I have seen persons protesting another's religion, as well as verbally abusing another's beliefs at work.
There is a segment of society, typically evangelical protestant fundamentalists, who seem to think that standing on a street corner with a sign that says Mormons are not Christian, or the Pope is a communist, or Jews are Christ Killers, or some other incredibly stupid idea that their false shepherd preacher has put into their little minds. I challenged one of the sign carriers as he was being interviewed by the local paper that I could guess his religion, and I was right. It was easy, as I was raised in that religion. On a few occasions at work, someone would say something bigoted about my religion (usually when they didn't know I was nearby), and I reminded them that they could behave in a civil manner, or they could get to meet with Human Resources. If I can allow them their beliefs, they can allow me mine.
The bigoted Judge is stupid if he thinks this sideshow of his is going to get him anywhere. On the other hand, maybe the citizens of Alabama are still in the spiritual dark ages and his little light is bright in comparison to theirs.

While I do not wear clothing or have signs ridiculing anyone else's religion, I see a lot of them ridiculing Christianity, usually something about Jesus, who is indeed very important to Catholics. And I see people displaying these parodies or out-and-out insults everywhere I go.

Nativity scenes, menorahs, and Christmas trees in public places are condemned by persons on the basis of separation of church and state.

With the routine ridicule of what Christians (and Jews) hold dear in their faiths and the drive to get rid of religious symbols, I can understand people like Judge Moore who believe that expression of religious faith is under attack.

While the monument was overkill, I must say that the positive expression of a religion should be able to be viewed in a public place without construing that to be the state's endorsement of that religion. And the writings of Buddhism, Taoism, Native American Spirituality, etc., should also be displayed.

Can't we lose the attitude of derision and replace it with inclusivenss?

So are you claiming a church isn't a "public place"?
No one would have a problem with the ten commandments statue if it was on private property. Cities across the US have nativity scenes every Christmas- ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Why is their a need to put this religious paraphenalia in city hall? That's what I don't get.


Are you honestly trying to claim that you haven't seen Christian T-shirts and bumperstickers belittling atheism? Christians are far from persecuted in this country, and all it does is make them look incredibly silly when they claim to be persecuted.
Not being allowed to intimidate non-Christians is not the same thing as being persecuted.
Read Judge Moore's words here.

Yet somehow Christians are the ones claiming to be persecuted.

Government involvement in religion is the only thing actively lobbied against. Expressions that ridicule or parody religion is not hindering the expression of faith by the faithful, but is rather making use of the same right to expression as them. To my knowledge, nobody is seeking to prevent private displays of faith, the public displays of religious symbols by individuals, etc.

Christian faith is hardly under any kind of attack despite what supporters of Roy Moore like might to believe. Salon magazine's 2000 report on Religion tallied 96% of Americans as having a belief in God, with Christianity representing 82% of all Americans.

Just as certain Christian denominations are free to bash Catholics for what they claim is idolatry and other immoral deeds, the non-religious are free to criticise as well. Equally, the non-religious are not immune to the criticisms of the faithful. What they all have in common is that they are all personal, private expressions not endorsed or promoted by the United States government.

Fair and balanced (heh) government endorsement and promotion of religion could very well lead to a host of public displays on government property, supported by all our tax dollars. We might have two-and-one-half ton monuments to the Ten Commandments, marble statues honoring the Koran, golden Buddhas flanking them both, dancing Shivas snaking through the halls, organic displays to reflect the growing trend of nature worship, tenets of Humanism, whatever Scientology might offer, and Jewish expressions of Jesus not being the messiah... all packed together.

And while I don't know that the majority of these faiths would have a problem with such an amalgamation, I would venture to guess the Christian faith would have objections to such. If not on the basis of forbidden idolatry in the Ten Commandments, perhaps on the basis of their monuments -- and consequently their faith -- being demeaned by surrounding expressions of conflicting faiths.

As a matter of fact, Chief Justice Roy Moore has already demonstrated his personal unwillingness to grant the equal expression of faith to citizens of other faiths for us. And I'm sure his supporters around the courthouse would agree with that as well. Fortunately, justice is still being upheld in this country.

Kindly pay attention to the boldface part of my quotation. Did I say I feel we are being persecuted? No. I said I can understand his sentiment.



Yes, I honestly do claim that. The closest I came to seeing it was a bumper sticker that said: My God is not dead. Sorry about yours. Sure, it's highly possible that Christians can be every bit as obnoxious as anyone else. But I don't condone that type of behavior, and neither should they. And it still comes nowhere near to things like the Jesus of the Week site which has something derogatory to say continually. But tackiness is protected under the First Amendment.



Come on, Grendel. You know exactly what I mean, and for purposes of this discussion, no, a church is not a public place. There is a reason that the main room of a church is called a "sanctuary." It is however, a place where the public is welcome to worship.


This was the crux of my message. Diversity can work if we work at it. And if you check, my point of view isn't much different from yours.

I reiterate to whoever: Isn't it time to lose the attitude?

Well, I am sure ex-justice roy will be running for a senate seat or something soon, which of course was his aim the whole time IMO. Growing up in a fundalmentalist household, I am now hearing about how this is "persecution"- I started laughing so hard I almost cried. How do you compare having a political statement removed to Christianities history of genocide and killing and torture? We should remember that the bible has been used to uphold every evil this counry has ever had as a legal precedent, such as slavery (they pro-slavery movement frequently invoked the passage where paul tells the slave to return to his master). An endorsement of Christianity by any goverment entity I find quite sickening. IF there were any amendment I could change, I would change it to "freedom from religion". Thank god (pun intended) we do have judges willing to take on demegogues like roy

I read your anger. So the judge is a buffoon--so what? He'll learn what he has to from this. We all have to make our way, some ways being bumpier than others. Let him feel persecuted.

Again, how does having an attitude about it (on any side) help our society?

I don't know if the statue of the Ten Commandments is a mote or a beam in the judge's eye, but I also know Jesus said that we are to cast the beam out of our own eye and not to judge lest we be judged.

I also know that while Christianity has done many terrible things in its history, it has also been responsible for some wonderful things. The faith has helped countless people live through some hard times, and this is by their own admission.
I also know that hospitals were established by Christian people. There were hospitals pre-Christianity, but the reason Europe developed them was largely due to Muslim medicine, and the Christian establishment and maintenance of hospitals.

I too came out of fundamentalism and had a period in my life where I was angry and bitter and couldn't do enough to deride Christianity. But there are people in this world quietly living their faith and doing good works who did me no wrong. They also speak for the religion, and I doubt that the judge and his cronies can undo the good these people are doing.

Let the Ten Commandments come down. No skin off my nose. We're supposed to internalize them anyway.

For every "Jesus of the week" website which pokes mild fun at Christian kitsch (BTW, I know several Christians who find that site amusing) I can find a genuinely meanspirited site like this. Christians are not persecuted in this country.
I honestly don't. I really don't get the need that some Christians feel to have their iconography placed all over the government. It reminds me of a puppy marking it's territory.
What purpose does it serve, are they trying to say to the rest of us "this isn't really your country"? That is what it looks like to me.
I hope you don't think I am deriding Christianity. Just because I don't want our country to be turned into a theocracy doesn't mean I have a problem with Christianity.

In the interest of the Minority we do in this country allow behavior that discriminates against large groups such as the Christian movement.

It is not that we are a puppy marking our territory, it is simply a desire for others to recognize as fact what we believe to be true. We would not be practicing Christians if we did not advocate Christian views, may we have your permission to freely practice our religion.

The problem here is simply a view of how things are. I am not trying to make a argument here, just Clarify something. A government cannot be without God to a Christian, so yes a to that extent your comment on a Theocracy does mean you are, whether you intend to or not deriding Christianity.

Separation of church and state, plain and simple. The ones that are laws (Thou shalt not kill) I suppose are okay but most of the ten are simply moral guidelines that are not against the law to break. It is not a requirement for judges to abide by these morals (other than the ones that are laws) so why does it need to be outside a government building. Roy Moore can see these commandments at church - I guarantee he goes to church - so there's no need to force his beliefs on others. Judge is not the supreme ruler of all beings so he shouldn't act like the morality police.

Abs, I believe that you have boiled the whole issue down to three words: "All or None...". I myself, have no problem with the Ten Commandments being placed in the central rotunda of the judiciary building... As long as I can put another 2 1/2 ton granite monument right beside it with the Wiccan Rede on it. Or perhaps a Budda on one side and Zeus on the other.

Anyone pondering this issue, must look at both sides of the coin. If he can have his belief represented in the judiciary building, why can't I have mine??

The Wiccan Rede does not give us insight into the historical basis from which the laws of government came into being.

Ditto for Zeus, Buddha, the Koran down the line.

Now, if you want to post Hamurabi's Code, that would be fine.

The reference here is not to a crucifix (arguably the most central symbol of Christianity), but of the Ten Commandments, which has almost universal acknowledgement as one of the basic historical cornerstones of law.

I have already put forth the argument that what decorations a state's courthouse chooses should not be limited by a Federal mandates which prevents the passage of certain laws on a national level. I won't repeat them, since they fall on deaf ears.

It is true, I suppose that the religion clause of the constitution only applies to congress. However, in the interest of fairness and encouraging a trust in the American judicial system: It seems only reasonable that a court which interprets US law should display US law (past or present) as written. It prevents needless battles. The fight Roy Moore is putting up over this is ridiculous, if the monument is just to highlight the historical basis of US law, then it really isn't very important. Last I checked, he isn't paid to be a history teacher.

Wait a minute... I'm not a historian, and I may be a little dense here... Are you saying that US law is/was based on the Ten Commandments??

This is the argument being put forth as part of a justification. I think it is quite a stretch. It is more accurate in my mind to say that much of western law has been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian ethics.

US laws are based on English common law, the ideas of the enlightenment, and the Constitution.

Saying that the ten commandments form a basis for US law leave some unexplained gaps. Why isn't adultery then a law?
Why isn't there a law about graven images, false gods, or coveting?

The first three commandments deal with man's duty to God, and are obviously not the concern of government.

The remaining commandments are ALL embodied (in one form or another) in English common law and in US law.

Until recently, the Sabbath law was even common in the US (anyone else have a reason behind not selling beer and wine on Sundays?)

Adultery is the only one which there is no express law, although there have been laws against adultery in the past. Link

Divorce law is rooted in assigning blame due to adultery. Affair partners have been sued for causing marriages to end.

So that makes 8 out of the 10 commandments which are at the very foundation of the laws of this country (and most others in the Western world). Point to any other religious document which is so intimately linked to the foundation of the rule of law.

(I can't believe I even need to explain this...makes me sad, really).

That is a weak argument. The 8 out of ten are not at the foundation of our legal system as sad as it makes you feel to have to explain it. They are fringe laws that tend to get removed from the lawbooks without affecting the core of our legal system, english common law and the constitution.

Remove sabbath laws and our legal system stays strong.
The adultery laws have been removed with no problem.
Imposing the commandment about worshipping other gods is outright unconstitutional.
Divorce law is rooted in several things. One reason for getting a divorce is adultery but no individual gets criminally punished for adultery.



By my count 1,2,3,4,5, and 7 are not central to our legal system. Other amendments are somewhat connected.
Murder = bad. We have laws for that.
English common law protects property rights
8 and 10 connect to that.

One small part of the criminal code seems to be covered in 9. Don't commit perjury.

I don't see this coming close to being the equivalent of the foundation of our legal system.

I'm curious as to where you get eight out of ten, Amlord.

Murder, stealing, and possibly adultery, I can understand. But that would leave seven out of ten not applicable to U.S. law:
1) Thou shalt have no other God(s)
2) Thou shalt not make any graven images
3) Thou shalt not take Lord's name in vain
4) Remember the Sabbath*
5) Honor thy father and mother
6) Thou shalt not bear false witness*
7) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods

*We do still work on Sundays, though at the time of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath was recognized on Saturdays
*May be tied to perjury, though very tenuously. Other than that it is generally not a crime in this country to tell a lie.

Overall, the Ten Commandments appear to have little to do with our legal system. They are the embodiment of of Christian morality with a few comparable to common law.

Even was the argument to be made to display historical influences of law (which would include a host of religions), Chief Justice Moore denied access for anything to be displayed alongside his personal graven image, "Roy's Rock."

Just to add one more note, I am note a history professor but i might speculate prior the foundation of Christian laws, societies might have had a legal system in which laws existed that might be somewhat the same like theft or murder.

And on a last note, does living under a legal system ,that in itself is American i would hope, mean i have to be a Christian or accept Christianity because i follow laws? Does this "judges" arguments give Weight that America is meant to be and only a Christian system? Does that also garner that it should mean Christians can do what they want in regards to America like its legal system, or that they are above American common law?

Being I personally see this as an act of treason to our constitution and a form of mutiny none the less by the people that agree with it,
Does that mean I am against the America some would like to see a reality?

What happens to the rest of America, like that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, does that all magically go away, is fascism acceptable and at what length, is Alabama a foreign nation, or are those American people, should people take to arms in states and fight each other in some kind of a war? I will stop now.

In all actuality some of what you understand, is not completely true in the context.

The assertion is that these are the basis of laws we use today. The ten Commandments are expanded upon and interpreted later in two other books of the original Books of law.

The first three are clearly laws that refer to a higher power and his/her/its supremacy(I really don't want to debate this so I'll be neutral). They are laws of respect for authority. They do expand in the meaning that you should talk to a judge or in court as if speaking to God. This is the support for many oaths that are required.

I'm assuming no one is debating stealing and murder(malicious death for gain, several possible meanings, does not directly translate to english but this is close.)

Honor thy father and mother is expanded to include incest behavior, it talks of not looking unto the nakedness of others and ties it in with which relative is or is not allowed to. Basis in law today.

Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy. In the Old Testament is clearly referring to a single day. But Jesus in the New Testament says that this is a day of rest and that man should not go hungry or not satisfy basic needs to not work on the sabbath, and that it is day for man not God. We have day of rest laws today that say people need time to rest, and limit peoples work.

Adultry is a basis and reason in tort law for the dissolveing of marriage. Sounds like a cival law(Tort) to me.

Bearing false witness was meant to describe perjury. A basis in the development of law.

Coveting was the basis for the illegal use of or the wrongful taking of livestock and goods. It helped deliniate the responsibilities of parties if say livestock wandered away and what the nieghbor would need to do. Also if you were caring for animals and they were harmed in your care, what were the responsibilities.

If you would like specific Biblical references, I can provide, but it is very dry and you should get a concordance,(Deut. really stinks to read), They are all explained and expanded. A monument with all this on it would be huge.

So truly if you look at the whole text and context genre and interpretation I would say there is a sound argument that all Ten at least are roots of laws we use today.


This is one of those cases when we are talking about a very old oral tradition that was passed down and then transcribed. It is incredibly accurate in keeping meaning and word for word translation through the ages, and is at the very least one of the most accurately transcribed legal references we have today from early history. This is also a extensive comparison, but if someone is interested. I can provide sources to support this assertion.

Wow, I guess we have VERY different views about how laws developed...

If you cannot see:

As DIRECTLY perjury, I wonder how twisted the rest of your logic is...Bearing witness against your neighbor is not the same as telling your mother you didn't chop down the cherry tree...

This commandment alone is one of the very basic cornerstones of law and the fact that in order for a person to be charged with a crime, there must be a witness against him.

Taking the Lord's name in vain was used for centuries as one of the cornerstones of law. You swore to God that you would tell the truth. And guess what: it was fully expected that when you did this, you WOULD tell the truth. Another cornerstone.

Honoring thy father and mother goes beyond simply your biological parents. If you look at the Bible, heads of households (i.e. authority figures) were referred to as Father. Matriarchs were "mothers". Honoring and respecting those in authority is another cornerstone of the law.

The Sabbath, while you blow it off in today's context, was historically very significant.

It really makes me wonder when someone reads "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" that you can say that it has no pertinence to the foundation of our code of laws, even if there is no specific law against greed.

If you want to get down to the specifics of this case, answer one question:
WHAT RELIGION DOES THE TEN COMMANDMENTS "ESTABLISH"?

Actually... it's not establishing, it's promoting. Which I believe is the central issue here. But I digress...

Hmmm, I'm guessing... CHRISTIANITY.

ding. ding. ding.

That's right! What do we have for him johnny....

Let's be constructive in our debates, please.

Actually, You're wrong. It's Judaism, Moses was a Jew, NOT a Christian. So ERRRR, you're wrong.

I find the whole thing stupid. We've always had the 10 Commandments around, we're a Western civilization and Western civilizations were founded by Christians. This has more to do with acknowledging heritage and history of our fore fathers than strict adherence or institutionalizing of another religion. Some people just want to erase the Christian history of this country. If the Koran was an influence and we had Muslim men who helped found this country, than it should be included, but it wasn't. It's "IN GOD WE TRUST" AND "SO HELP ME GOD". We swear on the Holy Bible when we're in court and we start sessions of Congress with a Protestant saying a prayer.

Ummm no. Christianity are religions based on the belief that Jesus Christ was the savior. Seeing that the time line of Moses and the Ten commandments were before the time of Christ in the bible.

Speaking of forefathers I think this is something that they said was a no-no. The government and relgioun thing. I could be wrong but i think thats about the only thing that this has a case on. We are not talking about a statue of the ten commandments at a local church or mini mart. This is a government structure that resides over americans none the less. Is this to eradicate christianity or are chritians trying to eradicate seperation of church and state. The only fight is the keep the public arena free from relgioun, not your home or local community.

If you review suspended Chief Justice Moore's position on placing the monument in the rotunda, it had nothing to do with the heritage and history of our fore fathers. His reasoning was founded in acknowledging his god, spreading the word of his god and preventing other expressions from being presented alongside his monument to his faith.

My apologies...

how about judeo-christian??

After cases like this I am wondering...

Will In God We Trust be removed from currency?
Will the bible no longer be used in swearing in elected officials or in testimonies?
Will sessions of government no longer be opened with a prayer?

Sleeper and Billy Jean, you both think the display of ten commandments was not promoting Christianity? I most certainly got the message from it that Christians held higher esteem in this judge's court.

Those questions would probably be better served in a separate topic of their own, Sleeper

Well, he's wrong for that and he should know better and he does. Radical Christians want to bring back their ideas of what morals are and those have nothing to do with the 10 Commandments. As always throughout history, some people use religion for their own purposes and therefor taint a belief in the process.

Edited to add:


I think that he was doing this on purpose to draw attention and I think that if Christians have an advantage in his court then he shouldn't be a judge. But in principle, I see nothing wrong with the 10 Commandments being displayed as a historical reference for what our laws, values and morals are based on. But it shouldn't have been used as a political tool on this judges part, he's a disgrace and not a good testament of a Christian. He instigated this 2 years ago when he had the statue snuck in knowing full and well what would happen.

They are rhetorical questions to emphasize.. "where exactly we are going with removing god from everything in our society?" Before long it will be illegal to say 'God bless you' to somebody that sneezes.

Regardless of Judge Moore's argument, which I disagree with strongly, the Ten Commandments are historically significant (for reasons aforementioned) and therefore have a sound reason for being in a judicial building.

Edited to add:

Just because the some of the Ten Commandments are not reflected in our current legal system does not mean that they have no significance. Take Freud for example. Most of his psychological theories are not accepted by modern psychologists, but he still contributed greatly by providing the models of id, ego and superego, and some of his psychoanalysis techniques are still used. Just because he thought all problems stemmed from some Oedipal or Elektra conflict with either the mother or father does not mean that his contributions were not significant. And he is still recognized in modern psychology books. The same goes for the Ten Commandments. Not all of them are still relevant, but they are still one of the earliest examples of law and some are still reflected in our legal system. That they are tied to a specific religion (which is not the case they're actually tied to three) is irrelevant.

sleeper said " After cases like this I am wondering...

Will In God We Trust be removed from currency?
Will the bible no longer be used in swearing in elected officials or in testimonies?
Will sessions of government no longer be opened with a prayer?"

I think using that case for that is about as wrong as using it for the allowing of the Ten Commandments. I would not personally object to such as a i see it as a hangover.
Moore wanted this fight, he does not care about other peoples opinions and faith, he moved the structure their is secret, then refused to move it, he wants this fight, him and others like him want to destroy the separation of church and state, its as simple as that, we are not making a fuss about some lump of stone in a persons backyard, i don’t see why this cant be noticed on what hes doing.

pheeler said " Regardless of Judge Moore's argument, which I disagree with strongly, the Ten Commandments are historically significant (for reasons aforementioned) and therefore have a sound reason for being in a judicial building."

Yes and that same argument can be used to why it should be this or that, the point is its a government building to serve the ameican public, forbid some atheist or Muslim ends up there. This is not about historical value, not in entirety at any rate.
If this was allowed to stand, what next huh?

The First Amendment prohibits Congress (not some guy named Moore who cannot even make laws) from establishing a religion.

The Constitution (a good read)


emphasis mine

"Judeo-Christian" is not a religion, it is a set of religions (which just happen to encompass over 90% of US citizens).

This in no way establishes a religion.

It does have historical value.

Then there is no problem, but moore only wants his values and verison, no other would he allow, he then went on about how this court house, my court house belongs or sees god as all powerful and so on. I think we should just bury the court house in so much faith objects you cant conduct your daily job.

Yes nile, which is why Amlord made mention of the Hammurabai Code. I would have no objection to a monument recognizing those laws.

But where does it end, can we have some of satans values up there also, or would you object to that pheeler, i can understand that christians love god and all of that, and most can get to that high and mighty state of thought, but where does a public for all americans come into play, serperation of church and state anyone?

Nile,

I am trying to explain why this isn't a religion issue, regardless of what Judge Moore says on TV. The Ten Commandments have historical relevance. Some Satanic document does not. The Koran does not. Other historical documents do.

Show me how the judge interjects his personal religious beliefs in a discriminatory way against non-Christians and then we have an issue. This should not be an issue.

So says you amlord, maybe not to some other american that feels strongly about something, if we allow court houses to be run by indivduals with there own agenda, what does that mean about america, maybe i feel strongly about seculer humanists, and its historical value, do you know anything about humanism or its history? the point being is a public was needed and the constitution stated on how to go about it, by not allowing all of there moral trinkets to clog it up and destroy it.

Amlord, the display of a single item, one with great historical religious significance, is clearly establishing the importance of religion based upon it within that political body. It is not put there to teach history. It is put there as a symbol. It is not put there to symbolize the importance of history and how we should learn it. It is put there as a symbol as to the importance of religious teachings within that political body.

I guess we can take away this judge's symbol and make sure it is not a symbol of the State of Alabama, but we can not take away the judge's religious prejudice.

If documents within a religion have historical significances would this not be true for all religions whether they are Satanic or Muslim or any religion?

See here.
The man is a bigot plain and simple, and he does not belong on the bench.
The statue is purely an attempt to intimidate people, and it works. I for one would be terrified to be in that courthouse for so much as a parking violation.

Damn morality is ruining this country. It wasn't like this back in the '50s...

Oh wait...

Let me assure you, Nileriver, that the Ten Commandments being in some courthouse (like it is in hundreds or thousands of others around the country) is NOT bringing us to ruin.

In reference to the establishment of American and Western laws and ethics the 10 commandments has lots of historical influence unlike the Torah or the Satanic Bible.

This is a completely false argument.
The ONLY time that Christianity is being objected to is when it is forced on us.

[EDIT]Sorry, the comment I posted here was out of line so I deleted it.

Grendel - please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you need to add more, edit your previous post (especially if it means you will avoid one-liners!)

Just a side note here... Has any other Judge or judges, (supreme court, state, or local), stood by Mr. Moore on this issue?

The debate could go on and on for eternity as to whether or not to remove "God" out of every corner of our judicial system as a whole, but I believe that this specific instance was more about his bringing back "Almighty God" to the American people.

I am also sure their is a ton of religious if not Christians in the government be it law or anything. Are elected president is an open evangelical Christian, that still does not change the importance of separation of church and state, the need for it, and the fact not all Americans are the borg in respects to one single faith or philosophy.

To put this in perspective on how our system is nice in the simple freedom it grants us, would you want to be a religious person under some form of atheist communistic rule. TO put yourself in those shoes you can see why this is nice. Another example of fine religious rule is Iran, with some public executions of prostitutes maybe, but maybe some could go for that.

The idea and principal is sound and productive, its deserves to also be protected, this i am sure most religious people in the government have come to understand, that is why its still here, unless the government is run by humanists and atheist, something i highly doubt.