Re: that $5000-a-day-as-long-as-the-Commandments-are-up fine: Alabama'a so strapped that they're talking about raising taxes--and this is as red a state as they come. If they state can arrange that Judge Moore has to pay the fine personally (a) Alabama won't have to pay it and (b) that statue WILL come down, pronto.

Didn't Moore have this monument put in place in the middle of the night (as if he knew he was doing something illegitimate)?

Can't they remove it the same way, fetch it in the middle of the night and whisk it away, sans cameras and publicity?

And yeah, I'm with Molly -- Moore should be getting billed regardless of outcome. The public shouldn't have to pay to remedy a situation he caused.

The people who decided to suddenly remove the monument are a little late, don't you think? The monument has been in the building's rotunda for two years already, right? Why are these people waiting until now to remove it? The monument has never done any harm to anyone ( My gosh, it's just a 5,300 pound monument). It's not like it's going to start killing anyone or hurt anything! These people could start by taking away stuff that will really make a difference, right? Taking away somthing that is good to remember and does no harm to man-kind or pollutes our air or anything is senseless. This world does not need to be destroyed by hatred (evil), so please put the monument back where it belongs; reminding everyone that God is still in the world today, and evil will not intervene.

age 15

Why is Judge Moore wrong in putting up the 10 Commandments?

Well, to start with, by putting the Ten Commandments in the State House rotunda, Judge Moore and the state of Alabama are giving the religious laws of Christianity and Judiasm a special status - indicating that those religious tenets are somehow greater, more important and more worthy of official sanction than the religious laws of any other faith. That, in turn, creates a situation where the State of Alabama is giving their official endorsement to Christianity and Judiasm over all other religions, something forbidden by the First Amendment.

The Christian Science Monitor has an article discussing some of what the Founding Fathers had to say about the separation of church and state, including this section quoting James Madison, who was one of the primary architects and authors of the Bill of Rights: Unlike some Americans today who applaud monuments of the Ten Commandments on state property that sanctify the Judeo-Christian tradition, Madison was adamant that Christian religion deserved no privileged status whatsoever; to single out one religion, he wrote, "degrades from the equal rank of Citizens" all those who have a different sense of the divine. "Who does not see," he asked in 1785, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all other Sects?"

Madison was very strict in what he meant when he wrote that there should be no establishment of any religion by the government. Madison even objected to chaplains in Congress who were paid out of the federal taxes. The appointment of congressional chaplains, he wrote, was "a palpable violation of equal rights" because it "shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds and consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority." Chaplains for the Army and Navy fared no better in his mind. And yet, because chaplains in the Army and Navy already existed, he thought the more prudent course was to leave certain small matters alone. Nor did proclamations of thanksgiving meet his test of separation of church and state for, he wrote, "they seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion."The Ten Commandments exist only as religious law, not secular (see my comments to Jessica above on why). Promoting them above all other religious laws is clear favouritism, and favouritism is what establishes a de factor official religion. In setting up the monument, Judge Moore was attempting to make the statement that Alabama reveres the Christian religion over all others, and that's exactly what's not allowed.

isn't it true that the constitution says the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion? if they are making him take it away, aren't they doing just that? anyway, christians believe that everyone is created in the image of god, so that means everyone is equal. the monument shouldn't make people of other religions feel like they would be treated differently in the courtroom. if they aren't anything else, the ten commandments are the code of ethics that our country is founded on. even the first 3, which talk about diety, are foundations for obediance in any situation, even relating to the government.

If Judge Moore were displaying the monument on his own front lawn, there would be no problem with it - that would be an individual expression of his religious beliefs. If he were to rent or purchase property in a building somewhere so that he could have a place to display it - as long as he was using his own funds for it - that would also be well within his rights to do. These are things that are allowable under the Free-exercise clause of the First Amendment.

The problem with the current display is that it is NOT a personal display. He has used his position as a government official - Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court - to co-opt space in a public building - the state Courthouse - for a display intended to indicate that the state supports the Christian religion over all others. These are activities that are forbidden under the Establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking steps that would serve to establish an "official" faith. The Courts have said that this means the government cannot take any steps to show a preference for any religion or elevate one religion over others in any way.

Statements that Judge Moore has made indicate his intent is to show that Alabama honours the Christian God - THAT is a complete violation of the Constitutional ban of state-sponsored religion and is specifically the kind of action the First Amendment is intended to prevent.

As for how people of other religions feel, many Christians - particularly Fundamentalists like Judge Moore - have made it clear that it is their goal to convert non-Christians over to their faith, and that they consider non-Christians to be 'evil', and of less worth. There are also many cases - both civil and criminal - in which a person's religious beliefs are brought up to support one view or another. Under these circumstances, a non-Christian isn't going to feel confident that their case will be judged fairly if they know that the state considers their religion to be 'inappropriate', less valid, wrong, 'evil' or otherwise inferior to Christianity.

And whatever you may think about the Ten Commandments as a foundation for an 'ethical' system, that would not be relevant to their display in a courthouse. The Courthouse is about the Law, and the Law is not based on the Ten Commandments. They have no more place being there than any other religious statement - and believe me, if other religions tried to have their own ethical codes enshrined in a public courthouse, the uproar from the Christian community would be deafening.