posted on August 29, 2001 05:28:53 AM new
at least he makes his personal biases clear.
This Supreme Court of Alabama justice decided without consulting anyone to place a display plaque containing the ten commandments in his courthouse. It is his courthouse since he owns the lease on it and evidently rents it to the state.
So a group of black state legislators asked if another display containing the "I Have a Dream" speech of Dr. Martin Luther King could be placed in the same room. The judge refused.
Not only did he refuse but he directed that the building be locked to those legislators and that the Alabama State police enforce the barring of them from the building, using as part of his rationale a statement that there was already a civil rights display in the building. There is...in the basement.
This all didn't take place in 1960--it took place yesterday.
posted on August 29, 2001 05:55:32 AM new
He as a judge can have a great deal of say what happens in his court room. However when you lease a building to someone it becomes the same as their building for all purposes that do noy cause harm to the structure. He probably does have the authority to do that from his judgeship not ownership.
We just this week had a judge shut down his court and refuse to hear cases here in Detroit because the agency who supplied court reporters changed from a uniform with a badge on their reporters to normal business attire.
The implication is that the judge is biased against black people if he did not want the quote from MLK. Does it say anywhere that he is white? He may feel the legislatures are trying to say the quotes are equal and feels the MLK quote is not equal in stature to "holy scripture". A lot of religeous people, perhaps even black ones, would find such an equivalance offensive.
posted on August 29, 2001 06:27:42 AM new
Since you've asked, it DOES mention that the judge is a white republican.
there is this, in case you haven't subscribed:
"Chief Justice Moore, a white Republican, was elected to his post last year after vowing to display the Ten
Commandments in a prominent place to acknowledge the supremacy of God as the basis of the law.
He had been a circuit judge in Etowah County, where he was sued for displaying a copy of the Ten
Commandments in his courtroom.
The chief justice, saying he held the lease to the building and could decide what artifacts could be displayed,
unveiled his monument on Aug. 2 without consulting the other eight Supreme Court justices.
Today, the court building manager, Graham George, indicated that after
review, the plaque honoring Dr. King might be placed elsewhere, in a civil
rights display in the lower rotunda of the Judicial Building. "I'll decide when
and if and where it will be displayed," Mr. George said.
A court spokesman, Scott Barnett, said in a statement, "This is not about Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr.; it is about the Ten Commandments."
"We will gladly consider an appropriate display of Dr. King's speech should
a gift or loan be made to the judicial building," Mr. Barnett said"
posted on August 29, 2001 07:36:07 AM new
I can only hope that someone forwarded the news article to Al Sharpton. Crimes like this can't go unopposed. The horror, the horror, the horror.
posted on August 29, 2001 07:40:32 AM new"to acknowledge the supremacy of God as the basis of the law."
I almost became a criminal lawyer. I realized that criminal law had little to do with morality or fairness or right and wrong, IMO.
I would much rather have this judge or any judge for that matter use Common Sense, Compassion, and a Sense of Decency as a basis of the law than a book that advocates the killing of people because they don't believe the same as you do.
posted on August 29, 2001 07:45:48 AM new ...to acknowledge the supremacy of God as the basis of the law.
Something about that rubs me the wrong way, but I'm not sure what.
--------
I bet that judge, just like all good Christians, lives his life by the 10 Commandments too.
I wonder if he is Baptist? According to my almanac, Baptists "are strong supporters of church and state separation." Unless that has changed since 1998.
Would be interested in knowing how the other justices weigh in on this display.
posted on August 29, 2001 07:53:25 AM new
Why should the walls of a Supreme Court be a display area for religious statements such as the ten commandments?
Personally, I would prefer to see the Martin Luther King Speech on the wall but in this case, neither document should be displayed.
But try to tell that to a Republican Supreme Court Justice in the state of Alabama. Next, they will be displaying a confederate flag.
Legally, this justice owns the lease but doesn't the fact that he is renting the building to the state give the state the right to remove the ten commandments from the wall?
posted on August 29, 2001 07:54:43 AM new
I wonder how that judge would have reacted had the building belonged to a judge other than himself- one who happened to be Jewish (or Hindu, or whatever), and who displayed items relating to their religion, instead.
posted on August 29, 2001 08:07:01 AM newThe purpose of the monument is to show the commandments were the inspiration for the modern system of laws, Moore has said.
So he has a plague of the 10 Commandments placed in the lobby. The horror, the horror, the horror.
Now all of the sudden the Martin Luther King speech has become a rallying point. Because they placed a plague of the 10 Commandments in the lobby?
"I can say a monument to Martin Luther King Jr. is going to be placed in there through federal court order, legislatively or through massive marches and demonstrations," Holmes said.
Sometimes PC should stand for 'pure crazy'. What has MLK's speech have to do with the 10 Commandments?
posted on August 29, 2001 08:34:40 AM new
The Supreme Court started it all with the appointment to the presidency. As role models to the nation's judiciary, they sent a clear message that rational behaviors are irrevelant and that judgeships or "judgedoms" may be used, at pleasure or profit, to further thinly veiled agenda.
posted on August 29, 2001 08:40:23 AM new
Funny, I'd heard somewhere that the Magna Carte formed the basis of law as used in this country,
Funny too that this justice has taken the opportunity to use a court of law as a means to express his dissention over the separation of church and state, but refuses to allow another display to promote the ideal of equality for all under the law in that court of law,
but not funny how a thing like this can bring forth sympathetic racist comments such as "I can only hope that someone forwarded the news article to Al Sharpton. Crimes like this can't go unopposed. The horror, the horror, the horror"
posted on August 29, 2001 08:43:24 AM new
"Geeeeeez 5,000 pounds? Was this the original one that Moses brought off the mountain? "
Not unless Moses had a fork lift.
What I am trying to also figure out is if these two feel the two - the ten commandments and the MLK quote are like opposing views???
posted on August 29, 2001 08:44:36 AM new"What has MLK's speech have to do with the 10 Commandments? "
In this case, uaru, the judge claims that the Ten Commandments are put up there for inspirational purposes. MLK's speech about the universal unity and harmony of Christian Brotherhood is inspirational -- and Christian in nature as well. Evidently, the judge does not find inspiration in such notions as what Jesus taught.
"I wonder if he is Baptist? According to my almanac, Baptists "are strong supporters of church and state separation." Unless that has changed since 1998."
It has changed dramatically from the central authority of the Church. It is now Fundamentalist.
"Next, they will be displaying a confederate flag."
And after that - a swastika.
-- After reading the law quite a bit, you'd have a hard time trying to prove to me that *any* Christianity is the basis of the law!
posted on August 29, 2001 08:44:41 AM newkrsbut not funny how a thing like this can bring forth sympathetic racist comments such as "I can only hope that someone forwarded the news article to Al Sharpton. Crimes like this can't go unopposed. The horror, the horror, the horror"
posted on August 29, 2001 08:50:45 AM new
Wonder how many of those emails in the "Republics for diversity" thread that the judge forwarded to colleagues and friends?
posted on August 29, 2001 08:51:10 AM new
No, uaru, I wasn't, though I do think that he is a racist.
I don't see why you felt a need to make a flippant and derogatory comment as you did, for your invokation of al Sharpton could only have been meant to ridicule the feelings and the cause of the black people involved in this incident in that court.
posted on August 29, 2001 09:01:01 AM newfor your invokation of al Sharpton could only have been meant to ridicule the feelings and the cause of the black people involved in this incident in that court.
I do ridicule the actions of Alvin Holmes. The installing of the 10 Commandments didn't make the news. What made the news was Alvin Holmes demand that MLK's speech be placed in the court house and how he went about it. I think Alvin Holmes did much better in this effort than the last time when he tried to get MLK's speech placed in the Lincoln memorial.
Putting up the 10 Commandments wasn't a race issue, the only problem with it was it was put up in a southern state by a white republican judge. Now there seems to be a need to make it a religious or race issue.
I wonder how many public building have words from the Bible inscribed in them... hardly an issue in the past, but now in this PC world all bets are off.
posted on August 29, 2001 09:22:36 AM new
As I said, the expressions of a judge in public proclamation even by implication should not have a greater privilege than other expressions in a public domain, particularly one in which justice is the goal. So it's only a case of good for the goose, good for the gander to that point.
The judge surely did not mean to make a racial statement with his plaque. A statement of entry by things church into things state is all he meant to do, and if there is a perception of racism in the view of those notorious campaigners for racial equality, as there probably is, then I think they are somewhat misguided this time.
But if that courthouse is to be a public forum then let it be so for all who would make expression there. A public building should be that if it is a forum, and if it is not then let the judge put his plaque on his lawn at home.
So you are right; this is not a racial issue. It is more a religious one, or it is a question of access by all.
Only when someone comes to this situation, sees blacks and whites where perhaps only rights and wrongs stand, and calls for an absurdity in ridicule of the blacks they see does this gather a racial, or racist character.
posted on August 29, 2001 09:25:32 AM new"I think Alvin Holmes did much better in this effort than the last time when he tried to get MLK's speech placed in the Lincoln memorial."
True. That was a bad idea. I would be in favor of an MLK memorial in the Capital and there his famous speech urging us all to be nice to one another will live unto posterity.
"The irony is that I bet MLK would have thought "right on" to a display of the Ten Commandments."
Possibly. MLK, for how vocal that he was, was a visonary and not a loudmouth Fundie minister. He may have seen the common sense that only a firm belief in the seperation of church and state can give.
posted on August 29, 2001 09:38:42 AM newThe Supreme Court started it all with the appointment to the presidency. As role models to the nation's judiciary, they sent a clear message that rational behaviors are irrevelant and that judgeships or "judgedoms" may be used, at pleasure or profit, to further thinly veiled agenda.
LOL, Antiquary!!!
------
By his own words, I do believe this justice to be racist. I would believe the same thing if the justice was a Democrat in the North.
However, the subject is the display of the 10 Commandments by, what I perceive, an arrogant justice.
I wonder how that judge would have reacted had the building belonged to a judge other than himself- one who happened to be Jewish (or Hindu, or whatever), and who displayed items relating to their religion, instead.
posted on August 29, 2001 09:57:46 AM new
mrpotatoheadd
missed your post because I had to go out for a few...
Good Point!
The christians and especially the southern christians believe that their god is the only god and their religion is the only religion in the whole world yet only 33% of the world is christian.
How about giving them all a chance to hang their "commandments"?
Christianity: 2 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million
Buddhism: 360 million
Chinese traditional religion: 225 million
primal-indigenous: 190 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Yoruba religion: 20 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 14 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 6 million
Jainism: 4 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 3 million
Tenrikyo: 2.4 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Scientology: 750 thousand
Rastafarianism: 700 thousand
Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand
And these are only the major religions.
Helen
"This world religions listing is derived from the statistics data in the Adherents.com database. The list was created by the same people who collected and organized this database, in consultation with university professors of comparative religions and scholars from different religions. We invite additional input. The Adherents.com collection of religious adherent statistics now has over 34,000 adherent statistic citations, for over 3,000 different faith groups, covering all countries of the world. This is not an absolutely exhaustive compilation of all such data, but it is by far the largest compilation available on the Internet. Various academic researchers and religious representatives regularly share documented adherent statistics with Adherents.com so that their information can be available in a centralized database."
posted on August 29, 2001 10:22:32 AM new
Hi Femme
Moore was apparently much in the news regionally but only this recent challenge about the MLK speech display has brought it into national prominence. You can find many local and regional news stories about Moore's position on separation of Church or State, or rather the desire to remove any such separation. Here is one story which makes his views clear:
I'm unaware of any historical source that would verify that the laws of this country are derived directly from the Ten Commandments. I've always been aware of the direct influence of English common law, Magna Carta, and Justinian's Code. If the connection is not directly historical, then it would seem to me to be more of a statement of an individual belief. And if so, that it's a matter of individual belief expressed in a government building, why shouldn't the building equally house expressions of any or all other beliefs of the people? Including MLK's speech?
I see plenty of discrimination, just not limited to race.
it DOES mention that the judge is a white republican.
