…and this is a 
The US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that display of ten commandments monuments violates the establishment clause. Well, yeah. When the first commandment is basically "No way but JHWH!", it should be basically impossible to argue otherwise. Although it is fun to watch the crazy people twist themselves to argue that Moses was a secular dude.
Speaking of twisted, ex-Judge Ray Moore is running for Alabama governor in 2010. If you enjoy the occasional video of squirrelly wingnuts denouncing all that is evil in the world, he's got several there. I like the one where he announces that he will protect Alabamians from all the immorality from California and Massachusetts.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 9, 2009 10:19 AM
The first link-- isn't.
Posted by: Michael Russell | June 9, 2009 10:30 AM
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/06/10th-cirucit-holds-10-commandments.html
The link is currently an "a hef=".
Posted by: Faithful Atheist
|
June 9, 2009 10:37 AM
As someone from Roy Moore's home county (Etowah County) where he started this insanity about the ten commandments, I can tell you that he is nothing but an opportunistic douche.
The first time the whole Ten Commandment thing started was election time for him as a county judge and he was not faring well. Suddenly out of the blue, someone complained anonymously about the Ten Commandment plaque he had in his courtroom. The same plaque that had been there for years.
Because of the sudden media attention and church backing he got, he won the election and learned about a new powerful tool he could use if he ever wanted to get some public support.
As a judge, he was horrible. He was a wild card. You never knew how he was gonna rule on a case. You could have several identical cases and he would rule completely different on each one. He abused his power frequently and was also rumored to be a womanizer.
If all these religious nuts clamoring over eachother to support Moore looked just a little bit into his past, they would see him for what he is. Of course, religious nuts aren't exactly known for separating fact from fiction.
Posted by: Robert | June 9, 2009 10:41 AM
Speaking for myself...
...an irrepressible Yankee from Massachusetts,
Dear Judge Moore, and those Alabamans who feel as he does,
Perhaps you should try that whole secession thing again? Maybe this time we'll say, "Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!"
R.
Posted by: raven | June 9, 2009 10:41 AM
Don't worry. God will punish Alabama and Ray Moore. He will send tornados and maybe a hurricane or two to smite them for being fundies. God hates fundie xians.
God does this a lot. They never, ever catch on.
Posted by: Blaine | June 9, 2009 10:43 AM
Damn it... I was really pulling for legally binding Sundays off.
Posted by: Blaine | June 9, 2009 10:46 AM
Damn it... I was really pulling for legally binding Sundays off.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 9, 2009 10:52 AM
Here's the ruling itself:
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2009/06/haskell-county-ten.pdf
Posted by: Giford | June 9, 2009 10:57 AM
Personally, I think they should be allowed to put up the Ten Commandments wherever they want. As long as they use the *real* Ten Commandments, not the version that
so frequently gets used instead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699308
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699344
Wonder what would happen then?
Gif
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
June 9, 2009 11:04 AM
I believe it's more accurately translated as, "YHWH or the HGWH!"
Posted by: Roger
|
June 9, 2009 11:08 AM
#10 for the win!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 9, 2009 11:12 AM
I doubt it's a ruling against display of the 10 commandments altogether, though. Other courts have deemed contextual displays (history of Western law) of it to be okay.
When it's sitting out there on the lawn saying "I'm a jealous god" and using "creation" as a justification for "the Sabbath," it's no longer history, it's just religious.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 9, 2009 11:15 AM
Funny that Moore's site has a blurb from Ollie North, American Hero. I could not help but think about an upcoming show hosted by Sean Hannity and North. The 'ahem' musical acts are Billy Ray Cyrus, Charlie Daniels, Micheal W. Smith and Lee Greenwood. I am sure that if I was tied up and tossed into the audience, I would die of toxic shock.
I wonder if old Charlie will play this song?
Posted by: Michael Simpson | June 9, 2009 11:17 AM
Has there been any case, at a higher Federal court, that has ever gone against the Establishment Clause? Aren't they like 0 for 1000 or something like that?
Every time a school district thinks it can get around the establishment clause (Kitzmiller being a great example), they lose. But there's always another one trying to do the same.
These people should be forced to reimburse the government for wasting everyone's time. The Establishment Clause is clear to anyone.
Posted by: Chris Davis
|
June 9, 2009 11:19 AM
In browsing through the bits of Dead Sea Scrolls that are online, I encountered a commandment that seems not to have made the cut. It was, in essence:
"Though shalt not build thy temple upon a high place, lest when thou walkest up to thine appointed place within, unrighteous persons gaze up thy robes into thy privy places."
If only we'd had more fingers, I'm sure it would have been in the list.
Posted by: Jason Baur | June 9, 2009 11:20 AM
As a fellow from Massachusetts, let me say that Roy Moore can try to protect the woe-begotten hordes of Alabama conservatives from our sin, debauchery and gay marriage, but we'll be doing our best to protect decent people from asshats like him all the while.
Someday gay marriage will be legal in Alabama. I hope Roy Moore lives to see it, if only to find out if his head will literally explode from the shock.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | June 9, 2009 11:57 AM
Giford, good to see you here!
TRiG.
Posted by: DLC | June 9, 2009 11:58 AM
"God has given me these Fifteen ::drop..shatter: Ten! Ten commandments for All to Obey! " -- Moses (Mel Brooks)
History of the World, Part I.
Of course Moses was special, he had A Rolex!
Posted by: MikeM | June 9, 2009 12:01 PM
Banning the Ten Commandments will probably lead to sex with ducks, you know.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/robertson-will-hate-crimes-protect-someone-who-likes-have-sex-ducks
Has anyone seen the youtube video mocking Robertson for this? I won't watch it at work, but I've heard it's pretty funny.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | June 9, 2009 12:02 PM
Here's the interesting bit: Mainstream Baptist Network and Oklahoma Mainstream Baptists filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the ACLU.
TRiG.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 9, 2009 12:05 PM
The Ten Commandments are great! Let's see, one of them says we shall make no graven image. Good idea! Let's just get us a big, polished stone and engrave all ten... Hey! Wait a minute!
Posted by: MattB | June 9, 2009 12:18 PM
Oh boy. Check the Diamond Rio "In God We Still Trust" video on good 'ol Roy's site.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5483394/Church-leaders-offer-communion-wafers-in-the-post.html
It will make your skin crawl.
Who are these deluded people? Don't they read the news?
f-ing Deliverance man...
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 9, 2009 12:20 PM
I'm sure Ed Brayton would agree, but these kind of cases seem pointless and increasingly rare to me. If I was a proponent of such displays, I'd try to make my argument more nuanced, because this one is just too easy for the court to shoot down. The ruling should have said, "Yes, it's unconstitutional--stop wasting our time."
Posted by: Nat J.
|
June 9, 2009 12:23 PM
I really hope Judge Moore can protect his state from evils like better public schools.
Posted by: MattB | June 9, 2009 12:24 PM
oops. wrong link. here's the frightening Diamond Rio video:
http://www.moore2010.com/media
Posted by: Giffy | June 9, 2009 12:26 PM
""Everyone knows each other, and word travels in Haskell County faster than the constant airspeed of a European swallow," Green said in court arguments."
I think I might just love this Green fellow.
Posted by: Giffy | June 9, 2009 12:41 PM
""Everyone knows each other, and word travels in Haskell County faster than the constant airspeed of a European swallow," Green said in court arguments."
I think I might just love this Green fellow.
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | June 9, 2009 12:54 PM
Hey look, the monument in question misspelled adultery as "adultry".
http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/06/06-7098.pdf
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 9, 2009 12:57 PM
"I bring you these 15" *crash* "10 commandments"
Posted by: Bert Chadick | June 9, 2009 1:30 PM
Half the ten commandments are actually no-compete clauses promoted by the tribal elders of the proponents of that particular god. As a method to promote tribal cohesiveness it is probably a good idea, but as a set of rules to bracket a modern nation state the ten suck. The whole not killing, thieving, lying, et all are pretty much rules worked out across all civilizations over time and have little to do with the local deities.
Posted by: Bill | June 9, 2009 1:31 PM
"Stupid is as Stupid does" Forest Gump in Alabama..
Posted by: Bill | June 9, 2009 1:35 PM
"Stupid is as Stupid does" Forest Gump in Alabama..
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 9, 2009 1:35 PM
"When the first commandment is basically "No way but JHWH!", it should be basically impossible to argue otherwise."
I'm not too sure that's the way to read the 1st. Commandment. Scripture has to be read in light of literary and historical criticism and "Sitz-en-laben".
"I am the Lord thy God, thy shall not have other Gods before me".
Does that mean that Yehweh is the only God or might it reference a totem pole configuration where Yehweh is the top God or the most important God so that there should be no other "before" or "above" Him?
Remember, before this time the Israelite tribes were polytheistic.
Surely, I will get ad hominem on this bit of hermeneutics, but, at least, I can't say I'm not unaccustomed to that.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 9, 2009 1:41 PM
Silver Fox: All atheists are following the first commandment. No gods mean no gods before Yahweh.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 1:42 PM
Don't worry Silver Fox, it's not like you never make mistakes in logic. We expect and find one in almost every post. Your biggest mistake in logic is your continued posts here that serve no purpose except for our entertainment, so you are really just wasting your time and effort.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 9, 2009 2:02 PM
Re #3
I disagree. Moore is one of the most dangerous theocrats in the American political landscape today. He has a tremondous amount of financial support, mostly from the Dominionist fucktards who also support other such ignoble efforts as the Discovery Institute.
He is a prominent member of the Council for National Policy, which also includes butt-buddies D. James Kennedy (deceased), James Dobson, Brent Bozell, Jerry Falwell (deceased), Howard Ahmanson, Phyliss Shlafly, Don Wildmon, Paul Weyrich, Randall Terry, Gary Bauer, Tim LeHaye, Chuck Colson, Rick Santorum, as well as almost every other ultra-conservative Christian.
The problem here is that these folks feel that this nation's laws are secondary to, and must be changed to conform with their strict, twisted interpretation of God's law, as laid out in the Bible.
Very scary and dangerous stuff, that. And much worse than a douche-bag, he.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | June 9, 2009 2:03 PM
#22 "Oh boy. Check the Diamond Rio "In God We Still Trust" video on good 'ol Roy's site.
It will make your skin crawl."
Meh. I still prefer this classic as the epitome of Christian Creepy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M5Hc8ofIHs
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 9, 2009 2:05 PM
Well, I got the ad hominem part right.
I would be more than a little careful about identifying with those televangelists who wave their King James Version in the air and proclaim that they have there the "words of the Lord". Discounting all linguistic, literary and historical contexts, oblivious to all time and place, and ignoring the dozens of language translations, glosses, etc. they have the "word of God". Yeah, they have it as much as you, me and PZ have it.
My point which, because of your ad hominem bias, you missed, is that it is presumptuous and disingenuous to draw conclusions based on a quote from a tablet which is supposed to have existed five thousand years ago and which no one has read. There is no logical error there
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 9, 2009 2:07 PM
Silver Fox - Why are you asking us to explain the commandments to you, moron? We're atheists - remember? The people who break the commandments with giddy abandon and thumb our noses at you and your god.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 9, 2009 2:24 PM
"Why are you asking us to explain the commandments to you, moron? We're atheists"
I wouldn't dream of asking you to explain the commandments.
But PZ presumes to know what the commandment says; "No way but YWHW". What I'm holding is that in light of scriptural exegesis, his understanding may be incorrect. For an atheist who relies almost completely on reason, being told that his conclusions may be unreasonable would seem important.
Posted by: MattB | June 9, 2009 2:24 PM
#37 "Meh. I still prefer this classic as the epitome of Christian Creepy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M5Hc8ofIHs"
Creepy, yes. Bizarre, most definitely.
I just like a tad more redneck jingoism in my Christian call to arms.
Posted by: Stimp | June 9, 2009 2:34 PM
I don't understand why courts even agree to hear arguments for posting the Commandments in courthouses and such. It's a complete no-brainer. Judges should just tell some people to stop wasting the court's time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 9, 2009 2:54 PM
Silver Fox, you still have no point. You think you have a point, but nobody else does. This should tell you to stop posting. But then, you are a TrueBelieverTM who never lets logic get in the way of your inane ideas.
Posted by: Kyle | June 9, 2009 2:57 PM
Now maybe they will stop the one that was just approved for the Oklahoma State Capitol last month.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-capitol-to-display-ten-commandments/article/3370730?custom_click=headlines_widget
Posted by: weedpatch | June 9, 2009 3:45 PM
#28 et al. Go ez on Alabama. It is said the boys down South can't count to twenty-one unless they drop their pants.
Posted by: FastLane | June 9, 2009 3:48 PM
I highly recommend at least reading through about the first half of the ruling.
The parts about the comments that the city council and others made about the monument and religion and 'standing up for god' crap makes these cases pretty cut and dried.
I'm betting the only reason it had to go to an appeals court is because the first trial was a bench trial in or near the town where this all occurred and many local judges are just as bad as the local politicians.
Posted by: JThompson | June 9, 2009 3:56 PM
Speaking as an Alabamian, I'd love some of California or Massachusetts style immorality to take root here.
I'm also fairly confident Moore probably won't get elected.
The more pious someone is in public, the more demented they are in private. Everyone knows that. And the people that are on his side don't want to be caught in the fallout when he gets caught smoking meth while fucking an underage goat on an american flag.
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
June 9, 2009 4:05 PM
Silver Fox - WTF? PZ doesn't understand scripture?
You're just plain pitiful Silver Fox, a stopped watch is right more often than you.
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 9, 2009 5:15 PM
Michael Simpson @ 14:
Have cases ever gone against the Establishment Clause? It's a matter of interpretation, of course. I, you see, am a principled textualist, and think that "no law" means just that. NO LAW. Any law Congress makes even respecting an establishment of religion, even a de minimus one, ought to be overturned. The Supreme Court, does not see it that way, and never has. The Court explicitly allows "ceremonial deism," which is why we have, for instance, "In God We Trust" on our money.But anyway . . .
Actually, the current state of the law per religious displays on public property is weird, thanks to the "pragmatism" of Justice Breyer.
The Court heard two cases in 2005: Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky. In each case, there were consistent panels of four against four. That is, four judges would have upheld the display of Ten Commandments in both cases, and four others would have struck it down in both cases. Enter Stephen Breyer.
Breyer sided for the display in first case, and against the display in the second case. So, two five-to-four decisions were rendered with the opposite result.
What's the current legal difference between a Ten Commandments display that does violate the Establishment Clause and one that does not? Supposedly, "religious purpose." Apparently, if the government enmeshes the Ten Commandments with a bunch of other historical or secular displays, a secular purpose can be inferred, and does not run counter to the Establishment Clause. If, however, it stands on its own, a religious purpose may be inferred, in which case it does violate the Establishment Clause.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 5:19 PM
I went to youtube to see more of Moore's idiocy.
Instead, I found this in which Alan Keyes said he'd like Moore as a VP, or as the head of the Supreme Court. Now, that's scary; Keyes as president and Moore as head of the supremes.
It's good that Keyes electoral hopes of any kind imploded with his carpetbagging run against Obama for the US Senate a few years ago. (Especially after critizing Hillary for carpetbagging in NY state.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu-CYOM6TXM
Posted by: Liveliest Crib
|
June 9, 2009 5:22 PM
You Know Who:
Scriptural exegesis = the bullshit rationalizations we can make ad hoc to pretend the Bible means what we want it to.It's very similar to original intent jurisprudence. :)
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 9, 2009 5:25 PM
Liveliest Crib @ # 51
Hey, is that fair, hitting a guy below the Bible belt.
Nice punch, though.
Posted by: raven | June 9, 2009 5:28 PM
Why does anyone need to "stand up for god". Last I heard, he was an all powerful, omniscient, benevolent supernatural spook who created the entire universe in 6 days. So benevolent that the last time he was mildly annoyed with us, he covered the entire earth with water and killed all the dinosaurs and all but 8 people.
Are they saying god is sick or senile?
Posted by: peter irons | June 9, 2009 7:34 PM
I know this thread has mostly focused on (former) Judge Roy Moore, but there's one aspect of the Haskell County, Oklahoma, Ten Commandments case that's worth noting. This was a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I read the opinion and noted that all three judges on the panel (Hartz, O'Brien, and Holmes) were nominated by President George W. Bush. So we won't have any griping about liberal, anti-Christian, "judicial activists" who "legislate from the bench." But, based on Supreme Court precedent, this was a slam-dunk for the appellate judges. Given the overt religious purpose of the Haskell County monument, they really had no other choice than ruling against its display.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 9, 2009 7:55 PM
No way but JHWH!
Isn't that 1 and 2. The top two basically say don't worship other gods or idols.
Damn SF what's so hard to understand?
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 9, 2009 8:21 PM
"What I'm holding is that in light of scriptural exegesis, his understanding may be incorrect."
No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 9, 2009 8:52 PM
I don't understand why Silver Fox's exegesis makes any difference.
PZ (in Blake Stacey's awesome translation): "YHWH or the HGWH!"
SF: You're mistaking a modern version "YHWH or the HGWH! because YHWH is teh Only One" for the ancient cultural contextual version "YHWH or the HGWH! because YHWH is teh One who roxx0rz and teh rest suxx0rz!"
CCC: Huh?
Posted by: John Morales | June 10, 2009 4:39 AM
SF:
I think you've said the opposite of what you meant, in that last phrase.Posted by: Ichthyic | June 10, 2009 5:38 AM
SF said:
My point which, because of your ad hominem bias, you missed, is that it is presumptuous and disingenuous to draw conclusions based on a quote from a tablet which is supposed to have existed five thousand years ago and which no one has read. There is no logical error there
so, it's OUR bias that's at fault?
How many versions of the bible are there?
It is indeed presumptuous and disingenuous to draw conclusions from incomplete scraps of paper, period.
So why is it YOU seem to know the mind of God so well, considering there actually aren't any verifiable texts from the supposed time of Christ or before? For that matter, how is it that ANYONE could be presumptuous enough to construct a supposedly "coherent" account from a bunch of post-dated scraps?
uh, you DID know that actually there are NO scraps of scrolls or paper used for any version of the bible that are older than 125 AD for any record of Jesus (yes, that's right, "eyewitness" accounts written over 100 years after his supposed demise), and at most a few hundred years older for any part of the OT?
So, with that in mind, are you still so sure YOU know all about the deity supposedly described in those scraps of mis-matched paper?
You're nuts, you know that?
Posted by: bugbear | June 10, 2009 9:57 AM
There are many of us in Alabama who are not that upset about Roy Moore running on the Republican ticket...he'll help split the vote between the really crazy christianists and the mildly crazy christianists (most of the repubs here). It'll make a better chance, politically speaking, for independent and democratic candidates.
Right now I'll take ANY chance to steer our politics away from the taint of religion. I'm a public servant...I've yet to attend ANY public meeting that a minister doesn't head up or doesn't start with a homily and a prayer (no joke).
Posted by: Jason Baur | June 10, 2009 11:30 AM
Good exegesis is a historical exercise. It illuminates the context in which religious material was constructed. This is valuable for us, as atheists, because it reveals the human construction of text and puts the lie to claims of divine origin.
It is good to understand the historical development of Judaism. But none of this undermines PZ's point because the adaptation of tribal polytheistic traditions into a developing monotheistic system does not alter the value of the 1st commandment within said monotheistic religion and its later offshoots.
So while I agree that SF has no point, I did want to defend exegesis, at least the principled sort.
Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | June 10, 2009 2:14 PM
I'm not certain what Silver Fox' point was, but he's certainly perfectly correct to say that our modern understanding of a translated ancient text may well not be remotely similar to the understanding of those who wrote it, or of those it was written for.
Most modern Christianity, for example, would not be recognised as such by the first century Christians. The Commandments are of even more ancient origin.
TRiG.
Posted by: Kendo | June 10, 2009 10:11 PM
Timothy (TRiG):
Sure, and if Silver Fox wasn't a moron, he/she would understand that that observation is entirely irrelevant in this context. This display is not intended to make any impression on ancient goat-herders. Its audience are people who understand "YHWH or teh HWGH" to mean exactly what you think it sounds like it means.