[The Mick]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/992496.asp?0cv=CA01

Looks like good ol' boy Roy got his ass handed to him like I predicted he would.

Is this deserving?

I think it is.

*Smackdown*

[thunderous_funker]

Meh. I'd be happier if he wasn't still collecting his six-figure salary.

And its safe to say he will be overwhelmingly re-elected. Not to mention his now Hero Cult status with theocrats and medievalists around the country.

He and Gen. Boykin can turn a pretty penny if they hit the lecture circuit together.

I sense a prediction coming on..........Moore will spend most of the next year campaigning and raising money for the the GOP. Millions of Americans all over the country will chunk down millions of dollars to hear his harrowing tale of Woeful Martyrdom at the hands of the unwashed and godless heretics of the Alabama Judiciary.

[daimoni]

.

[petehammer]

Dammit! There goes my defense if I ever was caught doing a crime in Alabama.

I was also going to use the "I don't believe in that law and therefore don't have to obey it" defense.

I truly think Moore should have used the now famous Chewbacca defense:

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider...

This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?

Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a judge defending myself, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Props to South Park.

[zigzag]

I'm glad the Judicial Court had the spine to act - it can't be easy in a place like Alabama.

I was just at a reunion and spent time with friends who have lived in Europe for many years. They aren't necessarily politically liberal, but they're astonished at the religious zealotry that still exists in this country, and the degree to which it influences politics and education. I guess I'm used to it, but the more I think about it, the more I'm astonished as well. IMO Moore and Boykin are no better than the Islamists that we're combatting elsewhere. Put them all on a friggin' island and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

[maxelson]

Good. He chose to ignore his job- upholding the law. He should have been removed.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Put them all on a friggin' island and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

We did. You're on it.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Meh. I'd be happier if he wasn't still collecting his six-figure salary.

And its safe to say he will be overwhelmingly re-elected. Not to mention his now Hero Cult status with theocrats and medievalists around the country.

He and Gen. Boykin can turn a pretty penny if they hit the lecture circuit together.

I sense a prediction coming on..........Moore will spend most of the next year campaigning and raising money for the the GOP. Millions of Americans all over the country will chunk down millions of dollars to hear his harrowing tale of Woeful Martyrdom at the hands of the unwashed and godless heretics of the Alabama Judiciary.

He was still collecting his salary while he was suspended, but I assume that being removed from office and replaced by an appointee of the Governor means that he has in effect been fired and will no longer be paid.

You may be right on the other points...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Good. He chose to ignore his job- upholding the law. He should have been removed.

That's exactly right. He politicized a job where he should have been busy upholding laws and ruling on them.

[RooneyX]

Thou shalt not unify church and state.

[shmerek]

<nelson> ha ha!</nelson>

[Millennium]

He willfully defied a court order. He was removed from his judicial position because of it.

Is this not how it's supposed to work?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
He willfully defied a court order. He was removed from his judicial position because of it.

Is this not how it's supposed to work?

HERETIC!!!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We did. You're on it.

lol

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm glad the Judicial Court had the spine to act - it can't be easy in a place like Alabama.

I was just at a reunion and spent time with friends who have lived in Europe for many years. They aren't necessarily politically liberal, but they're astonished at the religious zealotry that still exists in this country, and the degree to which it influences politics and education. I guess I'm used to it, but the more I think about it, the more I'm astonished as well. IMO Moore and Boykin are no better than the Islamists that we're combatting elsewhere. Put them all on a friggin' island and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

Too true. Well, except the Islamic extremists target innocent children via terrorism and Moore is simply showing respect for a religious document. Other than that, of course.

Funny thing is, the US Supreme Court doors (the courtroom doors) display the... 10 Commandments. As well, they're PROMINENTLY displayed above the US justices' heads, ON THE WALL, while they're sitting the bench. Anyone want to take THEM on and get them to remove it? Heh.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Thou shalt not unify church and state.

See above post...

[petehammer]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Too true. Well, except the Islamic extremists target innocent children via terrorism and Moore is simply showing respect for a religious document. Other than that, of course.

And Christian extremists kill doctors and wage wars on Islamic countries.

Funny thing is, the US Supreme Court doors (the courtroom doors) display the... 10 Commandments. As well, they're PROMINENTLY displayed above the US justices' heads, ON THE WALL, while they're sitting the bench. Anyone want to take THEM on and get them to remove it? Heh.

Our first response is to note that the primary factual premise of the argument is untrue: Moses and the 10 Commandments are not prominently featured in the Supreme Court building. Rather, most of the artistic embellishment in the building involves symbolic and allegorical representations of such legal themes as justice, authority, fairness and the like. Most of these representations involve human figures representing the civilizations of Greece and Rome (the building itself was designed to invoke the feeling of the classical Greek temple). If quantity is the measure of importance, the architecture of the Supreme Court favors the classical over the Mosaic tradition of law. Moreover, where Moses and the 10 Commandments are depicted, they are never given positions of exclusive prominence, as we would expect if the intention of the architecture was to establish a connection between the Bible and American law. Rather, the architecture depicts Moses as one of many important lawgivers, and the 10 Commandments as one of many important events in legal history (click here for a more detailed discussion of the subordinate placement of Moses and the 10 Commandments in the architectural fabric of the Supreme Court building).

Finally, we note that the architecture of the Supreme Court building is irrelevant to the separation debate. The building was designed by architects and sculptors, not lawyers and legal scholars, and the Supreme Court building committee deferred to the architects in their choice of artistic embellishment. Accordingly, one can't read the architecture of the building as if it were intended as some sort of commentary on American law. Moreover, we know why the building was designed as it was; they artists involved in the project submitted detailed explanations of their art to the Supreme Court building committee, and these explanations say nothing about the 10 Commandments as a source of American law. Remarkably, when accommodationists interpret the art of the Supreme Court building, they simply ignore these explanations (click here for a look for our critique of one popular accommodationist commentary on the art of the Supreme Court).

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Too true. Well, except the Islamic extremists target innocent children via terrorism and Moore is simply showing respect for a religious document.

Best way to show respect for a religious document is in your own home. That also where you should keep your religion. The true test of faith is to stand alone with your God rather than with the mob. How many people truly believe in their religion rather than use it because they want to be part of a community who think they are above others who are not in their circle?

[swrate]

he refused to move the monument...
and was moved

why move a ten commandment monument, interesting....

changing laws?

[lil'babykitten]

What's this? everyone in agreement?

FWIW I think it's insane that he got booted.

:runs away:

[Shaddim]

So, it's ok for an architect to show his religious/philosophical leanings while designing a public building? And they're full of crap, they are prominant. I could read them from the 4th row of the coutroom.

That's a bullsh*t copout if I ever heard one.

And Christian extremists kill doctors and wage wars on Islamic countries.

Killing doctors? Not with the frequency that the Jihadists kill Jewish children, not EVEN close. What Fundi Christian followers do to abortion clinics are statistically just anomalies (and very wrong), those are rare cases. What Islamic extremists do is frequent and habitual (at least 100x more frequent). It's strange how you can compare the two. Real chip you have there.

[thunderous_funker]

Here is the statistics on your "anomolies":

Abortion Provider Violence Statistics:

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary


Abortion Provider Disruption Statistics:

9790 Incidences of Hate Mail/Calls
578 Bomb Threats
68886 Incidences of Picketing


Abortion Provider Clinic Blockades:

686 Blockades
33830 Arrests

Back to your tangent:

If you want to relive the debate over the monument knock yourself out

Back to the real topic:

He is being booted for refusing to obey a court order. This no longer has anything to do with the monument, but his refusal to enforce the decision of the judiciary he is supposed to be leading.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Here is the statistics on your "anomolies":

Abortion Provider Violence Statistics:

7 Murders
17 Attempted Murders
41 Bombings
168 Arsons
82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
373 Invasions
1048 Incidences of Vandalism
591 Incidences of Trespassing
125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
357 Death Threats
3 Kidnappings
76 Incidences of Burglary


Abortion Provider Disruption Statistics:

9790 Incidences of Hate Mail/Calls
578 Bomb Threats
68886 Incidences of Picketing


Abortion Provider Clinic Blockades:

686 Blockades
33830 Arrests

Back to your tangent:

If you want to relive the debate over the monument knock yourself out

Back to the real topic:

He is being booted for refusing to obey a court order. This no longer has anything to do with the monument, but his refusal to enforce the decision of the judiciary he is supposed to be leading.

Yep, like I said. Anomalies. You're counting legal picketing? Anyway, I didn't bring this up.

I guess I'm used to it, but the more I think about it, the more I'm astonished as well. IMO Moore and Boykin are no better than the Islamists that we're combatting elsewhere. Put them all on a friggin' island and let them fight it out amongst themselves.

So, yeah, I'll be more than happy to drop it.

[thunderous_funker]

A Theocrat by any other name......

Given authority to run things how they'd want, I don't know if Boykin or Moore would be as ruthless as some Muslim Theocrats, but that doesn't make them less odious.

Moore flouted the law claiming he answered to a "higher power". Now he is free to pursue a life in the Clergy and cease trying to serve God and mammon.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Too true. Well, except the Islamic extremists target innocent children via terrorism and Moore is simply showing respect for a religious document. Other than that, of course.

Mere details!

I was generalizing, and while I agree that violent zealotry is worse than non-violent zealotry, IMO religious zealotry is undesirable in either case. Also, I'm sure you recognize that not all Islamists are violent and not all fundamentalist Christians are non-violent (as history has amply demonstrated). Note also that General Boykin thinks he defeats Muslim fighters because his God is "better" than their God. I'd like to ask him if this means that our dead soldiers weren't sufficiently devout. It pisses me off either way.

Funny thing is, the US Supreme Court doors (the courtroom doors) display the... 10 Commandments. As well, they're PROMINENTLY displayed above the US justices' heads, ON THE WALL, while they're sitting the bench. Anyone want to take THEM on and get them to remove it? Heh.

It is, as you say, a "funny thing" because, as has been pointed out many times, it's quite different. It's a historical display that includes, among other things, depictions of Muhammed and Confucius. Indeed, about the only guy they don't have pictured up there is Bill O'Reilly. And the tablets are non-denominational abstractions. If Judge Moore had proposed something similar for the Alabama Supreme Court Building, I would have congratulated him. Instead, he snuck a denominational version of the Ten Commandments into a public building in the dark of night, with the specific intent to proselytize. What a guy.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
HERETIC!!!

How so? This would have been the same result had he chosen to violate any other court order.

This is what the separation of church and state means: religion is treated no differently from anything else. I'm glad to see it at work here.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
How so? This would have been the same result had he chosen to violate any other court order.

This is what the separation of church and state means: religion is treated no differently from anything else. I'm glad to see it at work here.

It was sarcasm. I think we need a "sarcasm" button along with all the rest.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
How so? This would have been the same result had he chosen to violate any other court order.

This is what the separation of church and state means: religion is treated no differently from anything else. I'm glad to see it at work here.

I was just trying to be humorous. I completely agree with you.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Also, I'm sure you recognize that not all Islamists are violent and not all fundamentalist Christians are non-violent (as history has amply demonstrated).

Actually, all Islamists are violent, by the definition of Islamist. A person who is nonviolent but otherwise Islamist would be a fundamentalist Muslim.

Christianity and Judaism need good names for their violent fringes, you know? "Christianist" doesn't really work well, though "Judaist" has a nice ring to it.

And the tablets are non-denominational abstractions.

This is actually a very important thing to note. The imagery of two stone tablets on which laws are written is not unique to the Levantine traditions by any stretch of the imagination. It actually stretches across many faiths, even popping up in some Native American belief systems.

It's when you start to write on the tablets that you cease to be non-demoninational. That is where Moore's monument failed the test.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It's when you start to write on the tablets that you cease to be non-demoninational. That is where Moore's monument failed the test.

Yeah. That and when he bluntly announced the the purpose of the monument was remind everyone who saw it that God's laws were higher than man's laws and "Only by recognizing a common God and Creator can we achieve true equality and justice under law" and "The monument is a testimony to that God upon Whom our freedom and liberty is made secure".

On its own, the monument might have survived. But Roy Moore doomed his own personal religious crusade right from the start.

Whatya know, the system works. Well, until he's re-elected.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, all Islamists are violent, by the definition of Islamist. A person who is nonviolent but otherwise Islamist would be a fundamentalist Muslim.

Right, I was probably imprecise. My arrow was pointed at religious zealots generally, regardless of creed or denomination. Not at religious people, but at religious zealots.

[finboy]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I'm glad the Judicial Court had the spine to act - it can't be easy in a place like Alabama.

That's a little biased, isn't it? Who says Alabama is any more prone to this type of sh*t than anywhere else? Could have happened in New Hampshire for crying out loud.

I'm glad the guy got smacked.

[finboy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:


Whatya know, the system works. Well, until he's re-elected.

And hey! the system works WHEN he's re-elected, since the purpose of the whole f*cking exercise was to remove the 10 Commandments. Worked! Done! And he won't be able to put them back, even if re-elected.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by finboy:
That's a little biased, isn't it? Who says Alabama is any more prone to this type of sh*t than anywhere else? Could have happened in New Hampshire for crying out loud.

Damn right it's biased - they don't call it the Bible Belt for nothing. I know, I've lived in it.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We did. You're on it.

Again with the 'we' (?)

wtf? Who the **** do you think you are you peanut?

[gadster]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Too true. Well, except the Islamic extremists target innocent children via terrorism and Moore is simply showing respect for a religious document. Other than that, of course.

The tide has turned MacNStein, give up.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
Best way to show respect for a religious document is in your own home. That also where you should keep your religion. The true test of faith is to stand alone with your God rather than with the mob. How many people truly believe in their religion rather than use it because they want to be part of a community who think they are above others who are not in their circle?

Wait a minute: are you saying that you cannot show respect for your religion in a place outside of your home?

Doesn't that turn Freedom of Religion on it's head, making it restriction of religion?

Most folks don't join a religious community for some feeling of superiority, they do so because it's a loving community that welcomes them and shares some common beliefs. If it were as you suggest, the amount of inter-faith service and philanthropy to the community at large just wouldn't exist- but it does. You almost seem to suggest that there is no need for religious community meetings at all, be they worship services or other- but this is false on its face as well- some religions require a mimimum of ten men present before a service may be held.

The point of the separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution is that the State shall not establish an official Church. (See the Anglican Church for the example that the authors of the Constitution intended to avoid.) Now, given that principle, you can see that religious icons in the courthouse may appear to be leaning towards a State endorsed religion- but barring people from practicing or holding their beliefs in any place outside of their homes is likewise wrong, and anti-Freedom.

[Montezuma58]

Originally posted by finboy:
That's a little biased, isn't it? Who says Alabama is any more prone to this type of sh*t than anywhere else? Could have happened in New Hampshire for crying out loud.

I'm glad the guy got smacked.

As a resident of Alabama, I say this state would be more prone to this type of stuff than other states. To be fair there are few other state that would behave similarly. Come down here during campaign season and watch some TV spots. The candidates pretty much blatantly flout their Christian values. They will say it directly and they will also show images of the candidates attending church, hobnobbing with clergy, holding hands with their family and praying before a meal, etc., etc. The candidates are extroverted about there beliefs, whether they are genuine or not, because it buys votes.

Moore campaigned as "the 10 Comandments judge" this carried a huge weight in his election. There are many other states where is type of campaign would have cost him more votes than it would have gained him.

If Moore's violation of the federal court orders were not so cut and dry the results from his judicial inquiry would have been different and many of the people that stopped supporting him would be singing a radically different tune.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by gadster:
The tide has turned MacNStein, give up.

Why? They'll just re-elect the guy. He represents the mentality and values of the people in that area. Whether you like it or not.

The legislators in Alabama, backed by a majority of Alabama citizens, are already working on an amendment to the state constitution to allow for the monument AND further religious expression. Hell, even legislators in TN have started to murmer about wanting such additions to OUR constitution.

So, what will all of this have done? Create MORE legislation, more state-federal contention, and a higher profile for something basically meaningless to begin with. With the conservative majority in the US Spreme court, do you think they'll pick Federal law over a state's constitution? I can't believe that some people thought this was over... it's just starting. And, NO, I'm not happy about it. Thanks to all the reactionary wankers who decided to make a small monument into a martyr. A$$holes.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Montezuma58:
Come down here during campaign season and watch some TV spots. The candidates pretty much blatantly flout their Christian values. They will say it directly and they will also show images of the candidates attending church, hobnobbing with clergy, holding hands with their family and praying before a meal, etc., etc. The candidates are extroverted about there beliefs, whether they are genuine or not, because it buys votes.

This bugs me to no end, not because they don't have the right, but because even nationally, you can't run for office without pretending to wear a religious badge. When Fox showed one of the recent debates, they identified each candidate's religious affiliation. You can bet that if a candidate indicated "None," it would cause an uproar. And people wonder why non-believers feel besieged. What serious national candidate has ever had the nerve to call himself an atheist?

I recognize that the public has a right to that information and the candidates have the right to run on it, I just wish it wasn't so important.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
So, what will all of this have done? Create MORE legislation, more state-federal contention, and a higher profile for something basically meaningless to begin with. With the conservative majority in the US Spreme court, do you think they'll pick Federal law over a state's constitution? I can't believe that some people thought this was over... it's just starting. And, NO, I'm not happy about it. Thanks to all the reactionary wankers who decided to make a small monument into a martyr. A$$holes.

The Bill Of Rights trumps a state constitution every time, so yes, even a conservative Supreme Court would pick a federal law over a state law, they do it all the time. That's basic civics.

The people who opposed Moore are the a$$holes? I say God bless 'em for standing up to him, and I don't even believe in God.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
The Bill Of Rights trumps a state constitution every time, so yes, even a conservative Supreme Court would pick a federal law over a state law, they do it all the time. That's basic civics.

The people who opposed Moore are the a$$holes? I say God bless 'em for standing up to him, and I don't even believe in God.

It's not come up directly with THIS court in regards to a state's constitution. Don't be so sure.

And yes, people who bitch about a monument are a$$holes. Their sensibilities are so fragile that something like that bothers them. It's pitiful.

[petehammer]

There are two type of people on this board, apparently.

1) Those who feel that when you defy court orders and break the law you should be punished.

2) Those who feel that we're all "reactionary wankers" and "A$$holes." while disregarding the real issue of why Moore was given the boot.

Try this on for size: get in your car, speed and when the cop pulls you over and tickets you tell him you're not going to pay it because you only believe in God's law. Now, try this in a car with a giant Jesus painted on the side. In both cases you will be fined. And in neither case will it be about religion.

Defy the law, receive punishment. It's simple to us "reactionary wankers."

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by petehammer:
There are two type of people on this board, apparently.

1) Those who feel that when you defy court orders and break the law you should be punished.

2) Those who feel that we're all "reactionary wankers" and "A$$holes." while disregarding the real issue of why Moore was given the boot.

Try this on for size: get in your car, speed and when the cop pulls you over and tickets you tell him you're not going to pay it because you only believe in God's law. Now, try this in a car with a giant Jesus painted on the side. In both cases you will be fined. And in neither case will it be about religion.

Defy the law, receive punishment. It's simple to us "reactionary wankers."

Wow, did YOU miss what I was saying. Or, are you just twisting things?

Yes, what Moore did was wrong, he should have abided with the court's order. HOWEVER, the people of Alabama will simply reelect the guy AND their legislators will adjust their constitution to allow for the monument. This will cause even more uproar. All this over a monument. Nice martyr you've made guys.

[boots]

Originally posted by einmakom:
Wait a minute: are you saying that you cannot show respect for your religion in a place outside of your home?

Doesn't that turn Freedom of Religion on it's head, making it restriction of religion?

Most folks don't join a religious community for some feeling of superiority, they do so because it's a loving community that welcomes them and shares some common beliefs. If it were as you suggest, the amount of inter-faith service and philanthropy to the community at large just wouldn't exist- but it does. You almost seem to suggest that there is no need for religious community meetings at all, be they worship services or other- but this is false on its face as well- some religions require a mimimum of ten men present before a service may be held.

The point of the separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution is that the State shall not establish an official Church. (See the Anglican Church for the example that the authors of the Constitution intended to avoid.) Now, given that principle, you can see that religious icons in the courthouse may appear to be leaning towards a State endorsed religion- but barring people from practicing or holding their beliefs in any place outside of their homes is likewise wrong, and anti-Freedom.

I don't want this to get lost in the frey. I understand that this is off topic. Moore was removed for violating a court order. Cut-and-dried. Period. End of story.

The beginning of the story is interesting though.

What constitutes "separation of church and state?" Is a nativity scene placed on a local courthouse lawn in violation? Or is it simply an acknowledgment of the community's culture?

Would it be wrong if muslims wanted to put up a display for a religiously important time?

I guess I am of the opinion that simply having the 10-commandments in prominent display is not problematic. Having them at the exclusion of other traditions that may also reflect the culture of the community is a problem.

Separation of church and state does not mean we have to be actively anti-religion. It means that the government can't show special favor for one over another.

Flame away, but the separation was intended to protect religious expression, not remove it.

: puts on flame retardant suit and runs:

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow, did YOU miss what I was saying. Or, are you just twisting things?

Yes, what Moore did was wrong, he should have abided with the court's order. HOWEVER, the people of Alabama will simply reelect the guy AND their legislators will adjust their constitution to allow for the monument. This will cause even more uproar. All this over a monument. Nice martyr you've made guys.

Problem is that the monument was removed on federal constitutional grounds.

Unless the people of Alabama want to try to secede (again), or gather enough support to change the national constitution, they can sit and stew on it.

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

As BG suggested, this was not only about violating a court order, since the court order itself was about something more fundamental. There were two legal questions here: (a) did the monument violate the establishment clause, and (b) did Moore violate a court order to remove the monument because of (a). Both questions were decided in the affirmative. Also, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on the first question, and therefore implicitly agreed with the lower court that the monument violated the establishment clause. There's no reason to think that the results would be any different if Alabama passed a law to specifically allow the monument.

The monument itself might be of little consequence, and this controversy might turn Moore into some sort of martyr, but I don't particularly care. For reasons that are well-documented in history, I would rather err on the side of rigorous enforcement of the establishment clause. Moore and others continue to have every right to practice their religion on their own time and on their own dime.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by boots:
What constitutes "separation of church and state?" Is a nativity scene placed on a local courthouse lawn in violation? Or is it simply an acknowledgment of the community's culture?

Would it be wrong if muslims wanted to put up a display for a religiously important time?

I guess I am of the opinion that simply having the 10-commandments in prominent display is not problematic. Having them at the exclusion of other traditions that may also reflect the culture of the community is a problem.

Separation of church and state does not mean we have to be actively anti-religion. It means that the government can't show special favor for one over another.

Flame away, but the separation was intended to protect religious expression, not remove it.

It's a real grey area and the Supreme Court has struggled with it for a long time. A review of the decisions demonstrates that it's nearly impossible to create a hard-line definition of what violates the establishment clause and what doesn't. They've pretty much taken the position that the clause doesn't require the exclusion (or complete separation) of religion from the governmental realm, but that government has to be careful about expressing favoritism towards any particular religion, and also has to be careful about imposing religious beliefs. Beyond that, you pretty much have to go on a case-by-case basis. People like Moore will always be testing the limits and people like me will always be trying to keep a lid on them, and we'll muddle along, which is probably as it should be. The important thing is that, even if we can't define them with certainty, there are limits.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's a real grey area and the Supreme Court has struggled with it for a long time. A review of the decisions demonstrates that it's nearly impossible to create a hard-line definition of what violates the establishment clause and what doesn't. They've pretty much taken the position that the clause doesn't require the exclusion (or complete separation) of religion from the governmental realm, but that government has to be careful about expressing favoritism towards any particular religion, and also has to be careful about imposing religious beliefs. Beyond that, you pretty much have to go on a case-by-case basis. People like Moore will always be testing the limits and people like me will always be trying to keep a lid on them, and we'll muddle along, which is probably as it should be. The important thing is that, even if we can't define them with certainty, there are limits.

Which is why we have practical legal "tests" which the Judiciary use to decide each case on individual merit rather than some ridiculous rubber stamp solution.

The Endorsement Test: “Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

The Coercion Test: “the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.”

The Lemon Test:[list=1][*]Must have some secular, or non-religious legal purpose;[*]must neither promote or inhibit the practice of religion;[*]and must not must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." [/list=1]

I think it is quite clear that Moore's monument and the context surrounding it (as created by his very public pronouncements and actions) quitely clearly failed all of those tests.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
As BG suggested, this was not only about violating a court order, since the court order itself was about something more fundamental. There were two legal questions here: (a) did the monument violate the establishment clause, and (b) did Moore violate a court order to remove the monument because of (a). Both questions were decided in the affirmative. Also, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal on the first question, and therefore implicitly agreed with the lower court that the monument violated the establishment clause. There's no reason to think that the results would be any different if Alabama passed a law to specifically allow the monument.

The monument itself might be of little consequence, and this controversy might turn Moore into some sort of martyr, but I don't particularly care. For reasons that are well-documented in history, I would rather err on the side of rigorous enforcement of the establishment clause. Moore and others continue to have every right to practice their religion on their own time and on their own dime.

Passing a law is one thing, amending a constitution is another.