| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2003 06:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Moore ignites new multicultural vision |
This will come as quite a shock to leftists everywhere. Over 1000
Orthodox Rabbis, as well as representatives from the black
community such as Alan Keyes and T.D. Jakes, voiced support along
with an estimated 10,000 folks who showed up at the Ten
Commandments Rally in Montgomery Alabama.... for Judge Roy Moore
and his stand on the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, 35
atheists also showed up to protest.
At any rate, leftists everywhere will only be making fools of
themselves as they try to portray God-fearin' American Christians
(especially Alabamians) as racists, or neo-nazis, white
supremists or something even worse.
Yeah, they may whine, moan, and sling vile accusations, mock etc.
.... but it's all a hoax on their part. Especially now that their
absolute hypocrisy has been revealed. Think of it... blacks, Jews
and whites standing together in unity. Wasn't their dream a
"multicultural" America? Yes, but it was a hoax. A hoax to
pander support from all the various minorities merely for the
purpose of enslaving them by encouraging "sin".
Perhaps Jews and Blacks from across the nation and portions of
Canada joining in with us Alabamians was just the thing needed to
reveal their devious plots to undermine Americas moral foundation
and their actual hatred for true multicultural unity (especially
the "One nation, under God" type of multicultural).
Honestly, I'm not noted for being a "multicultural" type guy as a
few here can attest. Have I changed? Of course not. If the
fruit's good, the tree is also.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." - Jesus
A spokesman (Rabbi Yehuda Levin) for one of the two major
Rabbinical organizations which support Judge Moore, joined in an
Alabama talk radio show today and further explained how
conservative Jews have found themselves in a similar position as
that of conservative Christians WRT the leftists agenda for an
immoral America. He was the same Rabbi that went to Montgomery
(from New York) to show support for Judge Moore. He actually
made alot of sense. I even e-mailed him a thank-you note for
his efforts.
Here's the release which voices the support of over 1000 Jewish
Rabbis.... for Judge Moore's cause:
THE UNION OF ORTHODOX RABBIS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
and
THE RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
August 15, 2003 / for immediate release
CONTACT: RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN 718-469-6999
TWO MAJOR RABBINICAL GROUPS SUPPORT
"TEN COMMANDMENTS" JUDGE ROY MOORE
Two major Rabbinical organizations, representing over 1000
Orthodox Rabbis, today declared their support for Alabama Chief
Judge Roy Moore in his battle to keep the Ten Commandments on
display in the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Alabama.
Lawyer groups, led by the ACLU, have demanded that Judge Moore
remove the display, citing church-state concerns; and Federal
Judge Myron Thompson has given Judge Moore a deadline of August
20 to remove the display. But Judge Moore is refusing to be
intimidated.
Rabbi Hirsch Ginsberg of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis said: "The
Ten Commandments are the basis of civilized society and the rule
of law. It is no accident that legal testimony begins with
swearing to tell the whole truth, while holding a Bible. Here, in
New York City, many courtrooms have a plaque on the wall, right
above the judge's head, proclaiming 'In G-D we trust'."
Rabbi Abraham Hecht of the Rabbinical Alliance added: "It's no
surprise that the ACLU, a radical left-wing organization of
ambulance-chasing rip-off artists, should object to the Ten
Commandments. The Biblical injunctions against lying, stealing,
and adultery must make them feel terribly uncomfortable."
Rabbi Yehuda Levin who is representing the two Rabbinical groups
in Montgomery, Alabama this week, commented on a nasty New York
Times editorial that referred to Judge Moore as a demagogue:
"This is the worst kind of savage yellow journalism. The New York
Times has lately been rocked by scandals, in which it has been
revealed that senior reporters and editorial staff have knowingly
fabricated stories and distorted the news. They have some nerve
criticizing a moral, intelligent, and courageous man like Chief
Judge Moore."
Rabbi Levin will hold a press conference on the steps of the
Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on
Friday, August 15, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.
After the press conference, Rabbi Levin is to meet with Chief
Judge Moore to make a presentation to him on behalf of the Union
of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Alliance.
http://www.jewsformorality.org/aaaw090.htm
-----------------EOF-----------------
"Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, which appeared
to be several thousand people, possibly as many as 10,000.
Falwell said Moore is right to defy Thompson's order if he
believes he is obeying God. "Civil disobedience is the right of
all men when we believe breaking man's law is needed to preserve
God's law," Falwell said.
Evelyn Bradley of Norwalk, California, said she made the trip
because "the Ten Commandments is the most precious and most
important thing in my life right now." "No judge has the right to
tell us we can't post them," said Bradley, 73.
After the rally hundreds of people walked several blocks to the
judicial building, where they lined up to view the monument
inside. Some debated with about 35 atheists holding a counter
protest across the street.
"Personally I believe in science and reason and the only way you
can have freedom of religion is to have separation of church and
state," said Todd Kinley, a research scientist from Huntsville
participating in the counter protest."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/16/ten.commandments.ap/index.html
-------------------EOF-------------------
Jewish Leaders Rally Around Chief Justice
Ten Commandments Fight Heads To U.S. Supreme Court
POSTED: 4:49 p.m. CDT August 15, 2003
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument
in the Alabama's Judicial Building is winning wider support as
religious leaders rallied with Chief Justice Roy Moore Friday.
"Moore appeared with orthodox Jewish rabbis in Montgomery who
support efforts to keep the monument in the state Supreme Court
building. "If our country does not return to the Biblical values
and standards on which it was founded, who knows what could
happen to us?" Rabbi Yehuda Levin said.
Also backing Moore's monument fight, nationally recognized Bishop
T.D. Jakes, who was in Birmingham Friday. "Well, I think that the
Ten Commandments transcends beliefs and theology and goes down to
core values and morality that every American should want to
embrace," Jakes said."
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2409426/detail.html
"Buses and vans from as far away as California brought Moore
supporters to Montgomery for an enthusiastic rally on a hot and
muggy morning. Evangelist Jerry Falwell and former presidential
candidate Dr. Alan Keyes were among a half-dozen speakers urging
the crowd to take back America from what Keyes described as the
"unruly courts."
"We stand here today in a great tradition," Keyes said. "Not as
our lying critics would have it in the tradition of those who
defied courts in order to oppress and destroy fellow human
beings, but those who stood against unjust laws in order to stand
for rights of all people. This is where we stand."
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2409426/detail.html
-------------------EOF-------------------
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of
America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in
the name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies,
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and
of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are
Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain,
is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on
the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
(Declaration of Independence)
"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and
guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama"
Constitution Of Alabama 1901
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
08 Sep 2003 10:12:53 PM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in
<Pine.OSF.3.96.1030907121418.12983B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, David Jensen wrote:
In talk.origins, Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Stanley Friesen wrote:
First, Moore is *patently* guilty of contempt of court, even *if* the
Supreme Court ruling is totally in error.
the ALABAMA Supreme Court.
No, I think Mr. Friesen is talking about the series of cases that led to
the decision of the lower federal court to order the rock removed. The
Alabama Supreme Court only ruled that they should comply with the
federal order.
If that is the case, I am having a problem figuring out why he would refer
to a Supreme Court ruling bieng "totally in error."
He was pointing out that one can be in contempt of court whether or not
the decision of the court is valid. Contempt of court is what got Moore
kicked off the 'Bama Bench for now, not his original foolish placement
of the rock.
I am certainly not *defending* the fool. I am now convinced, the
ruling to have the thing removed is entirely correct, despite my
original uncertainty.
If you read Moore's bleatings in the Wall Street Journal a couple of
weeks ago, you have to ask why he has any supporters at all.
Indeed.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 01:15:18 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Please SHOW ME a list of people who have been forced into christianity
because of Judge Moore's 10C.
No such list would have any bearing on the outcome of this case.
You evidently don't have such a list anyway. GIven that you have no
evidence that anybody has had their federal rights abrided by Judge
Moore's display, wouldn't you have to give Judge Moore a "not guilty" if
you were a jurist?
No. The reason is that the court determined the standing of the
plaintiffs in this case.
No such list as you suggest had any bearing on whether the plaintiffs had
standing to sue, or if Moore-on overstepped his duties by installing his
Alabamakabala.
The 8 justices who have suspended Moore-on care not
about any list. >
Thank you for speaking on behalf of the 8 justices. I'm sure they
appreciate that.
You are welcome. The evidence in this case indicates that there was no
consideration of your hypothetical list.
See the decision.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 11:51:12 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from "Boikat"
<Boikat@bellsouth.net>:
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:28g0jb.qp9.ln@grendel.hayesway...
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0m60p.qni5x71st1tdyN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
... Indeed, most people will
just walk right past this display, totally
ignoring it.
It appears your argument has been reduced to this
mantra which you keep
repeating over and over again.
The decision was not made on this basis.
This issue is far from over.
For the simple reason that there are people who would
force their deity of
choice on others in the public sphere.
Give me an example of how people would force their deity
of choice on
others, especially when the 1st amendment guarantees
everybody's freedom
of religious expression.
How about Chief Justice Moore of Alabama; I understand that
he has purported to exercise his powers as Chief Justice
granted by law to administer the Alabama Capitol building
publicly to display religious writings in the Capitol. I
believe we've had a thread on it in these newsgroups?
And none of that "He's not forcing anything on anyone" BS. The mere
presence of the "monument" gives the clear *impression* that the state is
endorcing a particular religion. It is *that* simple.
If it could be arranged it would have been better for a defendant
to appear before the court and announce that she was an atheist.
And then ask for the whole court to recuse itself. That would
make the point more clearly for the general public, that some
individual would not get a fair hearing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 11:54:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:58:34 +0000, Boikat wrote:
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:28g0jb.qp9.ln@grendel.hayesway...
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0m60p.qni5x71st1tdyN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
... Indeed, most people will
just walk right past this display, totally
ignoring it.
It appears your argument has been reduced to this
mantra which you keep
repeating over and over again.
The decision was not made on this basis.
This issue is far from over.
For the simple reason that there are people who would
force their deity of
choice on others in the public sphere.
Give me an example of how people would force their deity
of choice on
others, especially when the 1st amendment guarantees
everybody's freedom
of religious expression.
How about Chief Justice Moore of Alabama; I understand that he has
purported to exercise his powers as Chief Justice granted by law to
administer the Alabama Capitol building publicly to display religious
writings in the Capitol. I believe we've had a thread on it in these
newsgroups?
And none of that "He's not forcing anything on anyone" BS. The mere
presence of the "monument" gives the clear *impression* that the state is
endorcing a particular religion. It is *that* simple.
Hell, it's not even "mere presence." Moore went out of his way to put
something big, impossible not to see, and in a central location. The
message he's sending is clear and obvious. And it's quite clear and
obvious from his own statements that he *intends endorsement.
There are many questionable and difficult cases that arise under the 1st.
This isn't one of them...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 10:42:03 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 02:58:34 +0000, Boikat wrote:
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:28g0jb.qp9.ln@grendel.hayesway...
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0m60p.qni5x71st1tdyN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
... Indeed, most people will
just walk right past this display, totally
ignoring it.
It appears your argument has been reduced to this
mantra which you keep
repeating over and over again.
The decision was not made on this basis.
This issue is far from over.
For the simple reason that there are people who would
force their deity of
choice on others in the public sphere.
Give me an example of how people would force their deity
of choice on
others, especially when the 1st amendment guarantees
everybody's freedom
of religious expression.
How about Chief Justice Moore of Alabama; I understand that he has
purported to exercise his powers as Chief Justice granted by law to
administer the Alabama Capitol building publicly to display religious
writings in the Capitol. I believe we've had a thread on it in these
newsgroups?
And none of that "He's not forcing anything on anyone" BS. The mere
presence of the "monument" gives the clear *impression* that the state is
endorcing a particular religion. It is *that* simple.
Hell, it's not even "mere presence." Moore went out of his way to put
something big, impossible not to see, and in a central location. The
message he's sending is clear and obvious. And it's quite clear and
obvious from his own statements that he *intends endorsement.
Please SHOW ME a list of the people who have been forced into
christianity because of Judge Moore's 10C.
M. Clark
There are many questionable and difficult cases that arise under the 1st.
This isn't one of them...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 03:05:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:42:03 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Please SHOW ME a list of the people who have been forced into christianity
because of Judge Moore's 10C.
Show me the law that grants Moore the power to do what he's doing...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 11:25:03 AM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:42:03 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Please SHOW ME a list of the people who have been forced into christianity
because of Judge Moore's 10C.
Show me the law that grants Moore the power to do what he's doing...
How many times have I already told you that the 1st amendment and Sec. 3
of Alabama's Constitution forbid laws pertaining to religion?
And how long are you going to continue to ignore that the 1st amendment
explicitly condones the freedom of speech and the freedom of religious
expression? The 1st amendment is what gives Moore the power to display
his 10C. Jefferson even said that the states have the constitutional
power to address religious issues as you can see for yourself:
-----
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the
Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their
doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the
provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free
exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states
the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to
prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious
discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then
rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is
placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general
government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the
religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution
found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church
authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas
Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378
-----
M. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 05:28:44 PM |
|
|
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0rdgx.ags63a1v13xpzN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:42:03 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Please SHOW ME a list of the people who have been
forced into christianity
because of Judge Moore's 10C.
Show me the law that grants Moore the power to do what
he's doing...
How many times have I already told you that the 1st
amendment and Sec. 3
of Alabama's Constitution forbid laws pertaining to
religion?
And how long are you going to continue to ignore that the
1st amendment
explicitly condones the freedom of speech and the freedom
of religious
expression? The 1st amendment is what gives Moore the
power to display
his 10C. Jefferson even said that the states have the
constitutional
power to address religious issues as you can see for
yourself:
IANA(US)L, but even I can see that this is just
jaw-droppingly perverse. Moore only has power to display
*anything* in the Capitol if the law gives him that power,
as Chief Justice. The law may not establish religion; so
cannot be construed as permitting anyone to do acts that
tend to establishment of a religion. Moore's actions in
placing his rock in the Capitol under colour of his office
as Chief Justice tend to establishment of a religion; so any
law purportedly permitting him to do so is
unconstitutional - it's that simple.
He can put his rock in his own garden, as a private
citizen - but that's not the issue here.
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use - deleting big blue -
for email)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 09:29:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:25:03 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:42:03 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Please SHOW ME a list of the people who have been forced into
christianity because of Judge Moore's 10C.
Show me the law that grants Moore the power to do what he's doing...
How many times have I already told you that the 1st amendment and Sec. 3
of Alabama's Constitution forbid laws pertaining to religion?
And how long are you going to continue to ignore that the 1st amendment
explicitly condones the freedom of speech and the freedom of religious
expression? The 1st amendment is what gives Moore the power to display
his 10C. Jefferson even said that the states have the constitutional
power to address religious issues as you can see for yourself:
A judge is granted powers by LAW. Since there cannot be a law to grant him
the power to establish nor endorse a religion, he cannot do so. He CANNOT
act without the authority of the law.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 10:44:08 AM |
|
|
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0m60p.qni5x71st1tdyN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
... Indeed, most people will
just walk right past this display, totally
ignoring it.
It appears your argument has been reduced to this
mantra which you keep
repeating over and over again.
The decision was not made on this basis.
This issue is far from over.
For the simple reason that there are people who would
force their deity of
choice on others in the public sphere.
Give me an example of how people would force their deity
of choice on
others, especially when the 1st amendment guarantees
everybody's freedom
of religious expression.
How about Chief Justice Moore of Alabama; I understand that
he has purported to exercise his powers as Chief Justice
granted by law to administer the Alabama Capitol building
publicly to display religious writings in the Capitol. I
believe we've had a thread on it in these newsgroups?
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others? Indeed, give me a list of the names of
the people who have been forced to convert to christianity because of
Judge Moore's display.
People most likely ignore the thing anyway.
M. Clark
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use - deleting big blue -
for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 12:45:05 PM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 10:55:07 AM |
|
|
<user@example.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I won't be a slave to your undisciplined imagination. Indeed, I think
most people simply walked past Judge Moore's 10C anyway, completely
ignoring it.
M. Clark
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 12:59:33 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
02 Sep 2003 07:41:04 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6lm9lvktpvoa0avp1mnvha8r292l9gf6jv@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
What would happen is a believer in a different religion, or an atheist, were
to appear in court and refuse to swear upon the Bible to tell the truth, and
nothing but the truth? (I have no specific examples in mind, though I know
it does happen. It seems to me that would spin Moore(on) right up into the
ceiling, and predjudice the case on the spot.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 10:55:08 AM |
|
|
Boikat <Boikat@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6lm9lvktpvoa0avp1mnvha8r292l9gf6jv@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
What would happen is a believer in a different religion, or an atheist, were
to appear in court and refuse to swear upon the Bible to tell the truth, and
nothing but the truth? (I have no specific examples in mind, though I know
it does happen. It seems to me that would spin Moore(on) right up into the
ceiling, and predjudice the case on the spot.
Let Moore spin up to the moon. Contrary to what your undisciplined
imagination is telling you, Moore cannot lawfully abridge anybody's 1st
amendment freedom of religious expression.
M. Clark
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
06 Sep 2003 09:18:48 AM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote in message news:<1g0pggo.q4meeueba9ncN%>...
Boikat <Boikat@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6lm9lvktpvoa0avp1mnvha8r292l9gf6jv@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
(M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
What would happen is a believer in a different religion, or an atheist, were
to appear in court and refuse to swear upon the Bible to tell the truth, and
nothing but the truth? (I have no specific examples in mind, though I know
it does happen. It seems to me that would spin Moore(on) right up into the
ceiling, and predjudice the case on the spot.
Let Moore spin up to the moon. Contrary to what your undisciplined
imagination is telling you, Moore cannot lawfully abridge anybody's 1st
amendment freedom of religious expression.
Agreed. He simply thinks he can force his religious views on
everyone. But the point is, given his obvious bias, how do you think
that would bias his judgment? You don't see the obvious problem?
Boikat
Boikat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 11:12:21 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, (M. Clark) wrote in
<1g0pggo.q4meeueba9ncN%>:
Boikat <Boikat@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:6lm9lvktpvoa0avp1mnvha8r292l9gf6jv@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
(M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
What would happen is a believer in a different religion, or an atheist, were
to appear in court and refuse to swear upon the Bible to tell the truth, and
nothing but the truth? (I have no specific examples in mind, though I know
it does happen. It seems to me that would spin Moore(on) right up into the
ceiling, and predjudice the case on the spot.
Let Moore spin up to the moon. Contrary to what your undisciplined
imagination is telling you, Moore cannot lawfully abridge anybody's 1st
amendment freedom of religious expression.
Which is why he was ordered to remove his rock.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
03 Sep 2003 01:32:17 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
Even if they DID accept his religious teachings, a fair decision is far
from assured. Extremism tends to eat itself. Historically, thousands of
people who fully accepted their day's religious teachings wound up dying
at the hands of their fellow Christians in the name of stamping out
wickedness and witchcraft.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 10:55:00 AM |
|
|
<user@example.com> wrote:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, " " <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
Even if they DID accept his religious teachings, a fair decision is far
from assured. Extremism tends to eat itself. Historically, thousands of
people who fully accepted their day's religious teachings wound up dying
at the hands of their fellow Christians in the name of stamping out
wickedness and witchcraft.
Jesus said John 16:2-3 that christians cannot kill others in God's name.
So quit blaming this kind of stuff on true christians.
M. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian H Spedding" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 01:34:36 PM |
|
|
In article <1g0pgkr.1xsa7oj1u1946jN%idontreply@toemail.com>,
idontreply@toemail.com says...
trebor@sirius.com.no.more <user@example.com> wrote:
[...]
Even if they DID accept his religious teachings, a fair decision is far
from assured. Extremism tends to eat itself. Historically, thousands of
people who fully accepted their day's religious teachings wound up dying
at the hands of their fellow Christians in the name of stamping out
wickedness and witchcraft.
Jesus said John 16:2-3 that christians cannot kill others in God's name.
So quit blaming this kind of stuff on true christians.
True Christian Mike Goodrich seems to take a different view.
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 10:55:01 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
In talk.origins, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in
<tml9lvkdgol9eh3i741oqdgrgqqpm2sgrn@news.supernews.com>:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) wrote:
What does a public display of religious writings have to do with people
forcing their deity on others?
It's "forcing" in the sense of rubbing their faces in it. It's just one
more way of telling non-Christians that they are "the other," the
outsiders.
I suppose "foisting" might be more precise than "forcing."
Does anyone seriously think they can get a fair decision from Judge
Moore if they do not accept Judge Moore's religious teachings?
I'm not going to be a slave to anybody's undisciplined imagination.
Please show me a list of those who feel that they did not get a fair
decision from Judge Moore because they didn't accept Judge Moore's
religious teachings.
M. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 03:10:55 PM |
|
|
Piggybacking - my newsserver doesn't like the references
line if I reply directly:-
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0mp2i.1aw0bgdkxdjcwN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Robin Levett <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0m60p.qni5x71st1tdyN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, M. Clark wrote:
... Indeed, most people will
just walk right past this display, totally
ignoring it.
It appears your argument has been reduced to
this
mantra which you keep
repeating over and over again.
The decision was not made on this basis.
This issue is far from over.
For the simple reason that there are people who
would
force their deity of
choice on others in the public sphere.
Give me an example of how people would force their
deity
of choice on
others, especially when the 1st amendment guarantees
everybody's freedom
of religious expression.
How about Chief Justice Moore of Alabama; I understand
that
he has purported to exercise his powers as Chief Justice
granted by law to administer the Alabama Capitol
building
publicly to display religious writings in the Capitol.
I
believe we've had a thread on it in these newsgroups?
What does a public display of religious writings have to
do with people
forcing their deity on others? Indeed, give me a list of
the names of
the people who have been forced to convert to christianity
because of
Judge Moore's display.
What is the relevance of this.
1 Moore has no power as private individual to put
anythign in the rotunda of the Alabama Capitol;
2 Moore's right to place anything in the rotunda of the
Alabama State Capitol derive from his position as Chief
Justice of Alabama;
3 Moore's powers as Chief Justice to place anything in
the rotunda of the Capitol derive from the law alone.
With me so far?
4 The display, which he instigated in purported exercise
of his legal powers as Chief Justice, of (one specific
version of) the ten commandments has an overtly sectarian
and religious intent - he has so stated himself.
5 For him to actually have power to make such an overtly
religious and sectarian display the decalogue, the law would
have to authorise him;
6 If the law so authorised him, it would contravene the
constitutions both of the United States (applied to the
state of Alabame by the 14th amendment) and of the State of
Alabama itself, which prevent both the federal and the state
legislatures passing laws that favour any sect;.
7 The law cannot therefore be read as so authorising him;
8 His display of the decalogue is therefore illegal.
Clear?
People most likely ignore the thing anyway.
How does one ignore something that size?
--
I don't trust camels - or anyone else that can go for a week
without a drink.
(Use - deleting big blue -
for email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
04 Sep 2003 11:33:40 PM |
|
|
In article <0n48jb.ktc.ln@grendel.hayesway>,
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
What is the relevance of this.
1 Moore has no power as private individual to put
anythign in the rotunda of the Alabama Capitol;
2 Moore's right to place anything in the rotunda of the
Alabama State Capitol derive from his position as Chief
Justice of Alabama;
3 Moore's powers as Chief Justice to place anything in
the rotunda of the Capitol derive from the law alone.
I think the better argument is that when making policy decisions outside
of the court room, those decisions are simultaniously quasi-legislative
and quasi-executive (administrative). The power to make such
administraticive policy is granted by the state legislature.
This is different from judicial lawmaking which occurs "on the bench"
and is an older and more common form of making law than lawmaking by
legislature.
I haven't read the Alabama consitution so I'm not sure if such policy
making powers are explicitly granted to the Chief justice (with rules
for him being overridden by other justices), or if it is in a piece of
legislation written by the state legislature.
With me so far?
4 The display, which he instigated in purported exercise
of his legal powers as Chief Justice, of (one specific
version of) the ten commandments has an overtly sectarian
and religious intent - he has so stated himself.
5 For him to actually have power to make such an overtly
religious and sectarian display the decalogue, the law would
have to authorise him;
6 If the law so authorised him, it would contravene the
constitutions both of the United States (applied to the
state of Alabame by the 14th amendment) and of the State of
Alabama itself, which prevent both the federal and the state
legislatures passing laws that favour any sect;.
7 The law cannot therefore be read as so authorising him;
8 His display of the decalogue is therefore illegal.
Clear?
Well sort of. The 11th circuit says it's not legal but the 3rd circuit
says it is legal. The difference in those cases as far as I can tell:
1. in the 3rd circuit case, the plaque is outside the courthouse; in the
11th it's inside the rotunda and clearly readable
2. in the 3rd circuit case, the plaque had been there since 1920 or
thereabouts; in the 11th it was placed in there recently
3. in the 3rd circuit case the 3-judge panel said that the display had
secular merit thus it wasn't exclusively religious in nature; the 11th
circuit case has plantiffs admitting it is religiously based.
4. 3rd circuit was heard by a 3 judge panel; 11th circuit case was
appealed to the full panel and ruled unanimously against Moore.
That the Supreme Court has decided not to hear Moore's case and clear up
the discrepency between the two Circuit Courts of Appeals is peculiar on
the surface. The Supreme Court just wants to punt on this one as long as
possible. They don't want to answer the subsequent questions regarding
"In God We Trust" and "under God" and have to come up with some kind of
test that would allow those two things to stay while at the same time
disallow a clear "respecting an establishment of religion" by
government. And what of the ten commandments in the U.S. Supreme Court
building, etc.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin Levett" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 03:21:27 AM |
|
|
"Chris" <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> wrote in message
news:ihatespam-3BC707.22360004092003@netnews.attbi.com...
In article <0n48jb.ktc.ln@grendel.hayesway>,
"Robin Levett" <rnlevett@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
What is the relevance of this.
1 Moore has no power as private individual to put
anythign in the rotunda of the Alabama Capitol;
2 Moore's right to place anything in the rotunda of
the
Alabama State Capitol derive from his position as Chief
Justice of Alabama;
3 Moore's powers as Chief Justice to place anything
in
the rotunda of the Capitol derive from the law alone.
I think the better argument is that when making policy
decisions outside
of the court room, those decisions are simultaniously
quasi-legislative
and quasi-executive (administrative). The power to make
such
administraticive policy is granted by the state
legislature.
This is different from judicial lawmaking which occurs "on
the bench"
and is an older and more common form of making law than
lawmaking by
legislature.
I haven't read the Alabama consitution so I'm not sure if
such policy
making powers are explicitly granted to the Chief justice
(with rules
for him being overridden by other justices), or if it is
in a piece of
legislation written by the state legislature.
With me so far?
4 The display, which he instigated in purported
exercise
of his legal powers as Chief Justice, of (one specific
version of) the ten commandments has an overtly
sectarian
and religious intent - he has so stated himself.
5 For him to actually have power to make such an
overtly
religious and sectarian display the decalogue, the law
would
have to authorise him;
6 If the law so authorised him, it would contravene
the
constitutions both of the United States (applied to the
state of Alabame by the 14th amendment) and of the State
of
Alabama itself, which prevent both the federal and the
state
legislatures passing laws that favour any sect;.
7 The law cannot therefore be read as so authorising
him;
8 His display of the decalogue is therefore illegal.
Clear?
Well sort of. The 11th circuit says it's not legal but the
3rd circuit
says it is legal. The difference in those cases as far as
I can tell:
1. in the 3rd circuit case, the plaque is outside the
courthouse; in the
11th it's inside the rotunda and clearly readable
2. in the 3rd circuit case, the plaque had been there
since 1920 or
thereabouts; in the 11th it was placed in there recently
3. in the 3rd circuit case the 3-judge panel said that the
display had
secular merit thus it wasn't exclusively religious in
nature; the 11th
circuit case has plantiffs admitting it is religiously
based.
I think that this is the crucial distinction.
4. 3rd circuit was heard by a 3 judge panel; 11th circuit
case was
appealed to the full panel and ruled unanimously against
Moore.
That the Supreme Court has decided not to hear Moore's
case and clear up
the discrepency between the two Circuit Courts of Appeals
is peculiar on
the surface. The Supreme Court just wants to punt on this
one as long as
possible. They don't want to answer the subsequent
questions regarding
"In God We Trust" and "under God" and have to come up with
some kind of
test that would allow those two things to stay while at
the same time
disallow a clear "respecting an establishment of religion"
by
government. And what of the ten commandments in the U.S.
Supreme Court
building, etc.
AIUI, to the last question; secular purpose. Moses and the
10C are displayed as part of a pageant of great lawmakers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 10:05:34 AM |
|
|
And what of the ten commandments in the U.S.
Supreme Court
building, etc.
AIUI, to the last question; secular purpose. Moses and the
10C are displayed as part of a pageant of great lawmakers.
And furthermore the display in the Supreme Court building is missing something
that was prominently displayed in the Alabama case...the text. How can you have
a display of the Ten Commandments without the text? The rock might be there but
the text which gives the rock it's religious content is not.
That is why the display in the US Supreme Court building is legal and the
display in the Alabama Supreme Court building is not.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 02:45:29 PM |
|
|
Chris <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> wrote:
:|
:|Well sort of. The 11th circuit says it's not legal but the 3rd circuit
:|says it is legal.
There are some items here that are incorrect.
But first, some background.
******************************************************
AUGUST 20, 2003
U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES REQUEST TO BLOCK REMOVAL OF ALABAMA COMMANDMENTS
DISPLAY
The U.S. Supreme Court today turned away another last-ditch effort by
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to thwart a federal court order that he
remove his granite Ten Commandments monument from the state Judicial
Building.
This morning Moore filed a request with the Supreme Court to block U.S.
District Judge Myron Thompson's order that the granite Ten Commandments be
removed from the rotunda of the judicial building by Aug. 20. Thompson's
order indicated that if Moore refused to comply, he could be found in
contempt of court and substantial fines could be levied against the state.
In a one-sentence statement issued late today, the high court denied
Moore's request to nullify Thompson's order for removal of the monument.
*********************************************
JULY 1, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v. MOORE (07/01/03 - No. 02-16708, 02-16949)
A Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama State Judicial
Building by the Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the monument must be
removed.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216708p.pdf
*********************************************
JUNE 26, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FREETHOUGHT SOC'Y v. CHESTER COUNTY (06/26/03 - No. 02-1765)
A permanent injunction ordering the removal of a Ten Commandments plaque
affixed to a courthouse in 1920 is reversed where the plaque is not "real
threat," but is instead "mere shadow."
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/021765p.pdf
*********************************************
APRIL 28, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
----------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Ten Commandments Mon Apr 28 By James
Vicini
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030428/ts_nm/court_commandments_dc_1
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Monday
rejected an appeal by Kentucky of a ruling that barred the display of a
large granite monument with the Ten Commandments on the state Capitol
grounds in Frankfort.
Without comment, the justices let stand a federal appeals court ruling that
the display would violate church-state separation under the U.S.
Constitution's First Amendment.
****************************************************
NOVEMBER 19, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BAKER v. ADAMS COUNTY/OHIO VALLEY SCHOOL BOARD, (11-19-02) No. 02-3777
Granite monuments displaying the Ten Commandments must be removed from the
grounds of four public high schools in southern Ohio, a federal appeals
court ruled Tuesday.
A panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to uphold a
federal court's June decision.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=02a0399p
*********************************************
NOVEMBER 18, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v.. MOORE, (11-18-02) CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-T-1268-N.
A Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of Alabama's judicial building
violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion, a
federal judge ruled Monday.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson gave Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore,
who had had the 5,300-pound granite monument installed in the state
building, 30 days to remove it.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/index_of_opinions.htm
*********************************************
OCTOBER 11, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ADLAND v. RUSS (10/09/02 - No. 00-6139)
A provision of a Kentucky Senate Resolution, directing that a monument
inscribed with the Ten Commandments be made part of a historical and
cultural display on Capitol grounds, under the facts is an impermissible
endorsement of religion under the Establishment Clause.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/6th/02a0354p.html
***************************************************
AUGUST 23, 2002
A US District Court in Lexington, Kentucky, has ruled against the American
Civil Liberties Union in their suit to have the Ten Commandments removed
from their display in the Mercer County Courthouse. The Commandments were
displayed along with other historical and legal texts.
US District Judge Karl Forrester denied the legal group's motion for a
preliminary injunction, noting that the historical influence of the
commandments was beyond "rational dispute," even though "plaintiffs might
wish it were so." He concluded that "plaintiffs' wishes cannot change
history."
The facts recited in this case come from WorldNetDaily.com, posted on the
Internet on August 23, 2002.
http://www.civilrightsunion.com/acluwatch/historicaltruth.htm
************************************
JULY 18, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMUM v. CITY OF OGDEN (07/19/02 - No. 01-4022)
Under the free speech clause of the First Amendment, a city cannot display
a Ten Commandments monument on its property, while declining to display a
"Seven Principles" monument proferred by the Summum religion.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/014022.html
*********************************************
MARCH 7, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILADELPHIA -- A U.S. DISTRICT judge ruled Wednesday that the Ten
Commandments plaque posted outside the Chester County Courthouse is
unconstitutional and must be removed.
*********************************************
FEBRUARY 25, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U. S. SUPREME COURT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Bannon v. Indiana Civil Liberties Union et al. The U.S. Supreme Court
rejected on Monday Indiana's appeal that it should be allowed to erect a
limestone monument with the Ten Commandments on the statehouse lawn in
Indianapolis.
*********************************************
MAY 29, 2001
High Court Refuses Ten Commandments Case, City of Elkhart v. William A.
Books ET AL
00-1407 May 29. 2001
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/29may20011130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00
pdf/00-1407.pdf
*************************************************
DECEMBER 13, 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOKS v. CITY OF ELKHART, INDIANA (12/13/00 - No. 00-1114)
Monument inscribed with Ten Commandments displayed on lawn of municipal
building violates the Establishment Clause because plaintiffs exercising
right or duty to attend government building must view religious object they
wish to avoid.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/001114.html
**************************************************
DiLorento v. Downey USD (1999) The Supreme Court let stand, without
comment, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that a school district was
within its rights to discontinue a program of paid advertising signs on
school grounds rather than accept a sign promoting the Ten Commandments.
**************************************************************
As you can see from above, from 1999 to present, the final rulings (thus
far) has given a score of
For 10 Commandments 1- 3rd Circuit
Against 10 commandments 6
USSC accepting actual cases 0
USSC refusing to accept actual cases 4
**************************************
Additional info:
The Ten Commandments Issues
Legal Developments: Year 2002
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10cb.htm
Legal Developments: Year 2001
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c8.htm
Legal Developments: 1999 & 2000
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c3.htm
***********************************************
:|The difference in those cases as far as I can tell:
:|1. in the 3rd circuit case, the plaque is outside the courthouse; in the
:|11th it's inside the rotunda and clearly readable
:|2. in the 3rd circuit case, the plaque had been there since 1920 or
:|thereabouts; in the 11th it was placed in there recently
:|3. in the 3rd circuit case the 3-judge panel said that the display had
:|secular merit thus it wasn't exclusively religious in nature; the 11th
:|circuit case has plantiffs admitting it is religiously based.
:|4. 3rd circuit was heard by a 3 judge panel; 11th circuit case was
:|appealed to the full panel and ruled unanimously against Moore.
:|
:|That the Supreme Court has decided not to hear Moore's case and clear up
:|the discrepency between the two Circuit Courts of Appeals is peculiar on
:|the surface.
The case has never been appealed to the USSC. What was filed was a request
to block the movement of Moore's rock. The USSC refused that. The court is
not in session, and there was no life and death issue at stake.
The case could be appealed to the USSC but hasn't thus far and I would be
willing to bet that the USSC would prefer not having to deal with this
particular case even if they wanted to rule for the 10 Commandments. This
case has too much negative baggage associated with it, it would forever be
tainted.
You have a judge who admits that he is trying to promote the/his WASP
religion, and gain votes. You have a religious organization paying much of
the expenses and filming the installing of this rock in the middle of the
night so they can turn that into videos to sell for money in a state they
broadcast their ministry into heavily.
:|The Supreme Court just wants to punt on this one as long as
:|possible.
The USSC receives over 1000 proposed cases a year. That court actually
accepts less than 100 cases per session. There are certain cases they are
required to take as a matter of law, appeals by convicts and other cases of
certain kinds. Thus that lowers the number of other cases to be accepted
each session.
The USSC usually likes to accept cases where there is a serious
constitutional question at hand or where there is a checkerboard type of
lower court rulings.
Neither applies here. The lower court rulings are pretty consistent. Only
one rogue court differs and that, thus far at least doesn't create a
checker bd.
The court has already turned down 4 other 10 commandments cases in the past
few years.
In spite of what the radical religious right may want or think, this is not
a major matter.
:|They don't want to answer the subsequent questions regarding
:|"In God We Trust" and "under God" and have to come up with some kind of
:|test that would allow those two things to stay while at the same time
:|disallow a clear "respecting an establishment of religion" by
:|government.
The Newdow "under God" case is progressing normally. Newdow and all others
involved in this matter have filed briefs, etc, with the Supreme Court.
The court has not decided if it will accept this case or not so far. Newdow
is going to file a request that Scalia recuse himself.
I don't have personal contact with anyone involved in any "In God We
Trust" cases that might be before any state or federal courts. So I can't
say anything about them, if they exist.
:|And what of the ten commandments in the U.S. Supreme Court
:|building, etc.
What about them?
The Ten Commandments, as such, are not in the USSC Building.
The closest we get to them is on the wooden doors leading into the court
room and on the bottom panel of each door is a wooden relief of two stones
with Roman numerals I-X
That is keeping with the overall theme of the artwork found in the USSC
building;
See Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
05 Sep 2003 03:40:28 PM |
|
|
Chris <ihatespam@tinwhipme.com> wrote:
:|
:|Well sort of. The 11th circuit says it's not legal but the 3rd circuit
:|says it is legal.
There are some items here that are incorrect.
But first, some background.
******************************************************
AUGUST 20, 2003
U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIES REQUEST TO BLOCK REMOVAL OF ALABAMA COMMANDMENTS
DISPLAY
The U.S. Supreme Court today turned away another last-ditch effort by
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to thwart a federal court order that he
remove his granite Ten Commandments monument from the state Judicial
Building.
This morning Moore filed a request with the Supreme Court to block U.S.
District Judge Myron Thompson's order that the granite Ten Commandments be
removed from the rotunda of the judicial building by Aug. 20. Thompson's
order indicated that if Moore refused to comply, he could be found in
contempt of court and substantial fines could be levied against the state.
In a one-sentence statement issued late today, the high court denied
Moore's request to nullify Thompson's order for removal of the monument.
*********************************************
JULY 1, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GLASSROTH v. MOORE (07/01/03 - No. 02-16708, 02-16949)
A Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama State Judicial
Building by the Chief Judge of the Alabama Supreme Court violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the monument must be
removed.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0216708p.pdf
*********************************************
JUNE 26, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
---------------------------------------------- | | | | | |
