[Update: USSC denies last-minute appeal] Defiant chief justice vows to keep Ten Commandments monument

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: daniel1113
It's odd... I didn't see anyone here complaining when the Army Corps approved a Muslim youth camp in Iowa on federal land(http://www.naplesnews.com/03/07/neapolitan/d950902a.htm).

But I forgot... separation of church and state means the separation of Christianity from state. How silly of me.

Are you really too obtuse to see the difference between these two scenarios? The muslim youth camp is analogous to one of Bush's "faith based initiatives," whereas the 10 commandments acting as a foundation of law in this Judge's courtroom are him combining religion (10 commandments) with government...

You don't think that a Muslim youth camp is combining religion with government? Like I said, I have no problem with a Muslim camp, a MoonBeamology camp, or any other camp; however, I haven't seen a Christian camp or any other support of Christianity. Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from the dominant religion.

Not only are you ignorant, you're uninformed! Check it out

And no, a Muslim youth camp is not combining religion with government. Simply because the government sponsors a youth camp that happens to be of one faith or another does not mean that religion is state sponsored or that that religion interferes with, or influences, the government or the governing of the state.

This guy using the 10 commandments as his basis for judgement CLEARLY interferes with his foremost duty to uphold the constitution, NOT the 10 commandments.

Get off your Christian high-horse and look at the facts ...

 

[daniel1113]

Get off of your anti-Christianity high-horse and look at the facts...

I don't care if the government sponsors a Muslin Youth camp, but where is our Christian youth camp? Either we all get it, or none of us do.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: rahvin
Explain to me the value of:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

Why should any of those be placed in a house of government?

What are the 10 commandments of Satanism?

Do you google? Now answer my question, what place is there in a government building for a declartion that there shall be no other god than the christian god? Does this mean all Hindu's should go to prison?

 

[daniel1113]

I highly doubt that a judge is going to use the ten commandments as the basis for his judicial decisions. You know, just as well as all of us know, that a Hindu will not be treated any differently. The only people that will be affected by the ten commandments are those that either:

1. Are Christians and the plaques affirm their faith
2. Are no Christians and are, for some reason or another, compelled to become a Christian because of the plaques

If they are the latter of the two, the yobviously are not very devout to a previous religion, otherwise they would not be converting.


So, how is another religion being affected?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
I highly doubt that a judge is going to use the ten commandments as the basis for his judicial decisions. You know, just as well as all of us know, that a Hindu will not be treated any differently. The only people that will be affected by the ten commandments are those that either:

1. Are Christians and the plaques affirm their faith
2. Are no Christians and are, for some reason or another, compelled to become a Christian because of the plaques

If they are the latter of the two, the yobviously are not very devout to a previous religion, otherwise they would not be converting.


So, how is another religion being affected?

Actually I don't know that. If a judge insists on their presence I can only assume that they color his bias towards punishments of violations of those commandments and four of those commandments are a direct reference to the christian faith. In addition the presense of a monument that can inspire conversion in a government building has NO PLACE BEING THERE. If the 10 commandments can be there I demand a plaque that says: God is a crutch for the weakminded.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I hate to play devil's advocate here, even though i may get flamed for doing this, but I am an Alabamian. Shouldn't WE be the ones to decide how we decorate our state government buildings? I say this despite my personal feelings on the subject. I just dont believe that this should be taken up by the federal government. It is a state building, so its should be a state problem. Let us decide...

State independence goes only so far. Sometimes the US SC has to step in when the states are out of line...

I agree with Koni.:Q

However, I don't believe a monument(art) should be forcably removed just because it is of spiritual nature. If that were the case we better remove all murals and paintings on gov't properties that have angels or devils or mythical things on them. Or do we only have to remove the "offensive" Christian things?

CkG

It's not because it is of spiritual nature, it's because this jagoff is basing his rulings, as noted in this article, around the 10 commandments, which his puny mind believe are the basis of our legal system.

That's a pretty clear violation of separation of church and state. And, no, separation of church and state does not just mean the state can not set up a state religion...

Uhh - isn't the issue about the removal of a monument of the Ten Commandments because someone was "offended"? I don't care what HIS argument is for keeping it there, IMO- to remove art because it is of spiritual nature is assinine.

CkG

Ok, how would you feel if the was muslim and posted passages from the Koran and then based most of his rulings on the Koran? Geee add a different religion than christianity and you see the picture. The monument should go, it is a clear violation of the constitiution and this judge should be kicked off the Alabama supreme court. It is clear he puts HIS religion above the law.

 

[daniel1113]

Where in that article did Moore say that he would base his rulings off of the Ten Commandments? I don't remember him saying that he would put the Ten Commandments above the law...

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Get off of your anti-Christianity high-horse and look at the facts...

I don't care if the government sponsors a Muslin Youth camp, but where is our Christian youth camp? Either we all get it, or none of us do.

Boy Scouts.....nuff' said.

 

[shuan24]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Where in that article did Moore say that he would base his rulings off of the Ten Commandments? I don't remember him saying that he would put the Ten Commandments above the law...

During his campaign for the chief justice position in November 2000, his campaign committee ran television and radio commercials and posted billboards calling him the "Ten Commandments Judge."

If he campaigns as the "Ten Commandments Judge", then that is implying that he puts the Ten Commandments above the law. Also, his attitude and actions towards the court order is also putting himself above the law.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: rahvin
Explain to me the value of:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

Why should any of those be placed in a house of government?

What are the 10 commandments of Satanism?

Do you google? Now answer my question, what place is there in a government building for a declartion that there shall be no other god than the christian god? Does this mean all Hindu's should go to prison?

The same government where you will find Holy Bibles. How fvcking hypocritical is it that they want to remove a religious statue when Bibles are used in a court of law to persuade someone to tell the truth?


FYI, Hinduism is normally associated with monotheism by most scholars

Now answer my question, what are the 10 commandments of Satanism?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Conclusion
Although the Court?s interpretation of the establishment clause is in flux, it is likely that for the foreseeable future a majority of the justices will continue to view government neutrality toward religion as the guiding principle. Neutrality means not favoring one religion over another, not favoring religion over non-religion and vice versa.

See? Or didn't you read that far It means gov't should support one religion/form of spirituality over another. What it doesn't mean is that it can't allow religious/spiritual objects on gov't property. Laws also can't LIMIT religion -which is what is essentially happening by forceably removing this monument.

Freedom OF doesn't mean freedom from.

As with the other religion thread I am through with the discussion. It is apparant that many here are Godless and as I said - patience is a weakness of mine, especially in regards to those who choose to dismiss God.

CkG

Cad, I certainly hope that little "winky" means that you know you're full of it.

I'm sorry that you don't like the way the highest courts in our land have interpreted our most sacred laws. But I guess it's OK in your mind for Christians to selectively follow the law when and where it suits them. I guess it's OK in your opinion for a State's chief justice to flout a federal court order when it suits him to do so. It's a shame that you selectively read and interpret the U.S. Constitution to suit your narrow agenda.

Your interpretation is flat-out wrong. Your opinion is flat-out wrong. I wonder if you have the patience to understand why, or whether you'll just wander off content in your bottomless ignorance.

You are completely wrong in your interpretation. It doesn't say religious things can't be in the gov't - it just says that religions can't be infringed upon by law(gov't) But again you can't realize this because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda. I have no "agenda" as I'm not trying to forcably remove something. You and your kind are trying to strip our country of all religious things using your narrow twisted interpretation of the Constitution.

Citrix - I don't have a problem with Muslims - do you? This judge did not do anything "wrong" by placing that monument there or fighting it's removal. It is NOT unconstitutional for things of religious nature to be on Gov't property.

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Get off of your anti-Christianity high-horse and look at the facts...

I don't care if the government sponsors a Muslin Youth camp, but where is our Christian youth camp? Either we all get it, or none of us do.

Boy Scouts.....nuff' said.

No No No - you don't get it. The boyscouts isn't a Christian organization. I attended the National Jamboree a few years back and I do believe that there were services for dang near all religions. I infact attended a Buddist service - it was very enlightening and I learned alot about what they believe and why. The BoyScout are definately not a "Christian" organization but they are embraced by Religious denominations.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
You are completely wrong in your interpretation. It doesn't say religious things can't be in the gov't - it just says that religions can't be infringed upon by law(gov't) But again you can't realize this because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda. I have no "agenda" as I'm not trying to forcably remove something. You and your kind are trying to strip our country of all religious things using your narrow twisted interpretation of the Constitution.

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

So now you're a constitutional scholar Cad? Wow, your hubris is truly legendary. Let me point you, once again, to the establishment clause

?The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

And also:

Endorsement test
The endorsement test, proposed by Justice Sandra Day O?Connor, asks whether a particular government action amounts to an endorsement of religion. According to O?Connor, a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion. She expressed her understanding of the establishment clause in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly, in which she states, ?The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.? Her fundamental concern was whether the particular government action conveys ?a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.? O?Connor?s ?endorsement test? has, on occasion, been subsumed into the Lemon test. The justices have simply incorporated it into the first two prongs of Lemon by asking if the challenged government act has the purpose or effect of advancing or endorsing religion.

The Alabama Chief Justice has placed a two-ton monument of the ten commandments in a state building. Justice Moore made clear that his display was specifically meant as a monument to the Judeo-Christian God and not directed at a God of any other religion. Therefore Moore is endorsing one religion in preference to all other religions. Because it is a state/government building, by extention, Moore is proposing that the State of Alabama endorses one religion and excludes all others.

Your agenda is clear Cad: By your words here, you want Christianity to be endorsed above all other religions. You also believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a state judge to ignore a federal court order. You also seem to believe that Christians are above the law when it comes to placing religious monuments into government buildings.

Nobody is removing your "right to freely associate with our religion" and nobody is mandating that you "remove all that is religious because it might offend someone" - you're simply knee-jerking and over-reacting as usual, because you have a religious problem with the issue at hand. Now, I thought you were on your way out already

 

[konichiwa]

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

Right, Cad has "no agenda" - yet he takes every opportunity to proselytize to the rest of us.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

Right, Cad has "no agenda" - yet he takes every opportunity to proselytize to the rest of us.

As you with I.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

No - I was away on business - you know....WORK. How can you challenge my pity? It is mine to give - If you fall under those I pity then so be it and I hope that someday someone stronger and more patient than I will be able to work with you. Plus I was done with that thread as I am now with this one AGAIN. just as soon as I set DM straight as to my "agenda" AGAIN.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Your agenda is clear Cad: By your words here, you want Christianity to be endorsed above all other religions. You also believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a state judge to ignore a federal court order. You also seem to believe that Christians are above the law when it comes to placing religious monuments into government buildings.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

I did NOT say that I wanted Christianity endoresed ABOVE ALL OTHER RELIGIONS - I just don't think that you can remove them all because of YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. If there was a statue of Budda - I wouldn't care, just like I wouldn't care if there was a different monument on gov't property. BTW - you seem to be selectively reading that summary. I've read that many times and it means jack squat because it is just opinions and not law. It will be interesting to see how the USSC will address this issue. Hopefully it will ONLY use the Constitution as their guide unlike some of their recent rulings.

A federal court order isn't a law and it can be challenged and appealed. I don't think he is setting a good example by refusing to comply but then again I don't think the court set a good example of following the law either. Both are wrong and one will be vindicated.

How so? I don't know where you get off saying that Christians feel they are above the law. I think you are not understanding that there is a difference between Man's law and God's law. God's law is greater than man's, but God also said that we need to follow those laws which are set forth by man unless they are in direct violation of God's law.

The question remains - how does a monument equate to stiffling a person's right to freedom of religion? It doesn't - end of story.

CkG

PS - I will leave you and this thread - so flame away.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

No - I was away on business - you know....WORK. How can you challenge my pity? It is mine to give - If you fall under those I pity then so be it and I hope that someday someone stronger and more patient than I will be able to work with you. Plus I was done with that thread as I am now with this one AGAIN. just as soon as I set DM straight as to my "agenda" AGAIN.

CkG

Point proven! You run from the thread yet again...

Sure, your pity is yours to give, but my dignity is mine to keep and if you think I'm going to allow you to sit aloof, talking to me as if I were a baby or your poodle, you are very wrong. Feel free to throw your empty pity upon whomever you choose, but don't expect him to lie down and be degraded.

You seem to avoid intelligent conversation regarding your pity at all costs, so I'm not going to offer any more provocations for lucid debate. So be it, as long as we know it was your choice and not mine.

Save it for someone else...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

No - I was away on business - you know....WORK. How can you challenge my pity? It is mine to give - If you fall under those I pity then so be it and I hope that someday someone stronger and more patient than I will be able to work with you. Plus I was done with that thread as I am now with this one AGAIN. just as soon as I set DM straight as to my "agenda" AGAIN.

CkG

Point proven! You run from the thread yet again...

Sure, your pity is yours to give, but my dignity is mine to keep and if you think I'm going to allow you to sit aloof, talking to me as if I were a baby or your poodle, you are very wrong. Feel free to throw your empty pity upon whomever you choose, but don't expect him to lie down and be degraded.

You seem to avoid intelligent conversation regarding your pity at all costs, so I'm not going to offer any more provocations for lucid debate. So be it, as long as we know it was your choice and not mine.

Save it for someone else...

You are so full of yourself - as if YOU could argue against my pity towards someone

I do and will continue to pity the Godless as I feel all should have the chance to know God. Me being done with a thread's topic does not mean I'm "running" it means that no matter what I say or prove you will not accept it. Please prove to me that I don't or can't pity the Godless. Come on lets hear the enlightened argument.
BTW - pity doesn't neccesarily mean degradation - but hey if you feel inferior because of my pity that is your issue.
CkG

 

[MovingTarget]

Yeah, that monument wont last too much longer before its removed. But most people i know around here don't really see this as a major infringement upon the 1st amendment. It is about as serious as the controversy over having "in god we trust" on our money, but i suppose there's another thread for that. However, if someone starts putting up crucifixes in all gvt offices/schools around here or starts having students recite the lord's prayer in class, then we'd all be up in arms about this. The monument is a minor infraction really. The federal gvt has bigger fish to fry than this. But like i said, its days are numbered.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

No - I was away on business - you know....WORK. How can you challenge my pity? It is mine to give - If you fall under those I pity then so be it and I hope that someday someone stronger and more patient than I will be able to work with you. Plus I was done with that thread as I am now with this one AGAIN. just as soon as I set DM straight as to my "agenda" AGAIN.

CkG

Point proven! You run from the thread yet again...

Sure, your pity is yours to give, but my dignity is mine to keep and if you think I'm going to allow you to sit aloof, talking to me as if I were a baby or your poodle, you are very wrong. Feel free to throw your empty pity upon whomever you choose, but don't expect him to lie down and be degraded.

You seem to avoid intelligent conversation regarding your pity at all costs, so I'm not going to offer any more provocations for lucid debate. So be it, as long as we know it was your choice and not mine.

Save it for someone else...

You are so full of yourself - as if YOU could argue against my pity towards someone

I do and will continue to pity the Godless as I feel all should have the chance to know God. Me being done with a thread's topic does not mean I'm "running" it means that no matter what I say or prove you will not accept it. Please prove to me that I don't or can't pity the Godless. Come on lets hear the enlightened argument.
BTW - pity doesn't neccesarily mean degradation - but hey if you feel inferior because of my pity that is your issue.
CkG

Tell me where I suggested you "don't or can't pity the Godless?" In fact, I proclaimed your ability to do whatever you choose:

"Sure, your pity is yours to give" ... "Feel free to throw your empty pity upon whomever you choose"

As I said before, you are completely free to do whatever you choose with your pity. Did you even read my post, or are you just arguing emptily?

It seems like you're the obdurate one, not me...you argue as if you are arguing with a brick wall who is not responding; your arguments are the same from post to post.

And furthermore, no, pity does not equal degradation, but your pity does. Your pity equates with your feeling of superiority, as if those without God deserve or need the pity of those with God. That suggestion assumes that those with God are on a higher moral plane than those without, or that they are living in a heightened state of reality.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa

It is a sad day for America when we lose the right to freely associate with our religion and are told to remove all that is religious because it might offend someone. Again - I pity the Godless - may God have mercy on their souls.

CkG

You keep spouting off with this pity crap, then when you get challenged on it, you run from the thread. Very mature of you...

No - I was away on business - you know....WORK. How can you challenge my pity? It is mine to give - If you fall under those I pity then so be it and I hope that someday someone stronger and more patient than I will be able to work with you. Plus I was done with that thread as I am now with this one AGAIN. just as soon as I set DM straight as to my "agenda" AGAIN.

CkG

Point proven! You run from the thread yet again...

Sure, your pity is yours to give, but my dignity is mine to keep and if you think I'm going to allow you to sit aloof, talking to me as if I were a baby or your poodle, you are very wrong. Feel free to throw your empty pity upon whomever you choose, but don't expect him to lie down and be degraded.

You seem to avoid intelligent conversation regarding your pity at all costs, so I'm not going to offer any more provocations for lucid debate. So be it, as long as we know it was your choice and not mine.

Save it for someone else...

You are so full of yourself - as if YOU could argue against my pity towards someone

I do and will continue to pity the Godless as I feel all should have the chance to know God. Me being done with a thread's topic does not mean I'm "running" it means that no matter what I say or prove you will not accept it. Please prove to me that I don't or can't pity the Godless. Come on lets hear the enlightened argument.
BTW - pity doesn't neccesarily mean degradation - but hey if you feel inferior because of my pity that is your issue.
CkG

Tell me where I suggested you "don't or can't pity the Godless?" In fact, I proclaimed your ability to do whatever you choose:

"Sure, your pity is yours to give" ... "Feel free to throw your empty pity upon whomever you choose"

As I said before, you are completely free to do whatever you choose with your pity. Did you even read my post, or are you just arguing emptily?

It seems like you're the obdurate one, not me...you argue as if you are arguing with a brick wall who is not responding; your arguments are the same from post to post.

And furthermore, no, pity does not equal degradation, but your pity does. Your pity equates with your feeling of superiority, as if those without God deserve or need the pity of those with God. That suggestion assumes that those with God are on a higher moral plane than those without, or that they are living in a heightened state of reality.

No actually you are wrong. It isn't about superiority - it is about compasion. I wish that everyone could understand the teachings of God, the pity comes in because I know I can do little to change it since one of my weaknesses is patience, which is neccesary for learning and teaching.
You attacked my pity in the other thread And not it isn't about "living in a heightened state of reality" actually it is per faith that we are supposed to live by his Word.

CkG

 

[SuperTool]

The problem with religious righties is that you give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.
Like "In God We Trust" on the money. By itself, as an agnostic, I would say who cares, no big deal. But then the righties go into court and point to it as a justification for other infractions.
So like true hypocrites that they are, on one hand they say IGWT is not about religion it's about tradition, then on the other hand, they go and claim it as a basis for other breaches of separation of church and state.
People should look at Iran, Taliban, KSA, etc and see what happens when that wall of separation is removed. I think even Christians would agree, that they would like to be free to worship their religion, but wouldn't want the govenrmnent pushing it down their throats.
Once the government becomes a tool of religion, the religion becomes a tool of the government. There is no getting around it.

 

[DealMonkey]

There's an update on this case. Apparantly, Alabama's Attorney General and other State Supreme Court justices are distancing themselves from the self-proclaimed "ten commandments judge." Moore has already cost the state in excess of $1 Million defending his religious monument and will cost the state even more ($5K/day) if he continues to defy the federal order.

CNN.com - Alabama legal officials rebel from Ten Commandments chief justice

State's AG won't help violate order to remove monument
Friday, August 15, 2003 Posted: 1:11 PM EDT (1711 GMT)

MONTGOMERY, Alabama (AP) -- The attorney general and Alabama Supreme Court associate justices are distancing themselves from the state's chief justice, who has pledged to defy a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state's judicial building.

Chief Justice Roy Moore said Thursday he had "no intention" of obeying the order to remove the monument from the building, where he moved it in the middle of the night in 2001. He has said that the Ten Commandments represent the moral foundation of American law.

Attorney General Bill Pryor said Thursday he would refuse to help Moore violate the court order, which could result in contempt fines of about $5,000 a day against the state. He declined to say what specific action he would take.

At the same time, Moore's colleagues on the state Supreme Court met to discuss whether they can invoke a state law that lets a majority of the nine justices overrule an administrative action by the chief justice.

Senior Associate Justice Gorman Houston said the justices "will take whatever steps are necessary" to make certain that the state of Alabama doesn't have to pay fines.

But the justices took no immediate action as Moore prepared to file his initial pleading Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court to stop any removal of the monument.

Meanwhile, attorneys suing to remove the monument filed a complaint Thursday with the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission accusing Moore of violating judicial ethics by refusing to obey a court order.

Supporters cheered Moore's claim that a federal court doesn't have the legal authority to make a state judge remove the monument.

"It's so rare to find someone who would make a stand," said Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a national association of churches and pastors who have supported Moore.

Pryor said he personally believes the Old Testament laws can be displayed legally but that doesn't change his responsibility as attorney general.

"I have a duty to obey all orders of courts even when I disagree with those orders," Pryor said in a statement.

Moore's declaration came six days before the courts' August 20 deadline for the 5,300-pound granite monument to be removed from the judicial building rotunda, where it is in clear sight of visitors coming in the main entrance.

With Christian groups planning several rallies over the next week to show support of the monument, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Barry Lynn, accused Moore of creating a circus out of the Ten Commandments issue.

"If Judge Moore can't in good conscience comply with a lawful federal court order, he ought to resign," Lynn said.