Bitter Irony
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The federal court has, for a good long while now, placed itself above that very clear legal sanction placed upon the federal government at its founding. I don't see it that way, and jurists in this country haven't seen it that way either. The separation of church and state is a basic principle of the law of the land. I don't see how you can possibly state that Moore's attempt to dominate the Alabama Court with his own personal religion is anything but an arrogant attempt to overturn what has been proven, time and again, to be an appropriate removal of religion from the realm of government. Stan Shannon wrote: The Bill of Rights was put in the Constitution specifically to weaken the federal government's power in regard to the state's not to strengthen it. I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind.
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.
-
Ah, a suspicious one :-D No trick; I just wanted your opinion, and I agree with you. In today's society, the interpretation is everything. And I think this is A Bad Thing. The fact that the new "letter of the law" is based on some one else's interpretation that was likely based on another interpretation and so on... Scary stuff.
I'm no constitutional scholar, but I think the balance of power between the various branches is much the same as it's always been. Taking the particular case of separation of church and state, it may be judicial decisions forming the current laws, but as I noted below to Stan, the legislative branch has also repeatedly voted on whether or not they wanted to overturn/modify the position of the courts, and those proposals have been defeated. The legislative branch has not been idle on the issue, but the democratic process upheld the position of the courts.
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.
But he wasn't acting in the role of an individual. No-one told him he couldn't put his sculpture on his front yard; while acting in his official role, he attempted to place it on public property, in as visible and controversial a location as possible. That sort of behavior has been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional. This isn't a product of recent xenophobia - this debate has been going on for decades. And Alabama is one of the most thoroughly conservative Christian states in the country. In local terms, it was the majority position that he represented.
-
I'll admit I'm as uncomfortable as you with the increasing power of the Federal government, but I would argue that the separation of church and state is more than an abuse of power by the judiciary. I did a quick search on the phrase 'arrogant majority', because I wasn't certain of the source. In the process, I came up with this. I'm pretty certain that Scott wasn't the first to use it, but I thought it interesting and relevant to the discussion. The US House of Representatives voted Thursday, June 4, 1998 to reject (224-203) an amendment to the Constitution that was designed to bring prayer back into public schools and other forms of public religious activities now deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The amendment, HJR78, sponsored by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-OK stated that the government may not infringe on “people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage or traditions on public property, including schools.” The amendment also opened the door for federal taxes funding of religious activities. The amendment was heavily opposed by religious groups from many different denominations and theological perspectives, including Catholics, Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, Presbyterians, and Muslims. It was the consensus of these groups that the amendment was unnecessary as the First Amendment already protected religious freedom adequately and prevented a majoritarium domination of minorities. “This amendment strips the individual of his or her rights to pick his or her own prayer or to practice his or her own religion without having to subject their beliefs to the manipulation and interference of an arrogant majority,” said Rep. Robert Scott, D-VA. ... The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion and forbids any “establishment” of religion by the government. Through the years the Supreme Court has wisely held that the government should maintain a “benevolent neutrality” toward religion, neither advancing nor hindering it.
I would have opposed any such amendment for precisely the reasons stated. Ultimtately, however, any civil society must be based upon some form of political tyranny, in the sense that some agency must possess the authority to set rules and standards of conduct. But, when push comes to shove, would you rather have that power thinly distributed amongst your many neighbors (an 'arrogant majority') or concentrated in the hands of a small group of federal judges ( an 'arrogant minority' if you please). Our founders clearly appreciated the dangers inherent in majority rule and tried to account for it. Still, they thought the notion of commen people working away in millions of little hamlets to decide amongst themselves what the limits of freedom should be was a better system than having it dictated to them from on high. I, for one, do not believe that the ten commandments should be on public property for precisely the reasons that most people state, and would have voted against it. But, it is an issue to be decided locally, not by the federal courts. If the federal government desires to have the power to make a law regarding the free exercise of religion than they should amend the constitution to give themselves that power. Then, and only then, could Moore possible have been acting above the law.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
He decided to link the curch and the state. It wasn't about taking that stone down, but putting it there in the first place. And he sneaked it in one night - so much for an honest and open judiciary ! The tigress is here :-D
-
LunaticFringe wrote: I believe one of the founders stated that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights of individuals from an 'arrogant majority'. I would suggest that Moore's tantrum was precisely the sort of thing this statement had in mind. Actually, from my point of view, the individual's (Moore) rights were swept aside and buried without proper examination to placate the desires of the majority who have become xenophobic towards anything that has a whiff of judaeo-christian values. In this time it seems the "arrogant majority" has won.
I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. The tigress is here :-D
-
He decided to link the curch and the state. It wasn't about taking that stone down, but putting it there in the first place. And he sneaked it in one night - so much for an honest and open judiciary ! The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: He decided to link the curch and the state And what law is there that says he can't do that?
-
Trollslayer wrote: He decided to link the curch and the state And what law is there that says he can't do that?
Ah, the good old "Trample all over other people as long as you can get away with it" The tigress is here :-D
-
I believe John F. Kennedy wrote an excellent book about political courage. This story sounds like JFK gave examples of in his book, Politicians making unpopular decisions, but necessary for checks and balances. I truly believe this is why the framers decided to implement the importance of God in our society. I found this interesting part of that article standing out to support this concept: ""They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore," he said. Moore said he had no animosity toward the panel. But, he said, unless the states stand up, "public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us. `In God we trust' will be taken from our money and `one nation under God' from our pledge." " I mean, he did actually brought something religious based into a court of law, but he does have a point that "It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty." Whether he is right or wrong, his actions are politically courageous. And are important ideas to be debated for this self-government nation, imo. There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
JoeSox wrote: politically courageous Hmm... then why not debate it first ? And who paid for it ? JoeSox wrote: There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people. Justice should be objective. Now if he had similar quote from the talmud, koran etc... but it was for his group of people. The tigress is here :-D
-
I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Is it so unusual to perform labor that would interfere with the workings of a government building after hours? Trollslayer wrote: Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. Since when was our government founded under a "range of beliefs"? Granted, the people of this nation have the right to a range of beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that the Ten Commandments are a historical foundation of the modern justice system.
-
JoeSox wrote: politically courageous Hmm... then why not debate it first ? And who paid for it ? JoeSox wrote: There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people. Justice should be objective. Now if he had similar quote from the talmud, koran etc... but it was for his group of people. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people How so? And if this statement is true, how on earth would the removal of a block of granite inscribed with the 10 commandments change in any way his viewpoints that shape his decisions as a judge? In order to remove 'undue judeo-christian influence' from the court systems, wouldn't you have to remove those judges that believed in judeo-christian ideals because they are Jewish/Christian? My biggest problem with the whole mess - asside from the fact that this guy is a total shoe-in for Alabama governor now - is that once again a symbol was attacked in an ineffective attempt to undermine what the symbol stood for. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
Eco Jones wrote: It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? A tablet with "Fuck you. my wife didn't let me last night" right at the judges desk would likely make an impression... Point being the "It's just words who cares?" is very MTV Generation (if a bit long for their attention span), but utterly inappropriate.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Ah, the good old "Trample all over other people as long as you can get away with it" The tigress is here :-D
People get trampled in the name of political correctness every day. It's the standard operating procedure the left uses to destroy the lives of people that say things they don't like...for excercising free speech, for beaking no law. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. Thanks for the explanation. I, too, was a bit puzzled as to what you were unhappy about. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans, including myself, are a bit perplexed by the huge separation of state and federal government although I understand a bit of the historical reasons for it. Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. Would the federal government be able to do anything about it?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. A state may not exceed what the constitution allows the US congress rights to be limited at. So this would be making a law with regard to an establishment of religion and not be legal. How ever if you wording was modified to just be principles it would not. Many of the colonies were Royal Colonies and did have a required religion. The founding fathers definitely did not want a repeat of that environment. My personal opinion here is you can not "Not have a religion". Denial of religion is equal to atheism so the recent interpretation of Separation of Church and state to be a denial of religion is also making a law of religion that is not constitutionally valid. Prior to the 60's separation meant that a persons religions expression could not be impeded by the government or laws. I.E. Religious expression was open rather than forbidden. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
But he wasn't acting in the role of an individual. No-one told him he couldn't put his sculpture on his front yard; while acting in his official role, he attempted to place it on public property, in as visible and controversial a location as possible. That sort of behavior has been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional. This isn't a product of recent xenophobia - this debate has been going on for decades. And Alabama is one of the most thoroughly conservative Christian states in the country. In local terms, it was the majority position that he represented.
LunaticFringe wrote: he attempted to place it on public property, in as visible and controversial a location as possible. Not only that, but in the dead of night. This suggests to me that Moore knew his actions were not acceptable, nor legal. A judge who does not follow the laws he's sworn to protect should rightfully be tossed out. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
It seems to me that this current government wants a smorgasborg-style approach to States' rights. It a good thing when Alabama wants to be a religious state, but it's a bad thing when California wants clean air[^] [edit] oops; you people can't get that article without a login, so here's part of it: By Elizabeth Shogren and Gary Polakovic Times Staff Writers November 13, 2003 WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a measure Wednesday that would block efforts by California and other states to reduce the pollution spewed by small gasoline engines in machines such as lawn mowers, tractors, forklifts and chain saws. The amendment, approved on a voice vote, represents a major setback for the state's strategy for fighting the smog that continues to plague Southern California despite half a century of pollution-control efforts, state officials say. It would mark only the second congressional decision since 1974 to preempt California's special authority under the Clean Air Act to set tougher pollution regulations than federal standards. [/edit] 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
-
Bitter Irony?? How about a Judge who disobeys a court order? If they don't have to obey them when they disagree with them why should anyone else? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: How about a Judge who disobeys a court order? If they don't have to obey them when they disagree with them why should anyone else? Good question. Why should we? Maybe if, as a people, we followed Moore's lead, the court could be forced back into its proper constitutional role.
-
Trollslayer wrote: Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people How so? And if this statement is true, how on earth would the removal of a block of granite inscribed with the 10 commandments change in any way his viewpoints that shape his decisions as a judge? In order to remove 'undue judeo-christian influence' from the court systems, wouldn't you have to remove those judges that believed in judeo-christian ideals because they are Jewish/Christian? My biggest problem with the whole mess - asside from the fact that this guy is a total shoe-in for Alabama governor now - is that once again a symbol was attacked in an ineffective attempt to undermine what the symbol stood for. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: How so? And if this statement is true, how on earth would the removal of a block of granite inscribed with the 10 commandments change in any way his viewpoints that shape his decisions as a judge? In order to remove 'undue judeo-christian influence' from the court systems, wouldn't you have to remove those judges that believed in judeo-christian ideals because they are Jewish/Christian? All judges come with their own particular set of beliefs. But we expect them to struggle mightily to act impartially toward those who come before them. At a minimum, this means avoiding any outward signs of bias. When judges go out of their way to promote the religious beliefs of one section of the community (albeit the majority), then people without those religious beliefs may reasonably apprehend that the court is biased against them. This is exactly the opposite of the way courts should behave. In the US it may be different, but in Britain and Australia it would be considered highly improper for a judge to endorse a political party since it would give supporters of opposing parties grounds for believing that the court would be biased against them. But nobody imagines that judges don't support one party or another. It is a question of whether a judge is going to be actively and overtly partisan or is going to display a willingness to act in a non-partisan way. John Carson
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
Stan Shannon wrote: Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges Doesn't deliberately disobeying a federal judiciary ruling sort of count as placing yourself above the law?!?!?!?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!