bigger issue here is where that monument was being placed and for what purpose. The courthouse is, by definition, the property of everybody in the state of Alabama. Establishment of religion occurs when someone in a position of authority begins to force their particular brand of religion down the throats of others, in a public domain.

The state of Alabama may have a clause in their Consitution that allows for that acknowledgment, but our U.S. Constitution is clear that the government shall not put on a firm basis, put into a favorable position, gain full recognition or acceptance of any religion.

"I am for Freedom of Religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another..."

Removing the monument was the right thing to do.

According to God himself:
and


God just might consider this 5,300-pound monument to be nothing but a massive graven image. The Bible also seems to indicate He finds the kind of public worship being carried out on the steps of the court house and in front of the TV camera's to be hypocritical.

My conclusion is that Judge Moore is probably as much of a nuisance to God as he is to the courts and those of us who could do without such an in-your-face advertisement for Christianity. I wouldn't mind if it were in a grocery store or mall but not in a government building where all American's of all faiths go to seek and receive judgment in this nation of ours.

The fact that the group has admitted they would not allow any icon's that represent other religious beliefs held by other citizens of this country makes it all the more obvious this is simply a low handed way to get an endorsement of one religion above all others from our government. If they really are interested in the historical aspect of Christianity in America their monument would rightly belong in a private museum and not the middle of the government's courthouse.

Judge Moore indicated that America had to recognize that it's foundation is in God's Law's. My first amendment rights would indicate otherwise. I don't have to recognize any such thing.

Call me crazy, but isn't the American legal system founded on the principals of the British system, which takes origin not in the bible but the Magna Carta?

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=1][COLOR=blue] We were a nation fonded on what the governement got away. Must people will disagree because our schools no longer teach it.

Think about this- Once upon a time there was a young lady named Suzy. Suzy lived an ordinary life with an ordinary family. She went to school at seven A.M. every Monday- Friday, and finished school at three P.M every Monday- Friday. She had two cats and six fish, which she fed every morning and evening at exactly the same times every day. She would do her homework at four, eat with her family at five and most days she would go on a walk around her neighbor hood at seven. She would go to sleep at nine and wake up the following morning to repeat the exact same day she had lived out for over sixteen years. But Suzy was different than the rest of her school friends. Most of her friends did not care what they learned. They never questioned anything. They accepted everything they heard to be true. Yet Suzy… Suzy knew right from wrong…. She knew where to draw the line.

In America’s society today we have fewer and fewer Suzy’s. People are now accepting everything that they hear to be true. And besides nobody wants to tread on anyone else’s believes. No one wants to offend anyone. I see that America is turning away from our strong steady foundation. Morality is no longer an issue.

Think of this logic- if someone can express an unreligion then someone can express a religion. The government cannot take alway our rights in that are stated in the Bill of Rights and the Constiution. Everyone has the right to express themselves.... the government cannot can want we can or cannot do... it has no right. that leads to the other question on the supreme court... but I will not go into that

___________________________________________________________________

“Law must be based on a fixed standard. Man is not a fixed standard. The acknowledgement of God is the foundation of our laws.” Judge Roy Moore

"The tradegy of mardern man is not that he knows less and less about the meaning on his own life, but that it bothers him less and less." Vadav Havel

btw Danya-

If that slap of rock was considered that- then it would logically follow that ALL carved blocks of stone are evil and are against what God says. All of the histoical monuments in Washington would fall under that too. I am sorry to say- but your logic does not follow- it is only if you WORSHIP that slap of rock is it then bad.....

no... we went away from them because we did not support want they were doing. Maybe you need to read the Constiution.... it says who we are founded on in there.

Welcome to the forum, Dizzybabe. Please do not post more than one post in a row. If you were the last person that posted and you have more to add, you can use the edit button for twelve hours.

Additionally, when you make statements like this:

QUOTE(dizzybabe)

no... we went away from them because we did not support want they were doing. Maybe you need to read the Constiution.... it says who we are founded on in there.

You should provide the portion of the constitution that you are referring to rather than accusing other members of not having read it. If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me.

There is an important distinction to be made here. I did not speak of the constitution but of the legal system. While the two are certainly connected they are not one in the same.

As for my understanding of the Constitution; I can assure you that I have read it on several ocassions. If you can find the passage in the Constitution that specifies a rejection of British legal traditions then I would be glad to see it.

Actually the prohibition of the establishment of a religion in the 1st Amendment did differ from the British legal system.

Oh please. I never said that the constitution didn't differ from the British Legal system; I said that it contains no text that specifies a rejection of british legal traditions.

Sorry, church involvement in government was definitely part of the British legal system. The 1st Amendment definitely rejects part of the British legal system. No the Constitution certainly does not reject the British legal system in it's entirety. Far from it, in fact.

The 1st Amendment insured there would be no Church of the United States.

I am at my wits end, after only two posts. I don't know if I can explain this any more simply, but I will try for your benefit Hugo.

The U.S. Constitution NOWHERE STATES that it rejects British legal traditions. That is not to say that elements of the constitution don't contradict elements of the British legal system... but I never said that in the first place so stop responding to this sentiment.

Of course this is all irrelevant because I never said the "British Legal System" in it's entirety when I referred to the origins of the American Legal System. I was making (quite clearly so I fail to see how you could so wildly misconstrue) a clear allusion to the principles of Jurisprudence, judgement of peers, and innocent until proven guilty as established by the "Magna Carta" and further documents and precedents in the British legal tradition.

The 1st Amendment rejects British legal traditions that include involvement of church and state. Without this rejection of certain British legal traditions it would be more difficult to prohibit the Ten Commandments monument on state grounds.

I don't know if I can explain that any more simply.

The Founding Fathers were influenced by their British background. They saw the abuses of the Church of England. They wanted to make sure that was one tradition that we did not follow.

As I read that commandment there are a lot of things that would be evil and they can be made of stone or rock. I'm sure some of the idols from the day of Pharoa would be considered sinful. And the commandment doesn't say you have to worship it although what the Judge is doing might come close. He seems to want everyone else to as well.

So you've responded to one part of my post; the part which says quite clearly "don't respond to this part because this is not what I am saying." At the same time you ignored the part of my post which adresses the topic succinctly and which you have yet to be able to contradict. To those who haven't followed I will reiterate.



Those three elements of the American Legal system, as well as the right to confront the accuser, etc., can be traced to traditions in the British legal system. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Church of England. Your connection is horribly far-fetched since the founding document of the British Legal tradition, the Magna Carta predates said church by approximately 600 years. The American system did come into existence through people who were making an overt rejection of the British government and any authority that is founded on a religious origin, but at the same time it was fashioned from the "desireable" (according to those responsible for the development of the American legal system) elements. In case this isn't clear to you I am not referring to the constitution. The constitution is not the whole of the American legal establishment. It spells out the rights of individuals as far as their interaction with the legal system is concerned but in the exception of crimes against the state it does not set the laws of the land; that is in the hands of the states, or in the case of federal law, by a seperate document outlining such laws. (Again, not the constitution.)

These laws, their development, and the 'traditions' that guide their practice are based on certain British Legal traditions (not ALL of them) that have their origins in the Magna Carta and further developments.

It looks like some people cannot recall what they previously posted.

The fact is our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by Britain. They copied much of what they saw as good, they threw away what they saw as bad. They had a unique opportunity to utilize various philosophies and to borrow ideas and procedures from different sources. Overall they did pretty good. They should have placed Federalist Paper #41 in the Constitution.

Biblical scripture has no place in the halls of government located within the United States. Doing so gives it an awe of power and corruption.

The Ten Commandments are not universal laws of conduct. They are 3,000 years old Judaic script which reflected the needs of the time.

We are a proud country of many races, religions, and lifestyles- Our elected officials have no right trying to push the religion that they choose to worship on our children.

The Ten Commandments has been a part of America's legal system for almost 400 years!

"In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:

The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.

The court then noted that its State’s laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:

'The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to “revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . ” He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.' "


Legal brief on the Ten Commandments in American Common Law

I think that in all this emotional flak over where the Ten Commandments monument was placed, the moral message has been overlooked. Our society is full of loose morals.

Whose morals? Yours? Morals are different for everyone. To say that our society has loose morals is only according to your morals, not everyone's.

What? You think i'm being egocentric here? Look at our society. It's full of sex & violence.

As I mentioned here, there are many, many ways in which society is conspicuously far more moral now than in the "good old days".

Full of sex and violence, eh... I'm loving your implication that sex is in and of itself a bad thing. As for violence, I think we can all agree that societies everywhere need less of it, but let me remind you goamerica, the bible in which the commandments are found doesn't by any means condemn violence. I believe "condone" might be a more appropiate term. I can't think of anything more violent than god-sanctioned genocide
Your supposed "moral message" of the ten commandments is laughable. You want to call anyone who doesn't worship the christian god immoral? Anyone who doesn't honor the christian day of worship immoral? Anyone who takes the christian god's name in vain immoral? Has it ever occurred to you that: 1) not everyone is a christian, and therefore wouldn't probably be too keen on having the christian morals forced upon them, 2) not all christians are upstanding moral citizens, 3) it is completely possible to be a moral person without being a christian? Learn something new everyday I guess.

How is our society "full" of sex and violence? Furthermore, that fact that you believe our society is full of sex and violence is but one person's accusation of immorality in our society. Just because you believe sex and violence is prevalent in our society making it immoral doesn't mean that its true. That is only your opinion. To me, a judge bringing religion into a courthouse is immoral. What's even more immoral is when that judge refuses to obey an order from a higher court.

Society, full of sex and violence!

What do you mean by sex and violence, do you mean cheerleaders and football, boxing and music artists. DO you think it would get better if we just denied ourselves it until we got married just to have sex? Or deny it until you are violent and a sex fiend. What are you really saying. That if everyone was a Christian the worlds woes would just magically vanish. Their is a lot of crime and problems in Alabama o.k.

I am not going to put down religion, its just with social sciences, i see the same problem i see in religion. In particular anthropology and sociology. I like to think that nurture around the world is provided by nature, be it mercy or violence, its just human to do such, now if you make some way to live, be it a religion or a political structure, it reflects just like the textbooks and the religious doctrines, we still cannot fully define what is human nature, drives and so on.

So what i am getting at, be it a 2000 page sociology book, or a 2000 year old book, neither or them understands fully what it means to be human, and both are a product of there time and era. Many Buddhist knew that human suffering would be a driving force in human evolution, both as an individual and in a society, so most sects hid themselves away, into some place and state of mind. Now as much as you may like to see the Christian control of America, would you also just that easy yourself become a stout Chan Buddhist? People don’t change in a day, it gets worse with age. I guess that’s why religious groups want your kids

The extremist never solves anything!

Still, besides all the personal rhetoric that could go back and forth, Americas founders decided that no form of its government may establish religion, and i am pretty sure that also covers court houses and the legal system, and once again this would not be and issue if the judge had placed it in his backyard or the local grocery store, he knew what he was doing, that’s why he did it in secret in the first place, or in cold blood, like with murder. So that is why its an issue, and as for the separation of church and state, i will always support that, as America is not a uniform mind, if that was even possible, plus i don’t want any religious doctrine governing what i can or cant do, even in the light its not wrong. You can spend all day and night for the rest of your life at church in America, if someone will support you doing so, no one tries to outlaw religion, they just don’t want any religion in government, and that is a very smart idea, towards any gain of peace and stability for a diverse group of people.

I'm begining to wonder if the expunging of the Ten Commandments from all Statehouses isnt protecting genuine religion from the corruption of worldly pursuits. A lot of Christians have thought so historically, possibly even Jesus Christ himself.

"The imaginary being called the church argumentation, she is either married or a prostitute...All this may be rhetorc; but of this is reason, less still can it be called religion, and least of all is it the religion which Jesus taught." (Robert ronbinson, TheHistory and Mystery of Good-Friday)

Actually, that kind of attitude is the definition of egocentricity.

Hypothetically, my own moral code could be "the more sex and violence, the better." So in that context, our society is edging towards being more moral. Since morals are a set of beliefs or values, they are not set in stone (and certainly not a 5300 lb. stone monument). However, this is off-topic.

The simple fact of the matter is that if (and I use the word 'if' intentionally) our legal system was founded upon the Ten Commandments, then it should be against the law to covet. It is not, however. The first four commandments on the monument are religious in nature. Since it is not against the law to be Buddhist or Hindi or atheist, that right there shows the invalidity of the Ten Commandments as a matter of law.

The monument has been removed as it should have been. Even if it is not unconstitutional (which it is), it would be questionable in a place of law. Religion should stay where it is intended: the hearts, minds, and churches of those who believe. Religion is and should be a personal thing. Those who plaster it everywhere seem desperate for reassurance, in my opinion. It shows a lack of faith if you need a 1 ton monument to remind yourself of God's principles.

This just in.

And for a perfect example of why we need to keep church and state separate, see here. The political grandstanding of people like Judge Moore give the dangerous fringe a foothold.

I think it is a very positive sign that Judge Moore has been removed from his chair for defiantly disobeying the law and court orders. He remained defiant throughout his trial and will be a hero for his direct political supporters. He got what he deserved, but he will continue to have political power in Alabama.

I'm afraid that's probably true.
The thing that has always bothered me about this case is how the religious right tried to portray it as them being persecuted. The biggest reason I have for opposing the territorial *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** of the religious right is that it gives wingnuts like Fred Phelps a foothold (see the second link in my previous post). The only persecution going on is coming from supposed Christians.
Moore is hardly a saint himself: cite #1, cite #2.
I have to hope that all of those good Christians who support this vile bigot don't actually know what he stands for.

The judicial panel did the right thing in firing Moore. He put his personal religious beliefs over his responsibilities as a judge and that's what got him fired.

For those who believe Moore was unfairly persecuted, take a chill pill. If you move to Alabama you'll probably have a chance to vote for this goofball when he runs for governor.

After hearing more and more about Judge Moore .... ... the more I agree that he was way out of line. Though I see nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments being displayed, I do think that he handled the situation badly from the very beginning by sneaking the statue in and being so obviously defiant and provoking this and bringing it upon himself. I kinda think he wanted to be a martyr of sorts...

uhh.. yeah I see where one might get that impression.

My two cents:

Moore was wrong on both counts.
Placing the Ten-Commandments monument in the courthouse was (while not strictly unconstitutional since no law was involved) a symbol of the court's Judeo-Christian bias and might cause those who do not share this philosophy worry.
As the Judicial system is meant to serve all the citizens, this is counter-productive.

I have no problem with religious displays and only would insist there be some sort of balance (not based on the prominence of a belief in the population, let at least the "major" beliefs have there place to send he message that contributions of other religions are being acknowledged, and never in the judicial system, if anything must be secular its that branch of government.)

The court fight was just ridiculous....
From the court that booted him:

Amen...

The only problem I have with the whole episode is why a judge (Moore)-whose rulings (good and bad, right and wrong) have to be followed to the letter until and unless an appeals court overrules-believes he is an exception to the rule and doesn't have to follow another judge's ruling? I don't blame people for testing or challenging the laws to the fullest extent, but then the final ruling should be respected and followed.

I don't think there is anything wrong with Judge Moore not moving the Ten Commandments. Why did he have to move it? The Ten Commandments can be displayed in other states.

Because it presents the impression that the judicial system is balanced unequally towards Christian views rather than that law of the land.

...and because the judge ordered him to, it wasn't a suggestion.