One nation...under Who?

[Sunchaser]

Webbmaster, I have family in Alabama and they tend to agree with you on this one.

[webbmaster]

I think the root of the problem in America is too much concern over money rather than morals.

Thats kind of a broad statement. Care to elaborate?

edit to say that I misread and thought you stated Alabama rather than America. But still a broad statement , nonetheless.

Let me make sure I clarify some things:
I am a Christian. I am a resident of Alabama. I don't support Judge Moore antics. See my post earlier about the fact the monument can come back IF it is fought in the judicial system the right way.

Here is a great editorial from todays Mobile Register:

Commandments safe, despite Roy Moore


08/22/03




LET'S MAKE this perfectly clear: Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is not a good friend to the Ten Commandments.


Oh, of course he reveres the Commandments. But he's the wrong kind of friend. He's the type who "supports" a friend so strongly that he encourages the friend into reckless situations.

If the chief justice really wanted to acknowledge the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, there may have been ways to do it that would have passed muster with the federal courts. Instead, he erected a monument so big, and offered such outlandish legal arguments for it, that he all but ensured that the federal courts would order it removed.

Obviously, some public displays of the Commandments can pass muster. One such is in the U.S. Supreme Court itself. And just last week a federal court refused to order the removal of the Ten Commandments from a suburban Pennsylvania courthouse.

Context is important, as are the particular legal arguments used to justify a display. And so is a willingness to acknowledge that federal courts do indeed have jurisdiction over First Amendment issues.

In every particular, Chief Justice Moore chose the path most likely to garner national attention, yet least likely to keep the Ten Commandments in his courthouse.

For instance, Attorney General Bill Pryor was ready to argue that the Commandments themselves, in a historical context, do not unconstitutionally "establish" a religion. But the chief justice refused his assistance.

Instead, Mr. Moore argued quite explicitly that his self-selected display does have a specifically religious intent, in that (as he put it in a CBS interview) "This case is not about a monument, it's not about politics or religion, it's about the acknowledgment of God."

Furthermore, Mr. Moore argued that, in acting in his capacity as chief justice of Alabama, he was not subject to the edicts of federal courts. Legally, that's about the equivalent of a schoolchild sticking his tongue out at the principal.

Not only that, but Mr. Moore failed to meet legal deadlines in filing for a "stay" to the federal court order. The other eight justices of the state Supreme Court, assisted by Mr. Pryor, were thus left with no other choice, consistent with their oaths of office, than to direct that the monument be removed in accordance with the order.

Just as Chief Justice Moore has done, all of them have a sworn duty to the U.S. Constitution. By its own words, the Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land .... and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

By defying his oath, sworn in God's name, to respect the due process of law under the U.S. Constitution, the state's chief justice has made a mockery of the Ten Commandments.

Attorney General Pryor put it best: "The rule of law means that no person, including the chief justice of Alabama, is above the law ... The rule of law means that we can work to change the law but not to defy court orders. The associate justices of Alabama today have done their duty."

And the biblical Commandments are none the worse for that duty being done.

[Bustin' Ducks]

Good point Peewee....I think it's garbage anyone or any judge could charge the tax payers $5000/day for the monument..blah blah...Betcha if those folks that want it GONE..had their candy-azzes in Afghanistan/Iraq within the past year to year and a half..their tune would change drastically...uh-huh...they be praying for those Ten Commandments...when Osama/Saddam's boys had them executed....or tortured until the did die..to heck with all that garbage....

[Bullreds & Greenheads]

First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We are told that the "separation of church and state" is implied under the "establishment clause." Some people also imply that the 2nd amendment only allows weapons for the "militia", not common citizens. We know the second example is bull, what about the first?

Most of the arguments about the separation of church and state have to do with keeping government from interfering with religion, and religion from interfering with government. Read your European History of the Middle Ages. You'll see plenty of problems that can arise when politics and religion are the same. Or you can turn on the news and check out whats going on in the Middle East. Nuff said.

Our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian, but from different Sects: Quakers, Methodists, Anglicans, Presbyterians, etc. They did not want the government to favor one sect over the other. Neither did they want the government to establish a church or religion, (for example, the Church of America or the American Church.) Old King Henry VIII did this, (remember the Church of England?) and it caused political problems for hundreds of years. Ask some in Northern Ireland and they'll say it still does.

Not wanting the government to favor a particular religion or sect led to the separation of church and state. A few years before the Bill of Rights were written, the state assembly of Virginia tried to pass a tax for the purpose of religious education. James Madison (the Father of the Bill of Rights) and Thomas Jefferson successfully argued against this as an affront to God. They argued on fifteen points, one of which, I believe, was that God would not want money from nonbelievers being used to spread His word. Another was that once the government started giving money to particular religious groups, other groups would want their "fair share" too. Also, what the government gives, it can take away, and that fact alone would give the government power over that particular church or religion.

From what I can tell, most of the early Separation of Church & State issues had to do with tax issues. One of the cases where the Supreme Court directly faced this issue and defined the "separation" ruling was Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP (1947). In this case, a town in New Jersey wanted to provide transportation (buses) for kids going to all schools, including parochrial (sp?). Court ruled that this would violate the separation of church and state as implied by the "establishment clause".

What about the case in Alabama? If this judge used tax money to build the monument, then it is clearly a violation of the separation of church and state. I've got to admit that I don't know whether there's taxpayer money tied up in the monument are not.

However, if he paid for it with his own money, and put it in himself, then it is perhaps not a separation of church and state issue. It may very well be a "free exercise" issue.

And that's a whole different ballgame. People opposed to religion don't want this argument to come up. Neither, I suspect, do the liberal judges in the courts. While the courts have generally been somewhat consistent in their rulings regarding separation of church and state issues, they are all over the board and have often contradicted themselves or reversed themselves in cases involving the "free exercise."

If you've been following this case on tv, have you heard anybody express concern over the judge having his free exercise rights violated?

But don't take my word for it. I am not a lawyer, just an old history/government teacher. Research it yourself. I found this a good source. http://www.findlaw.com

Have a good one. [/u]

[featherduster]

I actually believe that interpretation of law would be better left to people without political affiliation. It should be a crime for a justice to run for office or be appointed under the title Democrat or Republican.

[Sundance]

I say let the people of Alabama vote on it. If you can have prayer in Congress, why can't you have prayer in public schools, or a Ten Commandments monument in a state building? The principles on which our country was founded shouldn't change with time. Technology changes, principles shouldn't. Our Federal government has become a support group for minorities. Until we as "Average Americans" stand up in unity and say "enough is enough", we will continue to slide away from the priciples our founding fathers used to establish this country. Let the people of Alabama vote and then we'll see if this is truly "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all".

[D1]

When my LORD and SAVIOR steps out on a cloud in the eastern sky and calls for his BRIDE that $5,000 cant and will not be taken with with you.

Things of this world will pass away.........but GODS WORD will live forever

[ScottS]

The taxpayers of Alabama will not be paying a single red cent of the fines. That will be paid with and from private funding.

I honestly believe the "antics" to be more from the idiot/atheist who filed suit to have it removed. If only some liberal/atheist/ACLU member had not filed suit, and the media had left this alone, it would probably have never been an issue. If you notice, it's always some nutcase who makes issues out the things that 99% of Americans never give a second thought to (the Pledge of Allegiance, these monument in Montgomery, etc). If Judge Moore required people to stop, view, and swear to the monument before entering the court then THAT is setting up a religion. If it's just a rock sitting there to be viewed, read or totally ignored, HOW IS THAT ESTABLISHING RELIGION!?!?!??!

Webbmaster is right about the tax they are trying to pass but it's just the thieves/tax collectors in the Alabama legislature trying to get a little more pork for themselves. This won't pass as even the Alabama Republican Party has come out against it. Riley has screwed the pooch on this one!

[RIP EM]

If your looking at it as a money saving or wasting angle try this !

If this "silly monument" (as someone on here called it) is already in place,... seems too me the blame for wasting taxpayers money should be placed on the "IDIOT " WHO CALLED FOR ITS REMOVAL IN THE FIRST PLACE !

It wasnt costing the people of Alabama, one red cent, if it was just sitting there !

Bottom line on this one is.... MISERY LOVES COMPANY !.... There is going to be a lotta folks in HELL !, and they want to drag just as many of us along with em as they can ! I for one aint going !

Sometimes you gotta stand for whats right, no matter what it costs !

Rip Em !