Federal Court orders State Supreme Court to Remove Ten Commandments

Timber Loftis · 07-02-2003, 10:05 AM

Court Orders Removal of Monument to Ten Commandments
By ADAM LIPTAK

A federal appeals court ordered the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court yesterday to remove a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of his courthouse.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, concluded that the monument violates the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion.

The court was also unusually blunt in responding to the assertion by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in court papers in the case that he does not recognize the authority of the federal court in this matter.

The appeals court compared Chief Justice Moore to "those Southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era," likening him to such state's rights proponents of segregation as Govs. George C. Wallace of Alabama and Ross Barnett of Mississippi.

In the 1950's and 1960's, federal courts ordered them and other Southern officials not to interfere with school desegregation and protest marches.

"Any notion of high government officials being above the law did not save those governors from having to obey federal court orders," Judge Ed Carnes wrote for the appeals court, "and it will not save this chief justice from having to comply with the court order in this case."

The appeals court did not set a timetable for the removal of the monument. Chief Justice Moore's lawyer, Herbert W. Titus, said the case was not over.

"We're not giving up," Mr. Titus said. "We are going to file a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court."

Mr. Titus declined to say whether Chief Justice Moore would comply with the order to remove the monument if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or affirms the order.

"We're not making predictions or forecasts," Mr. Titus said, adding that the chief justice "believes that what he is doing is not only constitutional but required by his oath of office."

The appeals court's decision was unanimous, but Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson concurred only in the result, not the decision's reasoning. He did not explain why. Richard W. Story, a visiting district court judge from Atlanta, was the third member of the panel.

The 5,280-pound granite monument setting out the Ten Commandments was erected in August 2001 as the centerpiece of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, which houses several state courts, the state's law library and the court system's administrative office.

Three lawyers who found the monument offensive sued to have it removed. In November, Judge Myron H. Thompson of Federal District Court in Montgomery ruled in their favor.

One of the plaintiffs, Stephen R. Glassroth, a criminal defense lawyer in Montgomery, called yesterday's decision a vindication.

Chief Justice Moore has been closely associated with the Ten Commandments through his career on the Alabama bench. He hung a hand-carved plaque depicting the commandments in his courtroom when he was a circuit court judge in Gadsden, generating controversy and lawsuits. In 2000, he successfully campaigned for chief justice as the "Ten Commandments judge."

The appeals court noted that the excerpts from Exodus chiseled into the tablets are a Protestant version of the commandments.

"Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox faiths use different parts of their holy texts as the authoritative Ten Commandments," the court said. "The point is that choosing which version of the Ten Commandments to display can have religious endorsement implications."

The appeals court made clear that it will not brook disobedience from Chief Justice Moore if its order is upheld. "We do expect that if he is unable to have the district court's order overturned through the usual appellate processes," Judge Carnes wrote, "when the time comes Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail."

07-02-2003, 11:59 AM

Interesting that it was lawyers that found the commandments "offensive". Guess it was because their profession requires them to break so many of them on a regular basis. Some times TL, I just cannot stand those in your chosen field of expertise. *sigh* Exactly how is having a list of the 10 commandments on display equated to the government "Mandating a State Sponsored Religion"?

Ammendment the first!: CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting an establishedment 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.

Nothing in there about displaying the commandments...no Gongressional involveent, no laws made....just a simple display.

[ 07-02-2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

07-02-2003, 12:04 PM

Another question....just where does the constitution gaurentee you freedom from being offended?

pritchke · 07-02-2003, 12:45 PM

I disagree with these lawyers. The Ten Commandments has more significance than religious, it also has historic, and a legal significance of being the first written law of the land in which all laws of today are based. Maybe they are offended by history so therefore we should rewrite it. Other than that our current law is ours to change the ten commandments has nothing to do with the current law of the land. Why are they so offended? I find myself agreeing with Magik that it must be that they feel guilty everytime they look at it.

[ 07-02-2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Timber Loftis · 07-02-2003, 01:08 PM

I have this great political cartoon where the bailiff is telling the 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (which decided "one nation under God" was offensive in the pledge): "Your payroll arrived today Your Honors, but don't you worry -- I saw that the money had "In God We Trust" printed on it and sent it right back.

Bible philosophy is like any philosophy. Why you can post Thomas Jefferson quotes and Plato quotes but not Jesus quotes sometimes befuddles me.

Timber Loftis · 07-02-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MagiK:

Another question....just where does the constitution gaurentee you freedom from being offended?

Nowhere. But, the freedom from a governmental establishment of religion (1st Amendment) requires you look to see if people can be "offended" as part of your factual inquiry as to wherether an act is really "establishing" religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

To be sure, if this were private property it would be a non-issue.

But, if government buildings can have greek gods decorating them, or quotes by other thinkers adorning them, why not the Bible? Just so long as it isn't elevated above the others. Couldn't you put up a plaque quoting Ghandi??

Rokenn · 07-02-2003, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pritchke:
I disagree with these lawyers. The Ten Commandments has more significance than religious, it also has historic, and a legal significance of being the first written law of the land in which all laws of today are based. Maybe they are offended by history so therefore we should rewrite it. Other than that our current law is ours to change the ten commandments has nothing to do with the current law of the land. Why are they so offended? I find myself agreeing with Magik that it must be that they feel guilty everytime they look at it.

Actaully the Ten Comandments are not the first written laws. The first laws were laid down in Mesopotamia.

A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display?

Djinn Raffo · 07-02-2003, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rokenn:
A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display?

I think that says it nicely.

pritchke · 07-02-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rokenn:

quote:
Originally posted by pritchke:
I disagree with these lawyers. The Ten Commandments has more significance than religious, it also has historic, and a legal significance of being the first written law of the land in which all laws of today are based. Maybe they are offended by history so therefore we should rewrite it. Other than that our current law is ours to change the ten commandments has nothing to do with the current law of the land. Why are they so offended? I find myself agreeing with Magik that it must be that they feel guilty everytime they look at it.

Actaully the Ten Comandments are not the first written laws. The first laws were laid down in Mesopotamia.

A question to the Christians out there. How comfortable would you feel walking into a court room where the judge had a copy of the Koran displayed and a large plaque with Islamic quotes? Or Pagan/Wicca symbols on display? [/QUOTE]While there were likely other written laws before the ten commandments these laws are not ones have not had the influence on our laws today that the ten commandments have. Sorry for being a little unclear. Lets just say that the ten commandments are unique and have withstood the test of time.

Timber Loftis · 07-02-2003, 02:31 PM

While it is not the oldest legal tradition (Hammurabi having that title), I would say the Torah has certainly withstood the test of time better and longer than any other legal tradition. And, it is quite fundamental to the legal tradition of the Judeo-Christian world of course.

I'd be fine with Wiccan quotes or Pagan quotes. Technically, Ghandi was a heathen, and I think a marble-ized Ghandi quote would be acceptable in a USA courtroom.

This would not be such a problem if the culture didn't elevate the Bible quotes. If they were seen in public display (not in homes -- religion can rule there of course) to be presented equivalently to other quotes coming from the great cannon of man's great thoughts, they would not be religiously offensive, would they?

07-02-2003, 10:05 AM	#1
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Court Orders Removal of Monument to Ten Commandments By ADAM LIPTAK A federal appeals court ordered the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court yesterday to remove a monument engraved with the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of his courthouse. The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, concluded that the monument violates the First Amendment's prohibition on government establishment of religion. The court was also unusually blunt in responding to the assertion by Chief Justice Roy S. Moore in court papers in the case that he does not recognize the authority of the federal court in this matter. The appeals court compared Chief Justice Moore to "those Southern governors who attempted to defy federal court orders during an earlier era," likening him to such state's rights proponents of segregation as Govs. George C. Wallace of Alabama and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. In the 1950's and 1960's, federal courts ordered them and other Southern officials not to interfere with school desegregation and protest marches. "Any notion of high government officials being above the law did not save those governors from having to obey federal court orders," Judge Ed Carnes wrote for the appeals court, "and it will not save this chief justice from having to comply with the court order in this case." The appeals court did not set a timetable for the removal of the monument. Chief Justice Moore's lawyer, Herbert W. Titus, said the case was not over. "We're not giving up," Mr. Titus said. "We are going to file a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court." Mr. Titus declined to say whether Chief Justice Moore would comply with the order to remove the monument if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case or affirms the order. "We're not making predictions or forecasts," Mr. Titus said, adding that the chief justice "believes that what he is doing is not only constitutional but required by his oath of office." The appeals court's decision was unanimous, but Chief Judge J. L. Edmondson concurred only in the result, not the decision's reasoning. He did not explain why. Richard W. Story, a visiting district court judge from Atlanta, was the third member of the panel. The 5,280-pound granite monument setting out the Ten Commandments was erected in August 2001 as the centerpiece of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building, which houses several state courts, the state's law library and the court system's administrative office. Three lawyers who found the monument offensive sued to have it removed. In November, Judge Myron H. Thompson of Federal District Court in Montgomery ruled in their favor. One of the plaintiffs, Stephen R. Glassroth, a criminal defense lawyer in Montgomery, called yesterday's decision a vindication. Chief Justice Moore has been closely associated with the Ten Commandments through his career on the Alabama bench. He hung a hand-carved plaque depicting the commandments in his courtroom when he was a circuit court judge in Gadsden, generating controversy and lawsuits. In 2000, he successfully campaigned for chief justice as the "Ten Commandments judge." The appeals court noted that the excerpts from Exodus chiseled into the tablets are a Protestant version of the commandments. "Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox faiths use different parts of their holy texts as the authoritative Ten Commandments," the court said. "The point is that choosing which version of the Ten Commandments to display can have religious endorsement implications." The appeals court made clear that it will not brook disobedience from Chief Justice Moore if its order is upheld. "We do expect that if he is unable to have the district court's order overturned through the usual appellate processes," Judge Carnes wrote, "when the time comes Chief Justice Moore will obey that order. If necessary, the court order will be enforced. The rule of law will prevail." __________________

07-02-2003, 01:08 PM	#5
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	I have this great political cartoon where the bailiff is telling the 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit (which decided "one nation under God" was offensive in the pledge): "Your payroll arrived today Your Honors, but don't you worry -- I saw that the money had "In God We Trust" printed on it and sent it right back. Bible philosophy is like any philosophy. Why you can post Thomas Jefferson quotes and Plato quotes but not Jesus quotes sometimes befuddles me. __________________

07-02-2003, 02:31 PM	#10
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	While it is not the oldest legal tradition (Hammurabi having that title), I would say the Torah has certainly withstood the test of time better and longer than any other legal tradition. And, it is quite fundamental to the legal tradition of the Judeo-Christian world of course. I'd be fine with Wiccan quotes or Pagan quotes. Technically, Ghandi was a heathen, and I think a marble-ized Ghandi quote would be acceptable in a USA courtroom. This would not be such a problem if the culture didn't elevate the Bible quotes. If they were seen in public display (not in homes -- religion can rule there of course) to be presented equivalently to other quotes coming from the great cannon of man's great thoughts, they would not be religiously offensive, would they? __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Supreme Court of Canada justices	Aerich	General Discussion	0	08-26-2004 12:29 PM
US Supreme Court	DragonSlayer25	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	1	06-30-2004 03:36 PM
Supreme Court Allows Secrecy for 9/11 Detainees	Dreamer128	General Discussion	1	01-13-2004 10:55 AM
Supreme Court upholds cross burning ban	Grojlach	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	15	04-09-2003 08:23 PM
CA 3 Strikes Law upheld by US Supreme Court	Timber Loftis	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	6	03-05-2003 06:43 PM

07-02-2003, 11:59 AM	#2
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Interesting that it was lawyers that found the commandments "offensive". Guess it was because their profession requires them to break so many of them on a regular basis. Some times TL, I just cannot stand those in your chosen field of expertise. sigh Exactly how is having a list of the 10 commandments on display equated to the government "Mandating a State Sponsored Religion"? Ammendment the first!: CONGRESS shall make no laws respecting an establishedment 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. Nothing in there about displaying the commandments...no Gongressional involveent, no laws made....just a simple display. [ 07-02-2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

07-02-2003, 12:04 PM	#3
MagiK Guest Posts: n/a	Another question....just where does the constitution gaurentee you freedom from being offended?

07-02-2003, 12:45 PM	#4
pritchke Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess Join Date: September 5, 2001 Location: Calgary, AB Age: 49 Posts: 3,491	I disagree with these lawyers. The Ten Commandments has more significance than religious, it also has historic, and a legal significance of being the first written law of the land in which all laws of today are based. Maybe they are offended by history so therefore we should rewrite it. Other than that our current law is ours to change the ten commandments has nothing to do with the current law of the land. Why are they so offended? I find myself agreeing with Magik that it must be that they feel guilty everytime they look at it. [ 07-02-2003, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)