Alabama's Top Judge Defiant on Commandments' Display

In judging this monument and its intent, we must look at the man who did it, and how he did it. In the middle of the night, without approval, he placed a shrine so large it could not be removed. No different than the guy who doesn't go to the Neighborhood improvements committee to put one in his front yard. It's not about freedom of religion, but about whether one guy can ignore the rules of decency and comity to require others to acknowledge HIS God.

This didn't just happen. This guy planned without involvement of other officials to make his PERSONAL statement in a place that we hold by definition as the most equitable in a state, its Supreme Court building.

This guy violated THE PIG RULE. This thing is an altar, built to be one, and it has become one. It is not art, but a shrine, and that is what separates it from legitimate displays of the 10 Commandments as one component of the historical path from there to here.

 

I agree...again, as a Christian...if I walked into a court in a country where I was in the religious minority...and there was a big monument to some code of ethics from the dominant religion that looked nothing like mine...I'd be very uncomfortable. I'd assume from the outset that my faith, and my unwillingness to bow down to the faith of the majority, would prevent me from receiving a fair trial from an impartial judge and/or jury. That really concerns me.

Strictly from my own Christian viewpoint...to the extent the symbols of my faith become symbols of oppression for other people...yeah, that's a bad thing. A really bad thing, particularly given the command of the Great Commission. It undermines an open discussion about my faith with anyone who already comes in with the baggage that it's merely about being forcing a religion down someone's throat. That's very concerning to me.

 

It is amazing to here people like moan and moan while convenatly for getting about the first amendment, but instead sporting their slogan seperation of curch and state which doesn't exsist in the constitution (go ahead read if dare to see the truth) which is suppose to be our supreem law of the land.

 

This is a joke post, right?

 

Like like that is a supreemly ignorant covenant response.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2068064
Courthouse Bible sparks dispute
Pastor says fight over local display akin to Alabama struggle
By STEPHANIE WEINTRAUB
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle

The Bible in front of Harris County's courthouse downtown may be part of a monument to a long-dead Houston philanthropist, but to Houston pastor Aubrey Vaughan it's a religious symbol that's as much under siege as the Ten Commandments in Alabama.

"In principle, spiritually, it's the same fight," said Vaughn, who Tuesday joined members of his Grace Baptist Church congregation at the civil courthouse to pray for keeping the monument, which contains a King James Bible.

Vaughn was arrested and jailed Aug. 20 in Alabama, where he had gone to support Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. The judge had challenged a court order to remove a monument bearing the Ten Commandments and spurred a national controversy over intermingling government and religion.

Vaughn called on all Houston churches Tuesday to pray in similar fashion for the right to keep God in government and for passage of a bill, co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, that seeks to defend the Ten Commandments.

Kay Staley of Houston, inspired by the uproar over the Ten Commandments, filed suit in federal court Monday to remove the Bible because she says it violates separation of church and state.

The monument's existence in front of the courthouse "is against the law," said Staley, a lawyer and real estate agent.

Vaughn views the separation of religion and government differently.

"Separation of church and state is not separation of God and state," he said.

County Judge Robert Eckels supports keeping the local monument -- which was built in 1956 for the industrialist William Mosher -- intact. The local case is about a monument that honors a citizen, which is different from the controversy in Alabama, Eckels said.

Staley's attorney, Randall Kallinen, a civil rights lawyer, said the monument containing the open Bible violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says government cannot establish religion. He plans to file a temporary restraining order to expedite its removal.

"It (the Bible) is the actual holy book of Christianity," he said.

 

I guess they hauled this thing away today. It was about darn time.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistor...politan/2068064
Courthouse Bible sparks dispute
Pastor says fight over local display akin to Alabama struggle
By STEPHANIE WEINTRAUB
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle

Now this will be an interesting fight. I think the 10 Commandments thing is easy to be against because of the nature of it - a massive monument. However, Bibles are pretty prevalent all around courtrooms and have been pretty much accepted throughout our history. I'm curious what the legal arguments will be on both sides.

 

Ten commandments represetations have been upheld in other places, including courthouses. The vague test that has been developed, is whether it appeared like the state was displaying them for a religious or a secular purpose. If it's a picture of moses with two hunks of stone in a frieze on the facade, that's ok. If its a big giant garish monument that peoople kneel down and pray too, like they did with the Alabama one, then it's not acceptable.

Not helping alabama's cause was the grandstanding judge himself, who claimed that he did it in order to force the federal courts to recognize the primacy of christianity as the basis of laws, or something to that effect. (let's not kid ourselves and say judeo-, I don't see any jews having a sit in in front of the courthouse in protest over this)

The houston case seems to lack both those elements so it looks like it'll be ok.

 

Because you can tell which ones are the Jews by their large noses and curly hair?

I didn't realize the protests were that organized and attended only by those who maintained an affiliation with a particular church or organized relgious group.

While I certainly cannot say for certain that there were Jewish people there protesting, I also cannot immediately rule it out.

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. And the fact that they were richer than everybody else and eating bagels. And I can tell that you don't want to have a serious discussion and that I'm probably talking to a wall beause that's the way you like to lead off a conversation, by crying racism for no reason.

While I certainly cannot say for certain that there were Jehovah's Witness people there protesting, I also cannot immediately rule it out.

While I certainly cannot say for certain that there were Sufi Muslim people there protesting, I also cannot immediately rule it out.

While I certainly cannot say for certain that there were Manichean people there protesting, I also cannot immediately rule it out.

While I certainly cannot say for certain that there were Druidic people there protesting, I also cannot immediately rule it out.

While I certainly cannot say for certain that there were Satanic people there protesting, I also cannot immediately rule it out.

God, this is fun.

When you find you find some evidence of Jewish groups rallying around his divinity, Judge Moore, you come back to me bro, until then, I will try to see if I can rule out whether or not there were any Tunguskic Shamans on the courthouse steps in Montgomery.