Separation of Church and State, or...?

[sff_corgi_lj]

There's a great hoo-hah going on in Federal Court over a judge in Alabama refusing to remove the following piece of statuary from court property:



Now, the way I see it (without being able to read all the engraving on the front of the work), this is a representation of the socio-historial foundation of Western law as much as any sort of religious representation (which is what the judge is leaning towards).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a lot of British common law (on which a lot of American law bases precedent) derive from Christian-institutional interpretation of Hamnurabi and Hwyel Dda? Doesn't make it right, wrong or otherwise, but it's the mindset behind the very law being practiced in this building in Birmingham, Alabama.

So therefore:

[Poll #170586]
If 'other', please leave a comment with details.

Comments

[agonistes]

Okay. Read this and the entry linked to it at the top, and then tell me it's not too much religion.

I'm sorry. This is just ridiculous. A federal judge breaking the law for the sake of religion.

Will stop before I get incoherent with anger.

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Oh, I understand completely that the judge's attitude and position are completely objectionable. He's being a jerk and an embarrassment.

But consider the piece of statuary by itself. Are the 10 Commandments, in and of themselves, a problem?

Good article, btw. I like the snarkiness of bringing in the Muslim clerics at the end of it.

[agonistes]

Yes. Because if the Ten Commandments are displayed, and -- just as an example -- the seven principles of Unitarian Universalism are not, then the government is showing preference to one system of belief over another.

[themorningstarr.livejournal.com]

I'm with Sweeney on this one. I'm Christian, so I'm not arguing from hurt feelings that my faith was left out or put underneath others (though I'm certainly not saying that anyone else is arguing from that point, but they would certainly have the right).

I wouldn't have a problem if such a statue was in his own private chambers, just as I wouldn't fault him for having a picture of his family or just as I wouldn't want someone to fault me because I'd have a Slytherin House banner hanging in mine.

And the comments he made... just despicable.

Kellie, whose annoyance is making for a post that doesn't make sense.

[immovablemover.livejournal.com]

I'm just posting gratuitously here to say I absolutely love your icon. It made me laugh for about five minutes.

[jenavira.livejournal.com]

While in most cases I'd be willing to at least argue the point, in this one I just can't. Judge Moore has commented on the situation and said things like "removing the monument would be committing treason" and "a federal judge cannot force me to break the moral law of God". (paraphrased) He's also pointed out that he *purposely* put the Commandments above everything else, to show their supremacy over *everything*, including the US Constitution, that little insignificant piece of paper he's supposed to be upholding.

Also, take a look at the Ten Commandments. Only four of them actually have any bearing on US law.

This guy is so full of shit, and I cannot believe he holds as much power as he does. Even in Alabama.

[sff-corgi.livejournal.com]

Actual law, no. But the sociocultural context of American (Western) law? This depicts, after all, the reason we've had a sodomy law on the books in Texas until just recently. We still have laws concerning adultery, and it's closer to this than they are to, say, the Law of Hwyel Dda from 10th C. Wales (The Celts dealt with it more practically...).

[jenavira.livejournal.com]

Granted, but I think my point still holds: Judge Moore thinks that these laws, these Commandments, are more important than the United States Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold.

Leave aside whether they have any bearing on our law, and consider what he's saying. Look at the first Commandment. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That is in direct violation to separation of Church and State, and moreover, declares any non-Christian American to be a second-class citizen.

His monument has an inherent contradiction: the First Commandment against the First Amendment. And because he's a federal judge, the First Amendment should be his priority. It isn't.

[ashkitty.livejournal.com]

I think that while the judge's attitude is pretty ridiculous (er, he does know that "judge" means he is supposed to uphold the secular law and the Constitution, right?) that the statue by itself is not. Because art is frequently inspired by religion, and in this case, it's a monument to Alabama history really.

But I get a bit iffy after that, because I think that it's fine as long as you are seeing it as Art and not The Basis of The Legal System, but it does not seem that is what they are doing.

[immovablemover.livejournal.com]

I think we've all established that this judge is a total asshole. Gross, gross, gross--and as a proud Southerner, I must express my disgust at the way this guy is so efficiently propagating the redneck-closed-minded-Bible-thumping stereotype many people seem to harbor about Southerners. (Hello, my name is Tori, I grew up in Georgia, I'm not a racist, I'm not a homophobe, I don't go to church, and I'm here to tell you that the world was not, in fact, created by God in seven 24-hour days. Thanks.)

That said, though, I'm with ashkitty up there in that I think the monument in question is more about art and history than it is about the legal system. It's a monument to the very roots of the legal system. Yes--YES--I am ALL for the separation of church and state, but I don't think this piece falls under that rubric any more than having "in God we trust" on our money does (which is also a nod to our forefathers, who were, by the way, Deists and not a bunch of evangelical preachy Southern Baptists that burned down abortion clinics).

I think there are much bigger fish to fry.