The 10 Commandments and Alabama

[MattUMASSD]

Im glad its moved. Everyone else weigh in, below is the link to the article in the post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Aug27.html

[Optimist Prime]

I think it should have never been there. I'm glad to see it go.

[UBCSororityGirl]

Very mixed feelings -

On the one hand, I totally believe in religious diversity and freedom, and that one religion (and it symols, beliefs, god/gods/goddesses, etc.) should not be forced on anyone. Having a monument of that kind in a public area that has and should have no particular religious affiliations whatsoever could make people very uncomfortable, and is not the point of a court. A court is there to uphold the laws that stand for all people in that state and country.

However, on a side note that may not have anything to do with this case in particular, but....

I do feel mainstream Christians have been the object of prejudice, because they have in the past been the predominant religion, and unfortunatly with their history, forced it upon others. In Canada and the States, we have freedom of religion, which includes any and all religions. It's wonderful that we have such diversity, and I by no means believe Christianity in any form is the "only" or "right" religion, but people are still allowed to practice it individually and with like-minded people. Same for all religions.

Anyway, sorry, that's off the subject, because I think I do agree it should be moved, because a law court, again, should have no religius ties. Obviously, this is a subject I feel strongly about, and would love to hear others opinions on. But please let's be mature and respectful about this.

End rant

[breathesgelatin]

Glad it's gone. Absolutely do not support anything like this.

I mean, what if a Muslim judge had displayed a Koran monument? Or a Jewish judge a Torah monument?? Or a Buddhist judge a sutra? Knowing the protests that would inevitably result from these actions I think it's easy to figure out why we shouldn't have our courts appear to promote any particular religion.

[justamom]

I was watching this off and on this morning. I think this was a sad, sad day...

Yes, I can see both sides.

Freedom of speech has been bandied about quite a bit. Well, why is it always so restrictive when it's about conservative ideas or Christian beliefs yet people will fight for funding art, THAT IS VIEWED IN PUBLIC PLACES, that depicts sacrilege,
pornography, disrespect of the flag...just a few examples.

I really feel there is a strong movement to make our country
secular and destroy the moral fiber of our youth. I also believe that as one person interviewed said-"They are trying to rewrite history." We WERE founded on Religious beliefs-Christian for that matter. I wonder what they would do had they been the ORIGINAL 10 Commandments. Wouldn't they be stuck in the Smithsonian or perhaps the Vatican would keep them safe from those who are trying to destroy them. Thank God they can't destroy an idea or faith!

I'm wearing fire retardent.

edited-Can someone pull up an article from a paper with a more conservative perspective?

[adduncan]

So who will be the first to file suit against the Supreme Court for having bas relief images of Moses, Mohammed and Confucius in their building?

Also, you could sue the Supreme Court for beginning their proceedings with "God Save the United States and this honorable court."

How far does your moral outrage extend? Anyone on GC willing to put their money where their mouth is?

One more--where is the line between freedom of speech and "separation of church and state" for congress members, the president etc? Do they give up their right to freedom of speech/expression/religion when they take office?

Discuss.......

[SigmaChiGuy]

Church separate from state. I like the monument, but it should be somewhere else.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by justamom
Well, why is it always so restrictive when it's about conservative ideas or Christian beliefs yet people will fight for funding art, THAT IS VIEWED IN PUBLIC PLACES, that depicts sacrilege,
pornography, disrespect of the flag...just a few examples.

JAM, I think the difference here is that the examples you give probably involve private citizens, while this case involves the government. I have no problem with a person displaying "pornography," "disrespect of the flag" or Christian symbols in her home, or in a museum, or anywhere else that is not owned by the government. However, when someone in the government displays something religious, I think that is a problem.

Yes, our country has a strong Christian tradition, but the government is for EVERYBODY, not just Christians, and the principle of separation of church and state is designed to prevent government from imposing religion on our citizens.

Adduncan, I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is if I had any. I am bothered by references like "In God We Trust" on money, but like with everything we have to choose our battles in life. I can't fight everything, although I do find that to be an important issue. I don't personally care if the President is a Christian, but I don't think it's appropriate for him to discuss it in his role as President. Of course you give up a certain amount of freedom to say what you want when in government -- I highly doubt that you would be very pleased if an elected official decided to stomp on a flag in public or discuss the virtues of molesting children, for example.

[adduncan]

Originally posted by valkyrie
JAM, ... or in a museum, or anywhere else that is not owned by the government.....

How about if the museum or the "display" is funded by tax money. Is it still acceptable?

(What I'm leading up to is.....the museum displays that JAM described were in fact often funded by the NEA and the museums are supported by local tax dollars.)

I highly doubt that you would be very pleased if an elected official decided to stomp on a flag in public or discuss the virtues of molesting children, for example.

Both of these are irrelevant. No one pursuing public office is going to inflame the senses of the people they claim to represent, because they won't get the votes they need. And since child molestation is a crime, this is a one-way ticket out of office too. So whether or not I would be "pleased" about these things isn't even an issue.

[justamom]

I really do see your point Valkyrie, but in many instances, they are using public funds. You see the rub?

One last point and then I'll bow out-
Every County has established their judicial system on their views of right and wrong. Granted, some systems have gone haywire. Sometimes I think ours is going haywire too.
Our system stemmed from Christian beliefs. That's why even though reworded and somewhat watered down, from a historical perspective, I think the 10 commandments represent our roots and should be allowed to be displayed.

edited-Can't spell!!!

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by adduncan
Both of these are irrelevant. No one pursuing public office is going to inflame the senses of the people they claim to represent, because they won't get the votes they need. And since child molestation is a crime, this is a one-way ticket out of office too. So whether or not I would be "pleased" about these things isn't even an issue.

Yes, child molestation is a crime, but last I checked, talking about it isn't. I don't think it is irrelevant -- I'm saying that public officials KNOW that they really don't have the "freedom" to talk about anything because certain things may be inflammatory. You asked, "Do they give up their right to freedom of speech/expression/religion when they take office?" and I'm saying that yes, to an extent, they do for that very reason. You can find my examples irrelevant if you like, but I think that they show that yes, there are certain things public officials just can't discuss.

[decadence]

I too am experiencing dissonance on this issue - on one hand I see the reasoning behind the decision to remove it viz. the separation of church and state; on the other hand the wish of the judge to keep it within the courthouse.

Are we to enforce the suppression of visible displays of beliefs to the extent of crucifixes around the necks of those in public office?
Or, if one has an iconic artefact or small religious picture in their chambers, should that be allowed? For, if the argument that it is inappropriate to display it is based on the fact it implies a religious bias in decisions, then surely other small examples would do the same thing?
For any religious bias to be present it is perhaps irrelevant that a large monument is displayed or not; if bias was there (in that courthouse or others) [and for the sake of discussion it should not be] then it might have been just as present in the 'men' passing judgment over their peers who had not placed any monuments in their courthouses.
It's somewhat like a notion the best person to teach religious studies is an agnostic. Is the best person to sit in a courthouse one who is devoid of religous beliefs? Granted he is there to make decision based on fact/democratically made laws, not preconcieved religious beliefs, but if he has beliefs they shall be inherent in him regardless of what monuments happen to be in the foyer. Doubtless people have said the fact there was such a visible monument placed is clear evidence Moore has problems setting aside his religious beliefs to make fair decisions. That is questionable, whether there is a monument present or not one can still have certain views - simply less visibly expressed ones.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Did such a monument really prevent that?

From article: Moore, who maintains that the Ten Commandments have a place in public buildings because they are the "moral foundation" of American law, has vowed to fight for his job and has enlisted former Supreme Court justice Terry Butts to defend him during the judicial inquiry.
This is a jurist argument, jurism being the study of law (not the statutes which make it up but the motives behind the system - moralistic, religious etc). Arguably Judeo-Christian beliefs do have a bearing on the laws which make up the United States and Commonwealth countries, and beyond. Take "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thy shalt not steal" etc. The academic question is whether there is a historic common similarity between present law and religion or whether it goes beyond that to the point where justices are enforcing not just the laws of men but the laws of (less accountable!) deities handing down edicts to their prophets.

I'm reminded of the sweet film, "A Miracle on 34th Street". Attention in it was drawn to the dollar bills which carry upon them the statement "In God We Trust". If we are to take that point, then there were 'mini-monuments' contained in the pockets of so many people in so many courtrooms, across Alabama and beyond. And a clear statement on the acceptability of separation of Church v. State on every note.

The root of the furore seems to be not whether a monument was displayed or not - that is just a factor. The outrage is over the notion he (Moore) or others who would do this CANNOT make rational decisions based on what their job allows but only on those+religious teachings. This surely is an insult to their intelligence. We cannot vet everyone for public office to ensure they have no religious beliefs - "just in case".

From article: For others, including Justice Douglas Johnstone, leader of the courthouse movement to overrule Moore, it signified a stand against the threat of America becoming "a theocracy."
From dictionary.com definition of 'theocracy': 1) Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity. 2) Government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
It is a highly tenuous stretch to compare Moore with a figure (priest) who posits to be a direct representative of God (and His word). It is a similar 'stretch' to suggest this issue suggests a Government ruled by or not independent of religious authority. The current President of the United States George Walker Bush and MANY before him have had religious beliefs and no hesistance to be seen in public praying/at a service, or fear of backlash for doing so.

Interesting debate, with many sides. Thanks for bringing it up.

N.B Masculine pronoun is used above for brevity and ease of reading only, I am aware there are many great women in the judiciary and public office at every level.

[decadence]

I was typing this for a while/doing other things. In doing so, others posted messages in the meantime that already stated any points I made. Oh well.

[Honeykiss1974]

I understand the whole idea of "seperation of church and state", but it just seems like to me that really means "seperation of Christianity and state".

Why? Because many federal buildings have public statues/art/plaques that feature Greek/Roman gods and goddesses. Why aren't these pagan symbols removed as well?
And as someone mentioned earlier, what about "In God we trust?" on currency? Or after Sept. 11th, the many posters that hung in federal buildings/offices with a picture of the flag with the words "God Bless America"? Why was there no outcry to remove those signs then?

My whole point is that the seperation of church and state argument should apply to all religious symbols on all federal gov't - related items or buildings.

[SigmaChiGuy]

I agree with you...all, not just some.

There is already enough politics in politics. Religion (church) just adds more politics to it. Thats a lot of politics.