Ten Commandments Back In Alabama Judicial Building

Mario500

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
626
Location
The Deep South
(Montgomery, Alabama-AP) Feb. 6, 2004 - The Ten Commandments are back in the Alabama Judicial Building, this time in an exhibit that features copies of seven other historical documents.

The display stands just across the rotunda from the spot once occupied by the granite monument to the commandments that cost Roy Moore his job as chief justice.

Acting Chief Justice Gorman Houston says the new display is intended to be permanently based in the rotunda. It includes the Ten Commandments as one of many sources of Western law, an arrangement that courts have found permissible.

Attached to a black Velcro background are photocopies of the oldest known manuscript of the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta, the US Constitution and other documents.

One of the plaintiffs who sued to have Moore's monument removed says the new display seems acceptable because "it does not appear to have the purpose or effect of promoting religion."




Was this one of the original purposes of Roy Moore's monument?

"It includes the Ten Commandments as one of many sources of Western law, an arrangement that courts have found permissible."
 

Eddie G.

Former Wolf/Writer.
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
8,108
Location
Brooklyn
Okay here's the thing about the ten comandments having an affect on U.S. law, they don't. Only two commandments are similar to U.S. (state) laws, murder and stealing. And these are common sense, murder and stealing weren't legal in all cultures before Mosses coming around. All U.S. laws are based on the promise of our Constitution to life, liberty, property, and all that other fun stuff.

I realize this is a Christian based nation but still our goverment should be a godless one. I also want the Pledge to be restored to the originol version.


NOTE: I know lying can have punishable consequences however these are for crimes involving lying not for the actual act of lying.
 

Lucky Bob

I'M BRIAN BLESSED
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
7,050
Location
In transit
It's obvious why they did. If the ruling had been carried far enough, all religious imagery would have to be removed from every federal monument in Washington. And that's more trouble than it's worth.


Good to have it back.
 

EinBebop

Data Dog
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
14,399
Location
Greeley, CO
Blue Wolf said:
Okay here's the thing about the ten comandments having an affect on U.S. law, they don't. ...I realize this is a Christian based nation but still our goverment should be a godless one.
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" -- John Adams

From my sig: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for licentiousness and this great experiment will then surely be doomed." -- John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

"The bible is the cornerstone for American liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison

I could go on for hours, but, well, Ed Wood is starting on cable in a few minutes.
 

Delthayre

Retired
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
5,588
Location
Elsewhere
So it should be and so I shall seek

EinBebop said:
"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" -- John Adams

From my sig: "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

"No human society has ever been able to maintain both order and freedom, both cohesiveness and liberty apart from the moral precepts of the Christian Religion applied and accepted by all the classes. Should our Republic ever forget this fundamental precept of governance, men are certain to shed their responsibilities for licentiousness and this great experiment will then surely be doomed." -- John Jay (first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

"The bible is the cornerstone for American liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." - John Quincy Adams

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison

I could go on for hours, but, well, Ed Wood is starting on cable in a few minutes.
Well, those are all very well and nice and 200 years old (broadly speaking), representatives of thoughts in a nation that did not have to contend with increasing religious diversity and could afford indiscriminate propogation of Christianity. America in the time of most of those quotations was an overwhelmingly Christian and heavily rural area. We cannot rely upon the words of the past for if taken too far they become a crutch and shackles. They addressed and I think at least discredited Blue Wolf's statement, but not the idea of secularization.

I too believe god has no place in government and that while individual officials can express their faith through their words and accept in guidance toward decisions, mention of god has little place in official buildings, documents, and laws. The people may by all means be religious, but the state must be secular.
 

Eddie G.

Former Wolf/Writer.
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
8,108
Location
Brooklyn
Delthayre said:
Well, those are all very well and nice and 200 years old (broadly speaking), representatives of thoughts in a nation that did not have to contend with increasing religious diversity and could afford indiscriminate propogation of Christianity. America in the time of most of those quotations was an overwhelmingly Christian and heavily rural area. We cannot rely upon the words of the past for if taken too far they become a crutch and shackles.

I too believe god has no place in government and that while individual officials can express their faith through their words and accept in guidance toward decisions, mention of god has little place in official buildings, documents, and laws. The people may by all means be religious, but the state must be secular.
Thank you, I was going to have to type something like that. And remember Ein most of our modern laws are based on the 14th Amendment, that is why when we have laws against murder and such it is not a moral issue but the state protecting our right to life.
 

Lucky Bob

I'M BRIAN BLESSED
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
7,050
Location
In transit
Delthayre said:
Well, those are all very well and nice and 200 years old (broadly speaking), representatives of thoughts in a nation that did not have to contend with increasing religious diversity and could afford indiscriminate propogation of Christianity. America in the time of most of those quotations was an overwhelmingly Christian and heavily rural area. We cannot rely upon the words of the past for if taken too far they become a crutch and shackles. They addressed and I think at least discredited Blue Wolf's statement, but not the idea of secularization.

I too believe god has no place in government and that while individual officials can express their faith through their words and accept in guidance toward decisions, mention of god has little place in official buildings, documents, and laws. The people may by all means be religious, but the state must be secular.
Why? I mean, I don't think the idea was to have freedom from religion at all. Just freedom from one religion being established over the rest. Imposing an atheistic agenda on the government is just as bad as establishing a religion.

And if the founders words don't have merit because they are "words of the past", why not just throw away the Constitution and start over?
 

Delthayre

Retired
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
5,588
Location
Elsewhere
United States of Gestalt

Lucky Bob said:
Why? I mean, I don't think the idea was to have freedom from religion at all. Just freedom from one religion being established over the rest. Imposing an atheistic agenda on the government is just as bad as establishing a religion.
An atheistic agenda? An atheistic agenda would be having the state endorse the idea that no God exists and promoting that idea among the populace. I hardly want that. What I want is for the government to not make the idea of God (or gods) part of its official proceedings and documents. I'm perfectly content with congressmen and the president pronouncing and acknowledging their own beliefs, but I don't want God mentioned in the text of laws, jammed into the slogans of our country, or presented as a dominant feature in our courts. It seems counter to the idea of freedom of religion that a government presiding over a people with that principle should officially acknowledge any.


Lucky Bob said:
And if the founders words don't have merit because they are "words of the past", why not just throw away the Constitution and start over?
I wasn't aware the constitution was a collection of selected quotes of various prominent past political figures.



The founders words cannot be said to be without merit (although we have elevated them to nigh-deific standing in these times), but they cannot be said to apply to the contemporary situation enough to bear much weight. As I have essentially said, the United States in the late eighteenth century was an overwhelmingly Christian nation and the idea of accommodating and respecting minority faiths was one that was not necessary to consider. Even so, much of the parading about of God's name by the government fails to date from that era.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lucky Bob

I'M BRIAN BLESSED
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
7,050
Location
In transit
[insert counter unfunny caption here]

Delthayre said:
An atheistic agenda? An atheistic agenda would be having the state endorse the idea that no God exists and promoting that idea among the populace. I hardly want that. What I want is for the government to not make the idea of God (or gods) part of its official proceedings and documents. I'm perfectly content with congressmen and the president pronouncing and acknowledging their own beliefs, but I don't want God mentioned in the text of laws, jammed into the slogans of our country, or presented as a dominant feature in our courts. It seems counter to the idea of freedom of religion that a government presiding over a people with that principle should officially acknowledge any.
So, what you're saying is, "I don't want an atheistic government, but I don't want them to acknowledge God." It's the same thing. Promoting the idea to the populace would be antitheistic. A fine line between the two, but it's still there.


I wasn't aware the constitution was a collection of selected quotes of various prominent past political figures.


I wasn't aware that it wrote itself without human aid. Hmmm...maybe there IS a God. ;)

The founders words cannot be said to be without merit (although we have elevated them to nigh-deific standing in these times), but they cannot be said to apply to the contemporary situation enough to bear much weight. As I have essentially said, the United States in the late eighteenth century was an overwhelmingly Christian nation and the idea of accommodating and respecting minority faiths was one that was not necessary to consider. Even so, much of the parading about of God's name by the government fails to date from that era.
Actually, "Christian" nation is a bit of an oversimplification. There were different types of Christians who, in the Old World, quite frankly couldn't stand each other. Thus the reason for the establishment clause. The fear was that the Catholics, Protestants, and Anabaptists would trade power every election and establish a different politicized national religion each time. England had that happen, with dire results. And America was a very divided nation at that time along those lines. Read up on how Connecticut started.

The intention was to keep a single religion from being established. But to have religion ablolished from government was not the intention at all. The actions of the Founders who went on to become important politicians verify that. And simply by acknowledging a Higher Power, well, I don't see how that establishes a religion at all. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam come to mind as monotheistic religions.

And even the constitution warrants change, as has been noted, it is a more than two hundred year old document that often struggles to accommodate a world so far removed from its birth. A world in some ways better, some ways worse and in most ways larger and wilder. But the essential principles are not inapplicable to the modern day, but the implementation is not always effective or responsive to what this modern world faces.


It warrants change, but only through amendments. We can't just say, (like many libs do,) that certain amendments in the Constitution are not effective today and should be ignored. Only if they have been further amended by other amendments. (So, on a side note, the Second Amendment still stands as stated. Sorry.)

But the strongest argument in my mind that sways me to see God driven from the backs of dollars, allegiance pledges, and grandly intimidating monuments on the steps of courthouses and back into the hearts, souls, and churches of his believers is akin to what I think stuck him there.
First, you're pretty much about to admit that you oppose this on personal reasons. Fair warning. Personal opinion is nice, but it doesn't do much in the way of Constitutional law, or the way things legally are.

Second, putting references to God in government is not neccessarily taking Him "out" of the hearts of people in the first place. I don't know where that came from.

It is uncomfortable to me; it is unnerving, and not endearing of trust in government. I do not believe in the existence of a god and I find it sometimes difficult to bear living in a country whose government bears his name. I do not see what great thing any believing man would lose from having God's name kept from the banners of the state so long as he has his church and congregation. Yet I would gain a little comfort and confidence in the fairness of that state by its spiritual neutrality.
And herein lies the crux of your argument. You "find it difficult" to hear God's name sanctioned by the government. Respectfully, that sounds like a childish argument. If you don't like it, ignore it! I believe that's what many people around here would say if someone said that they found a cartoon offensive. Too much crap happens today in the name of not offending anybody. Look, it's impossible to be all things to all people. Try to please everybody, and you please nobody. And the last I checked, you atheists are quite in the minority officially, so, I don't see why you should have your will imposed over the millions of other people in the country who acknowledge God and don't mind a government that does so. That sounds a bit anti-democratic, to me.
 

Delthayre

Retired
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
5,588
Location
Elsewhere
I refuse to dance...I've got two left feet anyway

I cut out that last paragraph as I didn't like it much and I won't stand by it. I probably cut it as you were composing your rather effective rebuttal.

And that constitution bit was a bunch of ancialliary nonsense. I should have cut it too.

I hate myself on the internet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EinBebop

Data Dog
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
14,399
Location
Greeley, CO
Delthayre said:
An atheistic agenda would be having the state endorse the idea that no God exists and promoting that idea among the populace.
I was taught that in 9th grade biology. :D
 

Delthayre

Retired
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
5,588
Location
Elsewhere
Basic overviews all

EinBebop said:
I was taught that in 9th grade biology. :D
Really? Poor form I'd guess. We actually got explanations on both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

shogunthethird

Monk-daddy
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Messages
5,438
Location
Desparately seeking Sango
in past times I'd be upset about it but recently I've had an epiphany: religious writings need not be used to proselytize, one can look at them from a literal or philosophical point, that's why synagogues have libraries in them because when you get down to it as advanced as we are we mustn't forget our roots, what people object to is the connotation that governmental mention of religious elements is percieved as an attack on their beliefs especially when people use god as a tool for their own means, in other words how is it that "god hates fays" when "god is love"
It's like what Ian Macellan said in the first X-men movie

"Are you a god-fearing man Senator? I always believed god is a teacher, a bringer of light and intelligence, you certainly needn't fear god, and you needn't fear me"
 

RogueMartian

Cogito Ergo Sum
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
6,120
Location
China
Putting the ten commandments up is nothing more than asserting that christianity is right. But personally I think quite a few of the commandments are wrong or flat out stupid. For example, why not covet? I covet, everybody covets. You want that bmw, so you work for it, you don't steal it. You think your friend's boyfriend is hot, but you try to hook up with him or anything. There is nothing wrong with coveting. And what is this about respecting parents. Have you met my parents? Maybe if I was from a loving home, okay, that would make sense, but what about parents who are abusive or neglectful. And what about killing? As george carlin said, killing is totally negotiable. It all depends on who you kill. It's okay to kill murderers. We still have the death penalty. It's okay to kill the terrorists isn't it?

So the ten commandments are stupid and outdated.

As for religion in Government, Lucky Bob, I can't agree with you. [Big Shocker for you, huh?] Religion should be private. I have no problem with people who go to church, and obey the ten commandments, but I don't want it enforced on me. The laws of god are only universal if everyone is of the same religion, and we are most gratefully a secular nation. So let god rule in the churches, and the secular law rule in the land.
 

Eddie G.

Former Wolf/Writer.
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
8,108
Location
Brooklyn
RogueMartian said:
Putting the ten commandments up is nothing more than asserting that christianity is right. But personally I think quite a few of the commandments are wrong or flat out stupid. For example, why not covet? I covet, everybody covets. You want that bmw, so you work for it, you don't steal it. You think your friend's boyfriend is hot, but you try to hook up with him or anything. There is nothing wrong with coveting. And what is this about respecting parents. Have you met my parents? Maybe if I was from a loving home, okay, that would make sense, but what about parents who are abusive or neglectful. And what about killing? As george carlin said, killing is totally negotiable. It all depends on who you kill. It's okay to kill murderers. We still have the death penalty. It's okay to kill the terrorists isn't it?
You brought up one of Carlin's greatest acts, and I have to tell you I love you for that. Anyway I don't think that having a Godless Goverment is really atheist, it's more agnostic. As an Agnostic my view is that there might be a God and there might not be, and I would rather live my life not truly caring about the existance or non-existance of my Lord.
 

Lucky Bob

I'M BRIAN BLESSED
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
7,050
Location
In transit
RogueMartian said:
Putting the ten commandments up is nothing more than asserting that christianity is right. But personally I think quite a few of the commandments are wrong or flat out stupid. For example, why not covet? I covet, everybody covets. You want that bmw, so you work for it, you don't steal it. You think your friend's boyfriend is hot, but you try to hook up with him or anything. There is nothing wrong with coveting. And what is this about respecting parents. Have you met my parents? Maybe if I was from a loving home, okay, that would make sense, but what about parents who are abusive or neglectful. And what about killing? As george carlin said, killing is totally negotiable. It all depends on who you kill. It's okay to kill murderers. We still have the death penalty. It's okay to kill the terrorists isn't it?

So the ten commandments are stupid and outdated.
First, you're wrong about the "Christianity" part. (Did you bother to read my post?) Again, it's not just Christianity that has the 10 Commandments. Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, and a whole host of other religions support it. So, calling them "stupid and outdated" not only offends Christians, (who seem to be the only politically correct group to beat up on), but others as well. Not that I complain, I'm used to it. But, as a follower of a mindset that espouses tolerance, compassion, and diversity, you have a bit to answer for with such statements.

Second, the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment is literally rendered from the original Hebrew as "Thou shalt not murder." The translators at the time simplified the word. Still means the same thing. Murder is wrong. I don't think anyone can argue with that.

Third, historically, the Ten Commandments have a significant impact on western law. No escaping that. What's wrong with acknowledging it from that aspect? Would you object to the Code of Hammaurabbi? (Don't ask me if I spelled that right.)

As for religion in Government, Lucky Bob, I can't agree with you. [Big Shocker for you, huh?] Religion should be private. I have no problem with people who go to church, and obey the ten commandments, but I don't want it enforced on me.
Show me where you've been forced to follow a religion. I don't see that happening. There's a whole bunch of Middle Eastern nations where you are forced to follow a religion. That's "enforcement". The minute your hands are cut off by a government official for what you just wrote is the minute I'll worry about "enforcement" of religion.

The laws of god are only universal if everyone is of the same religion, and we are most gratefully a secular nation. So let god rule in the churches, and the secular law rule in the land.
Again, there's no harm in government acknowledging a higher power, and I don't think the Founders had a problem with it. (In fact, given historical precedent set by them, I know they didn't.) You got a problem with that? Either take it up with them, or get an amendment passed.
 

Delthayre

Retired
Joined
May 11, 2003
Messages
5,588
Location
Elsewhere
Abort-Retry-Fail? Well, really the last one, but we'll try again anyway

This bit has gotten garbled with a bit too much nonsense, mostly on carelessness. Let's try freshening it up a bit from a elementary start. I think it's worth asking the fundamental question, and please answer it instead with considerate directness.

Why should the government have acknowledgements of religion? (i.e. "In God we trust." "...one nation under God." Ten Commandments etc.) And are those ever the cause for contention?
 

Lucky Bob

I'M BRIAN BLESSED
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
7,050
Location
In transit
Delthayre said:
This bit has gotten garbled with a bit too much nonsense, mostly on carelessness. Let's try freshening it up a bit from a elementary start. I think it's worth asking the fundamental question, and please answer it instead with considerate directness.

Why should the government have acknowledgements of religion? (i.e. "In God we trust." "...one nation under God." Ten Commandments etc.) And are those ever the cause for contention?
Answer 1: Why not?

Answer 2: Why should they be?

BONUS QUESTION: Since when was this the original question?
 

Eddie G.

Former Wolf/Writer.
Joined
Sep 1, 2003
Messages
8,108
Location
Brooklyn
Delthayre said:
This bit has gotten garbled with a bit too much nonsense, mostly on carelessness. Let's try freshening it up a bit from a elementary start. I think it's worth asking the fundamental question, and please answer it instead with considerate directness.

Why should the government have acknowledgements of religion? (i.e. "In God we trust." "...one nation under God." Ten Commandments etc.) And are those ever the cause for contention?
Just a note for one of your examples, "One nation under God." was not written because this is a Christian nation or ever was. The line was created only for the purpose to fight against Comunism. In all honesty since the Cold War is over the Pledge should be restored. But I'm getting off topic.

There can be a problem when relgion and goverment get to close. Take our President who wants to make it unconstitutional for Homosexual marriage. And while many Americans follow the Ten Commandments many including myself do not see them as moral guides. Any since the law is as I am an American my protector, than I have the right to complain when my goverment and the law shows itself to favor a belief that I do not hold.

And even though there were many Christian roots to this nation, there are also examples of an Agnostic basis in our Constitution even in the early days of the Nation.
 

Spotlight

Staff online

Who's on Discord?

Latest profile posts

Remember back when people were saying that "Streaming is the (bright) future"?
"I can't wait to eat this baby" - Paramount, presumably looking for tax write-offs
Happy Baseball Opening Day
"I'm probably going to watch Nymphomaniac Part II on Disney+ this weekend" isn't something I didn't think I'd ever say, but here we are.

Featured Posts

Top