And... the state of Alabama has now suspended Chief Justice Asshat, another good decision.

I agree with everything you say above, and know full well that every whining fundie who keeps harping on religious freedom only means "Freedom to practice MY religion."

Hey, the Taliban were a religion-centered government. So was Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeini. Those worked out really well, didn't they?

But... here's something I haven't seen anyone point out in any articles about the Asshat formerly known as Alabama's chief justice. Not only did his actions violate the US Constitution, they're a pretty blatant violation of Alabama's State Constitution, Section 3: "That no religion shall be established by law; that 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 no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles."

Note that "no preferences shall be given by law" bit. Since the Ten Commandments are, technically, just part of Judaism (and not Christianity if you're a real bible-Thumping Fundie), that shows yer favoritism right there. I could also make the argument that putting it in a public building is a de facto tax and tithe, since the public is paying for the placement and upkeep of the thing.

Finally, for those who still don't get it, the First Amendment does not declare freedom of religion. It's more like freedom from religion -- the congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Personally, I take this to mean that churches cannot be made tax exempt, because to do so would be to, well, make a law regarding them.

Not to mention that every single church service with communion is, most likely, illegally serving alcohol to minors. I've always wanted to try to make a complaint about that one and see what happens...

But here's to another victory for common sense. Now, we can all go commit sodomy and not worry about banging our heads (or knees) on a concrete monument to hubristic worship. Er... someone else's hubristic worship. If I'm on my knees, I ain't praying...

PS: Good luck with the move. Sorry I can't be there to help, but it's not my fault you live halfway out to Bumfuck Idaho.

Gosh. I guess none of your readers are interested enough to have an opinion on this matter of great constitutional importance.

Looks like they've moved that huge slab from the courthouse rotunda, to a non-public area of the building. But, personally, I think they should have hauled it off and dumped it in ex-Judge Asshat's front yard.

First off...sorry to respond so slowly on this one, but I've been on vacation for a bit.

Ah, Mr. Bastian...so informed on some areas of the issue and so ignorant on others...

From what I understand, prior to all of this madness, Moore was forced to remove the Ten Commandments from his office (NOT the main lobby of the courthouse). I'm sorry, but having a little display of your personal beliefs in your office does not violate any constitutions that I'm aware of. (Should we remove the text of Lincoln's speech in his memorial at D.C. that says a truly God-fearing man would never abide slavery?) And God forbid (lack-of-God forbid? How DO the atheistic/agnostic folks express this form of sarcasm?!?) that any JUDGE should have something in his office expressing his distaste for murder, theft, adultery, lying under oath, and disrespect of parents..! I'm sure there's a lot of citizens out there who wish we had a government that more fully endorsed lying, promiscuous youth who ignore any sense of family in order to steal and kill as much as they please!

Maintaining such a personal thing in his personal office does not violate either the state nor federal constitutions that Mr. Bastian quotes. So in my opinion, as long as Mr. Moore did not quote any of those Ten Commandments as basis for any law he pas any law he passed or upheld, he should not have had to remove it from his personal office; hence, to be forced to do so WAS unconsitutional.

THAT being said, yes, placing it in the lobby of a public courthouse or other such building is antagonistic at best. The same arguments I present for his personal office can still apply (having a monument does not a law make, but it sure implies endorsement and preference of what's on the monument, which becomes the sticky territory in question). Mr. Bastian's argument about the state paying for the cleaning and upkeep are valid, but comparatively weak, and not the true issue. I'd wager that if Mr. Moore is willing to fight so hard to keep it there, he could probably chip in the 50 cents it costs to dust the thing every once in awhile, or even do it himself.

However, regardless of the constitution-friendliness of such a situation, he should not have disobeyed a direct federal order; such actions are a great way to be disbarred in the legal sense, and the office Mr. Moore holds is not the best one to go about engaging civil disobedience by sheer nature of his job description. Furthermore, the Bible DOES call for the obedience to and prayer for any authorities placed over an individual, in the context of the full knowledge and faith that if our superiors wrong us now, as long as we maintain our own personal integrity God's justice will win out in the end. Can't fight for the Ten Commandments (correctly labeled as a primarily Jewish document incorporated into the Old Testament) on the basis of the BIBLE unless you're willing to obey the New Testament in doing so.

So in summary, his current actions are incorrect, but he was in the right at the beginning of the whole mess.

As for tax exemptions for churches, that's no more unconsitutional than tax breaks for any other charity. Churches are, by practical Christian definition, places designed to build character and make the world a better place. They are not working for financial profit (despite the many scandals, past and present...this is why they were SCANDALS: they violated the church's role in society, even on the church's terms). Even the most non-churchgoing folk tend to agree that an organization that seeks no financial gain other than to facilitate feeding and helping the homeless, caring for the sick, fundraising for the curing of diseases, etc. deserves a tax break. This saves the governemt the trouble of allocating funds to do the same! (Tongue in cheek, I swear!) A true Christian church should easily fall under that umbrella, as these services to human society are commanded, encouraged, and displayed thoughout both Testaments, especially the New.

And by the way, practically every Protestant church that I know of and a good many Catholic ones do not serve alcohol in their communion services, but rather replace it with grape juice. Thanks for showing up to check it out, as this has been going on for decades. Please research your topics before slamming the opposition. It helps to know or have experienced what you're talking about.

And Patrick, you're absolutely correct in that a personal faith should not require such a huge monument in a public setting, but as I pointed out earlier, he should have been allowed to keep his personal faith in his personal office in the first place. As far as the endorsements of the church in the sense of swearing in the President over a Bible and having In God We Trust on currency, the same rules have to apply. Why does nobody make a stink over these? Legally and constitutionally speaking, they are just as relevant or irrelevant as a hunk of granite in a public building. Either be pissed about the whole thing or not at all. I'm wagering there aren't/weren't nearly as many idiots surrounding the building as the media would have us believe, and both sides of the story have been using an eager press to make a bigger stink about it than it deserves. The same goes for the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yes, it was created and added long after the country was founded, but I can't recall too many folks reciting the Pledge after grade school nor taking it seriously, then or now. The Pledge of Allegiance is often taken MOST seriously by immigrants entering our citizenship, and I haven't heard too many of them bitch about it. As if we force all of our existing naturalized citizens to say it daily as adults..! Likewise for the expression "Oh, My God!" used to denote exasperation or surprise. It is literally a cry to God for assistance/deliverance from the situation. Likewise with the phrases "For God's sake," "For the love of God!" and "Goddamn it!" to name a few. These are all requests for divine intercession in dealing with the life before us. Why is it perfectly acceptable for the militantly non-believing to ask for God's help in daily conversation, but WAY not cool to have it displayed anywhere? Hypocrisy makes the world go round, and it's best to reexamine internal motives on both sides before crying foul.

Could it be that Mr. Moore doesn't know much about the Bible he's defending?

Could it be possibly ok, since his detractors appear to know even less about what they're attacking, and have just as much hypocrisy in their political/judicial ceremonies (many courtroom testimonies and oaths still involve the use of a Bible and/or the phrase "so help you God"), in addition to the hypocrisy in their wallets, and in their daily speech?

It's great to be mindful of the Constitution, but let's worry about it when something goes wrong.

Strange. I would also wager that more Californians are upset about a religious monument in Alabama than our own gubernatorial shenanigans. Recall the guy because he's done a bad job? Isn't that what NOT VOTING FOR HIM NEXT TIME is all about? Or, taking into consideration that roughly 25% of Californians voted in the most recent election, isn't this what VOTING is all about?! If you didn't put your two cents in previously, you literally have no right to bitch now and should just deal with it till the next election.

Nah, it makes more sense to solve a bajillion dollar deficit by spending millions more to get ONE guy out of office. I didn't vote for Davis previously, and certainly wouldn't if he were to run again, but if you're pissed about the budget, slaughter half the representatives, legislative folks, and state budget people who invested most of California's cash in Enron. This is, of course, assuming you even know who your local reps or senator even ARE.

Just more silly thoughts from an ignorant Christian...

Yes! This sort of articulate sharing of ideas (opposing, in this case) is what I've been hoping for with these blog comments all along! It certainly doesn't hurt any that the opposing viewpoints come from two people whose brains I hold in high regard.