I don't really see how it really balenced unequally, the Ten Commandments were always displayed.

And I don't think the the judge should of ordered his to move it.

Then it has always been balanced unequally, Moore's comments have made that abundantly clear. He said that this is part of a "battle to acknowledge God", that was not Mr. Moore's job...

Yes, I think he is just "acknowledging a good set of rules that our morals, as a country are based on", by refusing to remove the Ten Commandments.



Then it has always been balanced unequally, Moore's comments have made that abundantly clear. He said that this is part of a "battle to acknowledge God", that was not Mr. Moore's job...

I don't think it has always been balanced unequally.

No, that was not Mr. Moore's job, but the judge should not have ordered him to remove the monument. It seems Mr. Moore is saying that they are trying to take away God from acknowledgement. The Ten Commandments are in many different places around the United States, so I really don't think the judge should of ordered Moore, to remove the monument.

Former Judge Moore (hmm... that felt much better typing it than I had expected) was in charge of decorating the rotunda. He put the monument in, and then refused other religious views from being posted in the same building. There are several posts that you should read, so I suggest going through this entire topic of debate and reading them.

Only two of the Ten Commandments are actually against the law ("Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal"). To place this monument in the rotunda is unethical. To refuse other religions from doing the same is illegal (the First Amendment states clearly that citizens are given freedom of and from religion). Since not everyone who enters a court of law is a Christian, the placement of the Ten Commandments is inappropriate.

I have nothing against religious expressionism, but when it comes at the cost of freedom for others, I become rather angry and upset.

Judge Moore, not the Ten Commandments, was crossing the line. To not allow laws from other religions to be posted was wrong. To refuse to obey the judgment made to remove the Ten Commandments was wrong.

Moore was grandstanding. He set himself up to be a martyr for The Cause. He feels totally justified in what he did. Bully for him.

If anything, his sanctimonious attitude incurred the animosity of those who were previously sitting on the fence about the Ten Commandments monument being in a public building.

Having the Ten Commandments there or not having them there was not, in effect, going to convert anyone. He wanted a shrine, and it was within the Court's right to say no, this building is not exclusively yours.

I believe the Ten Commandments are the underpinning for our laws. I try to obey the Ten Commandments. But I cannot defend what former Justice Moore did.

(Edited to correct spelling)

"Only two of the Ten Commandments are actually against the law ("Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal")."

I don't think we should kill or steal? It is a basic rule.

"Since not everyone who enters a court of law is a Christian, the placement of the Ten Commandments is inappropriate."

The Ten Commandments should be there even if everyone is not Christian, it would be taking away our freedom by taking away the Ten Commandments.

I would like to show you some interesting quotes I found from some of the founding fathers of America.

"We have staked the future of government not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the ten commandments of God." - James Madison (primary architect of the Constitution)

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: "that God governs in the affairs of man." And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in the political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war or conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business." -Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. So great is my veneration of the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectful members of society."- John Adams

The Ten Commandments monument would be fine where it was, except Judge Moore's actions prevented other religious faiths from posting their own forms of expressionism. Since he prohibited other religions from doing likewise, he was preventing the freedom of religious expression, which is quite obviously against the First Amendment. If you disagree, I'd suggest reading it again. The wording is quite specific. Here ya go:

"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."

And of course people shouldn't kill or steal. That's why they are against the law. But the rest of the Ten Commandments are not against the law--particularly the first four, which specifically relate to the Judeo-Christian God. In a place which practices law, no religion should be given preference to. In this case, Judge Moore was unconstitutional with his actions.

And in response to your quotes:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, 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 and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

Also, a rebuttal from John Adams:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

So let's look at this Article again:


These are the clauses:



Former Alabama Chief Justice Moore was not establishing a religion. The religion of the Hebrews is many thousands of years old. The Christian religion is over 2,000 years old.



I'm sorry--were there any Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Wiccans or Buddhists stopped from their religious practices in the courthouse because the monument was there?
If Chief Justice Moore dismissed out of hand the display of laws from other religions, then it could possibly be argued that there was a violation.



The courts abridge freedom of speech every day they are in session. Likewise, it could be argued that removal of the Ten Commandments monument was abridging the freedom of speech of those who honor the commandments. And again, see the last part of the previous comment.



The presence of the monument didn't stop the press from reporting.



The monument did not prohibit people from gathering there during normal business hours. A security guard might shoo them away late at night.



Did the monument's presence stop anyone from gathering or submitting a petition for a redress of grievances? No.

The fact of the matter is, it was a United States Supreme Court justice's interpretation (perhaps somebody knows which one) that was necessary to tie the idea of religious displays in public places to the "establishment of religion."

Former Justice Moore was violating a court order. As Chief Justice, he was setting a bad precedent for citizens who appear before the Alabama Supreme Court. That is why he had to be removed from his position.

But Moore decided to make this an issue because he recognized the intolerance by a number of people of anything that smacks of religiosity. It's a sad day when the presence of a religious symbol in a public place is interpreted as the "establishment" of religion.

I think Moore should have cut his losses while he was still Chief Justice and let the monument be displayed elsewhere. But I haven't walked in his shoes.

He did dismiss out of hand other forms of religious exhibition in the rotunda. The original lawsuit listed several examples, including one from an atheist group and one asking for Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech. Both were rejected by Judge Moore, and his reasons were summarily, "The words of mere humans should not be put on display near the word of God."

I will have to agree that he messed up in a major way, then.

I think if a majority of Alabama citizens wanted the Ten Commandments displayed, they should be entitled to. The Alabama citizens are the ones paying taxes that fund the Supreme Court right? So the majority should decide what goes in the Supreme Courthouse and what doesn't.

But that is not an accurate reflection of the way our government works. What if the majority wanted a statue of a black man being lynched in the courthouse. Should that be allowed?

If a public space is designated a public forum, then it must be inclusive. The ten commandments statue could be displayed, if other interests were also able to display what they wanted - a statue of the Buddha, or a display touting Satanism. What Judge Moore wanted to do was display something of his choosing, in a place which is not a public forum, and exclude all other displays that may be counter to his personal beliefs.

The Ten Commandments come from a religious holy book, therefore are religious doctrine, of jews and christians. They are also heresay to anyone who does not believe in the Bible, therefore a fantasy, just as Shiva, Buddha may be to Christians, as Jesus as Messiah is to Jews. Jewish people would have a cow if a statue of Jesus and Mary were placed in the rotunda along with a few of Jesus's more meaningful quotes, although Im sure some of our early laws were based upon those teachings as well.
Whether the book was believed in by our founding fathers means nothing, since the founding fathers also wrote extensively about the separation of church and state. One is a belief, the other governing of the people. This was absolutely clear as the first peoples to these lands came fleeing religious persecution, therefore great pains were taken to assure that the people of this nation are free to worship who and what they choose.
Following that naturally, would be that public domain be free of religious doctrine and dogma, or statues and images of any particular relgious sect, in order to be UNBIASED. Majority rule does not count in a court of law, nor really any public place.

One may obey the law and not believe in several or all of the 10 commandments. They have no place in the rotunda of the judiciary, in any state. Ok they are gone.

Im also glad the judge was removed, because if a judge does not have to comply with judicial decree, why would anyone else have to? Setting of really bad example. Gladly, another fanatic removed from public office.

He definitely crossed the line, and I'm thrilled that he lost his job over it. At the same time, I feel somewhat apprehensive. I'm afraid of more people like him obtaining judgeships and deciding that our country is based on men(and their religious beliefs) rather than laws.