Posted on 11/23/2003 3:33:43 PM PST by Kerberos
If I didn't answer your post it would be most likely because you didn't bring anything meaningful or insightful to the party. If your current post is any indication of your previous post, I'm sure that is the reason.
(However since that has not happened I can only assume that since I tend not to attack others personally that have an opposing view, a trait which you tend not to exhibit, do not use foul language, and try to be respectful of others, he has decided not to do such.)
Be careful, Kerb. It sounds like you are arrogating to yourself the role of arbiter of what is "meaningful" or "insightful". I do not accuse you of such unbridled arrogance, but statements like the two above point in that direction.
What's curious to me is why you would have any interest in FreeRepublic at all. Humanism is much more consistently expressed in either left-wing Marxism or right-wing Malthusian Darwinism ala Adolph Hitler than in conservatism. It has no place for absolutes, which seems to be your position about religion being an exclusively private matter.
Sorry to shake your narcissism Kerby, but I think that's because -until you started trolling the Moore topic- you hadn't made much of an impact here. If you're genuinely in doubt as to how your atheist, anti-Constitution views conflict with JR's opinion, might I suggest reading his tagline? Cheers, Byron
However you would identify yourself, your views appear consistent with Humanism. This is evidenced by your aligning yourself with atheologic (I'll refrain from using the pejorative adjective "atheistic") views. You have, moreover, an aura of the academic imperialism that is stifling free thought today in our thoroughly humanistic colleges and universities.
You're as free as any of us to air your views, and we're free to oppose them.
“The facts are that many of your fellow Freepers- including Jim Robinson -actively support and admire Judge Moore's stance.”If Jim's views were law, we certainly wouldn't have so many War on (some) Drugs supporters around here, now would we? >:)And I am very well aware of those facts, and it is certainly their right to take an opposing view. However if Jim founds my posts overtly offensive then I would assume that he would disable my account, which he has not done and I have been on this site for a few years. He could rest assured that I would not take the time and trouble to change my settings and log in under a new screen name.
However since that has not happened I can only assume that since I tend not to attack others personally that have an opposing view, a trait which you tend not to exhibit, do not use foul language, and try to be respectful of others, he has decided not to do such. Which I did somewhat expect to happen as when I first started using this board I read several allegations by others that if you took an opposing view you got banned from this board. An allegation I have found not to be true, perhaps there were other factors that contributed to their being banned.When I first posted on some of the Middle East threads, a lot of people warned me that "those" views would get one banned, and indeed a couple of Kahanists tried to make it happen. I didn't even get warned, let alone threatened or suspended. While I do suspect that those of us who hold the "unpopular" views have to watch the letter of the rules a little more, the speech around here is a lot freer than sonme might try to claim.
-Eric
Where does this happen? Surely not in this case.
Judge Moore quotes from the court transcript of the hearing that removed him from office in a radio interview:"Let me read to you since the media could not be present. He (the judge questioning him) said, 'Mr. Chief Justice is it your understanding that the Federal Court ordered that you could not acknowledge God? Isn't that right?' Answer; 'Yes.' Question; 'And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding you'll continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would do today?' Answer; 'That's right.' Question; 'No matter what any official says?' Answer; 'Absolutely. Without, let me clarify that, without an acknowledgment of God I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I've read, so, [garbled].' Question; 'The only point I'm trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says. Is that right?' Answer; 'Well, I'll do the same thing this court did with starting with prayer: that's an acknowledgment of God. Now we did the same thing Justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say "so help me God", that's an acknowledgment of God. My opinion, which I have written many opinions, acknowledgment of God is a source; is the moral source of our law. I think you must. (acknowledge God)'"
As for the monument thing; from the opening paragraphs of Judge Thompson's ruling ordering its removal:
"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made binding upon the States through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."(Actually it says "Congress shall make no law ..." but hey, he's just a Federal District Court Justice, he don't know no better.)
"The question presented to this court is whether the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court violated the Establishment Clause when he placed a slightly over two-and-a-half ton granite monument--engraved with the Ten Commandments and other references to God-- in the Alabama State Judicial Building with the specific purpose and effect, as the court finds from the evidence, of acknowledging the Judeo-Christian God as the moral foundation of our laws."
Looks like that is all this case is about. Says so right there.
It only seems that way. You seem confused about the difference between having the government take a position and the government preventing someone from doing it on their own. Two different things.
The confusion is all yours. Judge Moore is a person not the government. The Thompson ruling specifically cites his acknowledgment of God as the problem. Roy Moore made no law and obviously isn't Congress. They were preventing someone (Roy Moore) from acknowledging God in the same way that the Declaration of Independence does. The same way the court who fired him did.
Who stopped him from doing what he did on his own dime on his own property?
Washington's religious views were a bit vague, indeed one of his own ministers once described him as a Deist. John Adams was a devout Christian, yet he still signed the Treaty of Tripoli, which disavowed any connection between the US government and Christianity.
-Eric
What does that have to do with anything? What's keeping the court who fired him from saying their prayers at home instead of opening court with them? You're dodging the issue.
The confusion is all yours. Judge Moore is a person not the government.Moore was acting as an agent of the government when he placed his rock. Therefore, his actions, as an endorsement of one faith, constituted Establishment.
A good example would be a police officer working as a private security guard in a store. It would be within the rights of the store to require that all large bags be inspected. He would be within his rights to check bags of people coming in. If someone dissents, don't enter the store.
However, outside the store while on duty, he would have to have probable cause, or get consent. The Constitutional requirements would apply to him.
-Eric
No they didn't. The only thing prohibited by the 1st Amendment is "Congress making law." "an Establishment" refers not only to Congress "establishing" a State religion but to established religions. Who authorized the Liberty Bell which has Old Testament Scripture engraved on it? Who authorized the sculptures of Moses and the TC's both outside and inside the USSC? Government agents no doubt. That dog don't hunt.
No they didn't. The only thing prohibited by the 1st Amendment is "Congress making law." "an Establishment" refers not only to Congress "establishing" a State religion but to established religions. Who authorized the Liberty Bell which has Old Testament Scripture engraved on it? Who authorized the sculptures of Moses and the TC's both outside and inside the USSC? Government agents no doubt. That dog don't hunt.The Fourteenth Amendment applies the First to all levels of government, forbidding Establishment. That's pretty much considered a given by the courts these days. The Liberty Bell predates the Constitution and there are also sculptures of Hammurabi and Mohammed in the Supreme Court...the theme is the history of written law, not religion.
-Eric
And it looks like it's about to get personal. I'm not in the mood for a flame war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.