Roy's Rock

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Ferret, Aug 23, 2003.

  1. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Last week something pretty nifty (and controversial!) happened in Alabama's Supreme Court building: The Federal Supreme Court demanded that an almost three ton stone version of the Ten Commandments (no, not the original ones) be removed from their lobby. It had been placed their in the dark of night some time ago by their Chief Justice, Roy Moore. Chief Justice Moore has been fighting to keep there because he believes that he answers to a higher authority and that the United States is a clearly-defined "Christian Nation". Because this is a flagrant violation of separation of Church and State he was told he had to get rid of it. He refused. Last week the Federal Supreme Court said that they would fine the state of Alabama $5,000/day if they did not remove it. He still defied them feeling that they were a lower court than his own. Yesterday (08/21) the rest of the AL Supreme Court held a closed session (Roy was invited, but he declined to attend) and they voted unanimously to remove the offending religions item. Meanwhile, outside the building hundreds of Roy's bible-thumping supporters (rednecks) were outside threatening to block anyone trying to remove the mini-monument. As a result, the building was closed to the public until after icon of insanity is removed...

    ...normally, I would say congrats to the rest of the supreme court for standing up to old Roy, but I know that in the past they have supported his closed-minded decisions. They were probably just worried about that $5k/day fine (that adds up to $1,825,000 a year). Still, this puts Alabama a couple steps closer to the 21st Century...


    "...or at least the 20th..."
  2. sageridder Legendary Cpa Member

    The problem I have with it is that I don't think that the fines should apply to the state but to the man himself.I infact feel the court should find out where the funds to create it were drawn from.If in fact he drew them from the taxpayers that the court should freeze his assets and make him repay the state, and have it moved to his personal property, if he pays for it he should keep it.
  3. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I don't hear anyone complaining when they accept that green paper from the mints while people are paying their fees to the state...
  4. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    I believe there is some talk of a full investigation that could lead to Roy's suspension and/or dismissal. Who knows? If all goes well, they might find him guilty of misappropration of funds and give him some jail time...

    ...what am I saying? It's Alabama. They'll probably just say "Boys will be boys" and give him a slap on the wrist...


    "Especially after he threatens 'The Wrath of GAWD!' upon them..."
  5. train The Wildcard!!!...

    A slap on something else is also possible...

    *Pictures of Deliverance movie scenes run through my mind...*
  6. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    Well, they're in the right state for that...


    "I'm off to my banjo lessons"
  7. DÛke Memento Mori


    I'm no Christian. I'm no believer. I'm no disbliever. Am I missing something when a redneck says:
    Could someone please explain to me how in this heavenly earth the item can be offending? Offending who? what? Clearly I need to be enlightened!
    And once, baby Bush also said that he hears the voice and advice of God on daily basis. What's the difference? One of them is a Texan cow-****i*g president, and the other is a mere. Let's try to be fair, now. I find it more pathetic when a president - and the filthiest one at that - claims to hear some divine voice. Only fools claim to hear such voices, and that's probably just their schizophernia and delusions acting up. Saddam heard the message of God. And so did Bush. How divine!

    "Let's be...straight...shall we? As hard as it is for some..."
  8. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    That's a perfectly legitimate and objective use of the word, "offending." It's an offense against the law. So yes, you are missing something.

    Also, when a person says (and understand I have no particular admiration for the President) that he "gears" the voice and guidance of God, he may not neccessarily mean it literally.

    Chill, man... :cool:
  9. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    It's the whole separation of church and state thing. Although references to God are still being kept on the money and some other places for reasons I can't remember.

    I'm pretty much indifferent to this. There's a lot more important things going on than squabbling about this :)
  10. DÛke Memento Mori

    Thank you!

    It seems to me that fools always want something to talk about, no matter how petty of an issue. Who cares? It's there. It's not damaging anyone - um - well, it's only damaging rednecks who otherwise have no meaning out of life until such an "icon of isanity" is removed.

  11. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    I should qualify my statement: I think there are more important things. Obviously some people think this is pretty important :)
  12. train The Wildcard!!!...

    What's "think"???...:p :p :p
  13. EricBess Active Member

    Well, I don't think the stone slabs were hurting anyone, but I do agree that they aren't in the right forum and shouldn't be there. Separation of church and state does NOT mean that religion shouldn't be part of government, BTW. People take it to extreams. For example, there are people who claim that Bush is in violation because he prays and openly states his religious views.

    Think historically. There are countries (quite a few) where the church actually WAS the government. Or at the very least, where the government was a puppet of the church. THAT is what separation of church and state is meant to avoid.

    In fact, the more God-fearing the people in office, the more the country is going to prosper. And before I get flamed, I have no documentation to support that short of religious text, so feel free to disagree with this paragraph. :D

    Should they allow the ten commandments to be posted in a court of law? I think they were correct in asking him to remove them. God's laws are not man's laws. For example, if two consenting adults commit adultry, that is not against the law, but it does break a commandment. I agree with Duke that the whole thing is out of control and they don't hurt anyone as long as they are just there to be representative. If they started trying to enforce the Law of Moses based on the fact that the ten commandments are in the lobby, then they have gone too far.

    Personally, I think the fact that he wants them there means he hasn't understood something :D
  14. Mazzak Stylemongering Protodeity

    I say, if the guy wants to wear a robe, thump on things, damn people, and put up carved rocks for display, he can go ahead and do so. All he has to do, is become a preacher.
    Him and his commandments belong in a secular courtroom like a round peg belongs in a square hole.
  15. train The Wildcard!!!...

    You'd be surprised with some kindergartens nowadays...
  16. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    It offends me. I'm not a Christian. I'm pretty sure that Alabama must have a few non-Christians out there as well. The Commandments are some nice ideas, but most of them are just there to control the populace...the last time I looked, we have a Consitution for that. Part of that Constitution mentions freedom of religion. Another part mentions separation of Church and State. These are bothe being defied by Chief Justice Moore - a man that's supposed to be ENFORCING the Constitution. In simplest terms, he's BREAKING THE LAW! Just because the "voices" tell him to leave the rock there, doesn't make it right. This is what offends me.

    I expect next, you'll tell me I'm being irrational - but, then again, you weren't born here so I wouldn't expect you to understand...


    "God FEARING, Eric? Why should we fear someone that's supposed to love us?"
  17. DÛke Memento Mori

    That's nice to hear.

    "Part of the Constitution mentions freedom of religion."

    "Another part mentions separation of Church and State."

    And, how should any of us who know exactly what you're all about be surprised, you managed quite naturally and with a single swift to miss the only important part of all: the most average common sense any man, even Americans of your capacity, should and can manage pull off - and that is to say, enough power in your own (so-called) individuality that you do not care what is there that shouldn't, or what shouldn't be there yet is there nevertheless there. Look, I know you're - what, 30? - but there's a certain, basic, common wisdom that always have applied to anyone, anywhere: and that is, supposing you have your own true principles, supposing that you are truly the individual that you boast about being, supposing that you are as free as you all (and especially you!) claim to be, then what matters is a stone? in what way will it effect the sheerness in which you hold on to your personal principles, to your own individuality? It does neither effect nor harms you in any way imaginable, that is, if you posses any level of basic self-rule – such matters would be left beneath you, not with you to the extent that you are…offended! In fact, that you are offended only manages to reveal one thing: that you are indeed so beneath, so inferior, so low, that you smell exactly as rotten as the carrion that is the "icon of insanity," which is the source of your "offense."

    To reply to your superfluous complaint with a much needed blatancy: who cares! You, of all members, always underline how you have your own "mind," that you are not "ruled" by some abstract form of law or principle...yet...yet the truth is, you manage to negate those claims at every chance you can! Here, you emphasize how something out of you offends you, something that the "law" dictates!

    Freedom of religion? Then...ok...let's be! Let's be free to worship! Is that not your case? Then worship all you want - no one is stopping you (although they should), don't let some thing as silly and petty as this artifact offend your..."faith," or your "beliefs," since they are free and strong, like you claim them to be. We might as well breakdown all the Churches, and any building that has any religious undertones associated with it; additionally, we should burn down all books, from The Anti-Christ, the Bible, the Koran, anything by William James, and everything whatsoever that points towards any type of divine belief whatsoever! - hey, it offends you! it’s “just there” too, and as it seems, as long as they are existent, even if they are non-moving, non-speaking, non-attacking objects, they still offend you! you, the so-called "free man"! it offends your higher nature, or what does it offend? your beliefs? if you had any beliefs, friend, you wouldn't be offended at all!

    Besides...if you're so fond of the "law," perhaps you could tell your country to follow the laws and principles of the world? As I recall, your beloved Bush publicly stated that he will go against all rules and laws if needed, to unleash his awe-inspiring "war on terrorism" and "wars of liberation." Perhaps you should have said something about the "law" back then. Or...wait, that's an entirely different matter, a different situation...oh. Forgive me!

    It might seem like I'm fighting for Christianity or something. I have you know that I am an Anti-Christ, Anti-Islam, Anti-God, Anti-Divine. I am also Anti-Idiots, which should explain both the reply and the manner in which I choose to reply...

    I expected you to tell me how I don't understand, because I'm not a native of this land. But what can I expect? You're an American. I am about 307% better at analyzing and observing exactly what America is all about because I am not a native of this land, which places me in a more distant, more "objective" point of view.

    "That is, supposing that it is a difficult task to understand how profound America is, as if it is deep at all. Not many, not even Americans, are willing to go as far as to spit out such a lie, such a thing as 'the profound American culture' or 'the profound American principles’ or ‘the complex American philosophy”...such a thing simply cannot be uttered seriously. It belongs in tired Hollywood comedies."
  18. EricBess Active Member

    You know, I find myself agreeing with Duke on this one. It's just a rock, for crying out loud. There is no reason to be offended by a rock.

    And he is NOT breaking any law that I am aware of by having it there. Freedom of religion is a principle upon which laws are based, but in and of itself, it is not a law. I don't see how having a rock in a courtroom infringes on freedom of religion. Is he forcing anyone to read it or throwing rocks at people who don't obey it? If he's doing these things, then he is breaking laws.

    Having said that, I stand by my earlier opinion that it is not necessary and for propriety reasons, he would be wise to remove it of his own free will.

    And "God Fearing" is used biblically to show strong respect. "Fear" in this sense means a deep respect for the natural consequences of breaking God's laws. Not in the sense of being afraid so much...
  19. Svenmonkey Pants Chancellor

    He's not going against freedom of religion, he's blatantly opposing the separation of church and state. Bringing this "rock" into the courtroom was a crime. No religion should have a monument inside a public courtroom.

    And about this, "it's just a rock!" stuff, why would they bring the thing in if it was just a rock? It's not; it's a symbol of Christianity and of early Judaic law, which is indeed historical, but in this case is clearly representing Christianity. If they wanted to put a monument to early law in a courtroom, they should have put in the Hammurabi code or some such document.
  20. Chaos Turtle Demiurgic CPA Member, Admin Assistant

    Look, I'm one of those people who really shouldn't give a whit about the monument in Alabama. I don't live in Alabama. I don't have to look at it. Stay or go, it makes no difference in my life.

    On the other hand.

    I can certainly see why people would have a problem with it. It does break the law. There may not be a statute that prohibits the display of a monument that is clearly an endorsement of a specific religion (Judeo-Christianity) but there are guidelines in the Constitution that have been interpreted by the court system (including the Supreme Court) that specify that there necessarily is a wall of separation between Church and State, and an interpretation by the Court has the force of law, and since it is an interpretation of the Constitution, it is among the highest of laws. One may disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a law.

    That, by the way, is where I think the protesters are missing the point. They go on and on about answering to a higher authority and so on, but who cares? It's an American Court of Law, not the Almighty Seat of Judgement. If they don't like the law, they should throw their support behind a legal movement to get the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision.

    Here is why people should care (I'm talking to you, DÛke):
    This is our country. These are our rights that are being infringed.

    Going by your logic, I shouldn't care at all about any injustice done to anyone anywhere when it does not affect me directly. People are being massacred in Rwanda? So what? I don't live in Rwanda, and no matter how many people get massacred there, I still get to go on thinking killing is wrong no matter how many people get killed. Some guy of Arab descent in the midwest gets hauled off in the middle of the night and interrogated for days on end just because he said "I hate the USA" on some message board? So what? I don't know the guy, I'm not Arab, and I happen to like the USA. Not to mention the fact that I still get to go on thinking it's wrong to persecute people on the basis of their national or religious heritage, so what's the big deal?

    How very stupid and hypocritical such a postion is (in my opinion).

    The reason people (including me) care is because when any person's rights are being infringed, my rights are being infringed. It is therefore an affront to me personally that a judge in Alabama decided that the oath he took to uphold the laws and Constitution of the United States of America only applies if it suits his religious opinions. He took it upon himself to commision a monument that he placed on public display on public property which clearly gives the impression that the Judeo-Christian (and I'm betting he'd just as happily leave off the "Judeo-" part) belief system is superior and that the people who entered that courtroom can expect to be judged according to that belief system and not according to the laws of that state.

    And as if that were not bad enough, he has openly defied the ruling of a superior court that (correctly, under the law) ordered it removed, saying that he answers to a "higher authority." How dare he?

    Don't like it? Then get Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment, or get into law and argue before the Supreme Court that their interpretation of this Constitutional issue is wrong.

    But then again, maybe you just don't care.

Share This Page