Alabama Justice Defends Ten Commandments Monument

[justint]

cnn.com

 

[A5]

This is the same guy who had the 10 Commandments tablet in his courtroom a few years ago. He rode the publicity from that to get elected Chief Justice, and then snuck this thing in the middle of the night. I'm hoping that it gets removed, as it has no place in a government building.

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: A5
This is the same guy who had the 10 Commandments tablet in his courtroom a few years ago. He rode the publicity from that to get elected Chief Justice, and then snuck this thing in the middle of the night. I'm hoping that it gets removed, as it has no place in a government building.

Agreed.

I lived in the county were Roy Moore was a judge before going becoming an Alabama Chief Justice and all I ever heard from people was how he was doing the right thing and the government should leave him alone. Little did they realize that he was just using their belief in Christianity to get votes, and breaking the law while doing it.

 

[Orsorum]

I still don't understand why people are so stuck on the false idea that the ten commandments are something unique - as it stands, they're moral laws that existed, in other forms, for years previous.

 

[AreaCode707]

Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
This country is founded on the principles of religious freedom.
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
Same principle as before, also, the fact that most businesses, while they have reduced hours, still regard Sundays as a profitable day to be open.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.
Isn't this contradicting one of the guiding principles of capitalism? Unlimited wants?

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

I think commandments 1-4 are bunk.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

It won't be removed. Christians of 2002 believe their religion is more important than law and should legally be treated as such.
God is, after all, in the pledge of allegiance because everyone thinks god is great, without even thinking about the fact that it violages the Constitution.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer
It won't be removed. Christians of 2002 believe their religion is more important than law and should legally be treated as such.
God is, after all, in the pledge of allegiance because everyone thinks god is great, without even thinking about the fact that it violages the Constitution.

another gem in the rough

nik

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
This country is founded on the principles of religious freedom.
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
Same principle as before, also, the fact that most businesses, while they have reduced hours, still regard Sundays as a profitable day to be open.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.
Isn't this contradicting one of the guiding principles of capitalism? Unlimited wants?

Okay, and which of these undermines the law?

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

It's not HIS courtroom.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

There's the issue that it's a judeo-christian artifact - a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc could find that offensive and disconcerting, seeing as how a judge is supposed to be impartial in all ways possible.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

The only problem I have with this is that the SOB snuck it in late at night without confering with the other justices or anyone else who works there. If he believed he was doing the right and legal thing, why didn't he have the truck and crane come in at high noon to place the statue? Was he afraid there would be an outcry and he would be stopped? He's either a showboater who will stop at nothing to further his career or he is a extreme fanatic right wing Christian who is willing to do anything to further his beliefs. Either way, he bothers me.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Okay, and which of these undermines the law?

The first... I could probably make a case for any of the others if I were feeling picky enough, but I'm not.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

There's the issue that it's a judeo-christian artifact - a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc could find that offensive and disconcerting, seeing as how a judge is supposed to be impartial in all ways possible.

Well, whether that's there or not, he has his beliefs. And whether it's there or not, his beliefs shouldn't matter in the ruling. An artifact shouldn't change any of that.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

The only problem I have with this is that the SOB snuck it in late at night without confering with the other justices or anyone else who works there. If he believed he was doing the right and legal thing, why didn't he have the truck and crane come in at high noon to place the statue? Was he afraid there would be an outcry and he would be stopped? He's either a showboater who will stop at nothing to further his career or he is a extreme fanatic right wing Christian who is willing to do anything to further his beliefs. Either way, he bothers me.

Most other judges who are not liberal did support him. He also didn't sneak them in. Even though I am not a practicing christian, I have always believe separation of church and state was to keep the government out of the church not the other way around.

I see no problem with a moral code that has religous undertones.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

The only problem I have with this is that the SOB snuck it in late at night without confering with the other justices or anyone else who works there. If he believed he was doing the right and legal thing, why didn't he have the truck and crane come in at high noon to place the statue? Was he afraid there would be an outcry and he would be stopped? He's either a showboater who will stop at nothing to further his career or he is a extreme fanatic right wing Christian who is willing to do anything to further his beliefs. Either way, he bothers me.

Point there, for sure.

 

[pulse8]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

Not everyone believes the same things you do, but from what I've seen of your posts, you have no problem with forcing them upon others. So, I guess I don't find that kind of writing surprising.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

There's the issue that it's a judeo-christian artifact - a Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, etc could find that offensive and disconcerting, seeing as how a judge is supposed to be impartial in all ways possible.

How could they find it offensive? I don't find their religion offensive. What if the judge ruled something that they didn't agree with? Well, that has no place since they don't agree with it, right? It's not like what he's advocating is murder, theft, rape, or anything else againts the law? How is "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" present a negative effect on society? It doesn't.

nik

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: HotChic

Well, whether that's there or not, he has his beliefs. And whether it's there or not, his beliefs shouldn't matter in the ruling. An artifact shouldn't change any of that.

It's still an external expression of beliefs which may, on occasion, interfere with this man's impartiality.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

Not everyone believes the same things you do, but from what I've seen of your posts, you have no problem with forcing them upon others. So, I guess I don't find that kind of writing surprising.

How does one force one's beliefs upon others, exactly? I mean, stating beliefs aloud does not "force" them on anyone, and it's only an exercise of free speech. It does not force anyone to believe them. The phrase "forcing beliefs" is something that doesn't apply to adults in the US in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

How could they find it offensive? I don't find their religion offensive. What if the judge ruled something that they didn't agree with? Well, that has no place since they don't agree with it, right? It's not like what he's advocating is murder, theft, rape, or anything else againts the law? How is "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" present a negative effect on society? It doesn't.

nik

It could possibly affect that judges impartiality, which is, honestly, my only beef with it.

If a judge were to wear a big Star of David on the outside of his robe, I would have the same reservations. Or a Buddha statue in the corner, etc.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Zakath15

Originally posted by: HotChic

Well, whether that's there or not, he has his beliefs. And whether it's there or not, his beliefs shouldn't matter in the ruling. An artifact shouldn't change any of that.

It's still an external expression of beliefs which may, on occasion, interfere with this man's impartiality.

The object itself though does nothing. In fact, if there's some way he might be biased, wouldn't it be *better* to have a sign of it around? Otherwise he'd be partial and there'd be no way to know it. If he has problems with partiality (which you cannot assert simply because of his religious beliefs) then that's an entirely other issue.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: pulse8

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: HotChic
Seriously... why does everyone have such a major problem with this? Simply because of the source? Ignoring that they're from the Bible, tell me which commandment you would argue with, which one do you think undermines the principals of the law? What's the issue?

People are anal about religion. They're so against it that a man can't even have something of his own in his own courtroom - which isn't offensive to anyone who's not a fscking anal tool.

nik

Not everyone believes the same things you do, but from what I've seen of your posts, you have no problem with forcing them upon others. So, I guess I don't find that kind of writing surprising.

How am I forcing my opinion on anyone? I'm not. Am I telling you "no, you're wrong. You HAVE to believe the way I do! There is no other choice!!!!!!" I'm not, am I. I'm telling you how I feel about people who think that religion has no place in the court room but who also realize that the law that they are governed over was based on those very same beliefs.

nik