Alabama Chief Justice

[stillwater]

O.K., I don't usually discuss politics or religion...but, I am curious as to opinions on Chief Justice Roy Moore.

I can uderstand the idea of not promoting one religion over another...but it just seems really silly to me that this whole issue ever came up.

When people are sworn in, they take an oath with their hand on the Bible.

I don't understand...I mean, people are in suites over the Pledge of Allegiance.

Freedom of Religion is also freedom from persecution as well, isn't it?

I don't mean to offend anyone...just wondering what others think about this issue; mostly regarding the law in this case.


Mary Beth

[retdetsgt]

I saw it discussed quite a bit in another police forum. The majority are upset that he was dismissed because he wanted to keep the commandments.

Personally, I think they should have stayed, but the fact Moore disobeyed a federal judge bothers me. How can he expect others to obey his rulings when he ignores a higher court? Some say he is answerable only to the Supreme Court, but the fact they wouldn't address it gives authority to the lower court.

The interesting thing now is the 5th Circuit upheld that they could be on public property in Texas, but it was because they the monument was historical. Opposing rulings MIGHT get the supremes to listen to it.

Jim

[retired]

Originally posted by stillwater
O.K., I don't usually discuss politics or religion...but, I am curious as to opinions on Chief Justice Roy Moore.

I can uderstand the idea of not promoting one religion over another...but it just seems really silly to me that this whole issue ever came up.

When people are sworn in, they take an oath with their hand on the Bible.

I don't understand...I mean, people are in suites over the Pledge of Allegiance.

Freedom of Religion is also freedom from persecution as well, isn't it?

I don't mean to offend anyone...just wondering what others think about this issue; mostly regarding the law in this case.


Mary Beth

People are not required to swear on a bible to hold public office. Those who swear on a bible do so as a matter of choice.

He disobeyed the higher court order, he doesn't deserve to hold office for that.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by retired
People are not required to swear on a bible to hold public office. Those who swear on a bible do so as a matter of choice.

He disobeyed the higher court order, he doesn't deserve to hold office for that.

Cops should be sworn in holding a copy of Joe Wambaugh's "The Choirboys".

[retired]

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Cops should be sworn in holding a copy of Joe Wambaugh's "The Choirboys".

While eating a donut!:D

[Public]

I personally do not think Judge Moore did anything wrong. I do not see that the fuderal government has any business telling the states what they can and can't do.

The reason states do allow themselves to be bullied by the fud is so they won't loose that fuderal money they all get.

[retired]

Originally posted by Public
I personally do not think Judge Moore did anything wrong. I do not see that the fuderal government has any business telling the states what they can and can't do.

The reason states do allow themselves to be bullied by the fud is so they won't loose that fuderal money they all get.

Theoretically the federal government has limited authority to tell states what to do. However, this was a constitutional issue and Moore was ordered by a federal judge to comply with the constitution. Anytime a constitutional challenged is involved, the federal judiciary is involved. This is really basic law.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by Public
I personally do not think Judge Moore did anything wrong. I do not see that the fuderal government has any business telling the states what they can and can't do.



That was tried under the Articles of Confederation and found to be unworkable. There has to be a higher court to rule the land or each state will become it's own sovereign nation.

Personally, the only thing I think he did wrong was to disobey the federal judge.

[7@NGHS]

Originally posted by retired
Theoretically the federal government has limited authority to tell states what to do. However, this was a constitutional issue and Moore was ordered by a federal judge to comply with the constitution. Anytime a constitutional challenged is involved, the federal judiciary is involved. This is really basic law.

Have you forgotten that "acknowledgement of God" was in his oath and the Alabama Constitution? :eek: So why should a Fed demand him disregard those?

And while you are so active, why don't you explain to all the "atheist agenda" behind all of this? ;)

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by 7@NGHS
Have you forgotten that "acknowledgement of God" was in his oath and the Alabama Constitution? :eek: So why should a Fed demand him disregard those?

And while you are so active, why don't you explain to all the "atheist agenda" behind all of this? ;)

First, I'm not atheist, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't agree that he should have had to take them out, but I do believe that he didn't have the right to disobey a federal judge. If he can disregard the higher court, why should anyone have to obey his orders?

[AKwannabe]

When someone takes an oath, its not something that someone of a different religion would have to see when they went into the public building. It's kind of like "out of sight, out of mind" and people don't care about the oaths, just the tangible objects. Personally, I wish they could have left there too. However, I think retdetsgt hit the spot when he said: but the fact Moore disobeyed a federal judge bothers me. How can he expect others to obey his rulings when he ignores a higher court?

If the man disagreed with the ruling, he should have stepped down from his position. He would have been much better off.

[stillwater]

I can understand that he disregarded an order from a Fed. Judge, however, from a legal stand point...his defense was that he felt the order to remove the stonework was unlawful. As a Judge, should he follow an order he feels is unlawful?

Also, I have a question re: a witness taking the stand in court...is it uncommon practice to place your hand on the Bible to be sworn in?

Thank you for your responses. :)

[ProWriter]

Originally posted by stillwater
Also, I have a question re: a witness taking the stand in court...is it uncommon practice to place your hand on the Bible to be sworn in?

You can request an affirmation without a bible if you object to swearing on a bible.

Personally, I think everybody should be free to worship whomever he or she wishes, but separation of church and state means there should be no mention of or reference to any gods or religious beliefs or excerpts from anyone's bible in government buildings...court buildings especially.

The first commandment on Judge Moore's exhibit was "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". How can that possibly be justified under separation of church and state with respect to U.S. citizens who don't happen to believe in either the New or Old Testament or any form of Christianity or Judaism?

Freedom of religion means freedom to practice one's religion, but it also means freedom from the religions of other people in publicly funded or regulated life. In NY, for example, I cannot put a six pack of wine coolers in my shopping cart with my other groceries if I happen to be shopping after midnight on Saturday night because NY law still considers Sunday to be the Sabbath. (Insert obvious joke about my boring life here) In fairness, and under the doctrine of separation, why should someone who doesn't subscribe to any religious Sabbath at all (or someone who considers Saturday his Sabbath rather than Sunday, etc) be prohibited from buying alcohol on Sunday? I'm not bashing anybody's religious beliefs and I don't even drink...it just doesn't seem fair or consistent with separation of church and state in principle.

In my opinion, if Michael Nudow eventually decides to go after the "In God We Trust" printed on money, he'll win that one too, for the exact same reason he was successful with the Pledge suit.

[retired]

ProWriter,

A law suit has already been filed against the motto "In God we trust" on our currency several times in different Circuit Courts. The appeallate courts ruled that it was secular in nature and did not find that the moto endorsed religion. The SC refused to review any of the cases, thus as you know in effect upholding the lower courts rulings. Surprisingly, one of the courts that ruled in favor of the motto was the 9th Circuit Court, often referred to as a very liberal court.

[ProWriter]

I know, I'm just saying I think that it will eventually be challenged successfully.

[retdetsgt]

Originally posted by stillwater
I can understand that he disregarded an order from a Fed. Judge, however, from a legal stand point...his defense was that he felt the order to remove the stonework was unlawful. As a Judge, should he follow an order he feels is unlawful?

Also, I have a question re: a witness taking the stand in court...is it uncommon practice to place your hand on the Bible to be sworn in?

Thank you for your responses. :)

According to a lot of philosophers, it's perfectly okay to disobey a law you think is unjust, but you should be prepared to accept the consequences...

I've never been sworn in to court on a bible in my life. They just don't do it in Oregon courts. Thinking about it, I've never done it when I was sworn in to federal courts either.

I think Moore has another motive in all this. Who ever heard of him outside Alabama until this started? I think Moore has asperations for higher office and what better way to get name recognition? Moore's a lot of things, but he's not a fool. He knew that he wouldn't win against a federal judge's ruling, but by being defiant, he got even more national press coverage. And since it was a civil matter, there was no criminal penalty. Interestingly enough, the AG that went after him was rejected by the Democrats for a federal judge position because he was too conservative!

I read recently that a Gallup poll said the 70% of Americans thought the Ten Commandments had a place in public buildings. I was frankly surprised at that number. I suspect it's higher in Alabama. Moore can probably get elected to any office he wants to now in that state. Not a bad price to pay for a senate seat!

[Deputy757]

Originally posted by ProWriter
Freedom of religion means freedom to practice one's religion, but it also means freedom from the religions of other people in publicly funded or regulated life.
This is not exactly true. It means that the government and/or it's representatives can't endorse any one particular religion. However, anyone can advocate or endorse their particular religion in any public place or on public property. For example, I as a student could wear a shirt in school, that says something like "Jesus Rules", and there is not violation of the Establishment Clause.

[ProWriter]

I didn't exactly think it was necessary to say "by the government" there, as I'm pretty sure that anybody registered here already understands that the issue only relates to official acts and not to private expressions. No sane person would ever challenge your right to express or promote your religion privately :rolleyes:

OTOH, by your definition of what it is you think the government may and may not do in this regard (promote a SPECIFIC religion), it would be perfectly permissible to require a declaration of SOME religious belief to obtain a governmental benefit, since that's not promoting any SPECIFIC religion, right? By the same reasoning, it would also be perfectly constitutional to discriminate against atheists without violating the EC.

The last time I studied Establishment Clause issues it was absolutely impermissible for government to give tax breaks to families just for sending their kids to (any) religous school instead of public school for exactly that reason: the Constitution also prohibits promoting RELIGION over secularism and not just a SPECIFIC religion over other religions.

[stillwater]

Thank you for your responses. I appreciate and value your opinions as well as your knowledge.

Pro Writer,
Thank you for your response...I was hoping you would comment on this issue of law. I enjoy your posts and thank you for your insight.

RetDetSgt thank you for your insight as well...I hadn't pondered how Judge Moore might benefit from the attention.

Thanks, everyone! :)

Mary Beth

[ProWriter]

No problem Mary Beth. I'm not an expert on the topic at all and it's a long time since I studied it, but I do remember a case on exactly that point (tax breaks to parents of kids in religious schools). Constitutional interpretations do change over time...but not THAT much.

[retired]

Originally posted by ProWriter
No problem Mary Beth. I'm not an expert on the topic at all and it's a long time since I studied it, but I do remember a case on exactly that point (tax breaks to parents of kids in religious schools). Constitutional interpretations do change over time...but not THAT much.

Would this be the case you are referring to?


Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 - A Minnesota plan allowed a tax deduction of $500-$700 for parents of school children for actual expenses incurred for tuition, books and transportation.

The Court held that providing deductions to aid parents in sending their children to parochial school had the secular purpose of offering "wholesome" competition with public schools. Because a variety of deductions are offered under the plan, including medical, it neither advanced or prohibited religion. Since the aid to parochial schools only came as the result of the private choices of individual parents, the Majority found "no imprimatur of State approval."

[ProWriter]

<Coughing from all the dust on this book>

Nope. The case you mentioned passed the so-called "excessive entanglement" test because it provided tax relief to parents of public school kids as well. It had been challenged because it HAPPENED to translate into more money for parochial school kids' folks simply because they tended to live farther from school and use more expensive books. The statute itself was religiously neutral because it also was intended to assist public school kids' folks.

In fact, Rehnquist specifically distinguished Mueller from the earlier (1973) case I had in mind (Public Ed v. Nyquist 413 U.S. 756). In Nyquist, the state had tried to give tax breaks ONLY to parochial school kids' parents.

Mueller doesn't allow the state to reward parents for sending kids to religious schools; it just means it's not a problem if the state gives a tax break to ALL students that happens to help out kids in private or religious schools more. It still absolutely prohibits any benefit that is directed only to religious schools or that has any governmental intent to do so.

Actually, some of these cases that ruled against such tax breaks struck down benefits intended merely for "private" schools, because such a high percentage OF private schools are religious. That's how important it is to the Court NOT to allow benefits intended primarily to go to religious schools. If the principle of separation weren't so important, the Court could very easily have decided by analgous reasoning to the "incidental benefit" analysis in Mueller that as long as a tax break applied to all parents sending their kids to PRIVATE schools it doesn't matter that MOST "private" schools are religious schools. The Court did not allow tax breaks to ALL "private" schools, precisely because it didn't want to allow states to confer benefits to "private" schools if the intent was a governmental benefit to religious schools.

Mueller was decided on other more subtle grounds and constitutional tests, but the central tenet that EVEN Mueller affirms in its opinion is that the government may NOT promote or encourage religious LIFE (or education) in any respect over secular life. It is not the case that government is merely prohibited from promoting SPECIFIC religions.

<cough> <cough>

[retired]

I went back and read some more on the cases and I think that three cases were affected.

1973 PEARL v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 - Involved a NY plan to pay for maintenance and repairs to non-public schools; tuition reimbursement for parents of parochial school children where family income was under $500 and tax deductions for parents of parochial school children where family income was between $500 and $25,000. 6:3

Does a state statute that provides for tuition reimbursement and tax deduction for parents of parochial school children violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

The Court found that Levitt, Nyquist and Sloan had the purpose of advancing religion and violated the Establishment Clause. The plans made no attempt to ensure state funds were not being used for religious purposes. The tuition reimbursements were seen as a "reward" to parents for sending their children to sectarian schools.

Interesting reading, and thanks for making me research.;)

[ProWriter]

Originally posted by retired
Does a state statute that provides for tuition reimbursement and tax deduction for parents of parochial school children violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

Yeah, that's the point. Otherwise the Court could have easily allowed benefits to "private" schools since SOME private schools aren't religious.

Originally posted by retired
Interesting reading, and thanks for making me research.;)

Boy do WE have a different attitude to being "made" to research...you shouldda heard me here when I had to get up to find that book when I purposely tried to get by without it in originally posting my answer to this thread:)

[retired]

Actually I should say for "encouraging" me to do research.;)

[stillwater]

Prowriter;

I guess I should have said that I thank you for your 'responses' (plural), instead; I was referring to all of your responses to this thread; sorry. I think that was what started the quest! ;) Tee hee!


ProWriter and retired...boy, you guys are good! :)

[Deputy757]

Prowriter,
I know that most people would automatically understand what you meant but, one, many people are not as informed as you are and, two, there are some people who actually do believe that any expression of religious beliefs in public or on public property are inappropriate and/or unlawful. So go ahead and roll your eyes but your statement was inaccurate and I'm sure accuracy is something you believe in given your user name!
The reason I said "specific religion" is because it's perfectly ok for a public school to teach religion classes as long as the class is about how various religions have affected history (or something similar) and isn't an endorsement of any one particular religion.
As to your question about discriminating against atheists, I would argue that their belief that there is no God is, in and of itself, a religious belief, or viewpoint at the very least.

[ProWriter]

Geez, it was just a cute little green rolling eyes avatar not a middle finger avatar or anything. Anyway, it was as much because I didn't really think "publicly funded or regulated life" left that much room for misinterpretation. No offense intended.

Originally posted by Deputy757
As to your question about discriminating against atheists, I would argue that their belief that there is no God is, in and of itself, a religious belief, or viewpoint at the very least.

This position has always bothered me though. Atheism isn't a specific belief about anything at all, in fact, "atheist" wouldn't even be a WORD if it weren't for "theists"...all it means is that someone doesn't subscribe to the beliefs of any theists. Someone who holds no particular religious belief whatsoever but simply doesn't accept one of the existing popular theistic beliefs is an "atheist". That's not a "religious view" at all; that's not HAVING any religious view. It's quite self centered (or egocentric) to label someone who doesn't accept ANY religion or any God as having a specific religion of his own simply because he doesn't subscribe to anybody ELSE'S religion, isn't it?

Personally, I have no idea whether there's any God but I live my life as THOUGH there were and his/her only concern is that I "do unto others". I'm confident that if there really is any God he'll understand that someone who chooses to treat people and other living things in a "Christian-like" manner just because he thinks it's right, but without the slightest bit of fear that there's any punishment for not doing so deserves at least as much credit as someone who does the right thing partly out of fear of punishment.

[Deputy757]

No offense taken or meant. It's hard to get the "tone" right when you are posting on BB's. Anyway, I agree that it would be too much to call atheism a religion but feel that it's ok to say it's a religious viewpoint. Or perhaps a viewpoint on religion is more accurate. In any case, I wish them all the best...they'll need it! :)

[retired]

Originally posted by Deputy757
No offense taken or meant. It's hard to get the "tone" right when you are posting on BB's. Anyway, I agree that it would be too much to call atheism a religion but feel that it's ok to say it's a religious viewpoint. Or perhaps a viewpoint on religion is more accurate. In any case, I wish them all the best...they'll need it! :)

I agree that an atheist is a non-belief in a theist rather than a religious belief. It is certainly an opinion or view about religion, but definitly not a religion.

I happen to be an atheist, and I appreciate you wishing me the best because I'll need it(whatever that means). I wish you the best in your religious beliefs as well.:)

[djack16]

I have ideas on what Deputy meant.
1. Because you have not accepted Jesus into your heart and that the Bible is the true word of God, you are destined to burn in the lake of fire.
2. Because the atheist doesn't have good ole God and Jesus to teach and perform miracles and the such.

I really hope it is the latter or another reason. I will tell you though; many people I have met who claimed theirs was the one, true religion were quick to damn you for not believing it...even if you were well aligned with their morals. They did not impress me very much.

Now the commandments. Having my government house a big, stone statue for the purpose of proselytizing makes me sick. It is like a slap in the face to other faiths and to those without them. Moore makes me even sicker with his flagrant disobediance. Had Moore installed a statue of Buddha or Thor I would have met it with the same amount of resistence. This country is a mixing pot. If people want to believe in something, they can! If they want to pray, they got churches! If they want to build statues, they got property! If they want to be reclusive and not use cars, telephones, or electronics, they can withdrawal from that activity! It is something I am proud of and anything that would threaten that is unacceptable. That is all I've got.

[oldblue]

I just wish the Feds would keep out of the affairs of the states. The vast majority of the people of Alabama supported the occupany of the Commandments in the court building (majority rules, not any longer. More important to be PC!). The presence of the Commandments in no way influences the proceedings of the court, and just may have been a good influence on lawyers and plaintiffs alike. Each Justice has their own beliefs before taking office and that is what influences the decisions rendered by the court.

I am an Alabama transpalnt resident (aka Damn Yankee). I moved here from a very liberal state and have no regrets. Stand up for what you belive in.

Now I am getting the hang of how you become a "Literary Senior Vetran."
;)