Your argument does not fly. The Supreme Court often uses works by TJ and the other founding fathers to justify their decisions. For example, the right to privacy is not found anywhere within the constitution, yet Louis D. Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States stated that the right to privacy is the most valuable to civilized men. This idea came from outside sources. The Constitution is a short document; the founders wrote other works to explain it. Personal correspondence and the Federalist Papers are not binding documents, constitutionally, but they are used in constitutional arguments. The best way to look at them is as apocrypha. They are quite useful in analyzing the original interpretations of the authors of the Constitution.

Oh, and Moore is an idiot for not realizing that the Supreme Court has often ruled that the 14th amendment applies the 1st to the states.

Thanks for the comments...

You may be right that my argument doesn't fly with respect to current constitutional legal theory -- i don't know much about that yet...

But, it seems to me that these other documents outside the constitution should be used only with respect to those areas such as the rights of individuals and states not enumerated in the constitution.

The constitution makes it fairly clear that the federal government is limited by the rights and limits set out therein, while others are reserved to the states and the people. This would indicate to me that the rights of the states and people are to be interpreted broadly, and those of the federal government narrowly and specifically limited to those enumerated in the constitution.

So I guess I subscribe to the theory that Congress's powers and limits should be strictly limited to those stated in the constitution, while those of the states and the people are more open to interpretation.

I do agree that something based on the 14th amendment would make more sense, but I don't see that equal protection under the law is affected by endorsement of moral principles within one religion's history, rather than endorsement of a particular religion per se.

I'd be interested to hear what your opinion is on this...

In Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, Hugo Black held that neither federal nor state governments can "aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." In Lee v. Weisman, the court held that school graduation prayers led by school officials violate the rights of minorities against majority coercion or peer pressure.

Judge Moore, as a public official, cannot advance religious views. He can espouse whatever he wants to as a private citizen.

Judge Moore's argument is escaping the minds of many of the respondents - perhaps because there trining is logic is deficient.
The grounds for the Constitutional argument of prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not one of 'judicial precedence' but of constitutional wording itself. If it were otherwise, there is so-called precedence for the Dred Scott decison. No ones is proposing that precedent in modern times to the best of my recollection.

Judge Moore's argument is escaping the minds of many of the respondents - perhaps because there training in logic is deficient.
The grounds for the Constitutional argument of prohibiting the free exercise of religion is not one of 'judicial precedence' but of constitutional wording itself. If it were otherwise, there is so-called precedence for the Dred Scott decison. No ones is proposing that precedent in modern times to the best of my recollection.

Interesting. I hadn't realized that.

Does anyone know where I can find the 11th circuit cite for the Judge Moore trial and appeals court cases.?? I am interested in these discussions but I find it helpful to enter into a discussion after I've read the case(s).

Here are a couple thoughts/inquiries I will be asking myself while reading the actual cases. Since the 11th circuit is not a consititutionally created court but one created by an act of Congress, where is the 11th circuit court getting the authority to make a ruling on a law that doesn't exist? Also, if no law exists, where did the court get the authority to establish the punishments (ie. daily fine for contempt of court)? Isn't that called legislating from the bench - a violations of the Separations of Powers doctrine.

Next thought, I do not understand why the concept of the "rule of law" is being quoted in this instance. Since Congress never created any law (probably because the do not have the authority) regarding this issue, how is the "rule of law" being denied. A judge can not make law and Congress never passed any law so is there some supreme court cite that any one is aware of which has established the federal courts as being able to "make" laws.

Next thought, how important are states rights here? Are there supreme court cases that clearly establish that the bill of rights (esp. amend 1, 8, and 9) has either been significantly limited or abolished on issues such as what is being discussed?

Your argument fails to account for the fact that article six of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

"This constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

First of all Judges do not make decisions about things like this, their job is to interpret the law, they are bound by and owe their allegiance only to the Constitution.

I highly recommend a reading of The Federalist Papers that would make this clear to any student of history. (The Federalist Papers are relevant because they are the articles written by our founders making the case to the American people to adopt the Constitution we use today in place of the Articles of Confederation that were in effect at the time.)

Article 78 of the papers, section 18, reads "It is easy to see that judges need an uncommon amount of fortitude to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution after legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the majority voice of the community." section 20 reads, "Inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution and of individuals, which is indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Appointments made for a certain period, however regulated or by whomsoever made, would be fatal to their necessary independence in some way or other. ... If the people appointed judges, or if they were appointed by persons chosen by the people for that special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws."

Judge Moore has failed in his duty to uphold the constitutional right of every American to freedom of religion. That right is not only protected in the wording of the constitution, it is also further protected by the 14th amendment that provides equal protection under the law for all Americans.

The beauty of our great system is that the rights of those in the minority have equal measure to those in the majority, Judge Moore did exactly what our founders did not want by giving in to a populist movement in spite of rights granted to those in the minority being trampled by it. Do not forget that America is not a true democracy, majority does not rule, we are a republic, and the benefit of a republic is that those in the minority can have the same liberty as those in the majority.

Our founders intended for America to be a secular nation, ironically, when they discussed the mixing of church and state, they came to the conclusion that doing so only served to ultimately weaken both.

“Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.” James Madison

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

With regards to your comment about Jefferson's quote about the "wall of separation between church and state." To gain more insight into the quote, I highly recommend this link regarding the text of the letter, the reason it was written, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html For additional insight into Jefferson's thought about religious liberty, one can also read: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html which contains the text of the law that he wrote protecting it in "The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom." an act that was in effect before the constitution was ratified by 1789.

You have every right in America to religious freedom and to pray to God when you want, you can have the Ten Commandments in your home, in your churches and in your heart, but you cannot force your own brand of religious belief on others in a free nation. I hope that reading this will encourage you to look at our historic documents yourself to gain insight into the rights we have and the intent and wisdom our founders had in granting them to us.

Perhaps Judge Moore would do better off installing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in his courthouse, it seems he could use a refresher course in them.

Point number 1 -- article 6. You quote this part:

"the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"

Sure. That's fine. So what are Judges bound to then, under article 6? They are definitely bound to the first amendment... What does the first amendment say?

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

Well, even if you were to replace "Congress" with "Judges" here, which I'm not sure you could do to begin with, you simply find that "Judges shall make no law respecting ..."

Did Judge Moore make law respecting a religion, or prohibit exercise thereof? No.

Now to the next point.

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"

That's fine... Did Judge Moore establish a "religious test"? No.

Basically, so far, your argument is that Judges are bound to uphold the Constitution. I agree, but I don't think that the Constitution says anything about what Judge Moore did, which was to express approval of specific principles of Christianity in the ten commandments...

Next, you state:

"Judge Moore has failed in his duty to uphold the constitutional right of every American to freedom of religion. That right is not only protected in the wording of the constitution, it is also further protected by the 14th amendment that provides equal protection under the law for all Americans."

How has Moore failed to uphold people's right to practice their religions? The presence of the ten commandments in a court does nothing to infringe anyone's freedom... I don't know how you could believe otherwise. Do the tablets prevent me from going to church, praying, anything? I don't see how they could.

Yes, the 14th amendment provides equal protection, but is anyone specifically singled out for prosecution by Judge Moore based on their religion? Is he applying law differently to different people based on their religion? I don't see this, so how does the 14th amendment apply?

Next you argue that it is best that our country remain secular, etc. This is not a legal argument in my opinion, although I do agree with you. Your arguments are just philosophy and history, not law. If I'm wrong here, let me know how...

Finally, you suggest deeper investigation into Jefferson's intent, etc., in his writing. For the purposes here, I have no interest in his intent. This was a letter, not a Constitution. A lot of wrangling went into our Constitution. Should we infer things into it that were not included? I think that would clearly be wrong...

Thanks for your comments -- I hope you can find the time to reply again. :)

In reply, your notes offset ***, my comments to them with ++++

****Did Judge Moore make law respecting a religion, or prohibit exercise thereof? No."

++++ So Judge Moore is ignoring the spirit of the law while following the letter? I think it is bad example for judges to set.

The arguement for it opens the door for state legislatures and judges to begin chipping away all of the rights covered by our first amendment. (freedom of religion, press, speech, peaceful assembly, and petition of grievance)

The state of Utah could declare that everyone had to become a polygamist and it would be valid because congress hadn't passed a law after all... The state of Florida could decide it didn't want peaceful protests any more. New York could say "The only newspaper we are going to allow is "The New York Times" and we have this right because no law has been passed by congress that is inhibiting freedom of the press." Our founders viewed the rights granted in the Constitution as flowing directly to the citizens, state officials be they judges or representatives cannot interfere with them, to pretend otherwise we are setting ourselves on a dangerous path. Before any advocate that we go there, all should be aware of where it will lead eventually.

Further, the point above lacks historical insight into the wording of "Congress shall" which was used because at the time of its writing, the biggest threat to our liberties was thought to come from federal power, it was assumed states would not be the ones who would trample liberties because it would be more involved with the people directly, those interested may see the Federalist Papers for more on this.

**** A lot of wrangling went into our Constitution. Should we infer things into it that were not included? I think that would clearly be wrong...

++++ First there are cases where that letter was used, so if you think it is wrong, then you disagree with the practice of law, which is finding evidence to support your case. The Federalist Papers are to the Constitution what the Bible is to the Ten Commandments, so a reading of it and similar historic documents by our founders should inform questions about the constitution. (If we just read Thou shalt not kill, without reading the bible, we'd think that the soldiers in our army were going to go to hell but a reading of the Bible would suggest this isn't the case, even though the soldier breaks a commandment, so nuance is not exclusive to the understanding of one or the other.)

Jefferson was the author of the first amendment, so everything he says about it is relevant when conflicts arise in our minds. This is especially important when special interests want to bend the spirit of the law to their will by only serving it in letter.

*** "Did Judge Moore establish a "religious test"? No."

I never said that he did (though interestingly the state of Texas does require a belief in some kind of higher power of its oath takers which I think is unconstitutional per Article Six as Buddhists would not be able to hold office there - any Buddhists in Texas know about this?), but I think its wording demonstrates a case against the point many are making in the religious right that our founders intended us to be a "Christian nation". If it really were a matter of the difference between the separation of church and state vs. separation of "God and state" as the right claims wouldn't there be wording requiring an oath to the Christian God? Instead the wording of Article Six seems in keeping with the ideals of liberty and justice FOR ALL, even aethists and Buddhists neither of which would apperantly be fit to serve in Texas.

*****but I don't think that the Constitution says anything about what Judge Moore did, which was to express approval of specific principles of Christianity in the ten commandments...

++++ If our founders intended the government to be involved with the promotion of the specific principles of the Ten Commandments wouldn't they have been attached to the constiution in the manner that the bill of rights was? The constitution conveys to me that the government should not be involved with ruling the hearts and minds of its people. People were to be free to decide these matters for themselves, they were to freely speak their minds and freely publish their thoughts. Our founders were kick ass; they were not into state sponsored mind control. Remember many left Europe to get away from religious persecution, the concept of religious liberty was important to our founders.

****How has Moore failed to uphold people's right to practice their religions? … Yes, the 14th amendment provides equal protection, but is anyone specifically singled out for prosecution by Judge Moore based on their religion? Is he applying law differently to different people based on their religion? I don't see this, so how does the 14th amendment apply?

++++ In my opinion, and I presume in the opinion of the court that ruled against Judge Moore, as well, his monument discriminates against those citizens who do not uphold Judge Moore's same God. Your point has kind of a "Don't like it? Then don't look at it" ring to it. But I propose that those in the minority were not supposed to be made to feel that way per the wishes of our founders. Their rights are not being given equal protection because those who agree with Judge Moore are enjoying a state sanctioned monument to it and those that do not are not. It has nothing to do with the practice of their religion but with endorsement of one religion, and in doing so you make other followers second class citizens. They impose on freedom because they are a promotion of Judge Moore's specific belief system in a public space. Your case would clear the way for a policy similar to the "Elizabethan Settlement" wherein Queen Elizabeth ordered attendance in the state sanctioned church, the wording was vague so that Catholics could still worship on their own in homes or after attending the Queens church so I guess they had some kind of "freedom". But regardless the state was forcing them to endorse its sanctioned and approved version of religion. The chaos, tensions and the continually changing nature of the relationship between church and state in 16th century England is important to understand historically as it is precisely the kind of thing our founders were trying to avoid. The relationship between state leaders and the church led to laws that placed religious leaders under the control of the government, all interested in upholding their religious ideology should avoid any action that might lead to such an event.

Just out of curiosity, if your state had a Hindu Judge who wanted to put a monument to the Vedas up in the public rotunda of your state's judicial building, how would you feel about it?

Our founders gave us a republic with a series of checks and balances because they were seeking protection for those in the minority as well as those in the majority. In a pure democracy, those in the majority would win and whatever percentage of people who did not believe in whichever God the majority at the time upheld would be SOL, but under our system, their freedom to believe in whichever God they see fit, or in none at all, is protected.

Impositions of such monuments imply that the state endorses the notions contained within them, I can find nothing to convey that our founders felt the government should be endorsing the notion that "I am the Lord Thy God, thou shalt not have strange Gods before me". or that you can't take the Lord's name in vain or that you must keep the Sabbath or honor they mother and father.

What does having the monument in a state judicial building meant to convey to citizens? That if I say "God Dammit", I'm going to be put in jail or fined? Or that if Judge Moore hears me doing that he's going to find himself prejudiced against me when I come before him in court? Is either notion acceptable?

True believers should recognize that it is better to leave God and his chosen religious leaders in charge of God's laws (whose punishment is probably much worse by the way!) and leave the Government in charge of civic laws.

Judge Moore claims his monument was put there to acknowledge the foundation of our laws, and that if we do not acknowledge God as such, the government can take our rights away. First, the constitution clearly grants the power to the citizens to vote out abusers of our laws, to petition the government and even to impeach the President if things can’t wait for the next election so his point is absurd. Further, the foundation of our laws lie in the constitution and the Federalist Papers. They are based more on ancient republics than biblical law, the authors of the Federalist Papers even signed them "Publius" after the founder of the Republican Government in ancient Rome.

The foundation of Judge Moore's religious belief may lie elsewhere, and his is free to uphold that in his private life, but not in his judicial duties, in those he must be impartial and beholden to the laws of our government not the laws of his personal God. If he wants to lead a life in service to the Ten Commandments and not the Constitution, he aught take up the preaching vocation.

***** Next you argue that it is best that our country remain secular, etc. This is not a legal argument in my opinion, although I do agree with you. Your arguments are just philosophy and history, not law. If I'm wrong here, let me know how...

+++++, If you agree then why do you support Judge Moore’s position and question the ruling against him? I'm not a lawyer or law student, all points I make are based on reading of historical texts. I came across your site when I was researching Judge Moore for an essay I'm writing. I responded because having dialogue with his supporters helps me in addressing their points in my work. thank you! :)

But personally, I do think history should inform the interpretation of law when we are seeking to preserve our republic for future generations. It has served us well, but it seems that we are failing it of late, not only with movements like those supported by Judge Moore, but also with certain provisions of the Patriot Act that seem to infringe on rights granted to citizens in the constitution.

And what Judge Moore fails to realize is that the only way our rights and freedoms can be hindered is if we citizens allow it to happen.

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 11/2/2003 5:27:12 PM Central Standard Time
From: Holt5319
To: Holt5319

A PERFET WITNESS LIST FOR THE
The Honorable Judge Moore

THE HONORABLE Rep. ADERHOLT AND THE OTHER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THAT VOTED SUPPORT FOR JUDGE Moore
would be perfect witness for JUDGE MOORE TO CALL TO HIS HEARING.
And all places it comes from the A.C.L,U , WEB PAGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 - H.R. 1501 -- Posting the Ten Commandments
Introduced by Rep. Robert Aderholt, REAL, as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill, the measure represents a declaration by the House of Representatives that states should be permitted to post the Ten Commandments in government buildings, including public schools. The Aderholt measure, however, included no enforcement mechanism and does not restrict the power of the federal courts to rule on challenges to improper postings of the 10 commandments. The ACLU opposed the amendment, which was approved by a vote of 248 to 180
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note; THE SPEND BY THE ACLU WEB SITE.
A law they do not have to obey even though it is an act of congress.
Yet, they call an order by a Judge that congress has not voted in to law the Ruel.of law.

The small group that did not support JUDGE MOORE IS NOT ABOUT TO VOTE FOR ANY ONE
FROM ALABAMA TO BE A FEDERAL JUDGE.

THOSE THAT HAVE THE ADDRESS PLEASE FORWARD OR FAX , OR EMAIL TO JUDGE MOORE, OR ANY ONE YOU WISH.
Thank YOU J. Lawrence Herren
THOSE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT IS, IS
HERE IS WHAT IT IS AND THIS IS IT.
IT IS THE A C L. U. THAT DOES NOT HAVE
RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
THEY PURPOSELY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT
INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW .
Forget about IS and take a close look AT IT.

Subj: (no subject)
Date: 11/2/2003 5:27:12 PM Central Standard Time
From: Holt5319
To: Holt5319

A PERFET WITNESS LIST FOR THE
The Honorable Judge Moore

THE HONORABLE Rep. ADERHOLT AND THE OTHER TWO HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE THAT VOTED SUPPORT FOR JUDGE Moore
would be perfect witness for JUDGE MOORE TO CALL TO HIS HEARING.
And all places it comes from the A.C.L,U , WEB PAGE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 - H.R. 1501 -- Posting the Ten Commandments
Introduced by Rep. Robert Aderholt, REAL, as an amendment to a juvenile justice bill, the measure represents a declaration by the House of Representatives that states should be permitted to post the Ten Commandments in government buildings, including public schools. The Aderholt measure, however, included no enforcement mechanism and does not restrict the power of the federal courts to rule on challenges to improper postings of the 10 commandments. The ACLU opposed the amendment, which was approved by a vote of 248 to 180
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note; THE SPEND BY THE ACLU WEB SITE.
A law they do not have to obey even though it is an act of congress.
Yet, they call an order by a Judge that congress has not voted in to law the Ruel.of law.

The small group that did not support JUDGE MOORE IS NOT ABOUT TO VOTE FOR ANY ONE
FROM ALABAMA TO BE A FEDERAL JUDGE.

THOSE THAT HAVE THE ADDRESS PLEASE FORWARD OR FAX , OR EMAIL TO JUDGE MOORE, OR ANY ONE YOU WISH.
Thank YOU J. Lawrence Herren
THOSE CONFUSED AS TO WHAT IS, IS
HERE IS WHAT IT IS AND THIS IS IT.
IT IS THE A C L. U. THAT DOES NOT HAVE
RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW.
THEY PURPOSELY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT
INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW .
Forget about IS and take a close look AT IT.

Why does it matter that the Ten Commandments are a religious symbol? Every person has the innate sense of the moral laws such as "you shall not kill" and "you shall not steal". Whether or not one believes that those laws are God-given should make no difference whatsoever. If someone goes and shoots up a school do we not get enraged and seek to press charges? Does it matter then that God said "you shall not kill"? I should think not. What matters is that it is morally wrong. The Ten Commandments is a moral code, albeit Jewish and Christian. We all live abiding to these laws (though not necessarily all of them) in some way. What is the big deal with posting them outside a court of law. I would hope that our Justice system would abide by these laws. Our country is in a sorry state, it is about time someone tries to bring morality back into view.

This was very Helpful For my Oration I wright each year Thanks

Before our country came independent, before we had the right of freedom of religion. We were ruled by kings. At that time we had no freedom of religion it was whatever the king’s religion was. The people had to follow. When this great country became free, why do you think it was written in law to freedom of religion. Why did we separate church from state? Just maybe we were tired of the government telling us how to believe. I think all who wrote and signed the constitution were religious. Despite their religion and their beliefs. They decided it was best for the United State of America to protect the churches from the state and the state from the churches, protect our freedom of religion. Just maybe they where tired of being told how to believe. Benjamin Franklin said... “Church and State shall not mix!” Judge Moore and everybody else that worships and follows him should pick up their history book and learn why we have this separation. They should know this is to protect their churches, beliefs, and values. He is a state leader. He is to rule on the law, not the Ten Commandments and his religion. He has the right to believe in whatever he wants and nobody can take that right away from him! But we have every right to keep that out of our government. We owe it to the people who have died for our country and the rights for which it stands.
“Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion"
What is the definition of congress. The dictionary says.. “The act of coming together or meeting. A single meeting, as of a political party or other group”. According to this a courtroom is consider congress. A libary meeting can be define as congress. Isn’t that a meeting. Don’t you meet in a courtroom? He is making the state building his establishment for his beliefs. That’s not constitutional. If he does that then you give judges around the country to do the same. Do you think all Judges share the same belief? You see why we need separation?

What is being proposed here makes no sense. It is impossible for our country to 'NOT' uphold a belief of some kind. Well, I take that back, if our government allowed any and all religions to be displayed on public property, in that case it could be said that no side has been taken. But to not allow any religious symbols on public property, holds up the athiest belief, which IS a form of belief or religion, if you will. It is the 'humanist' view.
When it comes right down to the facts though, there is no way that any non-Christian or non-Jewish belief is going to understand why it is so important that God's will come before ours, even our laws!
Most non-believers will assume Moore was going according to how he 'Felt' on the subject. The fact that our / his belief system is based on Truth and Justice from an Almighty God is pretty much nonsense to many.
When we look at it this way, we come to realize that this isn't about 'State vs Religion', No, it's the same war that's been going on since the sin of Adam and Eve.
Christians must remember that we've already won that war. The battles we lose inbetween mean nothing in the long run.
It doesn't matter that Judge Moore lost his job because God has bigger plans for him than even he is aware of right now. Those plans will exist into eternity, but that's going to sound like babbling to those who just don't get it.
"Uphold the law", is what I hear over and over again in the news, on tv, everywhere where people believe that the laws on earth come before the Laws of God. Thank God there are those who KNOW that God's laws come first and foremost above and beyond any human standard.
Ok, I know what's coming next......So, which god's laws do we honor. That takes us back to what I said earlier, let each religion place their symbols on public land and may the 'best' God win!
The state doesn't have to say a word and the division between church and state can stand.
The constitution wrote about the division of church and state to keep the government from declaring any One religion as the 'state' religion. It was never meant to keep religion out of the state, government or any public place. If that were the case, it wouldn't have been so prominent in our early years as a country. Presidents wouldn't have mentioned their beliefs so often and No one would have dare suggest that our very money icript the words, "In God we Trust"!
I believe our forefathers would be shaking their heads if they could see what we've done with what they wrote. I'll bet the constitution would have been much longer with explicit explanations if they had known!
Thank you for your time,
God bless,
Sheri

I feel a great conviction to my faith & religion but, religion should not influence the best laid rules we as a people have to follow. I feel if the Ten Commandments were followed and used as our only rules to plan, judge, protect, and serve this world would be a much better place. I believe in Judge Moore’s conviction and hope he continues to teach the true meaning of our constitution. I am proud to see a Christian upholding his faith in public even though he shall feel the wrath of persecution. A bit like Jesus Christ, don't you think!

We have laws in this country. Nobody is above them. This country was found on GOD and not any specific type of religion. That’s what Christians don’t understand. They can pray where, how they want, and even stick the Ten Commandments in their front yard. government property and a government leader can not forces his religious beliefs on anybody. I choice not to believe in a bible that was written years ago by MAN. Oh, Not just by one, many men! It wasn’t even wrote at the same time. A man just took what he thought was right and created this thing called a bible. Now if people want to believe in that. They have that right. But I choose not to. That’s my right! I believe in a God I just don’t believe something a man wrote! Judge Moore feels this is his calling. Well, Take somebody that kills people, but he says.. God told me(him) to.. Does that make it right, NO! Christians say.. God inspired men to write the bible. What if I said God inspired me to say they are wrong? Have they thought of that. Why don’t we go back to the days before be the United States was created. Let the Church rule us and get rid of democracy all together. I mean, there are some many denominations that religious people can’t even agree on what is right. They think you will go to hell if you don’t believe like they do. Lets see how long our country will last then. They can’t even get along with each other. Maybe the people in power will get common sense and the people with common sense get power. We all be better off. Just keep your Christian beliefs out of our government. Keep it in your homes and church. Christians have to learn other people in this country have rights to. Yesterday just proved it. If Christians want to preach and impress me then they all need to set me a good example and at lease believe the same way without fight among each other!

We are so wise today. In recent years we have finally come to understand the Constitution...or are we simply trying to change it. Look around the nation...look around our Capital. Everywhere there are quotes from the Bible carved in granite. Strange how our founding fathers and previous generations never found these offensive. But then again, how many Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims signed the Constitution?
God Bless America? America bless God for He has blessed us with freedom and liberty. It is time we acted responsibly and gave Him the credit for all that is good in America.

Justice Moore has been fired, not for believing in God or installing the 10 commandments, but for violating a federal court order -- thereby breaking the law (which requires all citizens to obey court orders), and he made it clear that he had no intention of obeying it. That left the panel with no ethical alternative but to fire him. Moore (like all of us) is required to obey federal court orders *even if they are wrong*. Or he can stand on conscience and resign. But he can't have it both ways -- that's an insult to the judicial system and the social contract.

As for his claim to free speech and all the talk about his constitutional rights -- it's irrelevant,
as he isn't facing criminal prosecution for expressiing himself. It's just as if you went in to work and
waved around a playboy centerfold, or started cussing and swearing -- your boss would tell you can't do that, and would fire you if continued. The Constitution doesn't guarantee you your job, and it doesn't guarantee Roy Moore his either.

Suppose he had put up a plaque (in the state courthouse, a public building) saying "God hates fags and they will go to hell." (Not a stretch, since It's apparently a sentiment he and many of his supporters hold.) Would people still be indulging in these legalistic games, parsing to the Constitution in an attempt to justify Moore's actions? There's no difference as far as freedom of speech goes. The plain fact is that Moore violated basic judicial principles by creating an environment of *prejudice* (exactly the opposite of what is required of judges), by displaying a symbol specific to a particular religion
(and he specifically violated the Alabama constitution, which states "... no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry ..."). That symbol includes these words, which aren't present in the Catholic version of the 10 commandments and which many people, including very religious people of many faiths, would be quite offended by: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Why do Christians think this country was founded upon Christianity? Do they know what religious beliefs were of our founding fathers. I bet they don’t! I’m going to clear something up for these people. 56 men signed the constitution and died for freedom. Freedom that some Christians are trying to take away. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t religious at all, “in fact” he try to create his on bible... the Jefferson bible.He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.
[laws establishing freedom of religion].."were meant to include within them the Muslim, the Hindoo [sic] and the infidel of any sort."
[Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, Dethloff, Henry C., ed. Thomas Jefferson and American Democracy. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co. 1971]
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
[Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814]
"The constitutional freedom of religion [is]the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights."
[Thomas Jefferson, 'Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes,' 1819]
Ethan Allen,, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words."
George Washington, the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.
Now if I was a Christian that like to force my religion on others and was able to predict if they will perish or not. Going by the bible, I say these men are in a lot of trouble when they see God. One doesn’t believe, other trying to change the bible. They did signed the constitution the law of the land. Nobody is above that law. Not even the bible. Christians need to education themselves more. Maybe they are scared of the truth. They want to turn fact into fiction. You don’t have to take my word for it. Read for yourselves! ARE YOU SCARED? This is one of my favorite! This is for anybody that wants the 10 Commandments up.
When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself, and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one..... Benjamin Franklin
Shame on all you people that hold up Judge Moore. You are going against what this country is founded on!!!

The Constitutional Convention met at Philadelphia in the hot summer of 1787 to rewrite the Articles of Confederation which had been so ineffective. The quarrels between the States were deep and divisive; each state lowered or raised its own tariffs and coined its own money. There was no Union. The delegates began to realize that they needed to do something more than patch up the Articles of Confederation. It was a stormy convention. The northern states insisted upon representation according to population; the southern states claimed representation should be based upon land under cultivation. The small states feared they would be overwhelmed by the large states. It was only the strength of George Washington's personality which held the Convention together. The debate over representation grew more bitter and hopelessly deadlocked. At this crucial moment, Ben Franklin, 81 years of age, rose and spoke quietly:

"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle have observed frequent instances of superintending Providence in our favor. . . . And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his Aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we shall become a reproach and a byword to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.

I therefore beg to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

Wow... ;) Great discussion.

I also think that freedom of religion and secularity in the government are extremely important, and were part of the basis of the nation. No government can be perceived as fair if it plays favorites with religions.

That said, I don't agree with the practice of bending our laws or our Constitution in order to make up for problems in the text of the law. Sure, they need to be interpreted in a logical fashion when there are ambiguities, but when the plain language reading indicates one thing, I don't think that should be stretched by judges or legal theorists.

In this case, my gut feeling is that the First Amendment is a limit on the power of Congress, and is binding to the states, but it plainly is stating a legislative limitation: "shall make no law..."

I just don't see how you can munge this into what I believe would be required, which would be "no branch of this government shall make any statements, express or implied, regarding religion."

And if you did have this, out goes "In God We Trust", out goes the Christmas tree on the mall, out goes "God Bless America" in the President's speeches, etc., etc. I personally don't think this would be such a bad thing, but do we really have to go that far? If so, I think we would require the language I suggested above, or something like it.

(Abraham Lincoln) When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion (Thomas Jefferson) [letter to Connecticut Baptist] believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (Thomas Paine) Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. (Thomas Jefferson) The Christian God can easily be pictured as virtually the same God as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian God is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like God, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. (George Washington) [to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover] If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... (Thomas Paine) I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (George Washington) Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. Again this country wasn't founding on religion. God bless America! or did he?
I don't know anywhere that these men held up the 10 commandments. I believe in a God, just not the bible. I'm like Abraham Lincoln! When I do good, I feel good and when I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion. I don't put my faith in a book that man wrote, all in different times and by many men.