Alabama and the Ten Commandments

the separation of church and state that our country is founded upon

do i ever hate that overused (and completely misused) "separation of church/state" falsehood. it is NOT in the Constitution as wrongly stated in the above ping. To accurately quote the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


I too have not seen anything so cut and dry as this. Exactly what part of the Constitution is Justice Moore breaking?

I don't have a problem with people who misquote the U.S. Constitution. Except when they do so in public.

btw, you'd better start getting the building permit approved for the changes to the Supreme Court Building, seeing that the 10 Commandments have been inscribed in it for quite some time.

The whole issue about this that gets to me is that the state has lost the right to make the decision for itself whether it wants the monument there. The intention of the constitution was that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government would be in the domain of the state. Now it's been flipped around to where the states have to fight for any scrap of power they can get. The constitution makes no law respecting religion so then it's up to the state to govern those issues. The matter of it being in a federal building might complicate the matter although it doesn't really bother me; if the state wants it there and the federal government truly belongs to the people, who are represented by the state and by their votes, then it seems okay.

Honestly, I don't care one way or the other what happens and I'm surprised there're people so vehement on either side of the issue. It makes no sense to throw a fit because of the presence of a religious and historical document is in a public place. They can put up exerpts from the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, the Baha'i, or the Code of Hammurabi for all I care. In fact, I wish they would. It doesn't hurt me and if anything I'd appreciate the cultural awareness it could provide (I'm not saying it'd create world peace or anything so profound). Rather than obliterating any sign of our different beliefs it'd be beneficial to incorporate them culturally, not in actual govt functioning and in creating biases, and I believe the govt is responsible to foster cultural in every possible way, including the religious cultures if its citizens.

Jethrow: It is NOT in the Constitution as wrongly stated in the above ping.

Sure it is. Your quote right there proves it.

By placing this monument in a public courthouse, Justice Moore has set up the public courthouse to essentially endorse one religion. Does that make sense? Either, as Ty suggests, add excerpts from all religions to equal it out (although, what of atheists?) or get rid of it.

I think the biggest surprise to me is how some of the people supporting it are acting as if it's a free speech infringement. It isn't. The Justice can put this monument up in his home, on his lawn, or at his private building if he wants. But a public building? No.

btw, you'd better start getting the building permit approved for the changes to the Supreme Court Building, seeing that the 10 Commandments have been inscribed in it for quite some time.

I don't agree with that, either, frankly.

I think the other thing that got my goat on this is that the people of Alabama did not vote for this monument; there was no election, no vote. The Justice had to sneak it in (!) to the rotunda.

The people supporting Judge Moore, for the most part, knowe that this is not a free speech issue. They can post the 10 Commandments in every room in their house, on their windshield, at work if their employer approves, in their place of worship, etc. So why do they care so much about having it at the Courthouse? Because they can't force me or you to come to their house or their place of worship. It's all using the police power of the state to force thier beliefs on others. Having the 10 Commandments displayed on government property is a not so subtle way of digging home their belief that this is a Christian nation.

It's not. And we dan thank God every day for that. If this place every becomes a theocracy I'm outta here.

I don't see what the big deal is. It's a good set of guidelines for everyone to live their lives by and it's not specifically promoting any one religion. I would have a problem with it if it were purchased and installed using state funds. However, since it's there and will just cost more state funds to have it removed, really what's the harm?

Greg: It's a good set of guidelines for everyone to live their lives by and it's not specifically promoting any one religion.

Actually, it is: it promotes Christianity. I don't think the Nation of Islam follows the Ten Commandments, for instance.

True but... Hypothetically, someone who doesn't know what religion is would not pick Christianity just from reading it.

And if you disagree with me again, I'm going to kick your Cristian-hating ass!

I'm pretty sure that if, instead of the ten commandments, the equivalent in Islam were posted, then the same people that are supporting the monument would be up in arms trying to get it removed.

(As a side note, here's a Muslim take on the situation.)

I guess my take on this is that putting a monument in a federal building is not tantamount to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion (or prohibiting others).

that was a nice link, Ryan, thanks.
What I wonder/am concerned about is the "snuck in" part. Anything that has to be snuck in to a public building should'nt be there. It should be voted on. But a 5000 pound monument? Sheesh, that's humongous. What was the need for something of that size? Who paid for it?
And no, someone (or group) putting this thing into a building is definitely not equivalent to Congress making a law... at least that would involve some kind of group decision. I'm not offended by people being fair.

(group decision ~~ fair, open dialogue BEFORE something went into effect)

1.) JETHROW- A compromise was offered (and swiftly rejected) that would allow the monument to be placed in a less public area, but still inside the building. (Just like the Commandments in the Supreme Court Building.)

2.) THE 2ND COMMANDMENT-"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." Isn't the monument ITSELF a graven image? Couldn't it be argued that the monument is little more than a fundamentalist GOLDEN CALF- literally a SYMBOL of the thing (God) and NOT the thing itself?

3.) While the Ten Commandments are a valid moral guide, being a part of the Old Testament, doesn't Christ and his teaching SUPPLANT this for Christians? In other words, you can't pick and choose like a buffet what you'll value from the Old Testament- it's one Testament or the other.

4.) THE 8TH COMMANDMENT-"Thou Shalt Not Steal" By virtue of the fact that Moore had to SNEAK IT IN THE BUILDING, isn't this stealing part of the building to put it on display?

5.) THE 9TH COMMANDMENT-"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Sounds like Moore coveted the courthouse!

I'll probably catch some slack, but here goes:

I'm a Christian, finished up at a Christian university...but I think having a monument at the court
is probably not the right thing to do.

The idea of the court system is to try and look at everything from a fair and unbalanced eye, regardless of personal beliefs held by the judge and jury. Despite my personal beliefs, a courthouse is one place where religion should not be headquartered.

If Judge Moore wanted to make a statement to his co-workers, he would probably have been ok with perhaps hanging a copy of them in his office, but I think having the Commandments in open view sends the wrong message that the courts slant towards Christianity.

Ryan made a great point -- If there were a monument for Islam, Buddhism, or anything else in front of a federal court, the ones defending this monument would be screaming.

I have no problem with Judge Moore wanting to spread his beliefs, but this is not the way to go about it.

One thing I like about the Ping is that we never have political debates.

The Commandments are also upheld by practicing Jews, not just Christians. Remember the Old Testament?

jk: One thing I like about the Ping is that we never have political debates.

You should've seen some of the old Metallica v. Napster debates. Man, I miss Terry Murphy.

Why is this such a problem anyway? When we testify in court are we not required to say "I do" to the phrase, "Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD"? Also, the Ten Commandments have been the backbone of this countries laws. Crimes committed by individuals are punished by imprisonment...stealing, murder,..etc...

Mostly because it aligned the courthouse, and therefore the Alabama government, with one religion. That's not allowed in this here country.

When we testify in court are we not required to say "I do" to the phrase...

We are, but I don't agree with that either. (And, before you ask, I'm not hot on "In God We Trust" either - I must be going to hell!)

Also, the Ten Commandments have been the backbone of this countries laws.

That's really arguable; I would say that a lot of these punishments aren't necessarily tied to just one religion, or religious stance, but common sense and other ideals.

it's curious how people've been getting so defensive and upset about this! Last night on the news I saw people at the courthouse weeping and/or yelling. How is this worth that? People seem to be confusing this to be an attack on their religion, and it isn't. The only problem here is that the majority/law wasn't involved in a decision about a public place. "Oh, they're taking our God away," they were saying. Whatever. They're taking away something that, if you're of the mind, should be taught and taken to heart--monuments aren't needed and aren't equivalent to God!
Geez.
Oh, and check out the third comment here.

When we testify in court are we not required to say "I do" to the phrase, "Do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD"?

i believe you can "affirm" the oath, rather than having to say the "so help you God" part.

other countries and their oaths:

Chinese:

break a plate and say:

‘I swear that I shall the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The plate is shattered and if I do not tell the truth, may my soul, in like manner, be shattered like it.’

-or-

Light a candle, blow out the flame and say:

‘I swear that I shall tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This candle is now extinguished and if I do not tell the truth, may my soul, in like manner, be extinguished forever hereafter.’

Buddhist

Say:

‘I declare, as in the presence of Buddha, that I am unprejudiced, and if what I shall speak shall prove false or, if by colouring the truth others shall be led astray, then may the three Holy Existences—Buddha, Dhamma and Pro Sangha—in whose sight I now stand, together with the Devotees of the Twenty-Two Firmaments, punish me and also my migrating soul.’

I don't think sneaking the monument in was a very good idea. They are dealing with a very serious issue that could get worse before it gets better especially messing with people from the Bible belt. Personally, I think Chief Justice Moore should run for governor of Alabama because he would sure get my vote.

The Ten Commandments should have stayed up because they are the rules of the land. GOD created us and we should praise him for that.I think that if more people were more educated in the Bible then this wouldn't have ever came about. I love the LORD and I am not at all ashamed of it and it should be put up in more places.

i am a christian young person and i totally stand on the bible as the word of god. however, i do not think that it is wise to force our beliefs on people. it's ok to witness and to be a testimony through our lives but we don't have to have a big monument of the 10 commandments in a courthouse or whatever....that is obviously going to stir up some anger. while we're on the whole "not forcing beliefs" thing, i also don't think it's cool when homosexuals jump on people who don't agree with their lifestyle. then they try to force it on everyone by wanting to legalize marriage and stuff. i'm not trying to tick people off...i just don't think it's fair to be attacked by them for having our own belief and opinion. ALSO- i think it's in poor taste when christians treat gay people like crap because they don't agree with them. (and maybe that's why they're so mean to us??) we need to be showing them the love of christ and hope that they see the error of their ways. if they don't...well- then god will handle it. it's not up to us.

First of all, same sex marriage is legal. That's why there is all the commotion. If same sex marriage had to be legalized, there wouldn't be half the scared people out there screaming that the sky is falling. If same sex marriage were illegal, all those who have gotten married thus far would have been thrown in jail.
Second, the issue is not gay marriage, but same sex marriage. Gay people get married all the time, often to heterosexuals of the opposite sex. Completely gay marriage does exist, though. Gay men and women marry each other for all kinds of reasons--like to get those awesome tax breaks we all want. Even if same sex marriage is banned by a Constitutional Amendment, gays can still marry straights and gays of the opposite sex.
The problem is that the Constitution says no one may discriminate. It does not say no one may discriminate, unless they want to pick on a person who wants to marry a member of the same sex. That's why people are in an uproar. They are now realizing that people can marry another of the same sex, and the government can't do anything about it. A straight man can marry a straight man even. This would be a good way to give U.S. citizen status to a close friend. Don't think that opposite sex marriages don't exist for this same reason. There are tons of "green card" marriages. What is George Bush's so-called "institution of marriage" when it can be used this way, but not for two people of the same sex who might be in love, who want a family, who want to be recognized as a couple, given the legal status they deserve, and BEST of ALL, tax breaks?

Preaching your religion to another is an entirely different issue. Your right to do so is not only protected by the Constitution, within limits, but is also recognized as being protected by others around you and in the courts. Those who wish to marry same sex partners are not enjoying the same protections. No one knows whether or not they can continue to get married, or should, even though the Constitution has nothing to say about it.
You personally choose not to preach to others about your religious beliefs because you want to be nice. But you know that if you wanted to you could. You could even start your own church. That's the power of a recognized Constitutional right.
Without the recognition of Constitutional protections of civil liberties, gays can't marry other gays of the same sex because, unless they are in San Fran or Mass, no one will allow it, even though gays (or anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex), at least for now, have that right. Even if they do marry, what such a marriage means legally is still a big question.
There really is no comparison between courteously being quiet about your faith, and wanting to exercise your rights under the Constitution.

Besides, if you believe in your faith, you should speak up about it. What are you afraid of?