or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Supreme Court Will Not Review Judge Moore's Case re Ten Commandments
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Supreme Court Will Not Review Judge Moore's Case re Ten Commandments - Page 2

post #21 of 57

Maybe the problem is private $$!

When I win the lottery, I'll commissing a nice plaque (or better yet, a really cute/cool marble smiling buddha statue) of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Maybe the reason why the only time you hear of a fuss over religion in government buildings is because only Christian groups and individuals tend to waste money on stuff like this.

The Eightfold Path wouldn't be a bad precept to have floating around a DoJ building, now that I think on it. I wonder if the ACLU would come after my monument, and if the Christian folks would help defend my rights to religious expression too?

I can say I honestly don't know how either would turn out. I could see it going both ways, for each.
post #22 of 57
Well, N.M. and NZ Hilary, I thought those OT citations were relevant, since, if I'm not mistaken, the Bible is the actual word of god. If you're really a true Christian, you must agree with this, otherwise you're just out here with the rest of us heathens and blasphemers. I don't think you can just pick and choose which parts of the Bible you agree with. It's really an all or nothing proposition.
post #23 of 57
That's a load of nonsense Mr Briss.
post #24 of 57
I guess I am kind of nonplussed by the "defenders of the faith" who are gathering around this monument, thinking they are doing it to make a statement for God. Seems like a waste of time to me.

Really, I am more concerned with what's written on people's hearts and minds, and in their lives, than in whats written in stone. I would rather stand up for justice, than for etchings.

Just musing here.

My mother (who makes me crazy sometimes) said today that the removal of this monument was proof of the "slippery slope to Godlessness." Well, besides being a empty, "pithy"catch phrase, it bugged me because I believe that this has ALWAYS (as I understand God) been somewhat of a Godless nation, its just manifested differently, at various stages in our history. Such as, maybe there was a time that we had these overt expressions of christianity, and prayer in schools and such, yet there were innocent people being lynched while the powers that be looked the other way. Maybe, instead of a deterioration, this could be a new inconoclasm, where we remove outward symbols and deal honestly with the issues facing ALL citizens. Wishful thinking, I guess.

To me its almost bordering on idolatry. I mean, people are gathered around this monument of stone, "protecting" it, and there are children hurting, hungry, old folks who need help, work to be done. Its kind of like if my husband chose to ignore the important needs around our home, and yet thought that he was being moral and upright because he tattooed my name on his arm.

And there are many religions here, we are not a homogenous society. Interestingly, even within Judism and different sects of Christianity, there are different versions of the ten commandments, which expands the argument of what to have written on public buildings even further.

post #25 of 57

post #26 of 57
We are such a schizophrenic country when it comes to this.

Yes, we were founded mostly by white Europeans of a Christian background, so Christianity and the Bible are still inextricably linked to our public life (on our coins, the chaplain in the Senate, etc). BUT, these same people were fleeing religious persecution in Europe and so came up with the revolutionary idea that the state should not favor any one religion over the other.

Probably they were thinking this would only apply to not favoring Methodists over Catholics. Probably they had no idea that immigration and the shrinking globe would reshape our demographics to the point where it means not favoring Christianity over Buddhism. Yet here we are. The law of unintended consequences.

Half the country wants to turn the clock back, to keep our nation "christian". I've heard the argument that because the majority of the public here is culturally christian, then these displays of christianity should be accepted. This ignores the fact that the pilgrims were a religious minority fleeing repression from the religious majority. Yes, our country was built on Christian principles, to some extent, but more so it was built on the principle that the MAJORITY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE ITS RELIGION ON THE MINORITY.

Me, I want to take this country forward, to follow through on the logical ramifications of our founding father's revolutionary concept of a state without any official religion. Personally, I do not feel threatened by christian displays, but I can see how some people of other religions might. They should all be removed (the displays, not the people). I reject the idea that this will impoverish our spirituality as a nation or lead us into a moral morass, as though only Christianity teaches morality or faith in God. I am all for encouraging spirituality and moral idealism in our public life, but this is not the way to do it. All it does is divide us.

And NM, with all due respect, this has nothing to do with the fact that our law is based in English common law which was based on the Bible. That is a matter for a historical museum, not a court of law. Did you hear Judge Moore speaking today? He did not mention English common law. What he did say is, "I cannot deny the God who created me!" (As if this is about him???) This is about those who want to keep America a Christian nation when it is increasingly becoming more diverse.
post #27 of 57
Thoa, your post was very well put. Thank you for articulating so much of what I have been wanting to say here.
Yes, our country was built on Christian principles, to some extent, but more so it was built on the principle that the MAJORITY MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE ITS RELIGION ON THE MINORITY.
I would take this statement a step further & say that it is not a matter of protecting the minority from the majority, but actually protection for everyone not in power from those *in power*. Our constitution is all about protecting the masses from the tyranny of a powerful elite.

And in this case, Judge Moore is that powerful elite. He is using the power of his publicly elected office to express his personal beliefs, and by placing these beliefs in a public place those beliefs have state endorsement. I would say that the framers of the constitution had the prevention of exactly this situation in mind when they wrote the 1st amendment.

Of course, anyone, including an office holder like Judge Moore, is entitled to the free expression of their convictions. That is what the 1st amendment is all about. Judge Moore can tatoo the 10 commandments to his forehead if he likes, or hold court wearing a sandwich board outlining the Christian basis of his decisions. He can print up a flyer with all his Bible verses in it, or, let's be modern: even set up a web site! There is no end to the ways he can openly show respect to his God. After all, he was elected by the people of Alabama, they must like what he has to say. Put that monument in his front yard & invite people over. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly.

To the supporters, ask yourself this: if I had a pretty statue of the Goddess & I snuck onto public property in your state one nite & erected it for all to see, would it get to stay? What if I showed up when you tried to move it & said, "hey I'm just expressing my religion & 1st amendment rights!" (Please admit that whether the framers were Christian or not is a moot point, the 1st amendment says "religion" not "Christianity") Wouldn't you look @ me & say "Hey heathen! I don't believe in your Goddess & I don't like statues of naked women in public, it's going! Put it on your own front lawn, it offends me & my religious beliefs just to see it there! And besides, that public place was paid for with my taxes too, not just yours!"

Also, I would like to ask this to Nursing Mother: don't you think this is some of this potential for discontent you were talking about in your post about a possible civil war? I never got a chance to post on that thread, but I agree with you, it is wrong to think "it can't happen here." If you look @ the wars & terrorism going on in the world now, aren't they all to some extent fueled by religion? Religious beliefs are so deeply held & often in conflict with the teachings of competing religions, don't you think that is why they are often the seeds of war? For this reason, it makes me so afraid to see Christians trying to move their personal religion into our public sphere. It seems like some are so extreme that they will even go to violent means to "express" their beliefs! In the name of peace, we simply cannot allow any religion to be sponsored by the state. Do you see what I'm saying?

1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

blessings, Maria
post #28 of 57
Your signature applies to ALL of us. Because we are all this way, or are you telling us that your eyes see something we don't?
post #29 of 57
Who did it, and why? What was was the ramifications of that, for all who follow Jesus?
There you have it.

All who follow Jesus should display their symbols outside of the courtroom...................

(btw, I'm raised Catholic so I do know the diff btwn OT and NT)

post #30 of 57
Sorry PD, I deleted what I said, because I wanted to see what answers I got.

In answer to your question, I ask you another one.

When confronted with Moses, why was it, that Pharoah didn't "get" what was going on?
This doesn't answer my question. It that you see something others don't?

You'll have to remember I once was a Christian.
post #31 of 57
Either I'm fully awake now, or your making more sense

Either way, excellent post Hilary
post #32 of 57
Hilary~ Whatever the reason for your 'sentence' I am sure it is for a noble cause!!

PS- don't forget to promote breastfeeding and natural parenting while your incarcerated!

Peace sista!
post #33 of 57
Another article about this issue:


I'm curious what parts of English Common Law, granting as it does actual Rights to the common people, came from the Bible. It was the Bible used to defend the "Divine Right of Kings", except for gleaning fields I don't recall any rights of people to choose their leaders or much else coming out of the Bible.

Is that's the basis for our law, then where in the Constitution does it say we shall have no gods before "Me" [Yahweh]?

The concepts in our law against things like murder and theft are universal. The 10 Commandments were neither the first nor only codification of such basic precepts for civilized society.

Our government is more strongly based on the Greek concept of Democracy, the Iroquios concepts of confederations and leaders being chosen (including by the women!), and Icelandic Thing counsel type governments than by anything in the Bible. If we are so Bible based why do we not have a King?

If the historical basis for our government is what's being memorialized then the Iroquioan "Seventh Generation" and Articles of Confederation are what should be on that hunk of rock.

When Moore put that monument on PUBLIC land instead of his own private property he leapt out of the sphere of Free Speech and into State Imposed Religion, a crystal clear violation of everything this country was founded upon.

I think all such displays should be removed. Moore's nonsense gets encouragement when 10 Commandment plaques like at the Alleghany County Courthouse in Pittsburgh are allowed to remain because "it's been there 80 years" and is thus historical. An 80 year old wrong is still a wrong.
post #34 of 57
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by Hilary

I would like to know what the words were underneath the words you quoted, and further, what the black words were on the upright, and who they were attributed to.
The only words I saw, on the pedestal supporting the rendition of the Ten Commandments, in all caps, were those I quoted above: "LAW OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD". They appeared to be chisled into the stone, as a prominent part of the display. I do not know, but suspect they were put there at the request of Judge Moore, who requisitioned the monument.

I've seen the Ten Commandments unobtrusively displayed on a wall in at least one judge's courtroom here in Houston. No one has yet taken public offense to that display, to my knowledge. It's the manner of Judge Moore's display and, even more to the point, the inscription that I quoted above on the pedestal that pushes the display well over the bar.

There is no mention in any judgement of the removal for racial grounds, and were that so, I would that thought that your colleagues and the media would have been the first to crucify him on that one.
Racial matters played no role whatsoever in the decision, to the best of my knowledge. I was merely commenting on trabot's (I think) rhetorical query whether the presence of the monument would've deterred slavery and Jim Crow laws.
post #35 of 57
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by Hilary
Dear Marlena,

If you go back to the photograph, you will see that there are more words under the ones you quoted on the central thingy ~ Maybe a name and a date?..... , and a whole lot more chiselled into the black area surrounding that. And probably on the other side as well.
I can't see them on the photo I saw. Do you perhaps know the answers to the questions you asked?

On that, I can only surmise, but I suspect he might be somewhat
I should think that one ought not to presume what any god might think, being mere a mere mortal. Isn't it demeaning, to think that a deity might be subject to human emotions?

re NM, yes, I suspect the Founding Fathers were referring to a Christian god. Then again, the Founding Fathers also counted African Americans as only 5/8 of a person, and that only for the purposes of determining a state's population for representation in Congress, if I remember correctly. Things change, eh? Accordingly, so does our concept of what "god" entails in such a setting. Otherwise, we'd still have slavery and the like. As it stands, we presently "overlook" various archaic and/or repugnant things that still exist in our Constitution. Not a surprise, given the age of the document.
post #36 of 57


It is a misconception that common law is based on Christianity. And it seems it has been for a long time.

Thomas Jefferson, elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it."

". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

Note to admins: These letters are out of copywrite and in the public domain.
post #37 of 57
Thread Starter 
Kama, whether or not Jefferson was correct (I'm no scholar of the history of the foundations of common law), the matter is not quite so simple (unfortunately). One finds references to "god" threaded throughout this country's laws and political discourse. The question is: what is the proper place of religion in such discourse, and how does one define "religion" or "god" within that discourse, given the nation's laws and their history. See, for example, Fernando Rey Martinez, THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTER OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION: PURITANISM AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN THE UNITED STATES, 12 Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 459 (Spring, 2003); and Joseph R. Duncan, Jr., Commentary PRIVILEGE, INVISIBILITY, AND RELIGION: A CRITIQUE OF THE PRIVILEGE THAT CHRISTIANITY HAS ENJOYED IN THE UNITED STATES, 54 Alabama Law Review 617 (Winter 2003), just for starters.
post #38 of 57
As the sky darkened, and Jesus's time on the cross was at the end, the temple curtain was torn, not from the bottom to the top, but from the top to the bottom.

Who did it, and why? What was was the ramifications of that, for all who follow Jesus?

What part of the Bible did the resurrection also crucially change in terms of those who follow Jesus, and in which words that Jesus spoke, before his crucifixion, is that clearly reflected in?
I can't answer those questions, since I doubt the veracity of the Bible, or the existence of any of the characters mentioned in it. I have to plead ignorance on this one.

I do have one simple question for you, which only requires a yes or no answer: Are you in favor of public stonings as a form of punishment for breaking the Ten Commandments? I'm reasonably sure N.M. is in favor of this, since she has dodged the question, but I'm not so sure about you.
post #39 of 57
I am simply addressing the narrow issue of the claim that there is this 'lineage' that has our laws directly decended from Christianity.

In this whole case I just can't get past the fact that this Judge acted in a very underhanded manner from the word 'Go'. He WANTED to be the issue.
post #40 of 57
I caught that and was concurring, essentially. Today was the first time I read of him sneaking in under dark of night etc... I had issues with this before and now I have enough to fill a magazine rack.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Activism Archives › Supreme Court Will Not Review Judge Moore's Case re Ten Commandments