Jump to content

Ten Commandments


 Share

Recommended Posts

Well we have quite a situation brewing here in the USA, to be specific Alabama. The Chief Justice of that state has been refusing to follow orders of higher courts to remove a several ton monument of the 10 Commandments from the Rotunda of the capitol. Now it seems, Dr. David C. Reardon of the Elliot Institute is suggesting to Justice Moore that he appeal to President Bush to openly defy federal jurisprudence by refusing to enforce the federal court order.

The Eliot Institute can be found online at:

http://www.poorchoice.org/

A site named Alliance Alert gives an explanation:

Some will complain that what I am counseling will lead to a constitutional crisis. My response is we already have a constitutional crisis. Federal judges, including the Supreme Court, no longer limit themselves to interpreting the law but are unduly anxious to create laws reflecting their own personal convictions and beliefs through creative interpretations of the Constitution. The logic offered to justify these interpretations is often ludicrously weak and clearly [at] odds with the original intent [of] the Constitution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a rather laughable event, except it isn't. He should be fined millions of dollars instead of 5,000$. But even with $5,000 he shouldn't last long. This is what happens when religious fanatics infiltrate our government. And I read that he snuck the commandments in during the night, aware that it was against the constitution. How he did that, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This cruscader should be fired. He's a self-serving asshole; he tries to defend his position by saying that the federal fines cost the state of Alabama money (he doesn't have to pick up the tab, he charges the taxpayers for it). From that, he concludes that the charges should be dropped, as opposed to him actually doing his job and removing his religious intimidation bull shit from a public judicial building

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten Commandements aren't just religious codex. They are one of the world's first law codexes. Many greek philosophers thought that Moses was not only author of the world's first law, but also word "law" itself! It is thing showing people's knowledge of history, who would see in Capitol a point on roman Pantheon? If they would put there Pillar of Chamurappi it wouldn't be under same attack of atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caid the Federal Court looked into whether the Monument was put in place for reasons of historical significance or to advance a specific religious viewpoint and Moore himself admitted his motivations were mainly religious: not just historical.

The whole thing is a great affront to two major american values: freedom of conscience and rule of law. Moore even if he disagrees should listen to the Federal Court, especially since he is a Judge, instead of just tossing the law out the window whenever he feels like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the thing is two years old and was placed there by the judge himself. Well that makes it even worse...

I'm going to assume that this is the personal property of Moore and not of the state. Being permanently placed on state property could easily be interpereted as a form of vandalism. Someone could just as easily spray paint the writings of confusicus on the walls of the state building and it would be the same. Given this, couldn't someone remove, modify, or destroy the monument and still be within the law? War protesters in NY did the same thing to a 9/11 memorial and they weren't charged. The fence they vandalized was public property too, just like the state judicial building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you still have to take the, "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god," in the states? That always struck me as odd seeing how people who weren't religious wouldn't care.

I believe we do, but I've never been in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you do but it has some amount of flexibility now. I know a guy from another forum who testified as a witness in court and he refused to put his left hand on the Bible. I think in some places you can also take the oath without the "so help you God" part in it, but if you refuse to take the oath entirely your statements have no legal standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caid, it is hardly a sole history object. It is religious, very religious, and one of the most religious symbols considered by many.

I think that Jesus' statue over Rio de Janeiro is, and Brazilians have nothing against it. Or all those cathedrals, which you will always see. Religion is a part of our civilisation, and if we aren't as zealful as in past, it doesn't mean we must erase all signs of it. This reminds me that Christmas South Park, where they had no non-religious symbols to celebrate with, so they used a shit and alternative theatre...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caid the "In God we Trust" was added to out dollars in the 1950s during the age of Mycarthyism, and was added to coins before that during the Civil War by the Union as a propoganda ploy. In recent rulings they are only allowed to stay under the notion(which I believe is mistaken as evident by your post) that such has lost its religious significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you still have to take the, "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god," in the states? That always struck me as odd seeing how people who weren't religious wouldn't care.

Yep, although you're allowed to swear on a different book* and leave out the "so help me god" part.

*Usually I think they use the Constitution instead of the Bible in this case, although everything from dictionaries to magazines have been used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one it's different in that the Supreme Court building does not contain documents of one religious only, as it holds (as you said) more documents. As long as they don't allow one or some, and disallow others, it's constitutional, as far as I've gone into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should get what he deserves. What's sad is how mindless the people are who are protesting, like it's the end of the world if it is removed.

Moore installing it in the middle of the night indicates that he knew it was wrong.

They're just standing up for a symbol of their beliefs. If someone had an evolution monument in a courthouse, and people said it was a symbol of the Faith of Evolutionism, would you protest it being removed? After all Evolution is a religion itself, for Atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...