perfidy

Whenever the faith dares poke its head above ground

uh...the last time i checked its whold body had risen from the grave and has been dancing around our world for the last 2003 years in the form of blantant worship or latent morals, and i question if a christian with faith would actually cause this much trouble about secular concerns

Buckethead,

As is often the case in the great cafeteria of the blogsphere, thorny issues get sanded down to cudgels.

Your point in the post below about the bashing of Catholics in Congress is well taken; however, I think that it is little more than a convenient foothold for opponents of the judge in question. It may be possible that Catholics and fat people are the last two bigotries out there acceptable to "polite society" I'm not in a position to judge, and don't really know.

However, apart from bigotry, the question hinges on the fitness of the judge. Will he uphold the law as written, even if it means deciding against his own inner voice?

Second, NDR (also commenting in the previous post) is right-- there is an unresolved tension between modern law and its underpinnings in Christian law and morality. Hence the current trouble. However, I disagree that people can look at the 10-C without finding religious significance to them. Not only is it right there in Slot #1, but Charlton Freakin' Moses Freakin' Heston displayed them for all to see in Panavision.

Third. I also agree with you that the Left (and intellectuals in general) give short shrift to the well-considered Christian. That is a damned shame. Modern thought is still suffering from the after-effects of modern philosophy with its attendant (and ironic) superstitions against the spiritually ineffable.

However, Judge Moore in Alabama has done plenty himself to play the part of intolerant rube.

Finally, as I originally stated, I don't think that the Ten Commandments in a rotunda in Alabama is that big a deal in and of itself. The likelihood that someone will actually BE offended by their placement there is fairly small, and as you mention, tolerance is expected in this country.

Nevertheless, since it is a federal court, and since no other judges in Alabama even think the 10-C should be there, I think they are out of place and should go. I stand by my reasons stated previously.

(Yo, like Martin Luther, yo! "Here I Stand!" Yeah!!)

Finally, you ask if the swearing-in oath should go. I say, "partly." Speaking only for myself, the phrase "so help me God" lends no force whatsoever to my vow to tell the truth. For me (and I can only speak for me), the phrase is as useful as my appendix, and any oath I take is purely on my own recognizance. Ultimately, I don't really care one way or another, but within the bounds of the Great Cafeteria, here I stand.

The point that gets lost in all this is that there are MANY Christians who are FOR separation of church and state. (Not to mention many "founding fathers" who were christian and for separation).

Another point:
The real problem is that this judge will not put up any other religious representations of legal history. The US Supreme Court displays several homages to religious figures of legal import, including Moses and Confucius.

Another protection of separation of church and state is that one religion is not FAVORED over another. I'll be the first to admit that US laws ARE based on moral (ie: religious) foundations - but why do we have to only promote the Southern white protestant view of those moral foundations?

religion = morals = good and evil
law = ethics = good and bad

U.S. laws may be called judeo=christian, but lets not mix up morality and ethics, the courts do not have the power to sentence people to eternal damnation for acts of evil, for acts considered Bad for soceity the courts have the power to lock you up to protect the rest of us. The courts are about Society, religion is about the Individual (the individual's soul). Keep your god damn religious hands off me!!