Someone Has To Say It

[Pellaken]

I was just satching a news conference with that supereme court judge in alabama that put the 10 commandments in his coruthouse. I do not personally have a problem with that, and technically, it would be un-constitutional to take it away.

but

he also talked about god. god this and god that.

well, and its about time someone said it

to all christians:

you are wrong

wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG.

your view of god IS wrong.

fortunatly, god does not want us to enslave ourselvs to him, so he really does not mind. all faith is good faith. but its really getting sick how many Billions of people are using gods name wrongly. it makes me SICK, physiclaly SICK sometimes when I think about it.

I really dont know what else to say, I think I've said everything I can on this sujbect.

[SirRiff]

well of course Pellaken i think you're just stating the obvious. nobody even uses their brain to question why people link their actions to faith or god or church of whatever.

if all those people really felt so strongly about god maybe they would have done charity work full time for three days instead of sitting in teh sun like morons. because from all i have heard, apparently jesus preached more about action and morality then idolization and meaningless political gesture.

basically, whenever i hear someone who always has to talk about thier deep spiritual convictions to make themselves feel better, i always think, why the hell isnt he living his beliefs instead of just broadcasting them?

so many half assed people who claim to be christians, and so many obsessive people who claim to be muslims its all fucked up (hmm..the jews come off pretty good...conspiracy??).

a true believer would probably act first without much fanfare and concern themselves with preaching only after they set their own example (like most prophets are written to have done).

then you have those crazy guys who held down that autistic boy untill he died. they said "well, god decided to take him'. uh, no.

SirRiff

[Black Dog]

Everyone has the right to practice their own religion and live according to its doctrines. I have no problem with that. I myself take a rather dim view of religious institutions myself, but respect other people's right to believe what they wish.

However, the Alabama 10 Commandments incident underscores the importance of a healthy separation between church and state, something the Christian right in the States has been trying hard (and making strides) at undermining.

That the judge was forced to remove the monument in question is a victory on this front, but there are others to be fought.

On a side note, did anyone else notice the behavior of the Talibama residents who rallied 'round the Commandments monument bore an uncanny resemblence to worshipping a graven image. Just one more sign that the U.S.A seems to be losing its collective marbles.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I myself think I am a moral AND a spiritual person, though I definitely don't go for superstition and dogma. I find organized religion more of cultural and historical significance, rather than of moral or social significance. I can definitely say I find religious ceremony beautiful, though.

I buy more into the philosophical approach to life, including the social contract, democracy, and, to an extent, utilitarianism. I believe that any form of society or government is legitamite as long as it has been adopted by a democratic process, and as long as it can be brought down or changed by that same process. To me, I cannot believe in the absolute truth of the WORD OF GOD.

[Hugo]

This raises some interesting questions.

On the one hand, separation of church and state is very arguably a good thing. It is a deterrent towards secular leaders wishing to harness the power of popular religion to do their bidding e.g. Mohammed, it is a deterrent to religious leaders looking for worldly power e.g. medieval papacy.

To this end, then, it would not be good if a secular, political leader began bringing religion into his policies and his lawmaking - it opens the possibility of abuse.

On the other hand, one can also say that if a religious person is elected by a majority vote, can the electorate really complain if he conducts his public policy in a religious manner? Basically, if you elect a Christian, do not be surprised if you become governed by a Christian.

Lost,

I find your views perfectly acceptable. I'm no fan of organised religion, however, there is a great difficulty striking a balance because on the one hand, the average man is not a spiritual athlete and therefore may actually need the help of a spiritual guide or teacher, on the other, the existence of spiritual guides can and often has been counterproductive, especially when organised in such a way as to promote values and motives other than the original teaching.

Witness the Catholic priests who abused children, acting in a manner wholly at odds with their faith and probably disabusing a lot of people of it, and medieval pardoners, absolving sins for money - neither are things you could readily see Jesus himself doing, and they should not be done by those who claim to be the successors of his disciples.

You are right not to believe in the absolute word of God. Religious texts are a tool and a guide, nothing more. The Bible is not a text by which to live, it's a text to ponder and contemplate as you search for your own spiritual truth. It's also important to remember that religious texts were written by men, perhaps under divine inspiration, but nevertheless men, and therefore should not be taken as literally the word of God any more than the translated texts of a foreign author should be taken as his original thoughts.

[Lost in Manitoba]

Damn good post Hugo. And suprising. You pretty much echo my own thoughts on the matter.

[RB]

i wish to be the devil’s attorney with much reflection on the preponderance of the discourse of god/morality

Firstly, I cannot fathom why you cannot enshrine yourselves, and in airs get adjusted into a pretense of sham, and as such curse the likely one, well it has not shown itself to you recently. What I mean in times of famine, war, corruption in the government, disasters, your tears, your begging, and your lust for power, your wants and needs still not met. Well maybe it wants to share the happy times, my client is the only one that hangs around you I’ll say, quite a lot.

Well I could not very well say there is one great one, or one more, or many more. Now I want to be practical and not contaminate your thoughts and bias you with any recency errors, but you do have to truthful to yourself and write down facts squarely of those times you made that simple wish to the one, as now I wish us not to have doubts and hence present counter-statements just ponderous...unbelievable about a truth.

well, your neighbors are great. you are born unto god I say to you, see you, you parents, your neighbors prepare and summon you, see you bloom from the perils of stables to what is now church. There is a learnt lesson here your know, to trust your neighbors as they not cheat upon you and willing yourself to that day when you yield to trust yourself not to cheat on thy own neighbors...judas

Now I say to you:

You are not born to do but made to do

And now you are not to do but led to do

Not made to work but now work upon

Morality is a fine word always thrown about, what is it invincible and unconquerable such as spirituality

But here is what happens with morality

You are very very slow to accept that another man has a higher degree of morality than your own, you are a sentimentalist now, but once convinced with a certain level of superiority, you set no degree of higher expectations of other limits of genius and you yield closer to this god.

well thats when your life gets revealed when confined in solitude, in prayer, in public, in worship.

But nothing goes pass mathematics, so you must measure your morals:

Good moral

-your intellect grows

-opinions and actions are a thing of beauty

Loss of moral

-solstice of genius

-vulgar is sensible

-vulgar usually congratulates you on the back, for increased common sense

so you see there is much explanation about nothing to worry about.

[FastNed]

Let's talk about Alabama. There is no universal rule concerning naming of Judges in America; States may either appoint or elect depending upon State constitutional choice. Fed's are all appointed, most for life but a few specialized areas (Bankruptcy, for example) are for a term of years (14 in Bankruptcy) Alabama is one of the States where Judges are elected, not appointed.

Judge Moore, the center of this controversy was an obscure County Judge who had a small plaque with the Ten Commandments on display in his Court. Note that this plaque was smaller than one which has been on unchallenged display in the U.S. Supreme Court for many years. Alabama is in what is sometimes called America's Bible Belt - unquestionably a highly religious area where a clear majority of people are religious and believe in the Ten Commandments. I've seen figures of as high as 80% but have no idea of a correct figure but there is no question that more than a simply majority of its people refer to themselves as "God Fearing Christians". You do need this background to understand what is going on here.

I'm not sure how it started in this little County Court in a rural area but the usual suspects picked a fight with the Judge over his small plaque. Turns out the Judge is also a pretty sharp "Good Old Boy" politician because the battle drew media from all over the State and he parlayed the publicity into a winning run for the Chief Judgeship of the State Supreme Court. No one seems to know if he is a man with a mission or just an opportunistic politician.

His current legal battle (which is not over, by the way) has drawn religious support Nation-Wide and with his suspension from the Bench (on a complaint filed by those fighting the "Ten Commandments") is now viewed as his launch platform for either the next U.S. Senate race or the Governorship of Alabama. It ain't over 'til the Fat Lady sings and she is just getting warmed up where he is concerned!

Thought I'd provide this background so you could see how complex this issue is and how it is rapidly becoming central to very many political contests.

[RB]

i find that religion can be use to shape a future, but it must be intellectual in as much as scientific mind depends on the faith of science.

to quote mahome

"which i abhor, the learnt in his infedelities, and the fool in his devotion"

impatience is allotted to both in these modern times esp. the latter it lives on emotions

[Pellaken]

one of the reasons I posted this was my "upsettedness" at getting god's word wrong.

so many times, I hear people saying "wouldent you bow before his son" or "wouldent you follow god's word?"

well, yes, I would. of course, what kinda quesiton is that. if god came to talk to me, you better beleive I'd fall to me knees. if god's son said something, you better beleive I'll listen to each and every word.

but.

IMHO

god's son has not come back to us

IMHO

no book records god's word

why do I think that?

logic mostly.

why would god send a son, for 30 years, to one part of the world, once.

now, if Jesus was still alive today, then of course I'd be a christain, but he is not.

also

why would the bible be right, and not the quran? and vice versa for that matter. throw in the jews, and hindu's and you see my point. God wants ALL of us to be saved, not just those who happened to be around Jesus. He wouldent confine "THE" religion to one small pocket of earth (the christian world, or conversly, the muslim world, erc...) looking logically, and looking at the most widespread religion, and the luck they have had, one must conclude that God is Jewish. Sure they had Hitler and the Inquasition, but the fact that they are still around despite that, does speak to something. I would wager a bet that says that Jerusalem, for whatever reason, IS a real holy city.

My issue mainly comes with moral issues

I happen to think that it's morally WRONG to deny gay rights

yet

a christain will tell me, because I think that, that I'm going to hell and burning for ever and ever and ever. but I KNOW I am right. I feel it down deep in my soul. alternaty, he must also know that he is right. This is why I beleive that everyone is free to come up with their own morals. the God of most religion does not like that.

I think that God has talked to me. now, he did not sit me down, and give me a book. but he does tell me, and EVERYONE on earth, a few simple things.

his only absoulete commandment is simple. Do not cause others pain. especially purposly just to have fun.

he has others, like do not kill, love thy neighbour, etc... or "be nice" in other words. Also, he says that ALL faith is good, so long as it does not violate his only commandment. meaning bin laden, and hitler, are burning in hell. but all of you, from what I can tell, are not out to hurt anyone, and therefore, are alright.

God, IMHO, is a really nice guy. He doesent want us to enslave ourselvs to him. I call him "big 'G'" cause he IS the big "G" and he's real cool for creating the universe and all. I think God talks in feelings, not words. you just "know" what he's telling you. you know what's right and wrong. that's not your concience, that's God tapping you on the shoulder. If you disobey him, bad things happen. If you listen, you get lucky.

I love God, and I hope he loves me. but we must always accept that different people have different opinions on religion. I may think christains are wrong, and I may even think it will hurt your chances of getting into heaven (epseically if you are anti-gay) but I have no right to force you to do what I beleive God wants. that is between YOU and GOD, I do not fit anywhere in that equasion.

I guess it just annoys me sometimes, as I rarly (other then this topic) say that I am right in my religion, and ir bothers be to hear others saying it so often...

but hey. all faith is good faith, so pray away!

[Neal.F.]

The 10 commandments form the basis of law which has served Judeo-Christian society for millenia now. Many people of different faiths come from all over the world to live under such a system since it is founded on solid bedrock which protects all.

The activists that oppose this are not "offended" Muslims, or Sikhs or Buddhists, but rather angry, rebellious liberal atheists who want to completely eradicate all vestiges of anything to do with God.

Separation of Church and state means that the state shall not establish an official religion. Nothing more , nothing less.

The ACLU/Liberal/Atheists would not have said boo if someone had set up a monument with quotes from the Buddha or Baghavad gita, Zarathrustra or Marx, for that matter, but since it comes from the three monotheistic "patriarchal " absolutist religions against which they are rebelling, it must be stamped out, in their view.

Got news for you. This is going to be a fight. The ACLU has pushed too far this time. Focus on the Family, and other conservative Christian and catholic organizations are calling people out to Montgomery.

It is about to hit the fan. Justice for blacks arose in Alabama, so well might be justice for all, in terms of freedom of religion, and public profession thereof.

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of the political correctness movement.

Judge Moore is to be commended for standing up to protest a misinterpretation of the law.

If only more Germans had protested bad laws in the 1930's.

[Black Dog]

The Ten Commandments monument issue has nothing to with freedom of religion and everything to do with the political ambitions of the judge in question. Moore knows his constituents and knows how to play the religion card (muchas George Wallace before him played the race card against desegregation) to further his career. It's obvious that he set the monument up as a taunt and the ACLU (quite rightly) took the bait. Now Moore is a hero to the dupes of the religious right down in Talibama. There will be a fight. And Moore will lose.

There is no place in the public body for expressions of personal religious faith. Period. End of story.

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."-Thomas Jefferson

[Neal.F.]

There is no place in the public body for expressions of personal religious faith. Period. End of story.

Oh really? So then you are telling me that someone has the right to speak unhindered from a marxist, socialist or liberal perspective and act on those beliefs , but someone whose world view comes from his deepest beliefs , if they happen to be Christian, is to be gagged, and removed from the public square?

If that is so, then you believe in freedom of speech and the right to run for office so long as is reserved only for those whose views are deemed "politically correct".

As i said before, if it was some verses from some new age writer, or one of the poly or pantheistic religions, or some secular ideologue, nobody would have complained. The only people complaining are the non-absolutist post modern liberal atheists who fund ACLU court challenges in front of liberal judges.

That monument imposes no one religion on anyone. It represents the values and law on which the USA was built.

If the ACLU ever does get its way, nobody will like the results.

[Black Dog]

So then you are telling me that someone has the right to speak unhindered from a marxist, socialist or liberal perspective and act on those beliefs , but someone whose world view comes from his deepest beliefs , if they happen to be Christian, is to be gagged, and removed from the public square?

Moore is an officer and representative of the government. He cannot only represent his personal views or defend the rights of those whose religious views are like his own; instead, he must uphold the laws created by the people and apply them to all citizens equally. How can someone who has declared that "God's law" supersedes the laws of the land be expected to fulfil this most basic obligation?

That monument imposes no one religion on anyone. It represents the values and law on which the USA was built.

Bullshit. the monument was Moore's way of saying "Fuck you" to the secular establishment (of which, like it or not, he is a part of). Even the most cursory look at the man's patterns indicate he's not interested in simply expressing his personal faith; he's formenting religious conflict to further his political ambitions.

Does this sound like a fellow who just wants to pray in peace?

"Many judges and government officials deny any higher law and forbid the teaching to our children that they are created in the image of an Almighty God, while they purport that it is government, and not God, who gave us our rights. ...in order to establish justice we must invoke the favor and guidance of Almighty God." -Moore

Does this jibe with the Declaration of Independence, which states"governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"? Nope.

How 'bout this from that good ol' God fearing Southern man Moore:

"Since September 11, we have been at war. I submit to you there is another war raging a war between good and evil, between right and wrong. For 40 years we have wandered like the children of Israel. In homes and schools across our land, it's time for Christians to take a stand. This is not a nation established on the principles of Buddha or Hinduism. Our faith is not Islam. What we follow is not the Koran but the Bible. This is a Christian nation"

Which stands in stark contrast to the 1797 U.S. declaration in the Treaty of Tripoli that says, in no uncertain terms that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

So on the one hand we have legal precedent and a 226 year-old tradition of secular governance. On the other, a poltically motivated Christian Reconstructionist with an eye on a Senate seat. I'll stick with the Founding fathers over a bunch of raving idoloters, thanks.

[Pellaken]

speaking from a compleatly legal and technical point of view:

so long as the courthouse does not prevent any other religions from putting equavilent items inside, then the 20 commandements could stay.

now, I'm guessing after a few thousand (I'd send one too) items in that courthouse, I think they'd take everything out.

[Nuclear]

I saw a great political comic about this:

It showed the guy who refused to remove the monument in court taking the stand about this whole thing....

And he is asked ot put his hands on THE BIBLE and state "I swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me GOD."

I thought it summed up how the separation between church and state is not a canyon but a squiggily line...

[theWatcher]

I believe the concept of Christianity is sound, bit I think many of its followers are too literal in quoting the bible.

The bible wasn't written by god. Or Jesus. Or even by a single person. It is thousands of pages with tens of thousands of sayings, many that contradict each other.

It becomes a tool where you can find any sort of viewpoint expressed by just looking at different chapters and finding a quote to support what you want.

Now I am not just criticizing Christianity. The other religions do it too.

The first commandment of the bible is “Thou shall not kill”. Now, this is a very good thing and in my mind the most important rule.

But all over the bible there are commands to kill. God commands you to kill your son, your wife, your husband, your goats, sheep, pigs, etc.

God commands you to kill your enemies, adulterers, or paganists. Killing during war is ok, if god tells you too.

This is with just the first commandment, there are lots of examples if you work your way through each one.

[Hugo]

“Thou shall not kill”.

Actually, the original Hebrew says "Thou shalt commit no murder." The word used for "kill" in the Commandments is different from the word used for "kill" throughout the rest of the text.

[logical1]

This is my first post here or on any political forum for that matter. My intent is not to make anyone angry, just to make a few people consider a different perspective perhaps than they've heard before. I'm very open to disagreement and am prepared to support all of my positions. If it sparks anyone's interest, as the Governator would say, I'll be back. So here goes. First of all, a democracy that is founded without certain principles and objective law is simply tyranny by majority. We're taught that the will of the collective is always proper. The fact is that you can have (and often do have) 1 person who is correct and 1000 people that are incorrect. If you have no objective means of determining correctness and no solid principles to stand on, than you end up implementing incorrectness with disastrous results. This is what you see happening all around you, everyday, over and over. What are solid principles you might ask ? They are simply principles that can logically be broken down into axioms or irreducible primaries that can't successfully be disputed in any reasonable fashion. The reason that you see so many theocracies around the world that are breeding grounds for death and chaos is because religious doctrines are not, for the most part, founded on any solid principles. They boil down to, "because God says so" and the benefits or more often consequences of the doctrines are not to be questioned. Think about this, what if you were an inventor and you were creating a product or a machine and you chose to use materials or chemicals of which you did not understand the properties or could not prove. Explosions? Meltdowns? Failure over and over? Absolutely! After thousands of years of torture, death and chaos, humanity has chosen to ignore the fact that the same principles that govern their lives in science and metaphysics also apply to politics, government and economics. The outcomes are totally controllable, predictable and demonstrable. The fact that the United States is the most advanced and prosperous nation in the history of the world is attributable to having adopted more of the right principles and freedoms into it's governmental and economic systems than had ever been implemented before in any nation. It wasn't due to prayer. It wasn't luck (the law of causality proves there is no such thing as luck). It wasn't due to democracy in and of itself (the majority could just as easily have been wrong and often are). It's because the founding fathers were actually pretty smart guys. They studied the aristotelian philosophy of a guy named John Locke and identified and implemented "the right stuff" (separation of church and state being an enormously important part of it). Sure, they made mistakes too and we're paying for them now but each and everyone of the mistakes and subsequent consequences that have occurred throughout our country's history can be identified and kept from reoccurring (if you are objective and know what to look for). Unfortunately, our two major political parties are guided by either religious doctrine (Republicans) or failed collectivist, altruist doctrines (Democrats) which do more harm than good. Thank goodness that the founders of our nation had the foresight to address the separation of church and state or the ten commandments could have ended up tattooed to our foreheads as well as displayed in the courthouse.

[Pellaken]

great post! I hope you stick around.

as for something neal said earlier about marxists and christians. let me try my hand at it

a marxist is wrong, becaue God does exist

a christain is wrong, because the bible is wrong

there seems to be this "understanding" on this board that the christain God exists, and that if you disagree, then you are atheist. I am presenting you with a new view. I am not the same religion as you, and I am arguing that my religion is right and your religion is wrong. The fact that most of you dance around it tells me that you cannot handle someone quesitoning your spiritual belifs, and presenting a case that another religion may be right, weather it be Tedofskyisim (what I call my religion) Judasim (very widespread) or Sunni Islam (the most popular single* religion)

*single as in a sect of a larger religion. There are more Sunni Muslims then there are Roman Catholics, but Christains still outnumber Muslims by a fair margin.

[FastNed]

Hello Logical1, welcome to the Forum. Taking the content of your first posting as an indicator, you're a fine addition to the group.

Perhaps it's my tired old eyes but I find it difficult to read the screen without a few para breaks - take pity on us frail older folks and please throw in a break here and there.

Might I suggest that you, as do many others, are reading only part of the Constitution when you say:

Thank goodness that the founders of our nation had the foresight to address the separation of church and state or the ten commandments could have ended up tattooed to our foreheads as well as displayed in the courthouse.

I believe those who drafted our Constitution designed it with the concept that we could all live together with our different views and maintain a civilized society. The pendulum has swung too far in this matter and another part of our magnificent Document is being ignored. Would you please take a look at all of Article most particularly the noted section:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

What has been neglected in this debate are the rights of those people of faith. Without going into technical rules of legal construction, the long form of the highlighted section is: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. All of the focus on this issue has been on the first part of the Article while the second part has been ignored!

The original intent of the drafters was to prevent the adoption of a "State" religion, such as the Church of England with which they had great experience, or a repeat of the folly of the Continent where Catholicism was the "Official" religion. They had lived under the abuse of such a merger of Church and State and had no intention of re-creating such idiocy!

They then considered the experience of America (to that date) where so many of them had been in flight from religious persecution of one sort or another and thus guaranteed the right of the people to worship or not as they chose. This is the entire point of the very much ignored second section of that sentence. It has equal legal significance as the first and is not a minor afterthought.

We do not have religious riots and slaughters in North America because it is our common value that we shall live in peace, each of us free to worship as we will. I suggest this value has been ignored and slighted in the legal area and the pendulum has swung too far to one extreme and is in need of correction.

Our National Motto is: "IN GOD WE TRUST" and evidence of religion is everywhere we look in our daily lives. We make great efforts to accommodate all sorts of groups among us but mainly, those who hold religious beliefs are ignored and slighted. May I ask you what harm you see to our civil society by the display of the Ten Commandments anywhere? So long as public funds are not used, where is the harm if a small area of a public building or area is used to display a symbol important to many of us? Christmas displays are another good example of this anti-religious discrimination. There are many things done and sometimes displayed in the name of "Political Correctness" that I find objectionable and even worse, public funds are expended on them!

The question of the motives of Judge Moore in this matter is bothersome but the principle is sound whatever his motive. No public funds were expended on this monument and the display space used in the public area of the Courthouse was minimal so where is the harm? Having spent years in Courthouses, experiencing the worst of our society, I find it ironic that the principles we wish exhibited there by those present are denied exposure.

[logical1]

I apologize for the format (or lack of) in my previous post. I didn't want to take up an entire page and when I began, I didn't know how much information I intended to convey.

First let me start by saying that I am a strong advocate for the expression of personal beliefs (religious or otherwise). I have alot of admiration for religious doctrines because they are ancient examples of man's first attempts to establish a philosophy or framework to govern their lives. However, I do not wish to see monuments to the personal religious beliefs of public officials displayed in publically funded institutions.

FastNed, you appear to be an intelligent person and I have a hard time accepting that you can't see where this recent scenario is clearly crossing the line between freedom of expression and presenting at least the appearance of governmental advocacy of a particular religion. It would most certainly give that impression to me or anyone else entering the courthouse. The fact that the building is a courthouse (an institution established for the express purpose of distributing justice fairly, objectively and without prejudice to those of all religions and beliefs) and not, for example, a post office or water treatment facility is particularly disturbing. It shows extremely poor judgement on the part of this public official.

I also find it hard to accept that you can't see the difference between the temporary display of decorative items in recognition of a religious holiday and the placement of a permanent monument to written Christian law within an institution bound to protect it's citizens from the governmental advocacy of any religion.

In response to another post that I noticed:

Marxism is wrong because the statist advocacy of self sacrifice is wrong.

Christianity is wrong because the religious advocacy of self sacrifice is wrong.

[FastNed]

Two quibbles, if you will, Logical1 with your thoughts.

First, the Ten Commandments are Hebrew in origin not Christian and were later adopted by Christian faiths. They are an expression of the Judeo-Christian concepts upon which our Nation was founded. Please reread our Declaration of Independence and consider how essential was the Christian belief of our Founders to the establishment of our Nation. I am not attempting to nit pick with you, but rather am requesting that you consider the basic beliefs of those who founded this Nation.

Second, please reconsider your statement that a Court House is an inappropriate place for such a display. On the contrary, I suggest to you that if you consider what transpires therein, it is the most appropriate choice of all public buildings for such a display.

Much if not most of what transpires there is in fact a reflection of those Ten Commandments as passed into Public Law. We prosecute those who have killed, committed theft, and so forth and begin by requesting that those who testify swear an oath on a Bible "so help me God". I see no major destruction of our principles by a display of the Ten Commandments there.

This is a minimal infringement (if it is so categorized) upon the rights of those who do not believe that a display of Judeo-Christian beliefs should be allowed. Both views have a right of expression. The government must simply remain neutral.

What has not been argued or decided to date is the basic jurisdiction of the Federal Court in a matter of religious expression in a State Court House. Remembering that the first ten amendments are a limitation on the powers of the Federal Government, unless and until it is decided that the 14th Amend. makes this applicable to State Governments, it remains unresolved. This is a serious legal question and as a constitutional matter may be raised at any time, it will no doubt be briefed and argued at the Supreme Court when this reaches that Forum.

For those not familiar with American Law, justifications or defenses must be raised at the initial trial level or they are considered waived - however, constitutional rights may

never be waived so this constitutional question may be raised at any level of trial or appeal. N.B. This is a simplified statement of a complex legal issue but it is appropriate and applicable to this matter.

[logical1]

FastNed, Christian faith is indeed of Hebrew and Greek origin. I do not intend to change my position based on the origin of the written doctrine. I would like to respond to you in this post regarding the validity and relevance of Christian law and the ten commandments relative to the current laws that govern us. I am doing this because your contentions, at least in part, seem to relate to their relevance today. I will address them individually.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (I'm not aware of a single law that even remotely pertains to this.)

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

(It goes on to include other images none of which have any more relevance than the first, which is of no relevance to current law whatsoever).

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

(I'd be shocked if the judge hadn't done it himself at least once).

4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.

(Which day is that again exactly ? )

5. Honour thy father and thy mother.

(I don't know of anyone being prosecuted for this one and there's no shortage of parents who don't deserve to be honored).

6. Thou shalt not kill.

(Finally, one that actually has some relevance. I think we can agree though that the ten commandments and the foundation of our laws don't exactly have a monopoly on this one. This one will get you strung up in most places.)

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(It might cost you in divorce court but it seems most of our public officials even ignore this one.)

8. Thou shalt not steal.

(Actually, it's my understanding that the interpretation of this commandment referred to kidnapping another person and selling them into slavery and since slavery was abolished long ago it really doesn't have any relevance today. However, even if I give you the literal English meaning, once again, it's not even slightly exclusive to us.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

(Perjury is still a good one. Hardly exclusive though.)

10.Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

(Do I really need to say anymore.)

When all is said and done we have only 3 (possibly 4) out of the ten commandments that have any relevance to the

laws that govern us whatsoever and those are the same things that are universally prohibited in just about any savage village on the planet.

I think this pretty well sums up the lack of the specific legal significance of this monument. The historical significance is far more religious and far more inappropriate.

The founding fathers were religious men as were most during the period but the significance of their faith in relation to the implementation of valid principles has the same significance as the Wright brother's religious faith while inventing the airplane. Either could have had no belief in god whatsoever and come to the same objective conclusions about of their principles.

One last point. Give this a try. If in fact you actually feel that the judge is acting as a private citizen and merely exercising his right to free speech and not at all using his authority and his office as a public official to erect this monument (which is the primary substance of the entire issue), go down to your local courthouse tomorrow and try to erect a permanent monument in the common area. I'll bet there won't be much of a serious discussion on the "free speech" issue. Why not ?

[FastNed]

Let me say first that I have concluded that Judge Moore is a political opportunist and I would not wish to represent him on an overtime parking charge. Nevertheless, I believe the Federal Court was incorrect in its actions and lacks jurisdiction in this matter.

The Bill of Rights, as it is commonly called, expresses limitations on the power of the Federal government. What is involved here is the first one so let's take a look at it:

"Article [i.]

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."

Our government has no inherent powers, those belong to our citizens who have delegated certain of them. This article establishes enumerated areas where no Federal governmental powers have been delegated. A valid legal question exists if this limitation upon Federal powers applies, in whole or in part, to State government. That issue is being briefed and will be argued upon appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It may well be that the document which is authoritative on this specific issue in Alabama is the Constitution of the State of Alabama not the U.S. Constitution.

As I believe the legal basis for the decision by the lower Federal Court lacked constitutional authority, I do not concur with your opinion of the primary substance of the entire issue.