Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 11-18-2002, 03:02 PM

Some quotes from the descision.

Quote:

Standing is not the sole province of the weak; if anything, as a matter of practice if not the law, it is that of the strong, for only they will rise to assert it.

Quote:

The only way to miss the religious or non-secular appearance of the monument would be to walk through the Alabama State Judicial Building with one's eyes closed.

Quote:

While the quotations on the monument's sides are non-Biblical, the fact that they have been edited so as to emphasize the importance of religion and the sovereignty of God in our society fails to diminish, and even amplifies, the ineffable but still overwhelming holy aura of the monument.

Quote:

In a real sense, therefore, the installation of the monument can be viewed as a joint venture between the Chief Justice and Coral Ridge, as both parties have a direct interest in its continued presence in the rotunda. A credible argument could be made that this type of entanglement is specifically the type of "evil[] against which [the] Clause protects ... 'sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'"

Quote:

In other words, if there is a Ten Commandments display tradition in this country, it is definitely not the tradition embodied by the Chief Justice's monument.

Quote:

Nowhere does the Constitution or the First Amendment recognize the sovereignty of any God, Judeo-Christian or not, or describe the relationship between God and the state. In fact, this country's founding documents support the idea that it is from the people, and not God, that the state draws its powers.

Quote:

At trial, the Chief Justice reiterated his belief that only Christianity meets the First Amendment definition of religion, and repeatedly called any other creed a "faith," rather than a religion.

Quote:

Third, the court notes that it is hard to separate the Chief Justice's religious beliefs--that he may possess as a matter of conscience--from his legal beliefs--that the court must disagree with--because the Chief Justice's legal understanding of the relationship between God and the state is identical to his religious understanding of that relationship. Indeed, his monument-unveiling speech in the Alabama State Judicial Building would have been as (if not more) appropriate as a Ten Commandments monument-dedication ceremony in a church.

Quote:

The Chief Justice's understanding of the relationship between God and the state comes uncomfortably too close to the adoption of "a government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2370 (1976), that is, a "theocracy," albeit in the Chief Justice's mind a tolerant one.

Quote:

Second, the court cannot accept the Chief Justice's proposed definition of the word "religion" because it is, simply put, incorrect and religiously offensive. The court cannot accept a definition of religion that does not acknowledge Buddhism or Islam as a religion under the First Amendment, and would in fact directly violate Supreme Court precedent by doing so.

Quote:

To say that his actions in placing the monument in the Alabama Judicial Building does not constitute a "law" obfuscates the truth of the situation: the monument was placed in the Judicial Building by a state official, acting in his official state capacity, under powers granted to him by state law.

Quote:

the Chief Justice suggested at trial that Moore, the individual, gave the monument to Moore, the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice has proposed no objective criteria to help the court differentiate between the two.

Dark Jedi · 11-18-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

At trial, the Chief Justice reiterated his belief that only Christianity meets the First Amendment definition of religion, and repeatedly called any other creed a "faith," rather than a religion.

Sufficient for removal as a judge. Shows clear and unequivocal bias against non Christians.

11-18-2002, 04:58 PM

But this is Alabama we're talking about. Moore will probably be elected to the U.S. Senate by a landslide.

Krieger · 11-18-2002, 05:42 PM

Finally some good news!

SLD · 11-18-2002, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:
<strong>Thanks for the report SLD! (You get no points for your prediction though -- I predicted this too

.) I wonder if you think that Rudy Roy Moore won't refuse to remove the "monument" as an act of civil disobedience. That would of course show everyone the painful truth: This guy is unfit to serve as shoe-shine boy in traffic court, much less a state Supreme Court justice.

theyeti</strong>

I don't know whether he will obey it or not. Going against a federal judge with serious contempt powers is not a good idea - especially if you want to retain any of your wealth and power. Federal Judges do not like having their orders ignored. They are far more cranky than state judges.

Now of couse, I gotta sort of stick up for Moore. 99.9% or more of the civil cases that come before the Court have nothing whatsoever to do with anything remotely religious. To date, his rulings have actually not been too bad - certainly not the usual knee jerk stance of other Republican/Business Council Clones (indeed he was not supported by the Business Council in his election bid). He has been especially good at narrowing compulsory arbitration clauses down to help out people who are otherwise hurt by them. We do need to keep him off the Federal bench - that is where First Amendment separation decisions are made.

You don't think that Bush would do something like put him on the Supreme Court do you? That would indeed be a nightmare.

Bumble Bee Tuna · 11-18-2002, 06:42 PM

Wait a minute...you mean after all of those times we've heard "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship...", now we're being told Christianity is the ONLY religion that exists?

-B

Stephen Maturin · 11-19-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLD:
<strong>

I don't know whether he will obey it or not. Going against a federal judge with serious contempt powers is not a good idea - especially if you want to retain any of your wealth and power. Federal Judges do not like having their orders ignored. They are far more cranky than state judges.</strong>

Moore knows better than to mess with a U.S. district court judge. According to <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-ten-commandments1119nov19,0,3118314.story" target="_blank">this Associated Press report</a>, Moore does indeed plan to request a stay from the court of appeals.

scombrid · 11-19-2002, 06:01 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nowhere does the Constitution or the First Amendment recognize the sovereignty of any God, Judeo-Christian or not, or describe the relationship between God and the state. In fact, this country's founding documents support the idea that it is from the people, and not God, that the state draws its powers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuh uh, haven't they ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? Power from the people, pffffft, that's absurd. Even the president says that we get our rights directly from god.

RufusAtticus · 11-19-2002, 08:05 AM

<a href="http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/base/news/1037700938162240.xml" target="_blank">Bermingham News' article about this</a>

Quote:

Stephen Melchior, the lead counsel for Moore, said in a written statement that Thompson's opinion "demonstrates how confused our federal courts have become," not only with American history but in fundamental principles involving the Constitution.

Apparently Melchior didn't read the same descision I did.

joedad · 11-19-2002, 09:49 AM

RufusAtticus,

Thanks for the quotes.

Personally, I think Moore should be disbarred. Looking at the other extreme possibility, that Moore makes his way to the Supreme Court, such a scenario is reminiscent of Reagan's making Watt the Secretary of Interior. It galvanized pro-environmental sentiment.

joe

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

11-18-2002, 04:58 PM	#13
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	But this is Alabama we're talking about. Moore will probably be elected to the U.S. Senate by a landslide.

11-18-2002, 05:42 PM	#14
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	Finally some good news!

11-18-2002, 06:42 PM	#16
Bumble Bee Tuna Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Middletown, CT Posts: 7,333	Wait a minute...you mean after all of those times we've heard "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship...", now we're being told Christianity is the ONLY religion that exists? -B

11-19-2002, 06:01 AM	#18
scombrid Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,759	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nowhere does the Constitution or the First Amendment recognize the sovereignty of any God, Judeo-Christian or not, or describe the relationship between God and the state. In fact, this country's founding documents support the idea that it is from the people, and not God, that the state draws its powers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nuh uh, haven't they ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? Power from the people, pffffft, that's absurd. Even the president says that we get our rights directly from god.

11-19-2002, 09:49 AM	#20
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	RufusAtticus, Thanks for the quotes. Personally, I think Moore should be disbarred. Looking at the other extreme possibility, that Moore makes his way to the Supreme Court, such a scenario is reminiscent of Reagan's making Watt the Secretary of Interior. It galvanized pro-environmental sentiment. joe

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.