Alabama judge sought Supreme Court OK to keep monument

[skywalker]

Look's like the judge has been suspended for 10 days:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95416,00.html


Mark

[ 08-22-2003, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Faceman]

The judge's intentions aside let's take a look at the onument and its possible offensiveness.

Seven of the ten commandements should not be offensive to anyone (except adulterers, thieves, murderers,...).
The first three are something all monotheistic religions can agree on.

Also the monument does not necessarily promote Christian religion as "God" is a concept every religion (and even some agnostics) can agree on.

So I don't see what the big fuss is about. There's a monument of an early law which has relevance for most of the world's population. There are similar displays in public buildings all around the world.

I think this is disproportionate political correctness. The chance that anyone will come by this monument and be majorly offended is rather slim.
Discussion like these only take away attention from far more important issues.

Maybe the motives of the judge are not wise or sound but that doesn't change that this monument is completely harmless.

[Reeka]

I made a post about this a while back complete with the references to back it up, and if anyone wants me to bother and go dig it up I will, but I will once again remind the Americans in this discussion that the founding fathers were, by large, DEISTS---not Christians. There is a vast difference and it is time that Americans knew this and accepted it. Deists are not Christians and the founding father if they were anything were usually deist. Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian and had no use for Christianity. So, you will have to use some other argument than that was what the founding fathers believed and wanted---it just isn't factual.

[Azimaith]

The problem with it for most people I think is that its law supposedly coming from the god Yaweh givin directly to Moses, that means were putting a monument suppsedly given from a single deity to human kind. It does hold religious significance. Because of the religious implications of this monument people want it removed and I can't say that I really have a problem with it being removed. In my mind its not that big a deal but seperation of church and state is very important, moreso to some people. It doesn't need to be there, just get rid of it and it will be done.

[antryg]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: quote: Hunter - Exactly how is the public display of the Ten Commandments equivalent to "having Jesus shoved down your throat"? I understand you may find the display offensive, just as you correctly pointed out that I would find the public display of the pentagram offensive - but that still doesn't equivicate to having the religion "forced" on you...nor does it "establish a national religion".

The display of the 10 commandments at that courthouse has no more place than the display of the 10 commandments does on any other government property. The laws and the government are there to help everyone , NOT just the christians. Any implication to the contrary just leads further down the road to the dark ages, where the church contolled everything.

I might object to the pentagram, but I could not claim it is un-Constitutional because 1) it is restricted to one building in a state I don't live in, and 2) there is no "national movement" to have the pentagram and "Do what that will, shall be the whole law" established as a national religion or to replace the existing law system.

To answer #1 you could object to it under the same category as they are objecting to the 10 commandments statue. That being the separation of church and state. To answer #2 , there are thousands of people campaighning to get christianity labeled as the national religion. 3 groups that spring to mind are the 700 club, the moral majority and the KKK. All of them claim that america is a christian nation and that anyone who believes otherwise is wrong. All of them have people lobbying in congress to get laws passed or changed in favor of their pet cause.

The fact is that neither display would effectively promote the establishment of a national religion (which is the primary focus of the First Amendment), BUT, forcing those displays to be removed certainly COULD be considered "prohibiting free expression of religion".

I have to disagree again because when you plaster a government building with pro-chrisian images you send out the impression that the government is promoteing christianity. The removal doesnt prohibit free expression, it just makes all people free to express themselves, not just the christians. [/QUOTE]Why do you keep insisting that a passage from the Pentatuch, part of the Torah, is forcing Christianity on people? It is from the Jewish religion.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

Why do you keep insisting that a passage from the Pentatuch, part of the Torah, is forcing Christianity on people? It is from the Jewish religion.

Be that as it may, I have yet to meet a Jew who tried to force the 10 commandments on me as the end all be all of a moral way of life. Come to think of it I havent had a Jew try to convert me either. I wish I could say the same for the christians.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Hey, John D., am I supposed to be offended because I'm a mouthpiece or a sphincter?? [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

As one sphincter to another, the mouthpiece part

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: Look's like the judge has been suspended for 10 days: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95416,00.html Mark

Like I said we the people of Alabama would take care of it, we elected the representatives that passed the laws allowing judical reviews. The review/displinary board did their job. Now here's a real fix the Federal judge can be in, the statue is the PERSONAL propety of Judge Moore he bought and moved it into the the building using his own personal money. 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. And since Alabama is the #1 sue State, this federal judge may find himself in a state court, for damages, pain suffering.

[Chewbacca]

The monument has been moved out of the public area and into a private one.

Story

[Skunk]

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?