Quoting:
I don't see anything there asking for "endorsement".
End Quote

You're right, they're not openly asking for an endorsement, they are just asking for a protection of their religious displays, as in this first paragraph:

Conservative religious groups began a petition drive Monday to demand that Congress legislate to protect displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings.

I'm thinking there are more important things to spend money on than this petty squabble.  It's not like a public display is going to hurt anyone.

Quoting:
Federal courts had no right to dictate things to State courts, as long as it did not violate Federal law.
End Quote

I guess this was one of the "open to interpretation" items as to whether or not he did violate a law.  I'm no expert but according to my government professor, the Constitution was deliberately written to be as open-ended as possible, so there's a smidgen of a possibility that he violated some of the US Court's de facto "fine print" :-/

Quoting:
I can't help but wonder what the correlation is between wanting to display the ten commandments and having the death penalty in that state.

It just strikes me as one of lifes more ironic asides that the most heavily bible-bashing places seem to have the death penalty, ignoring one of their prime directives: "Thou shalt not kill"
End Quote

Unfortunately, people pick and choose their "sins".  Cafeteria religion.

Quoting:

Unfortunately, people pick and choose their "sins".  Cafeteria religion.
End Quote

On another board I frequent, they have an informal "Quote of the week" - I'd definitely nominate that one :-)

Quoting:

On another board I frequent, they have an informal "Quote of the week" - I'd definitely nominate that one :-)
End Quote

I cannot take credit for that quote (my family uses it quite frequently), but you're more than welcome to pass it along.  

Quoting:
I can't help but wonder what the correlation is between wanting to display the ten commandments and having the death penalty in that state.

It just strikes me as one of lifes more ironic asides that the most heavily bible-bashing places seem to have the death penalty, ignoring one of their prime directives: "Thou shalt not kill"
End Quote

Well, for one...  you can thank the "Thou Shall Not Kill" to the King James translators.  The oldest translation taken correctly that I have seen is "You Will Not Commit Murder".  Quite a different interpretation of the phrase.

And as for the Death Penalty, look at the Old Testament and see how mant times God said that death was an appropriate punishment.  There is a big difference between murder and punishment.

On the same side of the coin, I wonder how people that feel that murderers should be given a comfortable life in jail (or in society) after taking the life of another, can stand by and allow "comfort abortion" to occur.  I myself am pro-choice, but prefer that the choice was life.  And I would never say that a mother should not have a procedure that could save her life or her futer chances of having children.  But abortion for birth control makes me sick.  If you are so worried about "Thou Shall Not Kill", look at that also.

And as for the "Cafeteria religion" quote, have you ever lived in Alabama?  I have, and live here now.  I moved here from Los Angeles in March, and have to admit that the change is very welcome.   I can't remember the last time I have gone so long without the stress and anger I felt from living around some of the "enlightened" people out West.

Since I moved out here, I have been invited to Church 3 or 4 times by different people, and they were actually asking out of niceness, because that is what people do here.  It was not an attempt to "convert" me to their faith.  A far cry from LA, where if you are asked to Church there, it is to sample the latest "Cult Of The Week".  Out here, they actually live that lifestyle, it is not a hypocritical life that pretends to live that way.

Quoting:


Well, for one...  you can thank the "Thou Shall Not Kill" to the King James translators.  The oldest translation taken correctly that I have seen is "You Will Not Commit Murder".  Quite a different interpretation of the phrase.

And as for the Death Penalty, look at the Old Testament and see how mant times God said that death was an appropriate punishment.  There is a big difference between murder and punishment.

On the same side of the coin, I wonder how people that feel that murderers should be given a comfortable life in jail (or in society) after taking the life of another, can stand by and allow "comfort abortion" to occur.  I myself am pro-choice, but prefer that the choice was life.  And I would never say that a mother should not have a procedure that could save her life or her futer chances of having children.  But abortion for birth control makes me sick.  If you are so worried about "Thou Shall Not Kill", look at that also.

And as for the "Cafeteria religion" quote, have you ever lived in Alabama?  I have, and live here now.  I moved here from Los Angeles in March, and have to admit that the change is very welcome.   I can't remember the last time I have gone so long without the stress and anger I felt from living around some of the "enlightened" people out West.

Since I moved out here, I have been invited to Church 3 or 4 times by different people, and they were actually asking out of niceness, because that is what people do here.  It was not an attempt to "convert" me to their faith.  A far cry from LA, where if you are asked to Church there, it is to sample the latest "Cult Of The Week".  Out here, they actually live that lifestyle, it is not a hypocritical life that pretends to live that way.
End Quote

I have never lived in Alabama nor do I follow any organized religion but I do know that people have been interpreting the bible as they see fit and fine tune it to what feels comfortable, what works in their lives, forever.  That is why born again Christians and Roman Catholics can read the same book and have totally different ways of doing things.  (The latter, using it as a tool of intimidation for centuries - IMO).  

I do not mean to suggest that people are not sincere in their beliefs, only that many want to customize aspects.  You make the point very well by saying that "You will not commit murder" was literally lost in translation and now many believe God frowns upon capital punishment while you (and I guess, many in Alabama) obviously believe otherwise.

I am glad that you have found a community that is so welcoming and rich in spirit.  I'm sure it is refreshing in this crazy time.

That said however, I'm sticking by my original quote.  People DO pick and choose, even in Alabama.

Quoting:

I have never lived in Alabama nor do I follow any organized religion but I do know that people have been interpreting the bible as they see fit and fine tune it to what feels comfortable, what works in their lives, forever.  That is why born again Christians and Roman Catholics can read the same book and have totally different ways of doing things.  (The latter, using it as a tool of intimidation for centuries - IMO).  

I do not mean to suggest that people are not sincere in their beliefs, only that many want to customize aspects.  You make the point very well by saying that "You will not commit murder" was literally lost in translation and now many believe God frowns upon capital punishment while you (and I guess, many in Alabama) obviously believe otherwise.

I am glad that you have found a community that is so welcoming and rich in spirit.  I'm sure it is refreshing in this crazy time.

That said however, I'm sticking by my original quote.  People DO pick and choose, even in Alabama.

End Quote

:)

Yes, I admit that we do pick and choose.  Even I do that, even though my landing in Alabama was less a choice of where I wanted to go, then from a sincere desire to flee the madness of California.  It just so happened that the first place I was able to go to was Alabama, and I stayed here.

The Bible is one of the most misunderstood books in history.  In fact, the Old Testament (The Scriptures) is in fact largely a combination of History book and Law book for the ancient Hebrew peoples.  It was not viewed normally as the "all-in-one" religious book that modern Christians view it as.

Add to that the fact that a lot of Christians place it in the back seet when compared to the New Testament.  They tend to look at it only as "background material", not as a hard religious book.

Translation has long been a problem in reading The Bible.  From the "Land of Nod" (which translates to "nothing", meaning Caine was a wanderer), to the mistaken belief that all witches should be killed.  The translation "Suffer no witch to live" is incorrect.  The source should be translated as "Suffer no warlock to live", warlock being an old word for "oath breaker", not a male witch, which is a more modern translation.  Taken in context, it should be "Suffer no liar to live".

That some people try to live EXACTLY as the Bible (or any religious book) says is a problem with almost any religious.  It causes Islamic people to sacrifice themselves and other innocent people with them.  It causes Hindu people to place those in the wrong caste into horrible living conditions, saying it is their fault for things they did in a past life.  It causes some Christians to kill doctors to save babies.  It causes a church leader to make his followers drink poisoned kool-aid to prevent them from leaving a jungle compound.  It causes people to commit suicide so they can catch the spaceship flying behind a comet.  No religion is immune from this behavior.

And my belief in Capitol Punishment is something I had LONG before I moved to Alabama.  And even in California, it is obvious that the majority of people there support it.  in 1986, 3 Justices from the California Supreme Court (including the Chief Justice) were recalled largely over that one issue.  When the voters decided to reinstate the Death Penalty in that state, the Justices simple ignored them.  They commuted EVERY Death Penalty case to Life sentences (with probation).  They paid for that by being removed from the bench.

Quoting:
I happen to agree with all of the points in your post, Mr. 80's.   Maybe you could start your own sect. ;)
End Quote

LOL!!!

Actually, for me that would not be to far from the truth.  :)

I myself do not believe in any one organized religion, but am a member of the Presbyterian church.  I hold the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslim's almost equally valid, seeing us all as "people of the Book", and believers in the One God.

I have also brought in a lot of the "Gnostic Knowledge" into my personal belief.  I believe in the Gospel Of Mary Magdalene as a true book, and believe that James was the brother of Jesus.  I also believe that God's covenant with the Jews (His chosen people) is still valid, and that they will be welcome in Heaven also.

As you can see, to many "CHristians", this would make me a heretic.  But I largely keep these to myself, and have no interest in "preaching" to others.

Well, maybe in as far as I preach in here.  But that is 99% moral issues, not religious issues.

Quoting:


LOL!!!

Actually, for me that would not be to far from the truth.  :)

I myself do not believe in any one organized religion, but am a member of the Presbyterian church.  I hold the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslim's almost equally valid, seeing us all as "people of the Book", and believers in the One God.

I have also brought in a lot of the "Gnostic Knowledge" into my personal belief.  I believe in the Gospel Of Mary Magdalene as a true book, and believe that James was the brother of Jesus.  I also believe that God's covenant with the Jews (His chosen people) is still valid, and that they will be welcome in Heaven also.

As you can see, to many "CHristians", this would make me a heretic.  But I largely keep these to myself, and have no interest in "preaching" to others.

Well, maybe in as far as I preach in here.  But that is 99% moral issues, not religious issues.
End Quote

My devout Catholic family always wants my Jewish (well, lapsed Jew) husband to know that it was not Jesus' intent to convert the jews.  It was just supposed to be a wakeup call.  That makes him feel sooo much more comfortable with the idea of Jesus Christ.  lol.  

Getting back to the original topic though, this land WAS formed, the constitution WAS written, with religious values in mind.  Society has changed, though.  The entire face of this nation has changed.  Laws need to be amended to reflect this.  It doesn't matter if the 10 commandments are not just a Christian symbol, that is how they are seen.  The law is supposed to be representative of all peoples.  What's all the panic?  You can still hold your beliefs without having them displayed.  That's just my agnostic opinion.    

Quoting:
Getting back to the original topic though, this land WAS formed, the constitution WAS written, with religious values in mind.  Society has changed, though.  The entire face of this nation has changed.  Laws need to be amended to reflect this.  It doesn't matter if the 10 commandments are not just a Christian symbol, that is how they are seen.  The law is supposed to be representative of all peoples.  What's all the panic?  You can still hold your beliefs without having them displayed.  That's just my agnostic opinion.    
End Quote

I agree, but at the same time, it goes the other way.

What gives somebody else the right to prevent me (or my city or my state) from displaying benign symbols of my faith?  Just because a small minority are offended by a nativity scene or a christmas tree or the 10 commandments, does that give them the right to have them removed?

I remember in the 1970's when "Christmas Carols" were forbidden from being sung in LA schools.  And when the Nativities were removed from all schools and city/county/state property.  Just because somebody wants to show something that is part of their faith, it should not be seen as a threat by others.

I myself am a Christian (of sorts), but am not offended by a Menorah, or the statue of a Buddah, or a statue of Vishnu.  I can look at them as the symbol of somebody elses faith, and not take offense nor demand it be removed.

While I do not want or believe that everybody should conform to my beliefs, I would like them to follow "Judeo-Christian morals".  I think that is actually what frightens a lot of people that protest the symbols.  They feel that the symbol represents a lifestyle they do not follow, and see it as a criticism of how they live.  They do not see it as myself and I am sure most others do, a simple benign symbol of their faith and not intended as a criticism of anybody.

If somebody truely believed in our Republican form of government, they would let the majority of people decide what should be done.  I feel that because they know they will use, they use the courts to force through things that they know most people want.  Because they are able to convince 1 judge to see things their way, they get what they want.

Quoting:


I agree, but at the same time, it goes the other way.

What gives somebody else the right to prevent me (or my city or my state) from displaying benign symbols of my faith?  Just because a small minority are offended by a nativity scene or a christmas tree or the 10 commandments, does that give them the right to have them removed?

I remember in the 1970's when "Christmas Carols" were forbidden from being sung in LA schools.  And when the Nativities were removed from all schools and city/county/state property.  Just because somebody wants to show something that is part of their faith, it should not be seen as a threat by others.

I myself am a Christian (of sorts), but am not offended by a Menorah, or the statue of a Buddah, or a statue of Vishnu.  I can look at them as the symbol of somebody elses faith, and not take offense nor demand it be removed.

While I do not want or believe that everybody should conform to my beliefs, I would like them to follow "Judeo-Christian morals".  I think that is actually what frightens a lot of people that protest the symbols.  They feel that the symbol represents a lifestyle they do not follow, and see it as a criticism of how they live.  They do not see it as myself and I am sure most others do, a simple benign symbol of their faith and not intended as a criticism of anybody.

If somebody truely believed in our Republican form of government, they would let the majority of people decide what should be done.  I feel that because they know they will use, they use the courts to force through things that they know most people want.  Because they are able to convince 1 judge to see things their way, they get what they want.
End Quote

I have to say this.  I don't mind a menorah or a nativity scene in a public park or street but I don't want to walk into a federal building and see a statue of Vishnu or Buddah or a crucifix because it would not represent me, (or CATWOMANOFV, for that matter  :)).  I would not feel like I'd be getting a fair shake because I'd know where their mindset is and it isn't in keeping with mine.

Now, the ten commandments are fine rules to live by, but I'm sure there are good points to live by in all religions.  Heck, even "Live long and prosper" is a pretty good motto, and I'm sure it would make the Star Trek contingent feel groovy, but there's a time a place for everything.  I mean, I'd hate to feel discluded in a court of law because I never mastered that split-fingered handshake thingy!

It all boils down to this.  Everyone looks out for their own interests.  Period.  The people of Alabama most identify with the judeo-christian symbol as you call it, so they are not offended by the sight of it in their courtroom.  You say "just because a small minority is offended they should not have the right to have these symbols removed".  Do they not have a voice because they are not the majority?
Could they say the same of another religion's "benign" symbols?  Would THEY welcome that statue of Buddah or would they say, "That's not representative of our community, our beliefs?"  

I do think we have the right as a nation to say "All or nothing" with regard to the religion thing (as applies to the separation of church and state), because it's impossible to make everyone happy.  
 

Quoting:
To quote my World History teacher, there's two things man will never agree on: politics and religion. :P
End Quote

I disagree :P

Quoting:
This judge was not thrown out of office for his stand on the 10 Commandments.  He was kicked off the bench because he Refused to follow the order of law.

As a Juror he is sworn to uphold the law of the land.  And the law of the land consists of the written laws, and their (sometimes flawed, but nonetheless legal) interpretation by the courts.

So Moore lost his appeal on the 10 Commandments, then refused to obey the legal court order to remove them.  

He had other resourse, such as...

-Pursuing a Consitutional Amendment
-Appeal to Supreme Court

But instead he CHOSE to violate the legal system and not follow the rule of law.  For a Judge to do this is a repudiation of his sworn duty to uphold the law, regardless of whether he "likes" it or not.

And that is why he was taken off the bench.  :)
End Quote

Actually, he did just those things.  He refused to follow the order because he felt it was unconstitutional.  He felt that the FEDERAL governemnt had no right to step into what was really a STATE issue.

And he did appeal this judgement.  In fact, his own trial started before the US Supreme Court even reached a decision if they would even hear his case.  Now how is that for speedy justice?

I guess my entire problem with this is how some people use the judicial process to change laws to suit their purposes.  I have seen this over and over again during the years, and it infuriates me.

The fact is that I agree with Judge Moore.  I feel that the US Government had no right to step in and force a state to remove something from it's own state buildings.

In fact, the 1st Amendment only deals with the US Government establishing an official "state religion", it actually does not make any other prohibitions.  In fact, until the 1830's, most US states STILL had "official religions".

The problem with trying to view the Constitution is that many people try to place current values and views on a document written over 200 years ago.  The authors were not trying to make an athiestic nation, but one that showed no favortism to any one religion.  This was in reaction to how non-Anglicans were treated in the UK, non-Catholics were treated in France and Spain, and other situations like this.

Quoting:


Actually, he did just those things.  He refused to follow the order because he felt it was unconstitutional.  He felt that the FEDERAL governemnt had no right to step into what was really a STATE issue.
End Quote

Mr80's,

You said the magic word.  He refused to follow the order based on what he "felt".  However what one "feels" is not the rule of law and it is nor due process.

Every day, judges make rulings that they do not like.  But they make these rulings because they conform to the LAW which they are sworn to uphold.  If a judge does not like the LAW then he/she can work to change it within the structure of the LAW.  And many times the Judges actually make the ruling and then comment that they feel the law should be changed.  Or they issue lenient-as-possible-and-legal sentences when they feel a law is "unfair".  But they are not allowed to flaunt the law.

How would you like a judge if he sentencd a man to 50 years in jail because he "felt" he was guilty even if the preponderance of evidence says otherwise?  One of the absolute key tenets of our legal system is that Judges must uphold the law, even if they do not like the law.

Moore still had legal recourse.  And he could have asked that the ruling to remove the commandments be "stayed" (maybe he did) prior to final Supreme Court rulings.  But until such stay is issued, the RULE OF LAW says that he must comply with the ruling to remove them.

He chose to disobey, blatantly, the rule of due process of law that he is sworn to uphold, and now he is paying the price as he should.

Even if the Supreme Court ends up ruling in his favor about the commandments display (very unlikely though), his removal from the bench for flagrant contempt for due process is STILL wholly appropriate.