The Ten Commandments Situation in Alabama - What do you think?

Everyone is aware of the situation in Alabama where the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama is fighting to keep a 2.5 ton stone representation of the Ten Commandments in a state building.

A few questions:

1 - Do you think it is appropriate for the Ten Commandments to be there?
2 - Do you think it is appropriate for Judge Moore to disregard the court orders requiring the removal of the monument?


KK EDIT: Locked in favor of consolidating into a single thread.

 

[color=663300]The ten commandments is in plenty other courthouses. I see nothing special with this one. [/color]

 

1 - Do you think it is appropriate for the Ten Commandments to be there?

No, I believe in complete separation of church and state.


2 - Do you think it is appropriate for Judge Moore to disregard the court orders requiring the removal of the monument?

Nope, and he should be fined and fired for disregarding the law he supposedly stands for.

 

Merlin - have you ever noticed that only two of the ten commandments actually have anything to do with the law? Thou shall not steal and thou shall not kill. The remaining eight commandments are not against the law.

 

The Ten Commanmdments? Well, I happen to be an aithiest, but I have NO problem with the Ten Commandments on display. How can it offend you?

 

I don't think it's so much offensive as it's seen as an edorsement of religion.

 

Nothing wrong with that.


As long as they don't force that religion on anyone else. And, BTW, having the Ten Commandments on display isn't forcing Judaism or Christianity on anyone.

 

^^I agree

 

Actually, having the Ten Commandments on display in a court of law IS endorsing a particular religion. One can say that all religions have edicts mentioned in their texts, and that the Ten Commandments is just one way of stating these values. But the Ten Commandments belong technically to two religions, Judaism and Christianity, but are more often associated with Christianity. By having them there, the promotion of one religion over another is implied, if not overtly stated. And that is forcing a certain religion upon those who come into the court and see it. And that's the reason why this man has to be taken off the bench, he has no concern for the laws of this country. He's simply using his position to further his own personal agenda (or to satisfy his conscience, since he said on Friday that he has to continue doing what his conscience is telling him he has to do).

 

I'll agree with it when they have the Wiccan Rede and the eight pillars of Zen Buddhism there as well.

And yes, the judge should be fired for refusing to remove it. Even if I thought it was OK, I'd say that. What kind of point is he trying to make? Is it up to him to decide what laws he'll keep?

 

This is a simple case of an implied endorsement (or establishment) of one religion over another by the government which is unconstitutional. The monument needs to go.

 

[color=663300]I think that they should leave it up to the people of Alabama. If they don't care, then it should stay.

Can someone please point out that whole "seperation between church and state" thing to me in the law? Also, can someone please lemme know what it actually means?

EDIT Nevermind, I found it here:
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

I contemplate with solemn 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.

The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers.[/color]

 

The "letting the people of Alabama decide" won't work, unless every single person in Alabama is a Christian or a Jew. Somehow I'd find that hard to believe, even in the Bible Belt.

If the majority are Christians or Jews, the Ten Commandments still shouldn't be allowed there, for the same reason that a specific prayer in school shouldn't be allowed. It endorses a particular religion, implies that all people should participate, and excludes those who don't want to, turning them into outcasts.

"Separation of church and state" means that the laws of this country are not based on religion, that state organizations are not affiliated with a particular religion, and that all religions are recognized equally.

 

[color=663300]Oh, I'm sorry. Here I thought we lived in a Democratic society where the Majority decided what they wanted for themselves. How silly of me. [/color]

 

To me, the spirit of the law points to separation of church and state, and it's been like that for some time.

By having the ten commandments there, it's basically saying that this is what we stand for here and that's where it can be a problem to have it there.

Oh, I'm sorry. Here I thought we lived in a Democratic society where the Majority decided what they wanted for themselves. How silly of me

There has to be a point at which the law must protect against the "tyranny of the majority". I've read about that term but I'm not sure if it applies here. Can anyone care to provide me with some info?

 

Well, it is something of a part of US history. Generally most of the Revolutionaries back in 1776 were Christian.

Does this mean we have to take God off our coins and out of the pledge of alligence? They've been there for so long, I'm somewhat confuzed by why people are suddenly demanding they be taken out. They've been there since the US was created.

 

Sometimes the rights of the minority must be protected, including freedom of religion, which is included in the First Amendment.

The so-called rights of the majority do not include turning America into a theocracy.

 

Well it is going to have to go, although I dont see it doing any harm to anyone. I am of the belief if you dont like something you see, turn your head.

Unlike other court houses that ARE allowed to keep their 10 commandments, this one will have to go. It is my understanding this judge put them there recently. Other courthouses are allowed to keep them as historic artificats considering theyve been there since the 1920's.

 

As long as they don't force that religion on anyone else. And, BTW, having the Ten Commandments on display isn't forcing Judaism or Christianity on anyone.


Having it around in a public place is forcing it on people.


I don't think the court would have a problem if they were put there by a consensus of judges, but from what I've read that judge put them there unilaterally.

 

[color=663300]So if I had a T-shirt that said "Jesus Saves" and walked around the courthouse, I'd be doing something against the Law?

BTW, when did Judge Moore not allow someone to bring their Buddah or Shiva statues into the courthouse [/color]

 

Having it around in a public place is forcing it on people.

I must disagree. Putting a gun to someones head IS forcing it on someone. Having the 10 commandments on display in a public building is no more forcing religion on someone as having the constitution on display is forcing democracy on someone.

 

So if I had a T-shirt that said "Jesus Saves" and walked around the courthouse, I'd be doing something against the Law?

Unless you're considered public property, newp. I'm gonna buy my "Jesus did it for the chicks" t-shirt, so nope, no problem with people wearing them.


I must disagree. Putting a gun to someones head IS forcing it on someone. Having the 10 commandments on display in a public building is no more forcing religion on someone as having the constitution on display is forcing democracy on someone.


It's government property, unless I woke up in a theocracy between last night and tonight, then the government doesn't endorse a religion.

 

As I said--why would you want to display the Ten Commandments when you aren't displaying the documents of other religions?

The message you're sending is "We're Judeo-Christian here--you don't like it, tough."

merlin: You can wear whatever you want on your body. It isn't property of the state. I reserve the right to wear a shirt with a pentacle on it, that says "Give me that old time religion" , however.

It's government property, unless I woke up in a theocracy between last night and tonight, then the government doesn't endorse a religion.

*applauds FIDo*

We in Iran, anyone?

 

Having the 10 commandments on display in a public building is no more forcing religion on someone as having the constitution on display is forcing democracy on someone.

There is a major difference. The U.S. justice system is based entirely on the U.S. Constitution, and not at all on The Ten Commandments.

 

It's government property, unless I woke up in a theocracy between last night and tonight, then the government doesn't endorse a religion.

Im not going to argue that. However I do not see it being "FORCED" on people just by having it on display.