# Judge Removed



## Rich Parsons (Nov 13, 2003)

Read Here
for the details of the Judge and the Ten Commandments in Court

:asian:


----------



## rachel (Nov 13, 2003)

I applaud this man for what he's done. Separation of church and state is one thing but come on. Why does God have to be pushed under the rug because of non believers? If they don't like the ten commandments where they are then don't look at them. Look somewhere else. This man is not denying God and I back him 100% for sticking to his beliefs even though it cost him his job. This country would be in much better shape if we didn't push God out of the picture and we had more people like this judge willing to stand up for their beliefs.


----------



## ABN (Nov 13, 2003)

The Constitution gives us freedom of religion not freedom from it. Besides that whole "separation of Church and State" thing is so poorly interpreted. it was never in the Constitution it was in a letter Jefferson wrote. 
   I applaud his stand. It's about time someone stood up for their beliefs rather than allowing themselves to be marginalized and sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

andy


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 13, 2003)

. . . but I do believe you are wrong in this case. If Judge Moore wanted to place his 10 Commandments statue on his front lawn, he is absolutely entitled to do so. But to place them in the courthouse is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Were I charged with a criminal offence against the state of Alabama, I would be prosecuted in a court that is supposed to uphold the laws of the State of Alabama. I would want to be certain that I was going to be judged in accordance of the laws of the State of Alabama. By having a monument in the gallery of the courthouse, the state is indicating that I will be judge by the laws of the Christian Church, as well as the laws of Alabama. I would not want to be judged against two different sets of standards.

Another thought ...according to one version of the 10 Commandments (and there are several different versions .. go figure) ... the 4th commandment is to 'Keep Holy the Sabbath'. How exactly does this commandment fit into the rules that we as a society adopt into our laws. And hell, most Christains could be prosecuted under this law, because the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday, as we Christains practice it.  .... Things that make you go "Hmmm!"

Peace - Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 13, 2003)

Judges refusing to recognize the ruling of judges is bad policy. Why should anyone abide by the law if judge won't? He chose to die on the wrong hill.:soapbox:


----------



## Cthulhu (Nov 13, 2003)

Thread moved as it didn't quite meet the criteria of the former thread, which is religion and spirituality in the _arts_.

Cthulhu
-MT Admin.-


----------



## don bohrer (Nov 14, 2003)

> I applaud this man for what he's done. Separation of church and state is one thing but come on. Why does God have to be pushed under the rug because of non believers?



Good point Rachel. My thinking exactly. 



> The Constitution gives us freedom of religion not freedom from it. Besides that whole "separation of Church and State" thing is so poorly interpreted. it was never in the Constitution it was in a letter Jefferson wrote.



ABN you've hit the nail right on the head!

I wish others would understand this, but this is why we all must vote and let those in office understand what we expect from them. Don't we elect people to represent the majority? If recent polls are an idication of opinion then most people don't mind prayer in school, or the commandments being displayed. 



> I would not want to be judged against two different sets of standards.



Mike,  I think personal bias will always play part in any decision a judge makes. Displayed or not. 



> Judges refusing to recognize the ruling of judges is bad policy.



I agree with you on this, but admire the judge for his convictions. I believe this judge understood there would be a heavy cost for disobeying the ruling of his peers and was willing to accept that. He was willing to take his lumps. 

don


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *The Constitution gives us freedom of religion not freedom from it. Besides that whole "separation of Church and State" thing is so poorly interpreted. it was never in the Constitution it was in a letter Jefferson wrote.
> 
> andy *



If I choose to be free *from* religion, do my attitudes and opinions not count, in this free country? Am I not, as a citizen, entitled to the same protections as those who choose to participate in a religion?

Also, Jefferson was very careful not to put the word 'GOD' in the constitution.



> Mike, I think personal bias will always play part in any decision a judge makes. Displayed or not.



Of course, personal bias plays a part in any decision the judge makes. But when I am enpanelled in a jury, I am asked to *put aside* my personal bias, and make judgements only on the evidence entered in proceedings, and the instructions of law presented by the judge. Should we expect less from the officers of the court?

And, while we can't prevent personal biases, we can certainly prevent them from being publicly advocated with a 5,000 pound sculpture in the rotunda of the courthouse. . . and, if I am not mistaken, this is the only thing that was being asked of Judge Moore. No one was asking him to give up his personal beliefs.

It seems to me that the next move by Judge Moore is to run from Governor or Senator or Congressman for the state.

Peace - Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2003)

Just a side note ... I posted my previous message *before* this news report hit MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/news/992496.asp?0cv=CB10

MONTGOMERY, Ala., Nov. 14   After being ousted as Alabama chief justice for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse, Roy Moore vowed to lobby for legislation that would alter the direction of our country and didnt rule out a run for political office.


----------



## Crouching Tiger (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *The Constitution gives us freedom of religion not freedom from it. Besides that whole "separation of Church and State" thing is so poorly interpreted. it was never in the Constitution it was in a letter Jefferson wrote.
> I applaud his stand. It's about time someone stood up for their beliefs rather than allowing themselves to be marginalized and sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
> 
> andy *



I couldn't have said that better!  I quite agree.

:asian:


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *
> Another thought ...according to one version of the 10 Commandments (and there are several different versions .. go figure) ... the 4th commandment is to 'Keep Holy the Sabbath'. How exactly does this commandment fit into the rules that we as a society adopt into our laws. And hell, most Christains could be prosecuted under this law, because the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday, as we Christains practice it.  .... Things that make you go "Hmmm!"
> 
> Peace - Mike *



I understand that Seventh Day Adventists are one of the few Christian religions that worship on Saturday.  The only difference is that for them, their Sabbath is on Saturdays and is in keeping with the Old Testament.  Many other Christian religions changed from Saturday to Sunday to coincide with the day that Christ was risen, which was said to be Sunday.  This is in keeping with the New Testament.

The thing is, the 10 Commandments are broad enough to guide a variety of Judeo-Christian religions....

You are asking how does this commandment fit into the rules that we as a society adopt into our laws?  Simple:  the government should allow free worship how, when, and where the people may.  It would be overstepping the bounds to say that *ALL* religions have to worship on a *Sunday* and not any other day.

As another poster mentioned, the consititution is supposed to protect our freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

- Ceicei


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 14, 2003)

Well the religion of Islam has services on Friday Afternoon, before the Sabbath. So there is more than one religious group that follows teh Saturday Sabbath even if it is not in there 10 Commandmants  or their 5 Pillars.


The Problem with one religion be represented in a court room is that all should then get equal play. Would this judege hang the Five Pillars of Islam? Would he have writings of Confusious? or Buddha? Would they allow Shinto practitioners to have their words and symbols present? Would the Judge or the Government then allow American Indians to have totems present? THe list goes on and on.

Some Quick Links:

Adherents.com This site offers good statistics on populations and percentages.

World Religions By Numbers Including this link that discusses the world and the number of followers.

More Data on the number of adherents including a note or two about schism and divisions

USA Data This link has osme data bout the USA and percentages and populations of religons.

Predominate This sites lists the religion and the country where that religion has a predominate (Defined as greater than 50% ) hold. You will note that the USA does not have a predominate religion. Yes Christianity is the largest single Religon, yet with all the divisions it does not hold over 50%. So, even if were to get a refendum going for Christianity to be the state recognized religion, this would be difficult. Not only since there is not a predominate presence the in fighting between to Christian groups would be enough to cause people to either not vote or to be upset and get their own group on the referendom. This would cause further division. And the winner may not be what some people would like.

So, as the papers of Jefferson discussed the Seperation of Church and State, and there is no reference to God in the U.S. Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution, it just a Preamble. OUr Society allows for the individual to meet in groups and or alone to practice what they believe without being condemned by the Government. Yet, when the Government supports one religion over another, then the perception is that you may be persecuted if you are of a different belief or no belief.

And as always, this board and the media and your vote allows you to express your opinion to try to make others think like you or to get your point across. The only thing you have to do is follow the rules or laws, depending upon the place one is presenting their opinion.

:asian:


----------



## ABN (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *If I choose to be free from religion, do my attitudes and opinions not count, in this free country? Am I not, as a citizen, entitled to the same protections as those who choose to participate in a religion?Peace - Mike *



   Mike you are certainly entitled to the same protections as those who choose to practice their religion. however you are not _more entitled_ to that protection than others. This was what the establishment clause sought to do, create a society where there would be no state religion (such as CofE) and where all were free to practice what they wished (or to practice nothing) so long as it did not harm the public good or impugne upon the rights of others. Why shouldn't I be able to pray  by myself or with a group of like minded friends in school if I choose to do so? Why should your desire not pray supercede mine? Why can't I pray while you do whatever you do? How does my desire to pray (note I said pray, not proselytize) cause you harm? Your desire not to pray does no harm to me.

   Does not restricting my ability to pray infringe upon the same freedom of expression held so dearly by artists, writers, actors, and even ponrographers? Their right to create and express themselves has been  protected in ruling after ruling whether I or you find it offensive or not. Yet, let me utter the words "Our Father" without my sisters around in a public place or the words "Hail Mary" when I'm not at a football game and many of those same people who rant about freedom of expression want to have me gagged, hung, drawn and quartered.

   The 10 Commandments are a concrete reminder of the fact that whether we like it or not, our society was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles just as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded upon Koranic ones, etc. In many courtrooms around the world is a quote from Cicero, "The good of the people is the highest law." Should I demand that it be taken down because he was a pagan and paganism is a religion?

   Finally isn't it a good thing that we can have this debate in an open forum? Is not the exchange of ideas about religion pro or con in a free environment what the establishment clause sought to protect and defend?  Take the logic a step further, then isn't the attempt to silence the expression/ discussion of religion in the public place a violation of the ammendment itself?


Regards,

andy


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 14, 2003)

I think it was a poor decision for the court to have ordered it removed. Let's say 99% of the people in Alabama wanted it there, and the 1% file suit to have it removed based on some poor interpretation then you have to see the case for what it is.

The monument, there or not, had no effect on any of the cases heard in that courtroom.

Let's say the state of Rhode Island was made up mostly of Muslims when it was added to the Union. And the state laws and constitution were base on the Koran and they had a monmument and various plaques hanging in all the city halls. If that's where a mojority of that population's beliefs and laws came from, what's the big deal?

If you have that big of a problem with something like that, and you are the minority, why would you live there? Go live where people have the same beliefs as you.

This was just some bull$hit tactic to piss off the opposite political group. One commonly attributed to the far left-wing.

The bottom line is that all people of different colors will never completely live together, and as we can see the bigger problem now, nor will people of different religions. And anyone with some utopian dream of a diverse happy planet is only kidding themselves.

I don't mean to sound harsh, or come off racist, but let's face reality. That's the first step.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I think it was a poor decision for the court to have ordered it removed. Let's say 99% of the people in Alabama wanted it there, and the 1% file suit to have it removed based on some poor interpretation then you have to see the case for what it is.
> 
> The monument, there or not, had no effect on any of the cases heard in that courtroom.
> ...


Why would a Muslim expect justice or trust a political system, and by trust I mean participate in as informants, that refuses to show recognition and respect for other cultures by merely neutralizing its Legal establishments?


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 14, 2003)

John Adams --

_The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion... _ 

Thomas Jefferson --

_I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies._ 

_"Christianity neither is, nor ever was apart of the common law." Feb. 10, 1814_ 

The commandments should have never been there in the first place.  This *is* symbolic of a union of Church and State.  To me, it has nothing to do with left-wingedness...I'm conservative.


----------



## Ceicei (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *John Adams --
> 
> The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...
> ...



Could you tell me from what resources are these citations quoted?  I would like to see the whole thing, not just the quotes.  Quotes may sometimes be taken out of context from the entire article.  

Thank you.

- Ceicei


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 14, 2003)

> Mike you are certainly entitled to the same protections as those who choose to practice their religion. however you are not more entitled to that protection than others. . . .



I did not ask that my atheism, or agnosticism superceed your religous beliefs. I did not ask for *more* rights. I asked that my rights be held to the same level as the judges, when we are on state property (you'll recall, I said if Judge Moore wanted to put his monument up in his front lawn, he is entitled to).



> Why shouldn't I be able to pray by myself or with a group of like minded friends in school if I choose to do so?



I believe you should be able to practice your beliefs in any way you desire, as long as they are not being imposed on those who do not share those beliefs. For instance, I think a high school level Christain organization should be able to hold prayer meetings or faith healings on school grounds *AFTER SCHOOL* has been concluded. (I do note, and would demand, as you say below, that you not proselytize in school). * I also understand, and can respect the arguement (even if I don't agree) that public buildings should not be used for this purpose.



> Why should your desire not pray supercede mine?



It should not, and I am not asking it to. See preceding paragraph.



> Why can't I pray while you do whatever you do?



You can, and should be able to, as long as it does not impose your beliefs on me. I am follower of Terry Pratchets' half-blind turtle god, OM.



> How does my desire to pray (note I said pray, not proselytize) cause you harm? Your desire not to pray does no harm to me.



Your desire to pray does not cause me harm, and I am not asking you to give up your rights to pray. See all preceding paragraphs.


One more thought, Please understand those of the 'Judeo' heritage of the 'Judeo-Christian' heritage some of claim as the founding of our country, were subject to over 600 commandments. How big would Judge Moore's rock have to be to support that?

Peace - Mike


----------



## qizmoduis (Nov 14, 2003)

Moore's entire purpose in mounting that stone boondoggle monument of his was to impose, using the power of his office, his religious viewpoint on all people who needed to enter the courthouse.  It was a direct violation of the our constitution and should never have been allowed to stand as long as it did.  He had every right to stick that monstrosity on his own property, but he chose to tie it to the government, thereby making it and himself a target.

His goal, of course, was to become a political martyr, and thus build himself a ready-made, and easily manipulable powerbase.  And he succeeded.  

RE: separation of church and state.

This is the way the Jefferson described the doctrine laid out in the First Amendment.  He wrote the amendment, he wrote it's description.  I would think he would understand what he was talking about.

RE: freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Bollocks!  You can't seriously suggest that you can have one without the other.


Look, it's simple.  The government cannot force me to worship.  It cannot tell me to be religious, nor can it even suggest it.  It cannot push one religion over another, or no religion.  Moore was using the power of his office to push his religion.  It was an unconstitutional exercise of the power of the government and was rightly removed.  There is no reasonable interpretation of our system of government that would allow what he did.

In fact, doing what he did goes against the very scripture and commandments of his avowed religous figure.  The whole episode suggested to me that he knows little to nothing about his own religon.  But then, as I said previously, his mission was to become a martyr.


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 14, 2003)

The Adams quote comes from the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.

The Jefferson quotes can be found in "Six Hostoric Americans" by John E. Remsburg....as well as Jefferson's "The Memoirs, Correspondence and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson" by Thomas Jefferson Randolph....Thomas Jefferson's grandson.

Hope that helps some...


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 14, 2003)

> Why should your desire not pray supercede mine?



What a silly question.  There are no laws against prayer in schools....I've heard this fluff spread more then thin butter.  There are laws against *forced*, structured prayer in school....as there should be.



> One more thought, Please understand those of the 'Judeo' heritage of the 'Judeo-Christian' heritage some of claim as the founding of our country, were subject to over 600 commandments.



True...and today's Orthordox still learn and follow them.



> Look, it's simple. The government cannot force me to worship. It cannot tell me to be religious, nor can it even suggest it. It cannot push one religion over another, or no religion. Moore was using the power of his office to push his religion. It was an unconstitutional exercise of the power of the government and was rightly removed. There is no reasonable interpretation of our system of government that would allow what he did.



Cheers!


----------



## ABN (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jay Bell _
> *John Adams --
> 
> The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...
> ...




Jay, you have quoted two of the founding fathers.  It also appears that you have quoted at least Jefferson (who was an avowed deist) in the context of personal correspondence. What of the others? What of Charles Carroll of Carrolton and Charles Carroll Barrister of Maryland? both were practicing Catholics. Washington's religious beliefs were well known and documented.  

Your quote of Jefferson's:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was apart of the common law." Feb. 10, 1814 

   First my question is do you mean "A  part" as in belonging to or "apart" meaning separated from? As quoted it reads that "Christianity neither is  nor ever was apart" that is never separated from government. 

   However, if we take it as I think you meant for us to (a part: distinct from) that is literally true, the Christian _religion_ is not a part of the government. There is no Minister of religion and the Head of state is not the head of the American National Church. Remember much of the humanist thought and philosophy that influenced the founding fathers (Hume, Locke, et. al) was in reaction to the nationalist churches they despised such as the church of England, and the abuse of religion by European Monarchs who claimed the divine right of kings and used it as a means of oppression.   However, denying the influence of Judeo Christian values on the creation of our culture and society is an entirely different matter especially considering how many of the original immigrants to this country came here _seeking religious tolerance and freedom_. 

You said "The commandments should have never been there in the first place.  This *is* symbolic of a union of Church and State."
No it is not. No more than Cicero's quote in the Supreme Court in D.C. or in the old Bailey in London is symbolic of a union between the state and  Roman paganism, or quotes from the Obelsik of the code of Hammurabi in other courthouses are symbolic of a union between the state and the worship of the gods of ancient Babylon. the 10 Commandments are what they are. A part of history that, regardless of what religion they sprang from, were an attempt to create a society that respected and protected the individuals who were a part of it.


Regards, 

andy


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 14, 2003)

Sorry for the confusion...it should have been "a part".

I'm not at all saying that the Founding Father's faith should be questioned.  It is well documented that the majority of the FFs were God fearing people.  What they had *serious* issues with was organized religion and the "fairy tales" (as they put it) of the Bible.



> the 10 Commandments are what they are. A part of history that, regardless of what religion they sprang from, were an attempt to create a society that respected and protected the individuals who were a part of it.



Yes...I agree.  They are what they are.  A part of the _bible_ that........


----------



## ABN (Nov 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *
> RE: separation of church and state.
> 
> ...




Yes Jefferson did write it, but not without the editing and input of the other members of the Constitutional Convention. IIRC, he also had an ammendment in the original draft that abolished slavery. However he was forced to delete it. The document was definitely not a one man effort.

and regarding the bollocks, comment. Yes I seriously did suggest that you can have one without the other. Explain to me why it is impossible.

re: his mission of martyrdom, I do agree with you there. His announcement next week should be interesting.


regards,


andy


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 18, 2003)

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, rather letting the lower Federal court handle the matter.  To do so on their part would have been at best awkward.  The Ten Commandments is engraved in their chambers.  But then so to is the Code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Carta.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the abuses of governments influenced by the church.  They were superbly educated products of "The Enlightenment" and knew of the Inquisition, the horrors of our own land's persecution of "witches" in Salem, and the awful destruction wrought by Catholics against Protestants, and Protestants against Catholics since the dawn of the Reformation.

Further, they knew of the pogroms against Jews in Europe during the Middle Ages and later.

Did they mean for us to be a secular country?  No.  Did they mean for us to have a secular government?  I suspect so, given their knowledge of the dysfunctional marriage of church and state in world history. 

The Constitution is a secular instrument.  It contains no reference to God, nor does it contain the word "Christianity".

For more information, I can suggest an engaging and thought provoking book titled:  The Godless Constitution, by Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/104-0046922-0634370?v=glance&s=books



An online resource with one side of the argument is located at:

http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml


A secular government as envisioned by The Founders gives protection for all faiths.  It does not provide them license to impose their thoughts on others or to intimidate them with a perceived bias towards a certain religious perspective.  



Regards,

Steve Scott


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, rather letting the lower Federal court handle the matter.  To do so on their part would have been at best awkward.  The Ten Commandments is engraved in their chambers.  But then so to is the Code of Hammurabi, and the Magna Carta.
> . . .
> Regards,
> ...



Good Points Steve.

Yet, I think the reason for these being listed were that the USA and British laws were based upon the codifications that existed previously, and many were religious, and some were not. I am sure they would have the five pillars of Islam, if there had been more influence into our culture in those early days or by one of the founding fathers.

This was my point, would the judge in question have allowed teh representation of other religions? The failure of the Judge was to fall back to Religion. If he quoted them has historical laws that other cultures have lived by, he would have had a much higher chance of bieng allowed to remain on the bench. And given that this same said Judge might or might not be running for a political office. What better way to get your name known nation wide then with some free publicity, on his personal beliefs. This is a good way for those who would support him to find about him. 

:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 18, 2003)

Rich,

I seriously doubt that the judge, or his supporters, would have tolerated other religious perspectives displayed at the courthouse.  

Rather then have this tension, I would think it best to avoid it all together.  One goes to church for religious instruction, not to a school or to the courthouse.  Nor do we go to church to dissolve a marriage.  Each institution has its function and job description neatly defined.

There is the impression, and concern, among many Americans (some of them devout) that there is a movement towards Christianizing the government.  The opposite perspective is that secularists are trying to push back the rights of Christians on every front and put their right to worship at risk.

I understand how each side can come to their respective beliefs on this matter...they both have some evidence to support it.  Given the inertia of politics, however, I don't see either side having their way nor having their fears realized.  They hold each other in check as well, and this may not be such a bad thing after all.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Rich,
> 
> I seriously doubt that the judge, or his supporters, would have tolerated other religious perspectives displayed at the courthouse.
> *



Steve,

I agree.



> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Rather then have this tension, I would think it best to avoid it all together.  One goes to church for religious instruction, not to a school or to the courthouse.  Nor do we go to church to dissolve a marriage.  Each institution has its function and job description neatly defined.
> 
> *



Actually, if you are Catholic you need to get teh church to officially annul your first marriage before you can get married again in church. And if you are Jewish, there is an event called the 'NOD'. The ex-husband has to grant his permission for his ex-wife to get remarried, or grant her a NOD. If the Ex-Husband is not willing to grant the NOD I beleive the ex-wife may petition for one anyways through the church. (* I am not Jewish and may not have this completely right. And for that I apologize. This is the little I know. So, if others wish to correct me then GREAT, I can learn more. *)

So, yes, the legal and monies issues are resolved in court. Yet there are some of still have to follow up in a Church or reigious setting.


Best Regards
:asian:


----------



## Jay Bell (Nov 19, 2003)

Hey Rich,

That's pretty accurate.  The woman must get a proper religious divorce under Jewish law.  This is a special document called a "get"....it is written by the husband and must be given to her properly.  After the 'get' is given, she is permitted to marry anyone.

The husband, generally speaking, does not have a say of whom she can marry in the future.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 19, 2003)

Good points on the Jewish and Catholic perspectives.   If one were to complete those processes, though, they'd still have to go through the legal documentation of the divorce, resolve custody issues, child support, and the like.  That, as Rich indicated, was the purpose of my analogy.

A Catholic, or Jew, can get a legally binding divorce in this country without the permission of their respective church/synagogue.  There is an attendant penalty for it, of course. Excommunication in case of the Catholic, I assume.  As for the Jew, I don't know.

As far as I know, the law doesn't require validation from a religious organization for the termination of the marriage.  I wonder if that was true in the 19th century?

Regards,

Steve Scott


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 19, 2003)

Nice discussion, guys: thanks.

Just to follow up something articulated in the last few posts, well, personally speaking I have this problem with all the Christians who claim that their rights are being taken away because they can't sneak a 6-ton rock into a courthouse in the midddle of the night: the activist types make it very clear that they have no interest whatsoever in religious tolerance.

Appaarently some--Pat Robertson's old organization among others--have been teaching that the thing to do is get your religion in there by any means necessary. One of the strategies that they've come up with is to insist that Manger scenes, plaques of the 10 Commandments, etc., are just "historical representations," that don't have anything to do with religion or their beliefs. Apparently there's a case in NYC now (grossly misrepresented on right-wing talk shows out here in SoCal) in which a judge has blocked such a scene on exactly these grounds...

Similarly, there's the argument that we have to teach Biblical creationism in biology class, because it's just as good a scientific theory as Darwin's...

I have to laugh when I read/hear that the Pilgrims came to this country for religious tolerance and freedom, being from Rhode Island--which only exists because of the Pilgrims' absolute intolerance. Look up Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams... 

The Pilgrims were members of a religious nut-cult, largely prosecuted for their political activism back in England. Judging by the revolution of the 1640s, the English government had a pretty strong point...

It's absolutely true that our FFs were, some of them, religious. It's quite true that Christian ideas (not just religious: one of the dangerous ideas going around now is that "Christianity," and "religion," are synonyms)  helped shape the Revolution, and so forth. But we're way past that now...I mean, Free Masonry and a lot of much wackier ideas were involved in the founding of this country too, and I don't see the Swedenborgians militating to stick up Emmanuel Swedenborg's pictures all over the damn place...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 19, 2003)

If I may flip over now, I'll point out that restrictions against religious expression can go to unacceptable extremes (in my view) in church/state issues.  

Case in point:  An Orthodox Jew teaching in the public schools isn't allowed to wear a yarmulke, the traditional headress worn out of respect of Levitical laws.  This is unreasonable.

Another:  At my wife's school (she's a Spanish teacher) each teacher was to pose for a picture with his/her favorite book or magazine.  The pictures were then posted outside the classroom as a part of a literacy campaign designed to motivate the children to read.  A great idea...but one of the teachers wanted to pose with the Bible.  This wasn't allowed.*

There are other instances of abuse of this nature.  If we look hard enough, however, we can find examples where the separation was not inforced, and to the detriment of the students.  Some years ago a child was harrassed by his classmates and teachers because he was a proclaimed atheist.  

Regards,

Steve

*Makes one wonder...had she posed with The Divine Comedy or Paradise Lost...would they have caught the connection with Christianity?  Likely not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 19, 2003)

Again, I agree. I see this in colleges all the time: the State makes some pretty-reasonable decision, a court makes a pretty-reasonable judgment, and  local administrators and their lawyers exaggerate the hell out of everything for fear that somebody, somewhere, might just sue them.

One example would be setting prerequisites for college classes. All the State of California says is that you can't keep doing what used to be done all the time, and set pre-requisites at whim, or in a discriminatory fashion. (Yes,  schools really did this.) The requirements have simply to be clear, fair, equitable and justifiable. So I've had five conversations in the past three months, with people who claim the State says you can't set pre-requisites any more...

I guarantee that the school you're talking about got some pretty-reasonable memo, and some admin type went nuts. Unless, given that it was a yarmulke, the motive was truly ugly. But I'd thought that the case law was very clear about NOT interfering with personal religious expressions...


----------



## donald (Nov 19, 2003)

I too applaud the judge's inner strength. It took an awful lot of guts to stand his ground as he did. I hope he lands on his feet.

:asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 19, 2003)

The courts have consistently held that people have the right to pray.

However, they have also consistently held that your right to pray ends where my right not to listen to you begins.

This is why led prayer is not allowed in schools.  Students may pray all they want. They may have prayer circles at lunch. They may hand out tracts as long as they aren't interfering with instruction (and as long as the school doesn't have a ban on flyers in general).  They may meet after school as a club.

They may not:
Lead prayer during instruction time.
Lead prayer to students who are not voluntarily involved in such an activity. 
Lead prayer over a PA system at student events such as games and dances.

Hate to break it to you folks, but the United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. Neither is it a Muslim nation, a Jewish nation, a Rastafarian nation, or a nation of any other religion.  

The first ammendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

The first part of that means that the government cannot appear to support any one religion over any other religion.  This is where our judge friend got himself into trouble.  By placing the monument there, he made it clear that christian values had a place in his courthouse, where according to our constitution, THEY DO NOT.  In his capacity as judge, he should show no bias towards or against any religion.  Bias is clearly shown here.

The second part of that says that its okay for the judge to freely exercise his religion... however, his freedom to exercise his beliefs cannot negatively impact other's abilities to freely exercise theirs.  

To all of you who support the judge and his monument, I ask this question...

If the monument was to a faith other than your own, would you feel differently?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *To all of you who support the judge and his monument, I ask this question...
> 
> If the monument was to a faith other than your own, would you feel differently? *



Good Question
:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 20, 2003)

Um...yeah. Does anybody out there think for one minute that this judge and his supporters have the slightest interest in religious freedom for anybody other than themselves?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 20, 2003)

An angry, but interesting perspective....

Stacked Decalogue 

by Katha Pollitt


The 5,300-pound hunk of granite carved with the Ten Commandments has been rolled out of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's Montgomery courtroom to gather moss in an unspecified back room. According to a Gallup poll, 77 percent of Americans think the rock should have been allowed to remain; many are hopping mad at Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, only yesterday the darling of the religious right and the object of an ongoing Senate filibuster against his nomination to an appellate court, because Pryor reluctantly agreed to do his job and enforce a federal court order to have the monument removed. As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof loves to remind his readers, Americans are big believers--the virgin birth (83 percent), creationism (48 percent), the devil (68 percent). Forty-seven percent think the Antichrist is on earth right now. How many of these devotees, though, have actually read the Ten Commandments lately? 

There's a reason the laws inscribed on those stone tablets are often represented by Roman numerals or squiggles. As a vague wave in the direction of law and order, the Decalogue pops up in thousands of public places, including the Supreme Court building, where Moses shares a frieze with Hammurabi and Justinian. Spelled out in all their ancient splendor, though, the commandments are a decidedly odd set of directives to be looming, physically or spiritually, over an American courtroom. 

Consider Commandment One: God identifies himself as God--as if you didn't know! Who else crashes about with thunder and lightning? He reminds the Jews that he brought them out of Egypt and orders that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." What does that mean, exactly? No other gods, period, or no other gods come first? No other gods because they don't exist, or no other gods because they are minor and inferior and God doesn't like them? His need for constant reassurance is one of God's more perplexing characteristics. If you had created the universe and everything in it down to the seven-day week, would you care if people believed in you? Wouldn't it be enough that you knew you existed? Why can't God give anonymously? So what if people give Baal or Ishtar the credit? 

In any case, God's status anxiety has precious little to do with the civil and criminal codes of the state of Alabama, where worshiping Baal and Ishtar is legal. Commandments Two, Three and Four continue God's preoccupation with himself. No graven images, indeed, no "likeness" of anything in nature, to which he holds the copyright; no taking his name in vain; no work on the Sabbath. Representational art and sculpture, swearing a blue streak and working on Saturday (or, in Alabama, Sunday) are all legal; nor does the law require that we honor our fathers and mothers as enjoined in the Fifth Commandment, despite God's barely veiled threat of death and/or exile if we sass them. 

Adultery is legal (well, actually, not in Alabama), as is coveting your neighbor's house, wife, servants, livestock--or husband, a possibility God seems either not to have considered or not to have minded. In fact, the only activities banned by the Ten Commandments that are also crimes under American law are murder, theft and perjury. But those are illegal (I'm guessing) under just about every civil and religious code. Even Baal and Ishtar presumably took a dim view of them. 

What sets the Ten Commandments apart is not content but style: that gloomy, vengeful, obsessive, insecure authorial voice, alternately vulnerable (he confesses he's "jealous") and dissociated (he talks about himself in the third person, like an American celebrity). As elsewhere in the Bible, God looks constantly over his shoulder at the competition, threatens to visit the sins of the father on generations yet unborn, raves against those who hate him. He is equally disturbed by killing and cursing, and is incredibly possessive (I made that tree! no copying!). Granted we all know people like this, but would you want them presiding over your trial? 

When you consider that God could have commanded anything he wanted--anything!--the Ten have got to rank as one of the great missed moral opportunities of all time. How different history would have been had he clearly and unmistakably forbidden war, tyranny, taking over other people's countries, slavery, exploitation of workers, cruelty to children, wife-beating, stoning, treating women--or anyone--as chattel or inferior beings. It's not as if God had nothing more to say. The minute he's through with the Decalogue, he gives Moses a long list of legal minutiae that are even less edifying: what happens if you buy a Hebrew slave and give him a wife who has children (he goes free after six years, but you keep the rest of the family); what should happen if a man sells his daughter as a "maidservant" and her master decides he doesn't fancy her after all (he can give her to his son). God enjoins us to kill witches, Sabbath violators, disrespectful children, and people who have sex with animals, but not masters who beat their slaves to death, especially if the death takes place a day or two after the beating, because the slave is the master's "money." No wonder the good white Christians of Alabama believed the Bible permitted slavery! It does! 

After several chapters in this vein, with much tedious discussion of oxen and more inveighing against other gods and their benighted followers, God finally settles down to the subject closest to his heart: the precise mode in which he would like to be worshiped. He drones on for pages and pages about the tabernacle, the ark and the ephod, like a demented Bronze Age interior decorator--golden candlesticks, mind you, and ten linen curtains twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide, and loops around the edges, and eleven goat-hair curtains, maybe a little wider, and loops around their edges too. He specifies down to the last beryl the ostentatious get-up he wants his priests to wear and what animals they should sacrifice and when, and which parts of the burnt offering he likes best (the fat around the tail and liver--well, that's everyone's favorite, isn't it?); he even gives recipes for incense and priestly perfume. 

Has anyone checked out Judge Moore's aftershave?





Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

I hate to post back to back (and the thread is losing steam)...but I thought this quote was perhaps one of the best I've found expressing the feeling of some who don't share the sentiments of the judge in this case.


* I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.   

~D.  Dale Gulledge *

Here...I've found yet another:

*It is the position of some theists that their right to freedom OF religion is abridged when they are not allowed to violate the rationalists' right to freedom FROM religion.  

~James T. Green*



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2003)

Hi everyone,

My Name is Rich Parsons, and I the self elected president of the Immoral Minority. I heard that teh Moral Majority had over A few million people people as members, so therefore I took it upon my self to claim and vote myself this lofty title back in the late 70's. I represent all the rest of the population of the earth. All 6,000,000,000+ (* That is 6 billion plus *). Yet for this discussion we will assume that the population of arouns 292,000,000+ people in the US. (* Please see: US Population Calculator for my estimates *). Now with simple mathematics wether it be that new math or not, gives us 292,000,000 minus the 5,000,000 = 287,000,000. (* I rounded up rom 4.5 million to 5 million *)

or 5 Million divided by 292 million is 0.0171 or about 1.71 percent of the population.

The reason I mention all these numbers, is that the above quoted article mentions percentages of Americans, and of those polled. Did the poll target those on the Moral Majority list? They did not ask me, nor any of those I know about this type of sybject.

So, if it is 77% of the 292 Million is 224.84 Million people. Wow not that many people voted in the last election. Nor did that many agree of those who did vote. This is why I find the data subject.


Now on to the real important issues. Anyone can vote or claim themselves any title they wish within the Immoral Minority. Just avoid titles used by others already including the 'Self Elected President'. 

I hear Emperor and Grand Pobah and other such lofty titles are still available.

Now back to your discussion
:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

Rich,

Am I immoral enough?  What does one have to do to join the immoral majority?

Are there membership dues?

And, other than licentiousness which I already seem to have no problem displaying, what are the perks?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Rich,
> 
> Am I immoral enough?  What does one have to do to join the immoral majority?
> *



Of Course, I have no standards for anyone. I even accept those who are members of the Moral Majority. 



> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *Are there membership dues?
> *



No Dues, No Flyers, No Meetings, just people who think differently.



> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *And, other than licentiousness which I already seem to have no problem displaying, what are the perks?
> 
> Regards,
> ...



Perks, well you can be self rightous, or calm and discerning or just knowing and silent, it up to the individual to define it fro themselves.
:asian:


----------

