MONTGOMERY, Ala., Aug. 25 — About 100 demonstrators prayed outside the Alabama Judicial Building on Monday as attorneys went to court to stop a federal judge’s order to remove a 5,300-pound stone representation of the Ten Commandments from the building’s rotunda.
ATTORNEYS for a Christian talk show host and a pastor asked U.S. District Judge William Steele for an injunction to block the monument’s removal, arguing that taking it away would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
The action named as defendants the eight associate justices of the state Supreme Court, who last week overruled Chief Justice Roy Moore and directed that the federal court order be followed, said one of the attorneys, Jim Zeigler.
Steele — who was the first judge to order that the monument be removed — scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.
Minutes after the lawsuit was announced, police blocked off the front of the building with metal barricades. The building’s superintendent, Graham George, said they were erected to prevent protesters from leaning dangerously against the large windows and glass doors, where they have gathered for the last week.
Many of the monument supporters spent the night in sleeping bags on a plaza outside the building and nearby steps, and one scaled latticework on the side of the building and spent the night on a ledge. The unidentified man climbed down after daybreak.
Demonstrators have said they know the monument, installed two years ago by Moore, could be moved Monday or Tuesday.
Federal courts have held that the monument violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on government promotion of a religious doctrine.
Moore, who contends that it is his duty to acknowledge God in the public rotunda of the Judicial Building, was suspended last week by a state judicial ethics panel for disobeying the order by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson to move the monument. Moore told supporters at the Judicial Building that he would fight to keep the monument in the rotunda even though he had been suspended. He has pledged to argue his case to the U.S. Supreme Court
“I have acknowledged God as the moral foundation of our law. It’s my duty,” Moore said. “Should I keep back my opinions at such a time as this in fear of giving offense? I should consider myself guilty of treason and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven.” Whenever workers come to remove the monument, supporters of Moore intend to keep it from going anywhere by locking hands and dropping to their knees.
They stated that the Parents of New York United's concern was based solely on a complaint about the books going against the group's subjective values, and not the objective value of providing quality education to the students of the Island Tree School District. The student's objection to the school board's ruling to remove the “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” books garnered attention from free speech organizations and concerned libraries. When the case made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices that presided over the ruling were Justices Powell, Blackmun, Brennan, Stevens, Marshall, White, O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Burger.... ... middle of paper ...
The Schempp family, whose kids went to school in the township, followed Unitarianism, and did disagree with some of the ideas in the Bible. However, they did not want their children to miss prayer because they would miss the important announcements that followed. They brought the case to a state court, and the court ruled that prayer in fact did violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Next, they appealed to the Supreme Court.
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
The Supreme Court case in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow result in a unanimous ruling that the phrase “under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as narrated in public school classrooms. The court made the decision because the atheist father did not have grounds to sue the school district on behalf of his daughter. While the ruling was made on the Flag Day, it did not meet the clear endorsement of the constitutionality of the pledge as sought by President Bush and leaders of Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress. Notably, the eight judges who participated in the case had voted to turn over a federal appeals court decision in 2003 that would have prohibited the use of the phrase in public schools as an infringement of the constitutional outlaw on state-sponsored religion. A majority of these justices i.e. five made that ruling on procedural grounds in which Michael A. Newdow, the atheist, did not have legal reasons to sue the school district (Lane, 2004).
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
because Lemon and its progeny forbid the endorsement or coercion of any religion with the effect of associating the government with any one particular belief or faith. Cnty of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 604 (1989). However, Allegheny does allow legislative prayers if they are nonsectarian. Id. at 631. Because the Martin County Board’s legislative prayers significantly referenced Christianity and their refusal to address to Mrs. Dhaliwal’s request to void the prayer invocations of any sectarian reference, the Martin County Board practices violated Mrs. Dhaliwal’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
The story is set in the early 20th century, immediately following the Depression and World War II. The characters live in Monterey, California amid the jumble of the sardine fisheries, the "Palace Flophouses", Lee Chong's grocery, Dora's whorehouse, and Doc's Biological Lab. Throughout the book, Steinbeck has the uncanny ability to combine his characters' everyday problems with the twist of a utopian style of living. The end result is a novel with a strange mixture of fantasy and reality, which insists that good fellowship and warm-heartedness are all that are needed to create a paradise anywhere on earth, even in the run-down Cannery Row.
An American’s right to religious worship is valued tremendously, thus making the first Amendment ve...
Whether doctors solely use radiation therapy or use a combination of treatments, radiotherapy has been notoriously helpful in increasing the lifespan of many individuals worldwide.
First I will focus on Hard Determinism, which is the position of Determinism being incompatible with both human freedom and moral responsibility. Moreover hard determinism states all acts can be reduce to Biological, behavioral and psychological theories and those three theories are the most dominants forms of Determinism.
The problem of free will and determinism is a mystery about what human beings are able to do. The best way to describe it is to think of the alternatives taken into consideration when someone is deciding what to do, as being parts of various “alternative features” (Van-Inwagen). Robert Kane argues for a new version of libertarianism with an indeterminist element. He believes that deeper freedom is not an illusion. Derk Pereboom takes an agnostic approach about causal determinism and sees himself as a hard incompatibilist. I will argue against Kane and for Pereboom, because I believe that Kane struggles to present an argument that is compatible with the latest scientific views of the world.
Radiation therapy is an important practice in a lot of hospital and clinics many people are not aware of. It is also known as Radiation Oncology, and it is for the treatment of cancer by using beams of high-energy waves called radiation as the UI Cancer Information Services defined it. Radiation therapy plays important role in helping cure cancer. Radiation therapy is given to cancer patients in order to kill the cancer cells or it may slower the growth of cancer cells (UI Cancer Information Services, 2011). Therapy can be used to reduce pain or pressure by shrinking tumor, in cases where cure is not possible. There are various methods to do the therapy and patient may receive one or combination of techniques depending upon the size, location, and kind of cancer. Radiation therapy can be of two types that are external radiation therapy and internal radiation therapy. Radiation therapy treatment is given by the radiation therapists who are specialized radiology technicians and they operate medical linear accelerators in order to perform radiation treatments for cancer patients as what said in the top ten reviews website. Radiation therapist work with a team specialized to know the number and the length of the treatment given to the patients. Radiation therapists stay with the patients the whole time to make sure that their position is properly and the treatment is going well (top ten reviews, 2013).
t is intriguing that when a person is presented with the ideas of free will or determinism, they usually jump rather quickly to the conclusion of free will. Most people appreciate the genuine freedom that accompanies choice, but do we really possess it? Complete free will would mean that our decisions would be unrelated to other factors such as the environment or genetics. In reality, our free decisions are based on factors that are beyond our own control. When exercising certain choices, we conclude that we have acted freely and distinguish our actions from situations in which we believe were not in our control. The events that are not in our control are pre-determined for us, which lead us on a path to a determined life. Even though we may be making our own unique decisions, they all connect to form a single planned outcome.
Asexuality is a subject that has received very little academic attention. A few early studies on sexuality in general noted its existence, however, it wasn’t until a national probability sample in 2004 that any research began to actually focus on asexuality itself. The asexual community isn’t much older. Of course asexuals have existed throughout history, but prior to the public availability of internet, few identified as such, or were aware that others like them existed. Many small groups of asexuals formed online, but it wasn’t until 2001, with the launch of AVEN (the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network), that they drew the attention of people who did not identify as asexual.