Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

What do you guys think of whole deal with the Ten Commandments being moved from the Alabama Courthouse?

By Redgrail (Redgrail) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 04:32 pm: Edit

As a former Bama-man myself, thank God someone has the intellectual freedom and sheer tenacity to rid that fine state of such a ridiculous monument.

The separation of church and state is an important principle of the US constition (not so with my own country. Learn to appreciate your freedoms).

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 05:15 pm: Edit

I'm going to post what I posted in my xanga minutes after all this stuff went down in the news.

Interesting stuff in the news these days...apparently, the 10 Commandments display was moved out of the courthouse in Montgomery, AL this morning, really about the time I woke up today (10 AM). Now, granted, supporters of the removal have a valid argument when they cite the separation of church and state clause. And most of you guys know that I'm a pretty liberal guy on most social issues and that I'm all for the Bill of Rights. However, I think a line has been crossed here. First of all, the separation of church and state clause, found in the first amendment, CLEARLY states that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Furthermore, the free expression thereof CANNOT BE PROHIBITED. The monument was placed there through a decision of the the people, by the people. The federal courts have no right to interfere with that decision. The 10th Amendment states that powers not explicitly endowed upon the federal government are the sovereign realm of the states. Though it seems almost reactionary to take the side of near-nullification, I ardently believe that there has been an abuse of power here. That being said, I'll now move from the legal side to the philosophical side. There is something wrong in America when the 10 Commandments cannot be displayed in a courthouse. Why the hell should this offend anyone? So some athiests go around crying they don't believe in God? That's their problem, they shouldn't pay any heed to the monument. The 10 Commandments are the BASIS OF OUR ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM. Despite its position as a religious symbol, you can hardly argue that the 10 Commandments give good, reasonable advice on how to live a good and just life. I truly fear for this country sometimes. It seems every day the athiests are bitching and crying over something else "offensive" they want taken down. I see this not as freedom, but tyranny. Freedom is the right to exercise one's will without outside impediment. TYRANNY is the imposition of one's will on another. So how is that any different from what the athiests have done and are doing? If the people want the monument, let them keep it. It's not telling the athiests how to live, they are equally free to ignore it. But when the athiests clamor and complain so that a monument sanctioned by the people is taken down, they are trampling on the people's rights to express religious freedom. Keep in mind, that again, the 1st amendment simply says Congress shall respect no establishment of religion. Taken in the context of its origin, this amendment was certainly not created to say that the government cannot support anything of a religious nature. There's very little chance that the framers of the constitution would've wanted that. Rather, they feared a STATE religion. This was a common fear, based upon their ancestors' experience in England, where the Church of England was sponsored by the government and was known to be quite corrupt. This whole debacle saddens and angers me. Legally, morally, and philosophically, I cannot agree with the action taken today.

By Slacker007 (Slacker007) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 10:12 pm: Edit

Crnchycereal-

It's not a matter of how you personally interpret the constitution. The United States of America separates church and state. We are not a theocracy. If a judge at a county courthouse in one of the areas of Michigan with a high Muslim population decided to put a monument similar to the 10 commandments in his courthouse that was taken from the Qu'ran, and said that it is OK to marry more than one woman and that Alla is the one and only God, you and the rest of the Christian population would be compleatly offended and would have it taken down in a matter of days. I definitly agree that the 10 commandments are a great guide to living a moral life. It is a religious document, however, and people who disagree with it should be respected. In order to respect them, you can't have it displayed in a place where people are put before the law, which the Constitution explicitly states CANNOT have anything to do with religion. You also said that:

"It seems every day the athiests are bitching and crying over something else "offensive" they want taken down. I see this not as freedom, but tyranny. Freedom is the right to exercise one's will without outside impediment".

I suppose that freedom is only allowed to Christians. What happens when someone else wants to exercise their will withoug outside impediment? If an athiest judge displayed a monument showing something like jesus christ on fire(just for example. burning jesus isn't cool), you can't deny that millions of Christians would be offended, and it would be taken down. No one would stand for that. I don't understand how you can be angered at people who are offended by your beliefs when you are so offended by the beliefs of others. And in America, they're allowed to have those beliefs without government intervention (ie: a monument displayed in a courthouse). That's what separation of church and state means, and that's what freedom means.

If Athiesm and Islam cannot be worshipped in government buildings, than neither should Christianity. Otherwise, you have exactly what you said the framers of the constitution feared: a STATE religion. America is not a theocracy. Let's keep it that way.

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 12:20 am: Edit

Slacker007 said most of what I wanted to say, but I'll add a bit.


"The 10 Commandments are the BASIS OF OUR ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM"

Not really. It was more closely based off the code of hammurabi and various other documents. The argument that the 10 commandments should be allowed in government buildings because of our Judeo-Christian heritage is ridiculous. Our country also has a history of slavery. Should we allow that also?


"Despite its position as a religious symbol, you can hardly argue that the 10 Commandments give good, reasonable advice on how to live a good and just life."

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Can you see why non-Christians don't want those commandments in their government? Freedom of religon includes freedom from religion.


Let me finish off with some quotes from our founding fathers.

John Adams:

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
(from the Treaty of Tipoli, which was passed by congress)

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Thomas Jefferson:

“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. . . .”

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

James Madison

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

Benjamin Franklin

“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

Thomas Paine

“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 12:29 am: Edit

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That does, under precedence and under current judicial interpretation of our laws, mean that there is freedom from religion. It DOES NOT mean that the Christians have the right to make the government its own personal pulpit to preach from.


"The monument was placed there through a decision of the the people, by the people."

Is that why it was moved in during the middle of the night?


Personally I think the Alabama Chief Justice should be forced to resign and charged with contempt. He had a duty to uphold the law. He purposely disregarded that duty and instead used his position to attempt to spread religious fanaticism.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 01:06 am: Edit

To Slacker: first, your point about a judge in an area with a high Muslim population is completely irrelevant. A judge who condones polygamy and other traditional/fundamentalist Muslim practices is indeed sanctioning a state religion. However, this was hardly the case in Alabama, where a mere monument was placed. You also claim that the religion "explicitly states" that states cannot have ANYTHING to do with religion. This is a false assertion, as the entire idea of separation of church and state was derived from the first amendment, which only said Congress shall not respect an establishment of religion. Since when do the 10 Commandments establish a religion? Firstly, they are shared by the 3 main monotheistic faiths. Secondly, they do not support explicitly one faith or denomination over another. I stand by my argument that the original clause was not meant to eliminate religion from the public spectrum, but rather to prevent a SPECIFIC state religion from taking hold. You also cited a ridiculous example of athiests who want to display an image of Jesus Christ being burned. That's not really an argument, as such an image would be designed specifically to offend rather than purport some sort of religious message. Perhaps if they wanted a monument displaying their beliefs in a completely "Godless" world, then that would be a different story. That would be their perogative, and if the people wanted it so, then it would be so.

To Chim Chim:

Your main argument seems to center on the fact that the first few commandments refer specifically to those involving one's relationship with God. You assert that because these beliefs are not necessarily held by all, they could be viewed as offensive. This point I will concede, but I'll qualify it by saying the judge could've avoided the entire fiasco by erecting monuments displaying images of various other faiths. And again, the monument shouldn't have offended anyone. Certain people don't agree with those commandments. SO WHAT? Again, nothing's being forced down their throats, they are not being held at gunpoint until they profess faith in God. Freedom, TRUE freedom, is the ability to do what one wants without outside intervention. So what is the more direct, active form of intervention involved here? That the athiests demanded the removal of a monument, or that the monument could've possibly, in SOME way, interfered with an athiest's life? Lastly, I'll say that your list of our founding fathers' quotations on religion have no relevance in this debate. These individuals attacked INSTITUTIONALIZED religion. So what? That was quite common back then. And the fact that these ideas agree with you does not necessarily lend credence to the argument. Notice once again that much of what they said referred to institutions, clearly out of fear of the establishment of a STATE RELIGION.

By Fairyofwind (Fairyofwind) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:23 am: Edit

*sigh* it's just a monument. you think people have nothing better to do when they start litigation over such trivial things. if government money started pouring into building churches, wow that would be cause of alarm. Not so with a MONUMENT. A stone brick thingy that just sits there. It doesn't affect you at all. You don't even have to look at it. What complaint do you have: "Oh it's blocking my path. I think I'll find a way to get rid of it." What's especially hypocritical is that somehow there isn't a problem with the monument inside the courthouse, but when it's outside there is a problem. The monument inside isn't putting church into state right. might as well file a lawsuit against bush next time he says "god bless america"

By Momof2 (Momof2) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:37 am: Edit

Just a little food for thought: to better represent "the majority," maybe Judge Moore should have included all THREE major versions of the Ten: those recognized by the Jewish, Catholic and various Protestant faiths.

You see, my husband's 10 Commandments do not match up with the ones learned in my childhood, either. So one of us is better represented than the other...

By Benedwodo (Benedwodo) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 06:29 pm: Edit

regardless of my views, i have to take issue with the "it's just a monument" argument. like most of our most famous and pivotal court cases, the actual issue is small; however, it's representative of a more fundamental, general issue. roe v wade was just one woman looking for an abortion, while more recently, the grievance of one student prompted an affirmative action case. the famous scopes trial was essentially over a $100 fine, but the two most famous lawyers in the country argued it because of the greater issue it represented. in this case, the deeper issues are constitutionality and church-state relations, not the offense a few plaintiffs took to a big rock

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 08:37 pm: Edit

Crnchycereal:

Would you support monuments with the Five Pillars of Islam inscribed on them being inserted into every courthouse in the country? If not, why?

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 08:54 pm: Edit

Also....what if a judge is a Satanist, and he does want to have a picture of Jesus being burned? It's simply an example of a judge projecting his religious beliefs onto the court system, which is the exact same thing that the Alabama judge is doing. The only difference is the religion involved.

Most Christians seem to approve religion and state being intertwined as long as it's only the Christian religion. If there was a monument to another faith the Christians would be burning the place down. Freedom of religion but only if you're a Christian!

By Fairyofwind (Fairyofwind) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 08:58 pm: Edit

benedwodo: if it has to do with church-state relations, why is the monument inside the courthouse any different than it being outside? i seriously see this as a bunch of people quibbling over a trivialty. as i said, babbling about a monument is just as bad as saying George Bush, as a representative of the government, you should be impeached because you blatantly violate the constitution by saying "god bless america." but that won't happen will it. why should the monument be any different.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 10:27 pm: Edit

Chim Chim, I would not agree with the Five Pillars of Islam being inscribed in every courthouse because such an act would sanction a state religion. But again, posting the 10 Commandments does no such thing. After all, there are over FIFTY THOUSAND Protestant denominations, not to mention the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox church, non-denominational Pentacostals, and the Jews. Putting for example the United States Presbytarian Church's constitution on display would be a violation, but the 10 Commandments make no such explicit declarations. Secondly, you really, REALLY need to read up on your religions, for a satanist would never post such an image. Don't be fooled by the name, it's not what it implies. Lastly, I believe I already mentioned in a previous post that other monuments displaying similar religious texts would not necessarily be offensive as long as more than one was displayed. This is both why the 10 Commandments shouldn't have been regarded as a violation (for they sanction no specific religion) and how Moore erred in a way; he could've had the foresight to put up more than one monument, however impractical that sounds.

By Baykin (Baykin) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:48 pm: Edit

Crnchycereal:

"I would not agree with the Five Pillars of Islam being inscribed in every courthouse because such an act would sanction a state religion. But again, posting the 10 Commandments does no such thing. After all, there are over FIFTY THOUSAND Protestant denominations, not to mention the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox church, non-denominational Pentacostals, and the Jews."

1. According to the constitution, there is no official "state religion."

2. Do you have any idea how many denominations of Islam there are?

By Baykin (Baykin) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:51 pm: Edit

By the way, pay attention in history this year Crnchycereal

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:14 am: Edit

"I would not agree with the Five Pillars of Islam being inscribed in every courthouse because such an act would sanction a state religion. But again, posting the 10 Commandments does no such thing. After all, there are over FIFTY THOUSAND Protestant denominations, not to mention the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox church, non-denominational Pentacostals, and the Jews."

This pretty much proved my point. The 10 Commandments promote Christianity and Judaism just like the 5 Pillars promote Islam. There is no difference other than the religions involved. You think that it's okay to have the 10 commandments since most people are Jews/Christians, but it's not ok to have the Pillars of Islam since there aren't as many Muslims. Hypocrisy? Yes.


"Secondly, you really, REALLY need to read up on your religions, for a satanist would never post such an image."

I wouldn't be so sure. I know that satanism is in essence atheism. Is it not possible that the judge would have a picture like that in order to symbolize his disbelief in Christianity?

By Stressedkid (Stressedkid) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 01:01 am: Edit

This is pathetic. It's time people stop thinking they are entitled to something just because they are the majority. No surprise this happened in Alabama.

By Crnchycereal (Crnchycereal) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 07:36 am: Edit

"You think that it's okay to have the 10 commandments since most people are Jews/Christians, but it's not ok to have the Pillars of Islam since there aren't as many Muslims. Hypocrisy? Yes."

Talk about putting words in one's mouth! I don't believe I even IMPLIED such a thing in my argument. In fact, I CLEARLY stated that the 10 Commandments do not violate the separation clause because they do not explicitly favor one Christian/Jewish sect over another.

By Baykin (Baykin) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 04:38 pm: Edit

They still favor both Judaism and Christianity as a whole

By Nealyac (Nealyac) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 06:57 pm: Edit

i have a question, was the monument placed there by the decision of the people?

By Chim_Chim (Chim_Chim) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:08 pm: Edit

"In fact, I CLEARLY stated that the 10 Commandments do not violate the separation clause because they do not explicitly favor one Christian/Jewish sect over another."

The 5 pillars of islam do not explicitly favor one of the Muslim sects over the others. Tell me again how this is different from the 10 commandments?

By Nealyac (Nealyac) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:44 pm: Edit

I have a question, was the monument placed there by the decision of the people?

By Benedwodo (Benedwodo) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:23 pm: Edit

fairyofwind: i think the only point of moving it was so that it would not be in public view. with it somewhere else (and lets be honest, they probably put it in a closet or something...a very large closet), it's not really a government endorsement of religion since the court is not displaying it and therefore making the monument synonymous with itself. think of this: the library of congress has copies of the bible, but it doesnt have a giant bible sitting in the foyer or something (the gutenberg bible, btw, is there more for historical reasons and is not particularly prominently displayed).

nealyac: it was the judge's decision to put it up i think

another thing to consider here is the conflict of federalism. alabama never much liked being told what to do by the federal government...despite 77% of alabamians supporting the monument, the federal government and the constitution prohibit this monument and its the defiance of the feds by judge moore that is most significant. he may feel that he is doing the democratic thing, but he cant forget that his state law is inferior to federal law and the federal govt certainly couldnt make an exception here without being expected to elsewhere...and that, of course, would completely unravel the infrastructure of the nation.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 12:44 am: Edit

Nealyac:
The judge snuck it into the courthouse late at night. Clearly it was not sanctioned beforehand (as in, one cannot just stick monuments in public places whenever one so chooses), which certainly adds to the issue at hand.

By Momof2 (Momof2) on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:19 am: Edit

The reasoning behind "the people's decision" was that they elected Judge Moore, who ran on the explicit platform of being "the Ten Commandments Judge." From what I've read, that was pretty much his entire campaign focus, therefore, it may be assumed that the majority who elected him were expecting a confrontation like this.

The monument was paid for by private donation (perhaps Coral Ridge Ministries?) as have his legal bills. It was moved into the courthouse in the middle of the night in July, 2001, purportedly without the knowledge of the other eight Alabama Supreme Court Justices. There is a video of this operation available for sale on the Coral Ridge website - it has been shown on their TV broadcasts.

It is my prediction that Roy Moore will be elected Governor of Alabama in the near future (with a vast amount of financial support.) Hopefully he will serve the state better than George Wallace and Lester Maddox, both of whom were also very popular with the Alabama majority in their time.

By Nealyac (Nealyac) on Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 07:38 pm: Edit

"despite 77% of alabamians supporting the monument, the federal government and the constitution prohibit this monument and its the defiance of the feds by judge moore that is most significant."

Benedwodo is this true where did you get that info from?