Panel Rules Justice Moore Failed to Respect & Comply with Law; Judge removed from Supreme Court

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

More to follow

[highlander_UW]

Can an ant understand the principles of Immanuel Kant?

Unless you are an ant, and your god is Immanuel Kant your simile breaks down.

Do you really believe that you have any understanding of the principles of God?

If you're looking for a hint to God's principles, try reading the Bible.

Politicans claim the fiat of God for one purpose: to secure power over the gullible.

A bit of an over simplicication, but I would agree that many politicians attempt to claim the fiat of God with the desire to obtain power over others. They fail when they stray from those self same purposes as described in the Bible.

[xzins]

I believe that Grant was brilliant in his own way.

He was brilliant in determining the center of mass of his opponents and then using bulldog tenacity to attack it.

Others had long believed that Richmond was the center of mass of the South. Others believed it was their productivity....ergo, Sherman's march to the sea.

Grant determined that their center of mass was Robert E. Lee himself. He was so VERY, very right.

[Modernman]

Who are you to say your culture is superior - can't be under your logic.

I have no problem judging other cultures or even imposing our culture's values on them through force, like we did with the Japanese and the Nazis. Recognizing that other cultures have different rules of morality doesn't mean that I'm not willing to defend our culture. I'm also aware that those cultures would have imposed their wills on us if they'd had the strength to do so. If the Nazis had come out on top, it would have been considered moral to murder Jews. In the real world, winners get to impose their moral code on the defeated.

One system can only be superior if it more truly adheres to an objective moral standard (which must come from God).

Any system that is on top will claim that it represents the highest moral standard. Some will claim their superiority comes from God, others base it on ideas of racial purity or the historical dialectic. There is no such thing as an objective moral standard because, at the end of the day, the winners write history.

[Modernman]

Every aspect of life should be based on GODLY priciples. That is if you beleive in GOD.

Who is preventing you from living your life according to what you consider to be godly principles? More power to you. When you expect others to live their lives according to your rules, you're going to quickly find that others will resist.

[mdmathis6]

It is consenses that I am refering to! You may not worship as I do, but are we agreed that certain things are right or wrong...despite are disagreements as to the source of our founding moralities and ethics? The constitution came about in an era that even religious doubters agreed with the basic moralities that guided early Americans at that time! It is the rise of factionalisms that the early founders feared. Even Franklin feared that a time would arise that our society would lose its consenses and that we would lose our Republic to the despots that promise order, peace and bread. Clintonian machinations are just the foretaste of more horrors to come.

When a society argues over what "IS is", then what worse forms of strife are around the corner? I suspect that the Tower of Babel's demise first started when consenses was lost and arguements over "interpretations of truth" poisoned what had been agreed upon as pure language...the actual language changes came later in the process.

I wouldn't want you to follow my example...at least what I suspect that you imagine what that example is! You needn't worry about such as me...I don't crave any theocratic cult followers...and I certainly don't have any cyanide kool-aid stored up for any-one! You will or will not worship, based on your your own choices guaranteed by the constitution! (At least until that constitution is taken away from us!)

[CobaltBlue]

I spent the day at the Federalist Society National Lawyer's Convention, so am trying to get caught up with the news about Moore.

One thing that crosses my mind - isn't he engaging in exactly the kind of judicial activism that conservatives claim we hate?

[mdmathis6]

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington. "

Please understand I believe the constitution gives every-one freedom of conscience. But to deny the religious roots that undergird our constitution is like cutting a river's flow off from the source. I saw the quote above from your profile page! Since you like G. Washington, look at this quote from Washington(Judge Moore cited it in a recent interview with World Net Daily)!


"George Washington said in his farewell address on the 17th of September in 1796, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. … Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

You can't divorce our Constitution from its religious impulses and from the moral consenses of those who framed it or else the constitution ceases to be a "LIVING DOCUMENT". I know modernists call the Constitution a "living document", because they want to twist it to reflect their own corrupt narcism. It is not actually the Constitution that is the Target of their ire, it is the Judeo-Christian moral frame work that many still adhere to that they are at war with! The Constitution, being framed in an era of moral consenses, is being twisted so that it becomes a weapon against that consenses. The religious foundation behind the Constitution is being undercut, and as that happens each individual freedom is being curtailed and questioned. Truth only prevails when truth is allowed to express itself! The travesty that is our government and court system was the travesty our founders feared as they warned against the loss of "morality and religion"!

[crustygrd]

Is displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings wrong?
There is room for give and take on both sides of this argument. On either hand we find emotion-laden issues. I assert that both parties have inadequately articulated their viewpoint. Once we tease the elements of the issue apart, we can focus more clearly and fairly on the values which I believe both sides hold in common.

The view from the right wing goes something like this: Judge Moore has a right and a duty to acknowledge God. He does this via the display of the Ten Commandments in a public building. They maintain that not to do so is an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

The other side of the picket line counters with: The display violates the First Amendment and the separation clause. Judge Moore was ordered by a federal court to remove the display. To allow the display to remain is tantamount to imposing a religious viewpoint on an unwilling public.

Let’s see if we can winnow out the truths and the untruths on both sides of this religious war. First let’s talk to the conservatives.

Conservatives need to realize something: Your sincerely held religious beliefs are not relevant here. Wait! Bite your tongue a moment and listen. OK. So Christianity is the American religion. It is superior to Islam, Judaism, or any other ism. Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall one day confess that Jesus is the Christ. Fine. That is a perfectly acceptable religious belief. But that belief alone is not a good reason to display the Ten Commandments in a public building.

Are there good arguments for the display of the Ten Commandments? Yes, there are. But don’t believe for a moment that it has anything to do with the truth, or your beliefs about the truth. To argue such is to feed the fears of those who say that you secretly desire to forcibly convert others to your church. Is that what you want?

No. There are many reasons why you do not want that. Primary among them is the fact that other religions are on exactly the same ground as you are when you defend that position. They too believe they have the truth. They too feel an inherent right to worship as they see fit. They are also guaranteed freedom of religion expression in our Constitution. That line of reasoning applies to their religion as well as yours.

So we conclude then that the contents of your belief system are not the basis for your rights of religious expression. That being the case, what is the basis for your argument?

Hold that thought while we talk to the liberals. Liberals are correct about something. To prefer one religion in a quasi-official capacity doesn’t seem to represent our American ideals. How does a nation fairly represent all the differing religious beliefs of its people in a governmental entity? That’s a tall order, and doesn’t seem to be practical. Even if it were practical to do so, what about the separation of church and state?

Liberals too need to realize something. Your sincerely held belief system is also no basis to deny government officials their rights to religious expression. Your fear that some holy power will engulf our government and enslave our citizens is simply that, a belief. An unfounded belief, when you look at American history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others of our founding fathers, were, by your standards, on the extreme lunatic right wing fringe, yet they were decisively on the side of freedom rather than on the side of enslavement of any sort, religious or otherwise.

Furthermore, your belief that government officials cannot express religious sentiments in an official capacity is without merit. It is not only without merit, it is a contradiction and a paradox. How can religious freedom be guaranteed to the individual while being denied in the collective? The short answer is that it cannot. Should it be denied at all? How can a democracy, or republic, be said to fairly govern every citizen, while favoring those with no religion at the cost of those who have one? And even if it could, wouldn’t that be imposing your religious views? Are the contents of your belief system better than the contents of other’s belief systems because your beliefs exclude God? (Mommy, that man over there with the cross made me believe something against my will! Take his cross away!)

So now we come to the crux of the argument. The left believes that the right is trying to impose God upon us, and are willing to excise God from our government to thwart them. This is hardly a neutral position. It is the promotion of an anti-God stance. It is banishing religion to places where it won’t get in the way of ‘right-thinking’ people. Is this a neutral stance?

The establishment clause was clearly intended to promote strict neutrality with respect to religion. It was not intended to prohibit individuals or collectives from pursuing their religious rights. Rather than uproot every religious symbol from public life, the liberals among us should be encouraging the exploration of religion. And this should occur not with an eye to establishing a particular religion as pre-eminent, but simply for the sake of furthering the American ideal.

We have heard for many years that liberals are in favor of tolerance. This is modern liberalism’s most touted virtue. Peculiarly, tolerance as practiced by the left does not extend to certain individuals and groups. Tolerance for religion in general is not practiced. There are exceptions made for those religions that seek to promote politically liberal causes, but a true tolerance for other’s beliefs does not figure much into the liberal equation.

Let’s get back to the right wing. What is the basis for a religious expression in America? Is it to focus on narrow religion represented by one belief system, no matter how widely practiced? On the contrary, it is to acknowledge the profound gift that America has brought into the world. It is to give expression to the wonderful diversity of beliefs, religious and secular, that are tolerated and respected rather than oppressed or marginalized. It is to encourage them to co-exist without domination, exploitation, or oppression of each other, or by the government. That is the basis for the conservative position that religion shall not take a back seat to secularism. Imposing secularism upon a religious nation is as abusive of religious freedom as favoring one religion to the exclusion of others.

Religion has always been part of humanity. It is fair to say that it always will. To prohibit a government from acknowledging that fundamental fact seems tyrannical. Indeed, it was the tyranny of such a government that began the whole conversation a few short centuries ago.

[Doctor Stochastic]

...isn't he engaging in exactly the kind of judicial activism that conservatives claim we hate?

Not for the time being.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Grant and Sherman both understood how to use railroads to transport troops. The Germans copied their tactics during The Great War.

Grant also understood how to win with what he had. He didn't have the most brilliant tacticians but he did have materiél supriority. God is on the side of the big batallions.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Make that Big Battalions. Batallion is a herbicide.

[dts32041]

Nothing says you have to be a lawyer to be a judge.

Disbar him and he can still run.

[Al Simmons]

Right. He chose to "fall on his sword" for the sake of publicizing and advancing the cause of the protection of our religious liberties - there was no way they could have kept him "in" after he publicly defied the (idiotic and unconstitutional) Federal Court Order. Slavery was once protected in like fashion.

I hope Moore will run for Governor or Senator next (if there are any Rats left to defeat in Alabama, that is...)

[Al Simmons]

Goldwater Republican, eh? The Goldwater of '96 who endorsed the Supreme Traitor Clintoon, no doubt.

If you're serious about your Hillary crack, I'd like to borrow your copies of Das Capital and Mein Kampf for a book report - you must have a wall full of them.....

[Al Simmons]

That's D. James Kennedy. But one ought not expect accuracy from a Clintonite...

[Al Simmons]

Enough of your vexatious prattling - go genuflect before your Clinton altar, then get some sleep.

[Servant of the 9]

Goldwater Republican, eh? The Goldwater of '96 who endorsed the Supreme Traitor Clintoon, no doubt.

If you're serious about your Hillary crack, .....

I am a 1964 'Concience of a Conservative' Goldwater Republican.
Neither Goldwater nor I ever changed positions, the party went religious looney.

I loathe and despise Hillary. I fear her.
I loathe, despise and fear Mr. Moore and his demogogic ilk even more.

So9

[CobaltBlue]

The only thing about this debate that makes steam come out of my ears, and I say this with all sincerity, everything else can roll off my back, but when I read or hear people saying that Christians are persecuted in America, that makes my blood boil.

I visited the historical site for old St. Mary's City, Maryland, this weekend. It used to be the capital of Maryland, but when James II was deposed and William and Mary enthroned, they shut it down and ordered the capital transferred to Annapolis in order to get it away from the Catholics. That, my friend, is religious persecution.

Being told that you can't force the rest of the state to acknowledge your own personal religious beliefs isn't persecution. It's sanity.