This is, I know, akin to shooting fish in a barrel, as Moore has long established himself as a renegade wacko, notably when he defiantly displayed the Ten Commandments in his court house even after a higher court declared that it was unconstitutional. It’s unethical to violate a court order if you are a judge (duh!), and as a consequence of his silly and expensive grandstanding in defiance of the Establishment Clause (Moore believes that the Government of the United States was established to support Christianity,that’s all there is to it, and nobody is going to convince him otherwise, so there), he was quite properly removed from office by a court order he couldn’t defy.
Oh, never mind ethics, law, the Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and the general advantages of not having a Chief Justice heading your state’s Supreme Court who makes up the law as he goes along: the citizens of Alabama, in their wisdom, elected Moore to be Supreme Court Justice again, and so he is.
WOW.
And here is Judge Roy, in the video above, making an ass of himself, expounding on various unhinged legal theories, the most amusing of which is that because the U.S. was originally settled by Christians, “freedom of worship” as guaranteed in the First Amendment only applies to Christianity:
“Buddha didn’t create us, Muhammad didn’t create us. It’s the God of the Holy Scriptures. They didn’t bring a Qur’an over on the pilgrim ship Mayflower. Let’s get real, let’s go back and learn our history, let’s stop playing games.”
It’s not that being religious and being a judge are incompatible. They are vary compatible, if one has respect for the duties and ethics of one’s profession, and the possess the brains of the average marmoset. Moore, unfortunately, has neither.
Uh, Alabama?
___________________________
Pointer and Source: Above the Law
Ethics Alarms 
Then again, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only non-Christian presence among America’s citizens were a small number of Jews. Christian tradition was not only present from the onset and often the reason the settlers arrived, but was also considered a vital aspect of life in a free republic by the framers. The Judeo-Christian principles support free institutions as does no other major faith and few, if any, minor ones. If this is Judge Moore’s thinking, then I support him.
That’s NOT his thinking, though. His thinking, if you can call it that, is that because the Founders were ostensibly Christians, then Christianity was what they meant by “religion” and no other religion existed as far as they were concerned. U*nlike him, they weren’t morons, however, and as the Above the Law writer establishes without breaking a sweat, there plenty of places where Madison et al made it crystal clear that “religion” encompassed all World religions.
Clearly you haven’t done much study of other religions if you think no other religion support free institutions. The entire point of the Tao te Ching was that leaders should listen to their constituents (A major reason that Daoism has been suppressed in favor of Confucianism for much of China’s history), and Buddhism may be the most democratic of all religions.
Chase: That’s so incredibly irrelevant to the discussion it’s not even funny. It’s also deceptive. Confucianism isn’t a religion, but a philosophy. Buddhism is only slightly more so. Neither ever was the progenitor of a free society. Study your own history, huh?
Remember, it was the pre-Christian Greeks and Romans who originated many of our modern intellectual concepts regarding “democracy” and “republicanism”. And it’s worth noting that Eastern Christian states for the most part did not develop the institutions of a free society that we ended up seeing in the West. Christianity as it developed in Western Europe and its Euro-majority offshoots did often become a key friend of freedom in the post-Reformation era, both at home and abroad (in my parent’s country of Taiwan, the Presbyterian missionaries and their flock have long been an active proponent of democracy and human rights, with the first freely elected president being one himself), but that seems to be at least partly a case of Western Christianity becoming more, well, “Western European”, rather than the other way around.
One has to recall that it was the Christian ethic that helped pull Europe out of the medieval age and usher in numerous reforms to civil society. Republics and constitutions can thrive only under such conditions as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, which was a product of that process. As Rome was not built in a day, neither was Western Civilization. Nobody denies what groundwork was laid in ancient Greece. It can also be noted that one of the first cases of a republic in history was that of the Israelites during and just after the Exodus.
Steven, I agree that Judeo-Christian principles have, in mass practice and in most recent history, supported freedom and individual dignity, albeit imperfectly (to use a Democrat Party-style understatement). I truly do not understand the pettiness of banishing display of the Ten Commandments in Moore’s courtroom, any more than I would understand banishing any counsel from a courtroom who would show up with a tattoo of a moon-and-star, or a cross, or a swastika, or some gang symbol, in the middle of his forehead. (I suppose those tests will come next.)
Judge Roy Moore is a very honorable man! One of the finest men in the country!
Yes, so and so is my gardener. That doesn’t make him a qualified, competent or ethical judge.
Doesn’t it??
Jack this judge may be not making the wisest decision in “sticking with his guns”. He doesn’t know much about religion as Buddha never claimed to be a god and would probably be puzzled and amused that anybody would assert that The Buddha created them! However, as you know the Ten Commandments came from Moses who was given them by God as Christians, Jews, and Moslems believe. I didn’t listen to the video and if he said, freedom of religion is limited to Christians, he’s an idiot. If he didn’t say that specifically, I don’t really see the problem of displaying the Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
The problem is, at its simplest, the fact that a higher court said he couldn’t. Simple as that.
Auburn University is an excellent school. Thus the old adage:
“The only problem with Auburn is the fact that it’s in Alabama”.
I see it still stands true.
There’s no shame in being from Alabama, the only shame is if you have to go back.
People like Moore are one reason (unfair as it may be) that the deep south is still considered a backwater run by morons (e.g. Moore in Alabama) or felons (e.g. Huey Long in Louisiana).
As I’ve said before, the Founders were basically Anglican emigrants who wanted to create a FREE society, unlike the Britain they fled. Since the great immigrations of the late 19th century onward, the US has become an incredibly diverse society — races, religions, creeds, backgrounds, etc. To keep the Founders’ words in key historic documents for the sake of history itself is one thing: to make the Founders out as mini-gods themselves, whose 18th century views were based on an entirely different culture than has grown here since, is idiotic.
Shame, Alabamians (?), on (1) re-electing this moron; (2) helping to denigrate the entire population of your state; and (3) making yourselves look as stupid as Moore is. Someone from Alabama — or hundreds of them — should speak out against Moore. It may be too late, but I know there are thinkers and rational people in that state: where are they now? Come out! I know of great writers and thinkers (now long gone) who came out of the South. They can’t be the only ones: there must be a new generation out there somewhere. Show yourselves!!!!!
Does anyone else find the concept of electing judges absurd?
yes
If we had effective representative government, I’d agree with you.
In this society, in these days, it’s absurd NOT to elect judges. How else can the righteous mob make sure all the racists, misogynists and homophobes are jobless and penniless, and all the guns and carbon taxes are collected?
We already have enough of a racketeer state established, with those other elected authorities we have – even with the Electoral College still being in the way. Those “elect” don’t need any more power to secure their positions and perks by also appointing their rubber-stampers to have thumbs forever planted on the scales of so-called justice.
(I am only partly serious in all the above.)
I sensed a teeny weeny bit of sarcasm there, Eeyoure!
So which is going to overrule which and finally prevail?
Another court order?
Or another election?
You state that being religious and being a judge are very compatible, but in this case, it is obviously not so. Moore, guided by his beliefs, has set himself above the law. I feel that there must be other judges across the country who are similarly guided. Maybe not to the same extreme, but enough to skew their impartial judgment and allow themselves to apply the law according to a “higher authority”. So, I disagree with you on that point.
How are the statement that being religious and being a judge are compatible, and a particular instance where they are not inconsistent in any way? Being a billionaire and being kind, egalitarian and rational are not incompatible, as Bill Gates proves. Donald Sterling shows that they are not always compatible, but then, I didn’t say they were always compatible in every case.
Not always compatible in every case makes me think that religion should be left outside the courthouse in every case.
Those Ten Commandment displays outside courthouses (including the U.S. Supreme Court building) tells me that a lot of past jurists would have thought you to be full of baloney, John.