FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-18-2002, 07:12 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,578
Post Judge Moore ordered to Remove 10 Commandments

Here at the New York Times.

NY Times

--tibac
wildernesse is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 07:15 AM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by wildernesse:
Here at the New York Times.

NY Times

--tibac
Wildernesse beat me to the punch. Here's the post I was working on when I saw hers:

Federal District Court Judge Myron Thompson has ruled that the massive Ten Commandments monument placed in the Alabama Judical Building by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore violates the establishment clause and must be removed within thirty days. There's a newspaper article on the ruling here, and you can download the opinion and judgment entry in PDF (all 78 pages!) here.

The ruling is something of a mixed bag legally, but that was to be expected. From the opinion:

Quote:
Based on the evidence presented during a week-long trial and for the reasons that follow, this court holds that the evidence is overwhelming and the law is clear that the Chief Justice violated the Establishment Clause. But, in announcing this holding today, the court believes it is important to clarify at the outset that the court does not hold that it is improper in all instances to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings; nor does the court hold that the Ten Commandments are not important, if not one of the most important, sources of American law. Rather the court's limited holding, as will be explained below in more detail, is that the Chief Justice's actions and intentions in this case crossed the Establishment Clause line between the permissible and the impermissible.
Stephen Maturin is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 07:18 AM   #3
atheist_in_foxhole
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs up

Wonderful!
 
Old 11-18-2002, 07:47 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,578
Post

Heehee. Short, sweet and to the point--that's how you beat people in the speed posting race!

I'm so very competitive.

It will be interesting to see if Moore complies with the order. I don't think that he will--Montgomery should be fun to watch over the holidays, as will all the tv interviews with people who don't understand that the 10 C's can't be both religiously neutral and the basis of their religious belief.

--tibac
wildernesse is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 07:58 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by wildernesse:
<strong>It will be interesting to see if Moore complies with the order. I don't think that he will--* * *</strong>
This probably won't be an issue if Moore lets his lawyers do their job. If Judge Thompson doesn't stay his own order pending the outcome of an appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit probably will. It's SOP in cases such as this.

Then again, Chief Justice Moore is something of a lunatic. He might just be crazy enough to order his lawyers not to apply for a stay. That way he can garner some "Moore Defies Federal Court Order" headlines.
Stephen Maturin is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 08:06 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,578
Post

I really think that you give Moore too much credit, he can't lose face with his fanatics--therefore, anything that makes him look defiant of the order to remove will be done, IMO.

--tibac
wildernesse is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 10:17 AM   #7
atheist_in_foxhole
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Remember, this is the same idiot who said that the bibble was the law in his court.
 
Old 11-18-2002, 11:00 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 633
Post

Personally, I'm not too upset about the whole affair but I also think that Moore is a charlatan and is simply out to be elected Governor. Though I stand on the opposite side of this issue from most of you, if he loses this at the U.S. Supreme Court (I would imagine either side is willing to take this that far) I hope that the plaintiff in this or Alabama's Attorney General (yeah, I know, he's a conservative Republican, chances are slim) sues Moore for the cost of this "monument".
fromtheright is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 11:06 AM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,587
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by fromtheright:
<strong>Though I stand on the opposite side of this issue from most of you...</strong>
I’m curious, how would you hold that the Government displaying something that is so fundamental to one religion doesn’t violate the spirit of the establishment clause?
pug846 is offline  
Old 11-18-2002, 12:05 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,295
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by atheist_in_foxhole:
Remember, this is the same idiot who said that the bibble was the law in his court.
Yep, that's the truth. He's also the same idiot who wrote that abominable concurring opinion in this case

{formatting and URL's converted to vBB by Toto}
Stephen Maturin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:29 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.