Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-17-2002, 10:15 AM

The trial is going on now, and there are reports of <a href="http://www.nbc13.com/news/1724228/detail.html" target="_blank">Judge Moore testifying</a>, as well as others.

Quote:

In opening statements, Morris Dees, lead counsel and co-founder of the SPLC, said Moore placed the monument in the judicial building to make good on campaign statements that he was "on a personal mission from God for one purpose -- to acknowledge God."

"Judge Moore has turned a beautiful hall of justice impartial to all into a sanctuary for religion," Dees told Thompson.

. . .

One of Moore's attorneys, Herbert Titus of Virginia Beach, Va., told Thompson the lawsuit was part of a national movement "to censor God."

"What is at stake here is the historic American legacy of God and liberty," Titus said.

. . .

Under cross-examination by Moore's lead attorney, Steve Melchior of Cheyenne, Wyo., [witness] Maddox said she finds other public acknowledgments to God such as the U.S. motto "In God We Trust" or references to God in the Declaration of Independence as offensive, but not as intrusive as the monument.

from <a href="http://www.nbc13.com/News/1722902/detail.html" target="_blank">here.</a>

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

dangin · 10-17-2002, 10:39 AM

I'm still absolutely befuddled that this is even an issue. Get that abomination out of the court house.

Autonemesis · 10-17-2002, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Titus said Moore installed the monument to show the Ten Commandments serve as the moral foundation of American law. "Justice Moore believes there is a law higher than man's law," he said.

How does installing an ugly monument show anything but the ugliness of the installer?

So what if there is a higher law than "man's law"? If there is, it doesn't belong in a courtroom, for cryin' out loud! Is this judge going to turn the other cheek and forgive everybody that comes into his courtroom? That's what Christians say Jesus would do...

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

crazyfingers · 10-17-2002, 11:10 AM

I continue to be thoroughly unconvinced that the 10Cs has any particular historical significance regarding the laws of this country given that.

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Unconstitutional to put this into law

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
Unconstitutional to put this into law

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.
Unconstitutional to put this into law

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Unconstitutional to put this into law

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
Not part of law

VI. Thou shalt not kill.
Not a uniquely Xian idea. The law makes exceptions and so does the bible, especially when god kills...

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Generally not against the law but I'm sure some backwards states would like to make it illegal.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
Generally against the law but also neither it the ethic to not steal necessarily derived from the 10Cs.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Not generally against the law to lie unless one is under a government oath not to lie.

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.
But this is the basis for capitalism...

If the fundies want to post a sign that says don�t steal and don�t kill, I doubt that I�d mind. But that isn�t what they want is it?

Toto · 10-17-2002, 11:10 PM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Ten-Commandments.html" target="_blank">Judge Moore testifies</a>

Quote:

Moore also questioned why his monument was on trial and not the fountain and monument in front of the federal courthouse, which includes the scales of justice and the face of the Greek goddess of justice, Themis.

<smacks head> Yes! If the Ten Commandments had the same place in our culture as Greek mythology, if we believed that the tales in the Bible were as true as the story of Minerva springing fully armed from the forehead of Jupiter, then it wouldn't be a problem! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Stephen Maturin · 10-18-2002, 04:18 AM

Chief Justice Moore is a real piece of work. From <a href="http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore17w.htm" target="_blank">yesterday's testimony</a>:

Quote:

"Was it your purpose to acknowledge God and his sovereignty?" [Morris] Dees asked.

Moore: "Yes, consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution."

Dees: "It, the Ten Commandments, is the revealed law of God?"

Moore: "Yes."

Dees: "Your purpose with the monument is to restore God's position as the ultimate authority in the land?"

Moore: "Yes."

Dees: "Is this God the Judeo-Christian God?"

Moore: "Yes, the same God acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence and throughout our history. The God of the Holy Scriptures"

Dees: "Is it the God of any other religion except the Judeo-Christian religion?"

Moore: "No."

Moore also took issue with the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretations of the Establishment clause:

Quote:

"I do not think that surrounding the Ten Commandments with other displays makes it constitutional because the acknowledgment of God is not prohibited by the First Amendment," Moore said. "It does not prohibit the acknowledgment of God by anyone, including a public official.

In other words, we can Godify government buildings whatever way we see fit. Not surprising, I suppose. After all, this is the same guy who wrote a concurring opinion in a child custody case awhile back that was little more than a rant about how Jeebus hates lesbians. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Assuming that all the above testimony was adduced during depositions, why bother with a trial? This case is summary judgment material.

Toto · 10-21-2002, 10:02 AM

<a href="http://www.accessmontgomery.com/NEWS/StoryLocalmoore19w.htm" target="_blank">More testimony from Moore:</a>

Note: Thompson is the judge on the case. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Quote:

During one extended stretch, Thompson engaged Moore in a series of questions with no attorneys interrupting. The conversation was almost casual, friendly, like two men well-versed in their subject discussing an issue around the fireplace after dinner.

"What you're telling me and others is that we have a separation of church and state, but not a separation of God and state?" Thompson asked.

Moore: "Right."

Thompson: "God himself is over both?"

Moore: "That's exactly right."

Thompson: "Both the state and church fall under the sovereignty of God?"

Moore: Right.

Thompson: "You couldn't really have the state unless you have God?"

Moore: "Right. That God. Who that God is so important. It's the God of the Holy Scriptures."

Thompson: "When you refer to 'that God," you mean the Judeo-Christian God?"

Moore: "Yes, the God that both the Jews and Christians worship."

Thompson: "Why is that significant?

Moore: "Any faith that worships a different God doesn't worship the God that gave us freedom of conscience."

Thompson: The Judeo-Christian God is at the top in that he has given freedom of conscience to worship other gods and pursue other religions?"

Moore: "Right. If it wasn't the Judeo-Christian God, then what they are accusing us of doing would be true."

Outside the courthouse shortly after that exchange, attorney Ayesha Khan of Americans United said Moore's theory helps the plaintiffs prove their argument that the chief justice is using his official position to endorse one religion over others. . . .

Legally and theologically bizarre. The "Judeo-Christian" god who issued the Commandment saying "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" has suddenly become the source of freedom of conscience. When did this happen? Did Judge Moore actually ever read the ten commandments?

crazyfingers · 10-21-2002, 10:36 AM

In my opinion, Moore has (figuratively speaking) hung himself with his own words.

While I have no idea the views of the judge, I didn't see his questions as actually showing that he agreed with Moore. Rather I see them as his trying to understand what Moore was saying.

It's hard for me to imagine that testimony not revealing to a reasonable person that Moore's intent is to say that his religion and only his religion is higher than the law of the land. As the chief justice of Alabama, he is trying to establish his religion in the courts.

Babylon Sister · 10-21-2002, 12:10 PM

It looks to me like Judge Thompson is asking "give him enough rope" questions.

Stephen Maturin · 10-21-2002, 01:39 PM

Counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs filed an amicus brief today on behalf of the BJCPA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the Interfaith Alliance of Alabama and forty-two Alabama clergy from varying demoninations asking that the display be removed. Haven't studied the brief in detail yet, but at first blush it looks exceptionally good.

The brief is available for download in PDF format (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) <a href="http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/Resources/Pubs/Glassrothvmoor.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2002, 10:39 AM	#2
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	I'm still absolutely befuddled that this is even an issue. Get that abomination out of the court house.

10-17-2002, 11:10 AM	#4
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	I continue to be thoroughly unconvinced that the 10Cs has any particular historical significance regarding the laws of this country given that. I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Unconstitutional to put this into law II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. Unconstitutional to put this into law III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. Unconstitutional to put this into law IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Unconstitutional to put this into law V. Honour thy father and thy mother. Not part of law VI. Thou shalt not kill. Not a uniquely Xian idea. The law makes exceptions and so does the bible, especially when god kills... VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Generally not against the law but I'm sure some backwards states would like to make it illegal. VIII. Thou shalt not steal. Generally against the law but also neither it the ethic to not steal necessarily derived from the 10Cs. IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Not generally against the law to lie unless one is under a government oath not to lie. X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's. But this is the basis for capitalism... If the fundies want to post a sign that says don�t steal and don�t kill, I doubt that I�d mind. But that isn�t what they want is it?

10-21-2002, 10:36 AM	#8
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	In my opinion, Moore has (figuratively speaking) hung himself with his own words. While I have no idea the views of the judge, I didn't see his questions as actually showing that he agreed with Moore. Rather I see them as his trying to understand what Moore was saying. It's hard for me to imagine that testimony not revealing to a reasonable person that Moore's intent is to say that his religion and only his religion is higher than the law of the land. As the chief justice of Alabama, he is trying to establish his religion in the courts.

10-21-2002, 12:10 PM	#9
Babylon Sister Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wyoming Posts: 894	It looks to me like Judge Thompson is asking "give him enough rope" questions.

10-21-2002, 01:39 PM	#10
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs filed an amicus brief today on behalf of the BJCPA, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the Interfaith Alliance of Alabama and forty-two Alabama clergy from varying demoninations asking that the display be removed. Haven't studied the brief in detail yet, but at first blush it looks exceptionally good. The brief is available for download in PDF format (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) <a href="http://www.bjcpa.org/Pages/Resources/Pubs/Glassrothvmoor.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.