Roy Moore to run for Alabama governor

[free]

It's official. Alabama could be transported back to the 1950's.

After several months of "praying" about running, Roy decides that he will seek the office of governor.

From al.com: (http://www.al.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/politics-1/112836594527120.xml&storylist=)

Ousted Ala. justice to run for governor
10/3/2005, 2:10 p.m. CT
By PHILLIP RAWLS
The Associated Press

GADSDEN, Ala. (AP) — Roy Moore, who became a hero to the Christian right after being ousted as Alabama's chief justice for refusing to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse, announced Monday that he is running for governor in 2006.

Moore's candidacy could set up a showdown with Gov. Bob Riley, a fellow Republican, and turn the Ten Commandments dispute into a central campaign issue in this Bible Belt state.

Two Democrats, Lt. Gov. Lucy Baxley and former Gov. Don Siegelman, are already running. The Republican and Democratic primaries are June 6.

In 2000, Alabama voters elected Moore as chief justice of the state Supreme Court, and the next summer he had a 5,300-pound granite monument of the Ten Commandments installed in the rotunda of the state judicial building. A federal judge ordered Moore to remove the monument, but Moore refused.

His fellow justices had the monument moved to a storage site out of public view. And in November 2003, a state judicial court kicked Moore out of office for defying the federal court.

Moore took appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost at every level.

Since then, he has traveled the country, speaking to church and conservative groups and promoting his book about the controversy, "So Help Me God."

[Joshmo]

Isnt Alabama one of those anti democracy states?

You run the risk of prison if you view online porn right?

I do know that one cant have adult videos or sex toys shipped to them

And they also dont allow residents to sign up for adult film rental sites either right? Everytime I go to adult sites, Alabama is first on the list of who these sites wont deal with.

I'd like to know if all this repression shows this state having the lowest rape crime, child sex abuse, etc... low teen pregnancy, etc...in comparison to any neighbor states that DO (same population numbers or close to it) anybody ever done a study to see if Alabama keeping this stuff illegal actually helps the common good?

[Criminal Rock]

here (http://www.archives.state.al.us/stats.html)

and here (http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/Alabama.htm)

I hope it helps you in your quest to find out the bad things in everybody. ;)

[JohnTheHenchman]

Oh wow, he's a horrible human being for finding the 10 commandments relevant to law.

[Thrizzle]

"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."

etc etc.

Not at all relevant to our laws, nor should they ever be.

[Jon Lyrik]

Free, you have my condolences.

Thank yhwh I was born up here.

[outsyder]

Oh fuck.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
"You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me."

etc etc.

Not at all relevant to our laws, nor should they ever be.

THOU SHALL NOT KILL

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL

Probably one of the earliest establishments of any sort of law. It's completely relevant, and I'm an atheist.

[Criminal Rock]

Its a great thing that they did took it down, you know... because our children might read what it says, and who knows, they may start believing that Jesus actually exists!!! OH NO! We must destroy everything that will destroy our children!!

[JohnTheHenchman]

Religion is apparently a bad thing.

[free]

I have no problem with religion, when it is practiced in one's personal life.

Roy Moore is a fanatic, and has made it clear that he would govern completely based on his religious believes.

Do you know what his two main issues are? The Ten Commandments, and getting rid of the "feriners". Our schools are in the bottom 3 or 4, and he's worried about stupid shit like the Ten Commandments?

Thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt not steal may be in the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that we have laws against those activities because of it. Stealing and killing are detrimental to society, and cause harm to individuals personal rights and property. That is why they are illegal, not because some "god" decided to enlighten us.

Our Founding Fathers, in my opinion, added the clause that the government couldn't establish an official religion because they had no desire to bring any kind of religion or philosophical believes into the way our government would be ran.

That's why I agree with taking "under God" out of the pledge, and not having any type of religion be represented in government. To have in the official pledge, an official "motto" of the United States, an acknowledgment of God, is saying that those who d
on't believe are wrong.

Is that establishing an official religion? No. It does imply, though, that the United States denounces atheism.

[someguy]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Its a great thing that they did took it down, you know... because our children might read what it says, and who knows, they may start believing that Jesus actually exists!!! OH NO! We must destroy everything that will destroy our children!!

No child will go near a courthouse unless it's a school trip, and they'll be bored out of their minds by then ;)

But since that's like 1% of people, meh. I don't care about the ten commandments being there, and yeah they are relevant to the law. I just don't see how the commandments on the stone really effect anyone. Even though I'm atheist I'm not outraged or anything, I really didn't care about if the commandments stayed or not.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by free
Roy Moore is a fanatic, and has made it clear that he would govern completely based on his religious believes.
The beauty of democracy is that this gives voters the chance to decide if that's what they'd like. I think anyone has the right to run for public office. I'd be a tad worried if an individual who directly flaunted orders from a federal judge was actually elected. It sends a message that voters don't care if their elected officials will follow the law.

Originally posted by free
That's why I agree with taking "under God" out of the pledge, and not having any type of religion be represented in government. To have in the official pledge, an official "motto" of the United States, an acknowledgment of God, is saying that those who d
on't believe are wrong.

Is that establishing an official religion? No. It does imply, though, that the United States denounces atheism.
Well, it was only added during the Cold War since the Kremlin was openly athiest. Adding "under God" was little more than a political gesture, at best, so I think it's taken to seriously. I think they should open it up to corporate sponsorship... help pay down the national debt... "One nation, under Wal-Mart"... They'd pay a fuckin' fortune for that. In the mean time, just say, "One Nation, under sponsorship opportunites available" ;) :p

As for the 10 Commandments.... If I were arrested in one of several mid-east countries where law is based on the Quran, I suppose I'd be worried that my prosecution is based on a religion which I don't adhere to. I think we at least need to consider the ramifications of doing the opposite to non-christian believers. Now, if our law is not directly based on the Bible or Christian faith, then what relevance does the monument have being there at all? I think the larger -- and more important -- issue here is that a judge sees his personal beliefs as being above the jurisdiction of a higher court, and now this individual sees himself fit for public office.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
THOU SHALL NOT KILL

THOU SHALL NOT STEAL

Probably one of the earliest establishments of any sort of law. It's completely relevant, and I'm an atheist.


REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, AND KEEP IT HOLY

THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE


It's completely irrelevent to state law, and I'm one of the people who thinks they should have left the monument up. (Because whatever the meaning of it was -- it's still a work of art. Ripping down a work of art is stupid, and the sort of things our enemies do)

[stefanb]

When adultry actually becomes a criminal act, the 10 commandments will be relevent in legal terms.

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
It's completely irrelevent to state law, and I'm one of the people who thinks they should have left the monument up. (Because whatever the meaning of it was -- it's still a work of art. Ripping down a work of art is stupid, and the sort of things our enemies do)

I tend to completely agree with your assessment. That said, there's a valid opinion that such art could be interpreted as promotion of a religion by the government. Such promotion is, whatever else it may be, unconstitutional. I think opinions -- in general -- would sway greatly if the judge in question was Muslim, and the monument in question was a reference to the Quran. Is it still just a work of art, or does it start to seem more like something that's grossly out of place in front of a public courthouse? Let judge put it on his front lawn. Move it to a church. Stick it in a park. But... a courthouse? There's a relevance there which I find difficult to ignore.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by stefanb
Let judge put it on his front lawn. Move it to a church. Stick it in a park. But... a courthouse? There's a relevance there which I find difficult to ignore.



Yeah, but there are so many works of art that have religios connotations and denotations --- It'd been there for decades. If it was in a judges chambers, above his seat, or if he made people swear on oath to the... Well, you get what I'm saying.

I can't think of other examples, but government buildings are full of pieces of art that could be resorted to a certain religion --- To me, this has set a precident that was originally nothing more than someone being a smart ass about the seperation of church and state.

There's a lot more they could have done as opposed to tearing it down -- maybe include a statement about it, outlining the legal battles. My point is - let people decide for themselves. This was a Supreme Court issue (don't totally remember, was it?) and it seemed --- I don't know, just a bit over-the-top for what it essentially was.

I think it's an excellent point - the seperation of church and state - I always have, but to me -- The guy who was "offended" turned a monument into a symbol, and consequently millions of people across the nation did the same thing. It was counter-productive in the end, I'm afriad. Polarizing...

[stefanb]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think it's an excellent point - the seperation of church and state - I always have, but to me -- The guy who was "offended" turned a monument into a symbol, and consequently millions of people across the nation did the same thing. It was counter-productive in the end, I'm afriad. Polarizing...
Oh, and again, I agree... but allow me to go all hypothetical on you....

It's 2007, in the landmark case, State of Alabama vs Strangelove, Bubba. You're up on charges for helping your severley disabled buddy, Haywood Jablomie, commit suicide. Haywood begged for this assistance, and in a moment of weakness, you helped your friend end his life. Now it's the media sensation case of the century, even bigger than 2006's <random 9yr old boy> vs Michael Jackson case, and legal experts galore are offering opinions on CNN and FOX. Jerry Falwell is on TV daily taking turns with Pat Robertson talking about how you need to be found guilty of first degree murder, and given the death penalty... and you're going to burn in hell even if you're aquitted. God says so, and we all know God only speaks through Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Now, you're removed from your holding cell at 7:00am and taken down to the courthouse for the first day of your trial in front of the honorable Judge Roy Moore.... you walk past the two tonne monument he placed there on the front lawn to the 10 commandments, and on your way into the court....

you're getting really goddamn nervous...

to put it mildly.

It's an inappropriate collusion of religion and law. plain, and simple. I'm not one for tearing down nativity scenes from public property, but this is much different. I have no problem with it sitting in a public park across the street... everyone can appreciate it's artistic value over there.

-S

[Lynn7]

If it wasn't for this no one would have paid any attention to the 10 Commandments at the courthouse at all. Instead, we are all talking about them-brilliant! :D

And even the "under God" in the pledge is said without anyone thinking about what it means. Ia m glad to see that people are at least dissecting what "under God means."

[The Postmaster General]

I see where you are coming from, it's unfair in many ways -- It gives the appearance of bias.

It's clear cut, to me, that the court made the right legal decision - no doubt, and no amount of Devil's advocating, or would itbe God's advocating? --- Anyway, I totally understand why --- I just think that first person who went, 'Hey! This shouldn't be here!" -- I don't think they were really as bothered as they were just making a point. You seem to agree on those fronts and also in the ring that this could lead toward more things being removed from public buildings --- maybe even to a point where -- in this instance we can understand why, but it could lead to a point where we might not agree with interpretations. 10 Commandments is pretty clear, but.... again.... I am at a loss of real life examples.

Where's electriclite?

[stefanb]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
...I just think that first person who went, 'Hey! This shouldn't be here!" -- I don't think they were really as bothered as they were just making a point...

Yup... fukkin' whiners. :p

I find all the debate over the pledge of allegiance to be very amusing... All the nonsense over whether or not it should include the words "under god"... I think we should be more concerned about forcing children to make repetative pledges of allegiance to a nationalistic symbol, above and ahead of their own individuality.

I pledge allegiance to me. Everything else can go fuck itself.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by stefanb
Yup... fukkin' whiners. :p

I find all the debate over the pledge of allegiance to be very amusing... All the nonsense over whether or not it should include the words "under god"... I think we should be more concerned about forcing children to make repetative pledges of allegiance to a nationalistic symbol, above and ahead of their own individuality.

I pledge allegiance to me. Everything else can go fuck itself.

-S


When I was in high school, I did the "I'm not standing" routine once, and the teacher went ballistic --- Not so much because I didn't stand, but because he couldn't explain why I should. To make matters worse, no one got to say the pledge that day, because everyone was too busy watching me get yelled at.

It wasn't about much to me, but after seeing the teacher lose it like that - it became about a lot more and other people began questioning it.

Patriotism and the seperation of church and state - two things that don't mix with smart asses.

Well, it sounded good in my head...

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY, AND KEEP IT HOLY

THOU SHALL NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE


It's completely irrelevent to state law, and I'm one of the people who thinks they should have left the monument up. (Because whatever the meaning of it was -- it's still a work of art. Ripping down a work of art is stupid, and the sort of things our enemies do)

You're not getting it.

I go to a public university and in our History of Civil Society in America course (basically, it's about laws, writings, court cases, etc that influenced the shape this country took) it's the first thing we're taught. We're not taught to follow them, only taught that at one time people looked at these as laws and it's one of the places we draw the idea of law from.

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, you're right. I'm not getting it. I'm not getting it at all, man. That seems like tacky art to me - there's not theme or anything, unless there's all sorts of other decorations involving books of law - they could have a statue of Roe Vs. Wade or something --- Yeah, they could totally do that, but it would be kind of silly at that point. It was a statue of the bible - okay, I see how that's sort of like "Whoa, what the hell? Church and State?"

To say that our laws are built around them is the opposite of what our country was founded under. Those are the sorts of laws that involve church and state. That was the reason they were laws back then - church.

At least that's my impression of the whole thing.

All I'm saying is that you have your reasons for thinking it should stay and I have mine. They don't really cancel each other out.

[Thrizzle]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Probably one of the earliest establishments of any sort of law. It's completely relevant, and I'm an atheist.

Some of them are relevant, most aren't. Its seen as an endorsement of a religion by the government, therefore it needed to go.

Also, If i were hindu i wouldnt want to be labelled a sinner as i walk into a courthouse; if i were muslim i wouldnt expect a fair trial, etc etc.

[Lynn7]

Any reminder of God's laws can only be a good thing cause they preotect people. But I dont need them to be at a courthouse. If people don't want them there that is fine by me. I don't have them hung in my house but I do have other bible verses that are on my walls.

[someguy]

Lynn, I have this Bible verse hung up on my door

Deuteronomy 33:11

11 Bless all his skills, O LORD,
and be pleased with the work of his hands.
Smite the loins of those who rise up against him;
strike his foes till they rise no more."

Oh man, smiting loins. Lord, you are one crazy bastard.

Although I am actually surprised about the whole agreement on not wanting the commandments at a court house. I mean, I wouldn't want them there but I never really cared about it since it's pretty harmless. This is like the whole "under God" thing on the pledge of allegiance. I don't see the big deal over it, no kid is going to be like 'oh man I wanna be Christian now' when they say it (and if they do it's a tiny as hell percentage).

[EVILxxx]

As far as the Ten Commandments in front of court houses. . . I am not adament on either side. What I do have a problem with however is the can of worms this opens up.
In California the ACLU wants to take a small cross off of the California state flag. The cross is on the flag to signify to immense influence the church and the missions had on California. According to the ACLU it shows favoritism towards Christianity, yet the have absolutly no problems with the gigantic Pagen Goddess that graces the forefront.
http://www.laavenue.com/images/3seal.gif

There is also a gorgeous Korean War memorial in San Diego that could possibly be taken down because it is a giant cross. A move which I think would be severly disrespectfull to those who served.

http://soledadnational.com/content/images/sunset_3727_1_2_9391.jpg

[The Postmaster General]

Yeah, that's what kind of bugs me about this.

We are supposed to be tolerant, but I think that includes understanding why it would be more trouble than it's worth to remove a concrete stature from a piece of pavement. Look at that stuff -- we are talking about a big pain in the ass. None of this is like symbols of hate, or anything - to me, it's art, but also like part of a history. It's not that offensive.