Judge Roy Moore (The Ten Commandments Judge)

by UnDisfellowshipped 39 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  Hello everyone,

  I'd like to hear everyone's comments about Judge Roy Moore, the "Ten Commandments Judge" in Alabama.

  I have a couple of questions:

  What LAW did Judge Roy Moore break????

  Here is what the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SAYS:

  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 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."

  That's it.

  Is Judge Roy Moore CONGRESS?

  Did Judge Roy Moore MAKE ANY LAW ABOUT RELIGION?

  Did Judge Roy Moore ESTABLISH ANY NATIONAL OR STATE RELIGION?

  Did Judge Roy Moore PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM HAVING FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION?

  But, think about this:

  The Federal Judge that ruled against Roy Moore DID prohibit Roy Moore's free exercise of his religion.

  So, it was the Federal Judge who MADE A LAW AGAINST what the Constitution is supposed to GUARANTEE for ALL AMERICANS.

  So, basically the Federal Judge is saying that State Judges CANNOT even acknowledge God.

  If that is the case, then WHY does our money say "IN GOD WE TRUST"?

  Why do people testifying in Court swear on THE BIBLE?

  Why does the Constitution say "All men are CREATED equal"?

  Why does the Supreme Court building have the TEN COMMANDMENTS on it?
• 

  jelly

  I think you are asking two questions here. First, the law Moore broke was contempt of court. He is subordinate to the federal judges, and that is the law. The second question I think your asking is why do the Ten Commandments need to be moved, what law does them being placed in the hall of the courthouse break? Honestly, I am not sure what the answer to your second question is. We have statues of Greek gods in our courthouses, the Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments, I don’t quite understand what the deal is here. Are we going to need to strip all hints of religion from all aspects of our public life? I am not sure where this is going to end.
  
  Terry
• 

  rem

  I think it's quite simple. When a monument or whatever becomes more than just a piece of art, but an 'acknowledgment of god' then it has to go. Justice Moore made it quite clear that his monument was much more than just a piece of artwork. The fact that fanatical supporters were worshiping it outside is even more damning evidence.

  rem
• 

  Seven

  I am not sure where this is going to end.

  It will end when all symbols regardless of how long they've been there(Ten Commandments statue-1959)are removed least they offend someone. This could mean the removal of the Liberty Bell with it's quote from Leviticus, the Justice figures(pagan gods Themis and Justicia), the Presidential Oath of Office, In God We Trust from our currency, and no more Pledge of Allegiance. Also, no more paid Christian holidays. No more Christmas Day time off for local, state, federal government employees. Separation of church and state doesn't get much simpler than that but I doubt if the hypocrites will see it that way.
• 

  patio34

  Well, it seems to me that maybe he didn't break a law, but he used publicly owned property to promote his religious views. The government is not a religious organization, it is secular. I'm too lazy and tired now to go looking it all up.

  The difference is that it was a huge monument, not a phrase on our money (which I think should be removed anyway) that has been there for a very long time. It wasn't an incidental piece of art.

  It doesn't seem complicated to me nor unreasonable that the property the public owns should not be subjected to religion. The odd phrases and art we have with religious slogans are anachronisms.

  Pat
• 

  Elsewhere

  Is Judge Roy Moore CONGRESS?
  The 14th amendment of the constitution brought all civil rights (and government restrictions) to the state and local level... therefore the phrase "congress" now refers to any government entity or official.

  Did Judge Roy Moore MAKE ANY LAW ABOUT RELIGION? He is a civil magistrate who is attempting to convince the public that US law is based on the 10 commandments. This is a direct circumvention of the separation of power, which grants only congress the right to establish laws. A judge can only interpret law.

  Did Judge Roy Moore ESTABLISH ANY NATIONAL OR STATE RELIGION? He is trying to use the government to show favoritism to his faith. (See #1, and #2)

  Did Judge Roy Moore PROHIBIT ANYONE FROM HAVING FREE EXERCISE OF THEIR RELIGION? He is attempting to. By stating that American law is founded on Christian principals and the laws within the ten commandments, he is attempting to create a theocracy in which non-Christians will by default be excluded from rights and privileges that the Christians would have access to... not to mention encouraging persecution.

  But, think about this: The Federal Judge that ruled against Roy Moore DID prohibit Roy Moore's free exercise of his religion. No one stopped him from reading his bible, no one stopped him from praying, no one stopped him from going to church, no one stopped him from telling people about his faith, no one stopped him from engaging in his religious rituals... the federal judge stopped him from imposing his faith on the public... for posting laws which stated things such as "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"... which is making an establishment of religion and discriminates against people who are not of Judeo-Christian faith.

  So, it was the Federal Judge who MADE A LAW AGAINST what the Constitution is supposed to GUARANTEE for ALL AMERICANS. The federal judge stopped an agent of the government from making an establishment of religion... he has never stopped Moore from worshiping in his private affairs.

  So, basically the Federal Judge is saying that State Judges CANNOT even acknowledge God. The judge has not been forced to not acknowledge his god. As far as I can see, he is talking about his god on tv every chance he gets. What the federal judge prevented him from doing is use his position and the resources of his position to make an establishment of religion.

  If that is the case, then WHY does our money say "IN GOD WE TRUST"?
  This was added to all US currency during the 1950's as a knee-jerk reaction to the communist scare. A few coins did have this phrase on it starting during the civil war, but it was not common. The phrase was added to the coins during the civil war because an official was afraid that the union was about to be dissolved and he did not want future historians to think that the US was a purely atheist country. The term "GOD" does not explicitly refer to the Christian deity... the courts have allowed it to stand because it can be interpreted in many ways... an atheist could interpret it as referring to the universe as a whole, excluding any supernatural deities.

  Why do people testifying in Court swear on THE BIBLE? This is a tradition for some people, but not a requirement.

  Why does the Constitution say "All men are CREATED equal"?
  It speaks in ambiguous terms... "created"... so that it can be open to interpretation. Even an atheist evolutionist could agree with this... men created by evolution. It does not say that men are created by an all-powerful supernatural deity.

  Why does the Supreme Court building have the TEN COMMANDMENTS on it?It was placed there before America was as diversified as it is now, so very few people thought anything of it. To remove it now would require a construction crew to make major changes to an old and respected land mark... something few people are willing to do.

  It is very clear that you have ulterior motives in your questions... motives to establish Christianity as the official religion of America... or at least place it in a superior position to others granting it special rights and privileges. Sure, you may be willing to "tolerate" other religions... so long as they are second only to Christianity and "know they place" in the public. This is not true freedom of religion. For freedom of religion to exist, all religions must be guaranteed the same rights... which also means that the government must remain neutral in all religious matters, neither establishing or restricting free exercise thereof.
• 

  Elsewhere

  Here are some thoughts of Thomas Jefferson on the matter...

  "I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them, an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises and the objects proper for them according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands where the Constitution has deposited it... Everyone must act according to the dictates of his own reason, and mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:429

  "To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546

  "It is... proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe, a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed?... Civil powers alone have been given to the President of the United States, and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428
• 

  Gopher

  Thanks Elsewhere -- that was a very clear explanation.

  I believe Judge Moore was trying to impose one brand of religion/philosophy upon the public. I actually wasn't in favor of removing the large stones with the 10 commandments on them, because of "free speech" issues.

  Rather, I believe other religions and philosophers should have been invited to display their views of the guiding principles/morals from their religion or philosophy. That way people of all ages could view a wide variety of viewpoints as to fundamentals of ethics or morality that underpin the laws of this land or any civilized country.

  The more competing ideas we have out in the marketplace, the better it is for all concerned. Of course nobody could walk away agreeing with all the various ideas presented, be they Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Inuit, secular humanist, whatever. But at least they'd get a diversity of viewpoints.

  But having JUST ONE brand of religion represented in such a public display, and stating that it is the only valid viewpoint, is imposing a religion on the people. It just doesn't fit in with our multi-cultural 21st century society.
• 

  JT

  It is very clear that you have ulterior motives in your questions... motives to establish Christianity as the official religion of America... or at least place it in a superior position to others granting it special rights and privileges. Sure, you may be willing to "tolerate" other religions... so long as they are second only to Christianity and "know they place" in the public. This is not true freedom of religion. For freedom of religion to exist, all religions must be guaranteed the same rights... which also means that the government must remain neutral in all religious matters, neither establishing or restricting free exercise thereof.

  so true indeed

  I just wonder how many believers would allow Loius Farrakan of the Nation of Islam to put a big old Koran up out there

  i have seen this mindset of My god is better than yours so many times when it comes to bible believer many times not all , but just enough to make the type of noise this clown is making

  i recall how a black muslium back home asked if his minister could Pray at the football game to Allah since 2 of the players were musluim, man the Christians in town almost "Sh!t Bricks"

  as one guy quoted in the local paper in NC , somthing to the effect of " I don't care what kind of prayer they give as long as it's a christian prayer" DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
• 

  Elsewhere

  JT, your comments reminded me of another quote of Thomas Jefferson...

  "I have been just reading the new constitution of Spain. One of its fundamental bases is expressed in these words: 'The Roman Catholic religion, the only true one, is, and always shall be, that of the Spanish nation. The government protects it by wise and just laws, and prohibits the exercise of any other whatever.' Now I wish this presented to those who question what [a bookseller] may sell or we may buy, with a request to strike out the words, 'Roman Catholic,' and to insert the denomination of their own religion. This would ascertain the code of dogmas which each wishes should domineer over the opinions of all others, and be taken, like the Spanish religion, under the 'protection of wise and just laws.' It would show to what they wish to reduce the liberty for which one generation has sacrificed life and happiness. It would present our boasted freedom of religion as a thing of theory only, and not of practice, as what would be a poor exchange for the theoretic thraldom, but practical freedom of Europe." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:128