Judge Roy Moore (The Ten Commandments Judge) (page 3)

rem

Now, I would love for someone to show me how Judge Roy Moore violated the 1st, 10th, or 14th Amendments of the Constitution, because Judge Roy Moore did not make ANY LAW, nor did he deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.

Maybe you can read Justice Thompson's interpretation of the Constitution. This article contains some of the text from his 96 page ruling. Perhaps then you will understand that there is no black and white standard when it comes to having the 10 Commandments or any monument installed in a government building. There are many things that were taken into consideration.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/local/wvtm/a1393461.asp

I'm not sure where you can get the full text of Justice Thompson's ruling.

rem

Who gets to decide what the difference is between so-called "artwork" and so-called "promotion of a religion".

Supreme Court Justices. They are there to interpret the Constitution. Again, read Thompson's ruling for some clue.

I have seen the "artwork" of Moses and the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court Building.

First of all, there is Moses shown (and where is Moses from? The Christian and Jewish religions). Moses is holding the TWO TABLETS OF STONE WHICH WERE WRITTEN ON BY THE FINGER OF GOD! Now, if it was only "artwork" and not a religious symbol, WHY include the two Tablets that were written on BY GOD -- the two Tablets which can only be found in THE BIBLE?

Wow, you are really out of touch with reality. There is a big difference between a piece of art that has religious figures in it and a religious monument. I will not insult the rest of the board reader's intelligence by explaining the difference to you.

rem

UnDisfellowshipped

Elsewhere,

I am not impressed by your accusations, but you can say what you want.

You said:

Wow, you sure are determined to have your god be supported and mandated by the US government.

Where on earth have I ever said anything remotely close to those words you just put in my mouth? Please show me where I said anything close to that. The Constitution absolutely FORBIDS the Government from ESTABLISHING a RELIGION. I have yet to see where it forbids the States from acknowledging God at a State building. Would you care to show me? Elsewhere said:

Is your god so weak that it needs to be supported by a government?

Where did I ever say that my God "needs to be supported by a government"? Wow, you are good at putting words in people's mouths. I'm saying that EVERYONE, INCLUDING STATE JUDGES should be guaranteed the FREEDOM to acknowledge THEIR God, regardless of their religion. Either that, or NO ONE should be allowed to acknowledge their God at a State buidling. I believe in, and support 100% in the Constitution of the United States of America, and THE FREEDOM of religion, THE FREEDOM of expression, and THE FREEDOM of speech.

Elsewhere said:

Do you so fear for the safety of your god that you must run and defend it… even mandating its respect by law under thread of penalty?

Once again, unfortunately, words have been put in my mouth. Where did I ever say anything close to that?

UnDisfellowshipped

Rem,

Exactly, and I can't wait to see if the Supreme Court will hear this case.

Rem said:

Wow, you are really out of touch with reality. There is a big difference between a piece of art that has religious figures in it and a religious monument. I will not insult the rest of the board reader's intelligence by explaining the difference to you.

You have a double-standard going.

If it is wrong to display the Ten Commandments on the the TWO TABLETS which were written on BY GOD, and are taken only from THE BIBLE, in front of a State building, then it is wrong to display the SAME THING on the Supreme Court building, and if it is allowable to have it on the Supreme Court building, then it is allowable at a State building.

UnDisfellowshipped

Quotes from http://www.sierratimes.com/03/09/01/lizmichael.htm

So how does this Tablets controversy stack up in the church-state controversy? It doesn't. There is nothing about having those Tablets in the hallway or doorway of a court building that breaches the separation of church and state. Nothing. Judges may not impose a religion. But nowhere are they forbidden from expressing a religious belief. Public officials may not be legally able to impose a religious belief, but they are not required by law to act as if they were atheists.
"But religion should be practiced in church, not in a state building"
I know I'm going to hear it, because I've already heard it. Usually I hear it from liberals. So I only have one response to it.
Tell it to the civil rights movement. Tell the survivors of the civil rights movement that they were wrong to dare to bring religion to the public square in order to eliminate segregation, separate but equal, and state sponsored oppression of Negroes. Go ahead, tell them that.
And while you're at it, tell it to the feminists. The feminists? Yes, the feminists. The founders of the feminist movement, largely revealing itself in the movement for women's suffrage, were staunch Christians. Susan B. Anthony. Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Women such as these pioneers of women's equality and women's suffrage were extremely devout Christian women, and were promoting these ideals as a matter of Christian justice.
Get real. Religious people, REAL religious people, do not bury their religious practices behind the closed doors of a church, temple, or mosque. REAL religious people practice their principles everyday, in public and in private, and demonstrate them in the lives they lead. To fail to do so is to dishonor the God they worship. And these REAL religious people, openly advocating and professing their faith, have revolutionized this nation.

heathen

I'm all for seperation of church and state on all levels . I think the in God we trust should be taken off the money we now use and the saying that america is one nation under God should be completely removed from all aspects of the political world . sincerly , God.

jelly

Rem,

I am not a religous guy by any standard, just letting you know where I am coming from. It seems your standard is very subjective, what is so clear to you is not so clear to everyone else. When does a statue of Moses change from a simple work of art and become a religious icon? It is a bit like the pornography argument, what is one mans porn is another mans art. Any way I dont see how a statue of the ten commandments supports any religion. It reminds me of the time after an assembly I was eating with the brothers at a chinese resturant. This restuarant had excellent almond cookies but because the cookie plate was placed before a statue of budha no one would eat the cookies. I did not follow the logic then and I dont now.

Heathan,

At least you are consistant. Either we need to define what can stay, exactly, or it all goes. No seperate standards for pagan, christian, islam.

Terry

rem

It is subjective. Not everything in life is black and white. I think we would lose a lot of good if we were to just trash every instance of religion in this country. But there are definitely things that go over the line, and the Ten Commandments monument is one of them. The fact that its removal is so contriversial is proof that it doesn't belong there.

There are certain things that are just not appropriate in the rotunda of government courthouses:

Basketball courts
Taquerias
Religious monuments
Star Trek wax figures
etc.

No one's freedoms are taken away because certain things are not appropriate in certain places. Now, of course pieces of art are appropriate within these areas. When the piece crosses from art to religious monument it is no longer appropriate. Where that line is drawn is subjective and there will be borderline cases. This case is not - it's clear as day that this is a religious monument. Justice Moore even admitted that it was much more than a piece of art. Here's a hint: If you have to sneak it in in cover of darkness, then there is a huge red flag right there.

I have seen a picture of the freeze that includes a small part of the 10 Commandments in the Supreme Court building and it doesn't bother me at all. The fact that it is up there with other myths and some historical events makes it a secular piece of art in my opinion. It's all about context.

rem

Yerusalyim

The line between art and religious symbol has been brought up several times...here's what I find quite interesting. Private funds were used to place this monument in a public building...and liberals are screaming bloody murder.

PUBLIC FUNDS were used to pay an Artist to put up a picture of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant feces...to display a cross submerged in urine....etc. Why the hell weren't the libs screaming about public funds and public building use by this Artist? Oh...cuz it denegrated religion...that's why it was OK.

rem

As far as I'm concerned this has little to do with public or private funds and much to do with the principle of separation of church and state. If public funds were used, that would just add insult to injury.

The whole virgin mary thing is a completely separate issue. Public funds are spent on a lot of things I don't approve of and what you described (I remember hearing about it a while ago) seems inappropriate for public fund use. Like you said, though, there is a blurry distinction between art and religious monuments. Some are easier to sort out than others. The 10 Commandments monument is just exceptionally eggregious.

rem

Judge Roy Moore (The Ten Commandments Judge)

Share this