|
|
| DaveSaenz |
Court Won't Enter Ten Commandments Fight
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Monday to enter the long-running fight over an enormous monument depicting the Ten Commandments and the renegade judge who wants to put it back on display in an Alabama courthouse.
The court quietly rejected appeals from suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had argued the monument properly acknowledges "God as the source of the community morality so essential to a self-governing society."
Lower federal courts ruled Moore violated the Constitution's ban on government promotion of religion by placing the 5,300-pound granite monument in the rotunda of the state Judicial Building. In two appeals to the Supreme Court, Moore argued that lower federal courts do not have authority over a state's chief justice.
Moore was suspended as chief justice for defying a federal court order to remove the monument. He goes on trial before the Alabama Court of the Judiciary on Nov. 12 on judicial ethics violation charges.
Despite Moore's refusal to comply with the order, the monument was wheeled to an out-of-the-way storage room in August. Two weeks of protests by Moore's supporters followed. In recent weeks, demonstrators have carried the cause to the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court, with one protester dressed as Moses and carrying cardboard tablets.
The Supreme Court's action is not a ruling on the thorny question of whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed in government buildings or in the public square. It merely reflects the high court's unwillingness to hear the appeal.
Lower courts have splintered on the issue, allowing depictions of the Ten Commandments in some instances and not in others.
Moore challenged the high court to settle the question once and for all, and accused the justices of ducking their responsibility to clarify murky questions about the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court recently took on another divisive case about government and religion. Sometime next year, the justices will hear the case of a California atheist who objects to the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Constitution sets out no absolute divide between God and government, and Moore argued that his Ten Commandments display was in keeping with the religious vision of the nation's founders.
The First Amendment guarantees that government will not actively endorse religion in general or favor one faith over another. The same amendment also guarantees an individual's right to worship as he pleases.
The Ten Commandments contain both religious and secular directives, including the familiar bans on stealing, killing and adultery. The Bible says God gave the list to Moses.
Two years ago, the high court divided bitterly over whether to hear another case testing whether a different Ten Commandments monument could be displayed outside a civic building.
The court opted at that time not to hear that case, but four justices nonetheless staked out a position on the issue.
The three most conservative justices said they found nothing wrong with display of that monument outside the building housing local courts and prosecutors, city leaders in Elkhart, Ind. The setting reflected the cultural, historical and legal significance of the commandments, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for himself and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The monument "simply reflects the Ten Commandments' role in the development of our legal system," Rehnquist wrote for the three. He noted that "a carving of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, surrounded by representations of other historical legal figures, adorns the frieze on the south wall of our courtroom."
At the opposite ideological end of the court, Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote that the words "I am the Lord thy God," in the first line of the Elkhart monument's inscription are "rather hard to square with the proposition that the monument expresses no particular religious preference," Stevens wrote then.
The cases are In re Moore, 03-258 and Moore v. Glassroth 03-468.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the one hand this is good because it means the lower court rulings will stand, but on the other it may have been better for the court to set a legal precedent for the entire country when it comes to religious displays on buildings such as courthouses. My feeling is that to display religious edicts on a courthouse gives the impression that the State is favorable of one religion, and it undermines the assumption that a person who subscribes to different beliefs can recieve a fair trial.
On another note, do the courthouses in Israel display the 10 commandments, and are non-Jews (like myself even though my name first and last name are jewish lol) able to recieve a fair trial there?:conf:
Similarly in state-supported Islamic countries, it seems doubtful that a non-muslim could recive a fair and impartial trial.
As far as I'm concerned, religion and the judicial system are a dangerous mix.
:nervous: |
|
|
| occrider |
I view it as a victory ... the supreme court is essentially telling Moore that he's an idiot, and he's not worth their time and effort.
In another victory of common sense and tolerance ...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeas...tion/index.html
All in all, I would say that it was a good day of enlightenment for the church and state :) |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Wheee, I'm happy whenever I see religion of any sort taking a beating. :) |
|
|
| che |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Wheee, I'm happy whenever I see religion of any sort taking a beating. :) |
:haha:
This is indeed nice to see. |
|
|
| ProDiGaL |
| THIS CANNOT BE!!! INFIDELS!!! |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Wheee, I'm happy whenever I see religion of any sort taking a beating. :) |
Even the church of the subgenius???
http://www.subgenius.com/
Blasphemy!!! What are you ... one of those productive people??? |
|
|
| Renegade |
Here we go again. :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
The court quietly rejected appeals from suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had argued the monument properly acknowledges "God as the source of the community morality so essential to a self-governing society." |
This is the crux of the problem: which God is he talking about? As the article states, the first ammendment decrees that the state shall offer no ideological preference to any religion (which would include, say, sanctioning the myth that any religion is more correct or more righteous than any other), yet depositing a concrete manifestation of the main moral tennet of a specific religion in a court-house does just this: it propogates the myth the Judeo-Christian morality specifically is the basis for human morality in general. If Roy Moore wants to work in the Judicial branch of the state/nation, he needs to realise that he cannot sanction any specific religion on behalf of the state (i.e. by depositing the Ten Commandments in the main entrance of the building). If he wants to stick the ten commandments in his front yard then it's a freedom of religion issue, but when he sticks them in the middle of state property it's no longer his decision to make.
I know I'm preaching to the converted here (pun intended), but this issue just really irks me.
| quote: | | The Constitution sets out no absolute divide between God and government, and Moore argued that his Ten Commandments display was in keeping with the religious vision of the nation's founders. |
Ah yes, the good old pious Christian founding fathers. As good a rationale as any to fall back on. Oh, except for the fact that it's demonstrably false:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod..._till/myth.html
And I can be fairly certain (without having any concrete evidence) that something very close to an absolute divide was very much in the minds of the founding fathers when they drafted the constitution. Many of them were schooled in Europe during the back end of the European enlightenment, in a situation where many countries were only just emerging from several centuries of church and state led oppression (the church, of course, meaning the Catholic Church). If the founding fathers picked up anything from their studies in Europe at all, they would have been accutely aware of the dangers posed to society by an amalgamation of the state and a specific religious denomination. Including also the fact that the US was and still is a predominantly Protestant nation (protestantism emerging from the rejection of the dogmatic control the Catholic church held over theology and society more broadly), I don't think the founding fathers would have been too interested in leaving open a "back-door" for governments in the future to allign themselves with any dominant religious ideology. They weren't Christians and they certainly wouldn't have wanted the ten commandments in their court-houses. |
|
|
CLICK TO RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE
tranceaddict Forums Archive > Other > Political Discussion / Debate
|
