A Bright Speaks in Favor of Moore
Dean Esmay has given his take on the Roy Moore situation. I understand what he is saying, but I would challenge a couple of points.
1) Dean says, “I’m a Bright. But I think there is nothing wrong with a copy of the 10 Commandments in a public courtroom.” Neither does Judge Myron Thompson. He expressly says in his opinion that his decision is not that any display of the ten commandments in public space is unconstitutional. He said that this particular display, along with the evidence of how it came to be, is unconstitutional because Roy Moore has reached the point of proselytizing.
2) Dean also says,
By the way, I feel exactly the same way about school prayer and the displaying of chreches and whatnot by public institutions. There’s no conflict with the 1st amendment there, either. None. The courts over the past few decades have signed on to a view of the 1st Amendment that is, indeed, fundamentally illiberal and intolerant in this regard.
The school prayer issue has been blown completely out of proportion. An individual can pray in school every hour of the day if they so desire. The only type of prayer that has been prohibited is group prayer led by school officials.
There IS a conflict with the intent of the First Amendment, to allow all people to worship freely, without government interference. When officers of the government use their official position to ordain a particular religion as not just their personal faith, but as something that is and should be common to everyone (though it isn’t), they cross the line. No one should care what religion Roy Moore is or what he displays in his personal office, but when he uses public space that does not belong to him to put forth his personal religious views he’s gone too far.
Just my humble opinion.
UPDATE: And evidently the opinion of Mr. Reynolds as well.
Sphere: Related Content
September 8th, 2003 at 9:24 pm
What Judge Roy Moore did was an extremely brave and couragous act. There was absolutely nothing wrong or against the constitution by displaying the ten commandments. We are living in a day where murder and fornication along with teen pregnancy is an every day thing. One would think that some sort or guidance would be appreciated and admired. Judge Moore did something most can not, which is doing the right thing even if that means standing alone. According to Mr. Reynolds the wrong doing occured when Judge Moore “used” public space to display this message. My question is to Mr. Reynold, would I being just a citizen of the United States be allowed by yourself to display a message in the same location that Judge Moore did, seeing how I am not a judge or obtain a political position? I find any answer other than yes to be quite contradictory to your comment.
My humble satisfying opinion
September 8th, 2003 at 9:51 pm
How would an answer other than yes be wholly contradictory? Many people attempted to put displays in that rotunda, but were rebuffed by Roy Moore. Roy Moore does not own that space. It belongs to the people of Alabama. ALL of the people, not just the Christians.
Roy’s Rock had no place in the rotunda of the State Judicial Building. I hope it finds a nice home somewhere where it can be appreciated for the religious symbol that it is.
September 10th, 2003 at 12:00 pm
Seeing how it has been demostrated that Judge Moore does not own the space and does not have the power to replace or remove anything from that space, can the people place something in that space since it is their own?
You didnt answer my question about the ability of a mere citizen to use public space to display a message. Part of your argument was that the judge used public space that does not belong to him, so again since it belongs to the public, can a person display his or her own message.
September 10th, 2003 at 3:54 pm
It has not been established that Roy does not have the power to replace or remove anything in that space. He certainly does as the Chief Justice, and the other justices have the right to overrule any administrative decision he makes. That’s what’s been established. Remember that the monument was not moved until the associate justices ordered it done.
You can certainly display a message as a member of the public, but you cannot make a permanent installation. In other words, you could stand there all day with any message you chose until they kick you out of the building, but you couldn’t put a monument there and expect it to remain. Only those with the designated authority may make a permanenet installation, as long as they remain within the law.
September 11th, 2003 at 6:03 pm
I see that you refer to Judge Moore as “Roy”. Sure that is his name but it has a disrespectful connotation, since he is a judge and all. Do you know him on a first-hand basis or are you always that rude.
One more question for you. If the associate justices chose to place a monument, of whatever sort, in this public space would it have the longevity of remaining there? I mean, being justices and all, ordering another judge on what not to do. Would they have the right.
September 11th, 2003 at 9:36 pm
I’m glad you picked up on the disrespectful connotation. I have no respect for judges who have no respect for the law. I chose to not refer to him with that title after he refused to obey a court order. I interact with many judges and former judges in my work and always refer to them with that title as they have earned that respect.
Roy’s Rock did not remain once a majority of the justices overruled him, so I would assume that any other item that was placed in the rotunda could be removed as well. You will never have “permanent” displays in spaces that are controlled by the elected representatives of the people. Those are considered administrative decisions and therefore can be changed when the persons in charge are changed.
Doesn’t seem too complicated to me. Checks and balances.
September 12th, 2003 at 2:23 pm
First of all, “kris”, no one was telling you that your rude and confused ways were complicated. After I read your comment, it brings me to think that if the world functioned as your way of thinking everyone would be in trouble. So you know so much and are so prestigious, interacting with judges and former judges, right. One would think that a man of your stature would not believe that two wrongs make a right. There is a thing such as forgiveness, but you obviously wouldnt know anything about that, seeing your lack of true knowledge on other things.
Dont get me wrong I’m not saying that Judge Moore was wrong, but even if he was, again 2 wrongs dont make it right.
Its like monkey see monkey see, monkey do. Isnt that a little primitive?
You’re right, its not complicated at all.
Besides, what is your title, that you know everything anyway.
September 12th, 2003 at 2:25 pm
Checks and balances can always be manipulated!
September 12th, 2003 at 10:49 pm
Rude and confused ways? I’m not the one who has to resort to personal attacks. I haven’t attacked your character and I will not, I’m simply arguing your point which seems to be getting murkier by the minute.
What is incorrect about the way “my world” functions? I don’t see two wrongs here. I see that Roy Moore was wrong and the other justices were right. Are you contending that what the justices did was wrong? In what way?
And what the hell does forgiveness have to do with any of this? I am as willing to forgive as anyone, but I don’t see anyone in this situation who is asking for forgiveness. Do you? Everyone seems to feel as if they did what was right. Should we be granting forgiveness to those who haven’t sought it?
I would appreciate a counter-argument that makes some sense instead of personal insults. I have never contended that I know everything, nor did I intend to come off as feeling superior. Do you contend that you know all?
September 12th, 2003 at 10:51 pm
Of course checks and balances can be manipulated. I’ll give you your choice of alternatives, totalitarianism or anarchy. Take your pick.
September 15th, 2003 at 8:52 am
Did you see this? A reporter from the Christian Science Monitor was kicked out of a press conference with Judge Moore, and not one word about it or the press conference ever made the news in Alabama.
http://www.southerner.net/blog/weeklyblog3.html
October 23rd, 2003 at 5:39 pm
oh quite the contrary kris, you are attacking personally, but just saying what you think by abstaining from it. Denial.
Its obvious you wouldn’t see anything wrong and denial is the reason.
And not only am I contending that the other justices were wrong, but I am telling you and who ever else that they were wrong!
It shouldnt take a person to ask for foriveness in order to forgive him or her. So the question as to who is asking for forgiveness void.
And most definitely, we should forgive others who have not asked. Why would we not? Because we are too good for such a thing. Imagine the character of a person who forgives only if asked.
So are you saying we should help another only if he or she asked?
Like a child being beaten by a parent, if one knows about it, he or she is obligated to report the child that is in need. Yes, we should forgive those who havent sought it, because we see that they are in need for it.
This counter-argument makes perfect sense, its the reader who can not make perfect sense of it.
May 14th, 2006 at 8:20 am
Shleah,
You still never answered the question about how the other justices were wrong. What did they get wrong exactly?