http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ndments_rally_2

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?

The First Amendment



The people have a right to peaceably assemble and let their grievances be heard.

Billy - do you want to debate the legality of the Alabama judge's posting of the 10 Commandments and the current case surrounding it or do you want to discuss the protesters that have emerged because of the case?

The legality of the Alabama Judge posting the 10 Commandments and the case surrounding it. The protesters are just a side note, in a matter of speaking.

Ok, there is a great article here that might help the discussion.

From the above mentioned article:



That Adam Smith again.

To be honest this is one issue where I see legitimate arguments from both sides. I think it is clear that most of the founders of the Constitution favored Smith's view. The sticky point is that a few individual states did have state religions imbedded in their constitution at the time the Constitution was ratified. These state constitutions were modified in the 19th century to eliminate state preference of any single religion.

I think it is a very scary thing when a judge becomes a religious activiist from the bench. Judges are supposed to protect us from the whims of the mob and the tyranny of the majority. This is precisely what some of our founding fathers were afraid of, state recognition of a religion. By this action, the state of alabama is saying that they are a Judeo-christian state, and pagans and other religions are not equal in the eyes of the law.

I guess you kinda gotta expect it from a state like alabama, but I just don't have to like it!

I think the separation of government and religion has been a very positive part of our system throughout our history.

This separation has never been absolute and the fine line gets pushed to and fro from generation to generation.

While a monument to the ten commandments in somewhat inocuous and not necessarily offensive, Judge Moore is playing the role of the politician here trying to score points at home while playing with American 1st American rights (via the 14th Amendment).

As a more visceral reaction I think it is proper to stop Judge Moore because he is making this a political crusade.

I also believe that (as stated above) the judicial branch needs to be held to the highest standard here because people who are exposed to our judicial system need to feel that an Muslim, Buddhist, or (even if it seems contradictory because they use the Christian Old testament (vice versa is even more accurate) ) Jews.

There was a story from Central Alabama (near Montgomery) just a few years ago where a community instituted school prayer in an rural community that was 100% Christian at the time. Later this created a problem because some Jews moved into the community and were expected to participate in the prayer activity. A confrontation ensued and much wrath was rained down on the newcomers who upset the order of things that had been established.

So, to sum up, I'm agin' it and I think Judge Moore does not have good motives as he continues to beat this issue to death. (It was going on most of the time that I lived there when he hung the commandments in his court room, 1994-1999)



Link to support anecdote and quote

This is going to be a tough call if this case makes it to the Supreme Court. If I’m not mistaken, they have a plaque of the 10 Commandments on their wall.

Congress isn’t making a law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, however, a judge in a lower court whose responsibility it is to uphold established law is letting it be known that he places Christian rules above the law of the land. He is trying to send a message to everyone who crosses the path into the courthouse - “This court recognizes God.”

If I were of another faith I would find that stone tablet intimidating and would question the fairness of the court.

I believe it should come down.

Maybe if that "judge" goes far enough the u.s or another body can bring charges of treason up, and have him deported to iran so he can realize his religous dream.

nileriver - on what basis would you charge him with TREASON? That word gets thrown around WAY too easily. While there is definitely a legal issue here, it in no way meets the standards of the charge of treason.

Only in the loosest sense. What they have is a diorama of lawgivers throughout history. Moses is holding the tablets containing the commandments. They also include Hammurabi, Napoleon, Confucius and Muhammad... check the description of the friezes here.
This is no more an endorsement of Christianity than it is of Confucianism, although you would never guess that from the way the religious right refer to it.

Living not too far away from His Honor, I hear a lot about this case.

In my opinion, this is way over the line. This is not a little poster on the wall of his office; this is a HUGE block of stone in the courthouse. If I were unfortunate enough to be judged in this court, I would be scared -- really scared -- to insist on taking a civil oath rather than swearing in.

Moore's open defiance of judgements made against him makes me wonder what will happen when he has exhausted all means of appeal. Will he simply defy the Supreme Court? Will it come down to the Feds taking the monument away by force, and starting a violent riot among Moore's supporters? I certainly hope it doesn't come down to that.

Not to derail the topic to much but this is why i am always against freeing states up to making all their own decisions, very easily could end up something ugly if not allowing America to steadily degenerate into segregation over a million possible issues. Its not a healthy way to deal with issues in my opinion. We have federal laws for all people to follow, not just a select few, to allow some people of a group to get away with something because it is perceived as "good" or "well" just would simply not "cut it"

If that person is allowed to do that, i don’t think anyone then should have the right to object to open Satanists teaching their ideas in preschool.

O.K. The reason the monument in Alabama was ordered removed is because other groups have requested that their monuments be placed in the same area, but they were all refused. The idea is that, since the U.S. does not recognize any one religion above another, any religion or group has just as much right as another to place their monuments on public property.

So, the monument could stay if other groups were allowed to place their monuments in the same area. I can agree with this, as I really have no problem with the ten commandments being on public property, but the government needs to be fair to other faiths as well.

here is the ruling on the monument:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/religio...mre70103opn.pdf

Anyway, that's not the part I find very interesting. What's odd is that a state judge came on national TV today and proclaimed that "A judges order is not always valid" or something along those lines. I can't believe that he is still a judge tonight. I mean, if you were brought before this judge, and he issued an order, how could you possibly take his order seriously? By his very words, any order he issues is just waiting to be defied.

I like that part about it will be enforced, sure he can have his giant block of stone there, so should another person be able to have a two story Shiva statue, but of course you can see the failure there in that persons on perception of reality, one that allows him in my mind to be a traitor. I mean the traitors entire argument is rather flawed in the sense he goes on about how parents cant teach their children that they were made in the fashion of the Christian god, last time i checked no one stops you from putting your young children into Christian schools or taking them to church. This guy does not care about any other faith and or opinions or ways to perceive life and is a throwback to days of torture in Europe. I would not mind his crusade in life so much if he was not so incredibly closed minded and overall in the privacy of his friends probably an intense bigot.

There already is a statue of Venus in front of the Judicial building, is that not quais-religious?
The granite block also contains wording from the Declaration of Independence and is designed to show how the founding fathers derived our constitutional law from english common law which is in turn based on biblical law.

BTW Nile, you throw around the traitor term quite a bit, what is the charge of treason?


Interesting assumption on your part.

Yes and in downtown Portland there in a giant statue of Neptune, and i don’t want to think about how many Christian crosses religious symbols i can see displayed in public all across America, or statues/paintings of Jesus and the sort. This guy only wants his ideas heard, and wants to take the justice system, something designed for the American public of liberty and all that good stuff with him. He already is going against the common law and he is supposed to be a judge, if you cant see that as being a traitor then i don’t know what is. He does not care for the constitution or certain liberties of all people in America, if not a traitor then i will call him a fascist. With the way he talks about America in light of his grand awareness of good and evil and morals you can tell that he thinks less of them, is that not some form of bigotry, i bet he sits around with his pals and talks about how bad America is because it does not use the bible on everything.

He is disobeying a judges order................but what LAW is he breaking?

Yes he is breaking the law by disobeying a judge’s order, i guess i can do the same now.

*sigh*......What LAW is he breaking?

nileriver - just for your info, a court order is NOT law. Laws can only be made by legislators. There is a difference between the two. I hope that helps you understand what DTOM (and I a few posts back) are trying to ask.

Here is but one small part of the ruleing against the "judge", there are many laws he broke to say the least or decisions that show why.

Because of this country’s “history and tradition of religious diversity that dates from the settlement of the north American continent” the founders includes in the bill of rights and establishment which prohibits any law respecting the establishment of religion, county of Allegheny v. aclu 492 u.s 573, 589, 109 s. ct. 3086, 3099 1989. In the more then two centuries since that clause became part of our constitution the supreme court has arrived at an understanding of its general meaning, which is that “government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization, may not discriminate among person on the basis of their religious beliers and practices, may not delegate a government power to a religious institution, and may not involve itself too deeply in such an institutions affairs”.

I got that from the pdf file in this thread, its the offical case againt said "judge" There are many more if you want me to get them, but being its a pdf file, i cant cut and past so i have to type it all, it will take time.

Jaime and DTOM, i dont think judges can convict of a crime unless you break the law, thats what judges and lawyers work with right? Its not a crime to disobey a judge without proper legel reasons either is it?

The way I read the Constitution, it says "Congress shall make no law..."

It says nothing about Alabama, or any other state legislature in there. This seperation issue has been pushed far too hard.

As was pointed out, this monument does not promote a religion. Virtually every major religion acknowledges the Old Testament (even Islam). The judge here reads the Alabama Constitution as saying its authority comes from God. There is no "pushing of religion" here.

Of course, the judge will lose, be held in contempt of the Federal Court and force Alabama to pay a big fine. All in the defence of what he believes is right...how dare he!!

And why does such an item have to be on the court house, has that nothing to do with the issue, why does he not move the thing to his home, i mean then it would not be illegel. The only victims here would be the american public at large not to go against this, not him, he is the one pushing hard for his cause.

For anybody unable or unwilling to view the .pdf link provided earlier by andyjojo, the court order appears to open as such:Because of the .pdf format I was forced to copy by hand, so apologies for any misspellings or other errors in the above quote.

There are admittedly another 47 pages to the report that I did not sift through. This, however, seems to be the crux of the case. While Amlord's reading of the First Amendment is correct, it seems this case goes beyond placing a religious paper weight in the court house. The way I read this, it seems the monument may very well have been allowed to stand had he not afterwards prohibited other displays on the basis of his own religious beliefs.

"[t]he placement of a speech by any man alongside the revealed law of God would tend in consequence to diminish the very purpose of the Ten Commandments monument." -- Judge Moore

It does seem odd to me that while this is presumably the foundation of the lawsuits, the monument was ordered removed on the basis of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Congress has had nothing to do with this and the establishment of a monument is clearly not a law, as Amlord pointed out earlier. This would apply to many of the rulings enforcing a separation of church and state.

I'd like to take up the use of the First Amendment elsewhere, but as this topic asks only for my opinion of the case, I'll move along. I do think the monument should be removed as long as the Judge insists on prohibiting other displays on the basis of personal beliefs. Its presence in the court house and the expressed beliefs of the Judge clearly demonstrate an inability to leave prejudices out of the halls of justice. Because of this inability on the Judge's behalf I not only think the monument should be removed, but I also believe the Judge should be relieved of his position until such time as he can leave his beliefs out of his professional life.


Edited to add:
Considering his refusal of other displays on the basis of this monument and his religion, I would say there is a pushing of religion here. He is using his personal beliefs to stop the expression or display of others in a government building intended for the pursuit of justice. And "virtually every major religion" appears to me to be only two: Judaism and Islam. As far as I know the latter does not, however, abide by the 10 Commandments.

Judge Moore is acting the politician and he is trying to make a religious expression as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He took it upon himself to have the monument placed where it is in secrecy one night. He is defying a court order from a federal judge who has interpreted this to be unconstitutional. I believe the constitution is the LAW of the land.

He is going against the interpretation of the state's attorney general (ironically a person that was just refused a federal judgeship in part for his strong pro-life opinion that led him to call Roe v. Wade (i believe) an abomination.

He is also standing in the face of the other eight justices on the supreme court who officially said he was wrong to defy the court order.

I don't think this takes the separation of church and state too far, I think it is one of the most egregious violations of that separation I have ever heard. And intent had a lot to do with that.

"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" How many religions can demand a monument in the court house buildings to that their free exercise of religion can be as free as those that share the ten commandments?

Where do you see Congress passing a law?

Where do you see ANYONE passing a law?


This clearly does NOT violate the First Amendment.

Federal judges should butt out.

Now, if the locals think the judge is out of line, they are free to vote him out. Most State judges are elected, so I am making the assumption that Judge Moore is as well.

If I can read the Constitution and unequivocally say that nothing is unConstitutional here, then certainly a State Supreme Court Justice can. He is correct in saying that just because one judge rules a certain way, it is not necessarily correct.

Abs, you seem to see the logic of my arguments, yet reject the conclusion. How can that be? Alabama does not have a seperation clause, unless I am mistaken. If they do, then this might become a Federal issue on the "elevation of jurisdiction".


Is anything placed within a rotunda "holy and sacred"? I don't see the logic here. Some natural settings have an air of holiness and tranquility. Should we burn them down if they are on Federal land?

I do see where you are coming from, Amlord. However, while I see your issue in the ruling being based around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, that was not my reasoning for saying it should be removed. If I might highlight my position:
Chief Justice Moore has refused to allow other displays on the basis of his personal religion. I would be willing to let the monument stand were there to be similar allowances for separate and possibly conflicting religious or political displays. Either everybody should be granted the right of religious expression in the rotunda or nobody should.


As far as I know he was elected as well. Refusing the order to remove the monument from public display in the rotunda, however, accusations have come that Chief Justice Moore is in violation of his judicial oath. If this is the case, he could very well be suspended or permanently removed from his position as a result of this case.

Also:As far as I can tell, the only person bringing federal judges into this is Chief Justice Moore through his continued appeals.

Does the judges court rule over americans, may he ever deal with federal dealing or the institution he belongs to. He is saying that his court house deals with the Christian law, you don’t see any problem with that amlord, what if some court house in another state posted a giant statue of Satan outside with some writings on how people will be judged, will you be such an open American, or are you undermining Americas historical values and amendments for something that you agree with?

If you read the .pdf file in this thread, you will find without a doubt why he is in the wrong, and on a side note its rather sad such a person could induce so much hate in a nation, no one has the right to stop him from putting that thing by his house or the local grocery store, you touch things like public libraries and court houses its another issue, that thing needs to go!

It doesn't matter what religious monument may be in a public arena. If you go before a court, you will be judged in accordance with the law. If a judge had a granite monument of the Koran, do you think you would get stoned for adultery in Alabama?
I'm trying to find a copy of the judges oath, but in Judge Moore's opinion anyway, he is upholding his oath. I'm not saying I'm buying that, but I haven't heard the allegations Abs is referring to.

From the MSNBC article I read earlier, regarding the possible violation of oath:

But the public arena belongs to the public, not to Judge Moore.

On another note, I find it a bit humorous that the religious right is rallying around a graven image of a set of laws that forbids graven images.

A good set of rules? Hardly. I've heard all too often that the ten commandments simply is a harmless, nonoffensive code of ethics. I find it interesting how people only seem to remember the ones about lying, stealing, and jealousy. And forget the one that states "thou shall have no other gods before me," offensive to any polytheistic religion, a belief in a different god besides the Christian one, or no specifically defined deity at all. "Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" - once again, offensive to believers in a non-Christian god or no god at all. "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy" - this one is kind of obvious. Some religions have their day of worship on another day of the week, and others with no specific day at all. This is in no way a "good set of rules" for everyone, just a good set of rules for Christians.
About our country's morals being based on the ten commandments, this is just false. If it were, lying would be illegal, as worshipping any other god besides the christian god. And disrespecting your parents. Heck, the only commandment that is reflected at all in American law pertain to killing. And that's pretty much widely held in most religions, not just christianity.

He is a Judge and has sworn before God to uphold the laws of Man. Commandments 1, 2, 3, and perhaps 4 would be violation of the first amendment. If “thou shalt not kill” than is the “right to bear arms” legal? Does the State have the right to execute murders? If my neighbors wife and I have a consensual affair am I breaking the law?

Does he uphold the laws of God or the laws of Man? “Give onto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is Gods”. Sounds like even God believes in the separation of church and state.

But does that mean that the morals we esteem in religion have no place in the legal system? I think it would be fine to have the moral codes from all of the major religions posted in the courthouse--they're not really that different from each other.


If you'll notice, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar what is Caesar's, AND unto God what is God's." Perhaps this is behind the judge's insistence that the Ten Commandments be there--it might be the only way that some people get exposed to them, for they don't render unto God via church attendance. At least no preacher is issuing an altar call or asking for the umpteenth verse of "Just As I Am" to be sung in the hallway. The Ten Commandments are there to be read and either observed or ignored.

(edited for typo)

Moral codes simply are not laws in this country, nor should they we expected them to be. While the morals espoused by the Ten Commandments may work for many people, only two of them actually apply to the laws of our nation. Yes, our justice system agrees that murder and stealing is wrong. That leaves eight other commandments from the Judeo-Christian faith unapplicable to our laws. I doubt seriously, too, if we're going to rush out and prohibit by law action conducted on the Sabbath or the dishonoring of parents.

Chief Justice Moore clearly feels the law of his God, as expressed in the Bible, has domain over the laws of man; he has said as much. In addition to that and his placement of a two-and-one-half ton religious paper weight, he has prohibited the placement of other displays on the basis of religious belief.

When considering the ruling of this case it may be good to remember that the First Amendment addresses the establishment of a law regarding religion. However, from what I have managed to sift through, they have found this issue to fall under the Establishment Clause essentially on the basis of an opinion years ago by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

From what I gather, she devised in 1985, in a dissenting opinion, what is described as the "endorsement test." While the text of the First Amendment addresses law, Justice O'Connor interpreted it as prohibiting the government from any advancement or endorsement of religion. I would personally agree with Justice O'Connor, but there is nothing in the Constitution which would necessarily prohibit the government from advancing or endorsing one religion over another.

While I feel there should be something prohibiting the government from such action, I will save that debate for a more appropriate thread. This does not, however, change my opinion of the case in question. Even were the case not already decided on the Establishment Clause I would argue that Chief Justice Moore was wrong in prohibiting the expression of other beliefs in the court rotunda. As I have said before, all or none should be allowed.

But morals of God [any] and the laws of Man are not necessarily the same. God says “thou shalt not kill” yet as a society we legally kill. “Thou shalt have no strange God before me” yet the first amendment says we can...and on and on. Yes they are different...distinctly so.



To render or to give?

Render:
Definition: contribute
Synonyms: cede, deliver, distribute, exchange, furnish, give, give back, give up, hand over, impart, make available, make restitution, minister, part with, pay, pay back, present, provide, relinquish, repay, restore, return, show, submit, supply, surrender, swap, tender, trade, turn over, yield
Concept: giving

Give:
Definition: contribute
Synonyms: accord, administer, allow, ante up, award, bequeath, bestow, cede, come across, commit, confer, consign, convey, deed, deliver, dish out, dispense, dispose of, dole out, donate, endow, entrust, fork over, furnish, gift, grant, hand, hand over, heap upon, lavish upon, lay upon, lease, let have, make over, parcel out, part with, pass down, pass out, permit, pony up, present, provide, relinquish, remit, sell, shell out, subsidize, supply, throw in, tip, transfer, transmit, turn over, vouchsafe, will
Concept: giving

No, I do not think the Ten Commandments need be in a courthouse so that I understand the concept of rendering and giving are the same.



Why are they there to be read? Has Satan written any moral laws? Should we post them in our court houses to read and either observe or ignore? For what purpose, so Satan can recruit more followers?

How about we leave both Satan and God outside the court house and let them recruit on their own turf.

I like the argument that goes our law is based on common law which is based on biblical law.

But that's not going back far enough.

Biblical law is based on more ancient law, specifically that of Babylon.

And I suppose Babylonian law is based on earlier law, too.

So what?

All this is saying is that law has developed over the ages. It is also saying that law develops even today.

The argument that Greek gods and goddesses are portrayed in and around government buildings does bring up an interesting question:

Who in the US worships ancient Greecian gods and goddesses? Anyone? Is there an established ancient Greek faith in the US or anywhere for that matter? I know of none.

Hey, I want Odin and Thor somewhere, and I want taxpayers to foot the bill!

Eh, maybe not.

It is hillarious how the making of the monument broke the first commandment. Oh well, more hipocricy from humans playing around real issues. In this context, I do believe the issue is an attempt to press a particular religion on the masses. I don't care how it is dressed up, it is still a power play.

We need a law: Thou shalt not establish state religion.
And another: Thou shalt not inhibit religion.

That the two laws are in conflict is obvious. That we have controversy over this even now reflects the intentions of the Constitutional drafters, who themselves were in conflict over religion.

"In the 1892 Supreme Court ruling in Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S. (citing 87 precedents), "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." Throughout history, the U.S. Supreme Court continually cited previous cases in order to maintain our Christian Constitution. However, in 1962, for the first time in American history, the court cited no previous cases and ruled in Engel vs. Vitale that; because of Separation of Church and State, the government needed to be separated from Christian principles. So, the simple school prayer, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country" became unconstitutional and the eradication of Christianity from public institutions began."

Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.

The Supreme Court is getting increasingly more proactive in its approach to judical review and censor of religious expression. What kind of distorted logic conciders the posting of the Ten Commandments a threat to the First Amendment? The First Amendment ensures the right to religious expression, it should not be used to censor it. It just so happens that I was writting a letter to my Congressman on this very issue when I stopped in to check out what was being said on here about it. He is opposed to this attack on religious liberty and Im incouraged by his efforts to stop this subversion and distortion of the First Amendment.

"I think that what we're dealing with here is a clear abuse of judicial power to destroy one of the most fundamental rights of our citizenship. It's actually part of a long train of abuse by the courts in which they have willfully distorted the real meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution in order to destroy the very right that amendment is meant to guarantee."
Congreeman seeks to stop Removal of Ten Commandments

I really dont have the time to deal with this in depth but I'll check back later to see if my post attracts any attention.

Second, actually... as well as running counter to Jesus' commands in Matthew 6:5.


Quite blatantly, this is an attempt to enshrine Judge Moore's religious beliefs- and to intimidate non-Christians.

The only attention I am getting from you Ap is that you would agree with America being forced into Christian sterilization of being alive, nothing more. The amendment is to grant humans of America as American citizens freedom from any religious rule in the form of a government body, and to protect their own faith from the government be it whatever, period. The need for a public and a public law that goes beyond any one religion or persons idea of how we as a society should be is part of the democracy that is America, i don’t know what website or militant right wing you got this info from on what the constitution is about. For all the problems, they are all generated by the right wing, i have yet to see a protest outside of a church telling them what they believe in is a lie or any protesters trying to install pure atheist or Mormon views into the constitution, the constitution that is made for all of us, not you or any group.

This "judge" is a person who should have to face what he has done.

I think it's easy for Christians to view such rulings as some kind of injustice to their faith. They are easily the majority in this country, and I don't doubt there are those who would love to see similar monuments and expressions of Christian theology throughout the country. But it's important to remember that if nothing else we are all granted the same freedom of speech and right to religion.

As misty eyed as a two-and-one-half ton monument to the Ten Commandments may make a follower of Jesus, do they really want to chance seeing to either side a golden Buddha or monument to the tenets of Islam? Do they really want the government support of religion used to display the Church of Satan's beliefs beside a crucifix of their messiah?

It seems Christians are able to identify the problems many secular people have with the government endorsement of religion. Simply put, we don't want their beliefs pushed on us using our own tax dollars. But those of the Christian faith would do well to remember that they would not be the only ones capable of using the government as a tool of religious indoctrination.

When the courts use the Establishment Clause based on the "endorsement test" they not only protect those not of the Christian faith, they protect the Christian faith as well. While not worded in the Constitution, I think it is important for the government to refrain from any endorsement of any religion. The neutral stance will not allow Christians to insert their beliefs into the courts as many may like, but it will also prevent others from inserting theirs.

Religions and belief systems conflict with one another. Not even every denomination of the Christian faith can agree on every point. Any chance of working our law based around the beliefs of one faith puts those of another at risk. The First Amendment may only deal with the establishment of law by its wording, but I absolutely believe the application of an "endorsement test" is essential and beneficial. Not only for those of us free of religion, but for those whose religions do not coincide with all their fellow citizens.

Thanks, I probably should have included that.

There is no way Judge Moore is going to win this battle. The federal courts aren't going to support him here and The Supreme Court isn't going to either. Higher federal courts don't like it when lower state courts start deciding what rulings they are going to abide by and which they're going to ignore.

If Moore feels so strongly about his religious beliefs he should resign from the bench and open up a church and moralize to his heart's content. He's grandstanding and the only principle involved here in how far one egotistical jurist will go to further his own narrow and myopic interests.

$5000 a day in fines doesn't sound like much, but while Moore is being defiant, he's costing a state that has a budget crisis money they can't afford.

This guy is a bozo and his 15 minutes are tick-tick-ticking away.

This whole argument seems to me to center around forcing the Supreme Court to rule on separation of Church and State. It was a bad choice of how to force the issue. It has to many other issues to connect with it. What amount of significance does a religious organization have to have before they are represented, is this list of early laws from one faith or multiple sources( as aptly raised earlier), What constitutes advocating a particular religion versus recognizing the development of legal thought, the issues involved here are to complex for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will have to rule on what is meant by freedom of religion. separation of Church and State is a legal interpretation not a law. The other option is Congress in a resolution making law on exactly what that means. I do not think either will happen soon. The need is there, but the right case is not available, and the congress is not strong enough on either side of the issue to get that many votes. We will continue to have lower court Judges deciding what is right in this issue on a case by case basis for a while.

The tyranny of the Federal judiciary has prevailed.

Moore has been suspended and has relented...

Ala. Judge Relents on Monument

There is no fighting City Hall (or in this case, the Feds)...

This is from Amlord's above link.

The state of Alabama suspended him not the federal government. He was in the wrong and he was trying to (for the past decade) impose his religious beliefs through his position as a public servant. His religious activism solidly goes against the spirit of our nation. Justice won out here not the federal government or any imagined tyranny.

Read the Constitution. Read the ruling here. The two plainly do not jive. No law was made, let along by Congress. States had official religions when the Constitution was ratified. There are literally thousands of religous articles and artworks adorning courthouses throughout the United States, including the Supreme Court of the United States itself.

This ruling is plainly wrong and I must give the Judge some credit for (at least a little while) standing up to the tyranny of the Federal government.

While the ruling may be incorrect in relying on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, there is no tyranny present accept by Chief Justice Moore. Had the court not already ruled, I imagine ol' Roy could have been taken to court over the monument based on his refusal to allow any other displays share the rotunda.

While he and the religious supporters still surrounding the Alabama Supreme Court may moan about the federal government hindering their expression of faith, I doubt if any of them have considered for a moment that Chief Justice Moore was doing exactly that when he refused to share the rotunda.

There may not be an "endorsement test" for religion in the First Amendment, but I do believe free speech is protected. Oh, how quick the persecuted can be to do unto others...

As Moore sees his views as being the 'absolute truth' and 'God's word', I say we erect an alternate version of the 'absolute truth' and support the free exercise of religion by building a HUGE monument of the KORAN. How long do you think the religiously fanatic citizens of the US would allow that statue to be in the courthouse? 10 minutes? 2 days? The religious activists in this country are quickly becoming a political force to be reckoned with. We cannot become an intolerant, fanatic society which proclaims an 'absolute truth'!