Chief Justice Moore refuses to remove 10 commandments

[jj]

State's rights is fanaticism?

So, a state has a right to recognize religion in its justice system, you're saying?

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize race?

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize sex (in terms of civil rights)?

Does that mean that the state has the right to recognize 1% "mud blood"?

Really?

 

[c0rbin]

If the citizens of the state of Alabama want to spend state money to put a monument to the Christian Bible on state property, it should be their right.

Our laws come from the constitution, not the bible, not God. However, it is medieval and backward for the State Constitution to credit the Bible as the source of their laws and morals.

For one thing, IMO, a big feature of democracy is the ability to re-examine the effectiveness or pertenence of Laws. Can this be done if the Laws have a supernatural origin?

Secondly, people will spout moral relativism nonsense, you know, Athiest have no morals and crap like that, or liberals have some sort of moral gray area that they want to push as an agenda--well, doesn't the state of Alabama employ the death penaly?

Seems a little contradictory to me; seems like moral relativism after all.

 

[Tony]

So, a state has a right to recognize religion in its justice system, you're saying?

Unfortunately, yes.

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize race?

You mean like affirmative action? Yeah I guess a state does have the right to recognize race and discriminate accordingly.

Does that mean that a state has the right to recognize sex (in terms of civil rights)?

See above.

 

[Cinorjer]

State's rights is fanaticism?

Fanaticism is calling for a civil war over an issue like religious symbols in government buildings or even "state's rights", which is always trotted out whenever the South has to be reminded they lost the last civil war, and like it or not, are part of the United States of America.

So there needs to be another civil war? Tens of thousands of people would be killed, our nation would collapse into anarchy, and the last superpower would end up like Russia, with starving people waiting for the cold of winter to finish them off. But that's all right with you, isn't it? Because it's for "a good cause", and you'd be able to post your Ten Commandments anywhere you'd like. That's fanaticism. If you can't have it your way, then you'll burn it to the ground.

 

[diddidit]

Moore's been overruled by his associates now as well:

http://msnbc.com/news/954934.asp?0cv=CB10

I'd have to agree that Moore's stance is ultimately electioneering.

did

 

[reprise]

Just out of interest, if a US state did reach the point where it's citizens were totally fed up with federal government "interference", how difficult would it be for that state to secede from the union? What proportion of that state's voters would have to vote for secession and over what time frame would the transition occur?

 

[repairman]

Well the eight associat justices have now overruled chief justice Moore and have started the process of removing the monument. They have now covered over the monument with plywood.

 

[Tony]

Fanaticism is calling for a civil war over an issue like religious symbols in government buildings or even "state's rights", which is always trotted out whenever the South has to be reminded they lost the last civil war, and like it or not, are part of the United States of America.

I'll remember that when this country is a police state.

Because it's for "a good cause", and you'd be able to post your Ten Commandments anywhere you'd like.

This isn’t about the 10 commandments; I could care less about the issue itself. It's the fact that the government, in an act of tyranny, is unconstitutionally imposing its will on a state.

I hold the same opinion on abortion, euthanasia in Oregon and medical weed in California.

That's fanaticism. If you can't have it your way, then you'll burn it to the ground.

And that's a strawman.

 

[diddidit]

Well the eight associat justices have now overruled chief justice Moore and have started the process of removing the monument. They have now covered over the monument with plywood.

Apparently the plywood went up this morning, then came back down shortly before the 8 associate justices released their ruling. Dunno if that's significant or not. I haven't heard if anyone's fired up a jackhammer yet...

did

 

[Tony]

Just out of interest, if a US state did reach the point where it's citizens were totally fed up with federal government "interference", how difficult would it be for that state to secede from the union? What proportion of that state's voters would have to vote for secession and over what time frame would the transition occur?

ASFIK, the only state that can legally secede is Texas, because it was once a country.

 

[repairman]

Sorry Brown beat me to the post.

Should have read the entire thread.

 

[reprise]

ASFIK, the only state that can legally secede is Texas, because it was once a country.

Wow.

I assumed that at the very least the original colonies would have retained the right of secession.

 

[pgwenthold]

If the citizens of the state of Alabama want to spend state money to put a monument to the Christian Bible on state property, it should be their right.

Only if they do not impose upon the rights of citizens of the United States. The majority _cannot_ vote to establish religion in any state, regardless of how much they want to. The vote today could be 100% to 0, and it is still against the constitution for the state to establish religion.

One of the purposes of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority against the will of the majority. As long as Alabama is part of the US, they are subject to the constitution of the US. The state constitution cannot remove a right that is protected by the federal constitution.

 

[Sundog]

Wow.

I assumed that at the very least the original colonies would have retained the right of secession.

That's what the whole Civil War was about.

 

[Tony]

Only if they do not impose upon the rights of citizens of the United States. The majority _cannot_ vote to establish religion in any state, regardless of how much they want to. The vote today could be 100% to 0, and it is still against the constitution for the state to establish religion.

The first amendment says" the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

[hgc]

The first amendment says" the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So, do you think that means that the state of Alabama has the right, hypothetically, to establish "Christianity," or anything else, as the official religion of Alabama?

 

[repairman]

There are very few courts around the country where they will swear you in on a bible. I also find it sad that political offices still use the bible for swearing in.

 

[Suddenly]

ASFIK, the only state that can legally secede is Texas, because it was once a country.

Not really. Texas has the right to divide itself into five states, but not the right to secede.

Another Texas-related legend holds that the Texans negotiated an annexation treaty which reserved to them the right to secede from the Union without the consent of the U.S. Congress, but the terms of Texas' annexation contain no such provision.

 

[Cinorjer]

This isn’t about the 10 commandments; I could care less about the issue itself. It's the fact that the government, in an act of tyranny, is unconstitutionally imposing its will on a state

Neither you nor I nor some idiot state judge has the right to decide what is and is not constitutional. That right belongs to the Federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. We DO have the right to elect government representatives who will pass laws we want them to pass and who will then appoint Federal judges that will make decisions we agree with.

The great strength of our democracy is that we acknowledge the rule of law. It's not perfect, in that privilage and prestige still allow people to get away with quite a bit. However, the heart of our civilized society is the fact that no one - not even the richest or most powerful - is above the law or can decide what court orders they don't have to obey.

If you feel that our courts and government are behaving in an unconstitutional way, do what I do and join groups working to elect new representatives in government. You also have the right to peaceful protest in order to bring your message to the rest of the people.

The people protesting at the courthouse and being arrested while trying to keep the Ten Commandments in place are not fanatics. They're citizens exercising their right to protest, as much as I might disagree with them. Judge Moore is a traitor to his robe by refusing to obey the very legal system he has sworn to defend. He's the fanatic in the picture.

 

[gnome]

My concern about swearing oaths on a religious doctrine is that it conveys the impression that the person's duty to tell the truth to the deity that doctrine represents is superior to their allegiance to tell the truth to the court - otherwise, why not simply take an affirmation to tell the truth without involving the deity.

My problem with it has always been: what possible relevance could swearing on a bible have to a Christian? If they would go against their religion enough to bear false witness in the first place, why should swearing on the bible make a difference?