Alabama judge sought Supreme Court OK to keep monument

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The monument has been moved out of the public area and into a private one. Story

Interesting article, Chewbacca. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

One part that I have a question on was the building managers statement that the monument had been taken to a back room where "the top part (bearing the 10 Commandments) could be removed from the bottom part (which has various quotes and documents recreated on it)". If Judge Moore paid for this monument out of his own pocket, what gives the building manager (or anybody else) the right to break it apart? He said the two parts could possibly be displayed at different places in the future, but I would say the monument has gained political significance in it's original form, and should be kept intact for future display - perhaps in a museum.

I also found it more than a little ironic that the Rev. Barry Lynn (executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) was most upset about the "judges blatant promotion of religion". Uh...excuse me....a Reverend is upset about the promotion of religion??? {scratches head} . Interestingly enough, the article does not list Rev. Barry's denomination.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I also found it more than a little ironic that the Rev. Barry Lynn (executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) was most upset about the "judges blatant promotion of religion". Uh...excuse me....a Reverend is upset about the promotion of religion??? {scratches head} . Interestingly enough, the article does not list Rev. Barry's denomination.

I see nothing ironic about a religious person being in favor of maintaining the separation between Church and State. At least some people are able to realize that keeping the Church and the State separate has nothing to do with persecuting people of religious beliefs (which is a view held by many, including some posters on this forum) and everything to do with maintaining our freedom to practice/abstain from any religion of our choosing.

[ 08-28-2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Arvon]

On this whole issue... It was three lawyers that brought the original suit. Of the 10 commandments I wonder which one they objected to the most? Perhaps the one about bearing false witness...

[James G.]

Having spent some time on reading what a Diest is I thank you Reeka and all about that tip. Having my upbringing in the mid-west declares a slight hint of God Bless America to it.

Update

In Chester County, Penn., last week, a federal appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that allowed the Ten Commandments to be displayed on the county courthouse, arguing that the county commissioners were motivated by historic preservation, not trying to advance a religious agenda. The only recourse for appeal for the plaintiff, the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, with counsel from the ACLU, is the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Pittsburgh in late July, a federal judge ruled that a plaque of the Ten Commandments in place outside the Allegheny County Courthouse since 1918 does not violate the constitution, on the grounds that it was part of the area’s cultural heritage.
In some cases, the ruling against a plaque stands, but the enforcement is lacking. In Barrow County, Ga., the American Civil Liberties Union is challenging a wall hanging apparently put up by a citizen at the main entrance of the courthouse laying out Judeo-Christian doctrine. Local press reports say the chairman of the Board of Commissioners has refused to take the hanging down until forced.
A federal court ordered the Adams County/Ohio Valley School District to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from four high schools in June 2002. But this April, the ACLU was still seeking court action to force compliance with the ruling.

Latest news on Alabama Ten Commandments furor

SPREADING THE WORD
Faith and Action is not just defending the presence of the Ten Commandments in public areas, but actively engaged in seeing that they are displayed. The group presents artfully carved stone tablets to elected and appointed officials, asking them to “display and obey” the rules. They say that their tablets, presented in ceremonies with the recipients, are posted in the offices of some 400 officials on Capitol Hill, including the office of President Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R.-Ill., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D.-Conn.
The organization has found an ally in the current administration, in contrast to the Clinton administration. Conn says President Bill Clinton canceled the ceremony to receive the Ten Commandments from Faith and Action at the last minute and asked that the tablets be delivered instead to the White House mail room.
The organization also encourages churches to present the tablets to local and state officials for display visible to their constituents. Though the organization says it fully endorses the separation of church and state, it interprets that to mean that Congress cannot enact laws instituting a state religion. Having the biblical rules on display is not unconstitutional, says Schenck, but rises above all religious traditions and acts as a “moral preservative.”
Meanwhile, there is no definitive ruling on precisely where and under what conditions display of the Ten Commandments is acceptable. Justice Moore is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.
Citing the different conclusions in Alabama and Pennsylvania courts, Schenck says he is hopeful that the highest court will accept the case. “It’s necessary for the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict,” he says. “We will advocate that the Supreme Court needs to rule definitively on the display of Ten Commandments in public places,” he says.
Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State doubts that the Supreme Court would touch the case. “It stands alone because you have a judge who is basically saying he will make his rulings according to his personal religious views. It’s uniquely bad,” he says.
He is optimistic that the Alabama case will sway public opinion. “Because it is so high profile, it’s going to have an impact about the way Americans think about the issue,” he says. “People will see that officials use religious symbols for political advantage.”
A decision on whether the case will go to the Supreme Court is expected in late September or early October.

James

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: I want to say $5,000 now if it is damaged in any move the US government owes Judge Moore compensasion for damaging his personal property.

Ummm....Shouldn't the US government counter-sue on the grounds that Judge Moore damaged US property by putting the object there in the first place? Should they also be claiming legal fees for the court action, and labour costs for both the removal of statue and the repair to the ground? [/QUOTE]No damage was done to the property so no suit there. As for the other I don't know but I suspect as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court he has certain latitude as to what is put up in the building.

[Azred]

What was all the fuss about, anyway? It was a ridiculous piece of granite (or sandstone, or basalt, or whatever) that had the "Reader's Digest Condensed" version of the 10 Commandments carved onto its surface. Now that it has finally been removed, maybe people can concentrate on some real news for a change.....

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: {scratches head} . Interestingly enough, the article does not list Rev. Barry's denomination.

Here you go Cerek - this is his Church.

I must say that editing your quoted post to maintain the font colours is an art form in itself!

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: {scratches head} . Interestingly enough, the article does not list Rev. Barry's denomination.

Here you go Cerek - this is his Church.

I must say that editing your quoted post to maintain the font colours is an art form in itself! [/QUOTE]Thanks for the link Donut. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] I've heard of the United Church of Christ before, but don't really know that much about it. After reviewing their home page and Constitution, they appear to be based on the Teachings of the Bible and Jesus Christ and they seem to follow the same fundamental beliefs as the more established Christian denominations.

I still find it odd that the leader of a church based on Christian principles would object to someone other than clergy "promoting religion", but the Rev. Barry has as much right to express (and defend) his opinion as Judge Moore does.

BTW, I certainly appreciate your efforts to maintain my font color in the quoted text. It isn't necessary to do that (and it can be a bit frustrating at times), but it certainly makes it easier for me to spot a post where somebody is responding to comments I made. Thanks again, Donut.

[Timber Loftis]

Between the PA and GA federal court rulings, this looks like it's shaping up to be your classic circuit split. When the federal circuit courts of appeal disagree on an issue (being guided by how the Supreme Court would rule -- WWSCD ), it is the classic instance of a grant of certiorari (i.e. the Supreme Court deciding to hear the case).

This could well be on the calendar next spring for the Supreme Court, assuming the federal circuits both stick to their prior rulings (GA's only went up to the circuit for an injunction, IIRC, not on the merits of the case yet). Now, the Sup. Ct. may take up the cases only to point out factual distinctions that mean both cases interpreted the law correctly as applied to differing factual scenarios. What are such differences? Well, for one, in PA the proponent and installer of the monument wasn't arguing for a right to recognize religion. Ergo, in one instance it was not an attempt to establish religion, merely preserve an historic landmark, whereas in the other it was a federal government judge actively and voiciferously trying to establish a repsect of religion, which the law shall not do.