Posted on 11/13/2006 10:57:02 PM PST by B4Ranch
Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore bump.
I haven't the foggiest.
Perhaps there is no standardized training program for the tour guides. I seem to recall, although it is a little hazy, that the tour guide mentioned that being a tour guide was not her full time job; rather, she was intern for the Court and part of her job was giving tours. If this was the case, it might make sense that there isn't a set program for these people--which might lead to slightly different versions of the tour from time to time.
Thank you. I greatly appreciate your compliment.
Keep in mind we believe in a jealous God. Good works without faith is dead. Even though your arguments make sense, the glory is not given to God. He will remove His grace from us if we don't come back to Him.
Another poster (rather unskilfully) pointed out a possible variance between Pastor DuBord's claims and the fact of the matter. Specifically, DuBord said that the SC information desk directed him to a 'website' (DuBord neglected to identify it) which mentions the ten amendments but not the Ten Commandments in regards to the SC artwork. The official SC website does refer to the artwork as depicting the Ten Commandments in the South Wall Frieze and says nothing about the ten amendments.
The unfortunate thing about that discrepancy is that by making a false case (if he is) Pastor DuBord has undermined the credibility of eveyone else who has a legitimate complaint. Marxist leftism is a reality and does have a potent agenda aimed at expunging the 'American way' of representative government from America and the face of the earth. It is rather more insidious and more dangerous than the Islamo-fascist threat as it is not waged in the open. If DuBord has ginned up his case then he has done no one who fights for liberty a favor.
Thanks for posting this B4Ranch
James Madison wrote and spoke many significantly important and revealing things. Here is one just for you:
"The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."*
Nancee
*AMERICA'S God and Country, p. 412
Yes, thank you!
Nancee
Muhammad? That won't sit well with many people. But I doubt they are going to tear the south wall frieze down.
It's removing Judaism.
Yeah, shame on me. How indecent of me to not realize you missed the link in the article! I beg your forgiveness.
BTW, I think a person with "an ounce of common sense" would have read DuBord's article *before* commenting on the thread. Look, when you read an AP story about a NYT article (for example), do you assume the AP's version is accurate, or do you read the NYT article to get the original story? I don't know about you, but I go to the source anytime I read an article about another article. *That's* common sense if you ask me.
You started out with an attitude of arrogant condescension riding on a raft of false statements (which I patiently rebutted with facts) and finally you get around to the ad hominem. Sooner or later people show themselves for what they are.
I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly think if you had followed the link in Unruh's article, you wouldn't have been so confused. It's nothing personal, and it's not just you. Your comment #14 just happened to be the one I noticed first. There's plenty of others on this thread who also misunderstood Unruh's article and wrongly concluded that there's workers in the Supreme Court building saying essentially, "That's not Moses on that frieze, and that's not the 10 Commandments in his hands." (See replies 60 and 40 and 41 and 46 for some examples.) Either Unruh's a horrible writer or he *wanted* his readers to come away with that wrong impression. Either way, I can understand why you misread his article; his article is crap.
However, what I *don't* understand is why you're having such difficulty understanding what *I* was writing (which btw is why I pointed out your reading comprehension problem). Look, multiple times you called me a liar, and each time I showed you why you were wrong and how I wasn't lying, but somehow you missed each correction and proceeded to call me a liar again and continued to not understand my posts. Yet somehow it's wrong for me to point out your inability to comprehend my posts? Please, spare me your indignation, *especially* while in the same breath you're calling me a liar for the umpteenth time. That dog don't hunt, particularly now that you've actually read DuBord's piece--there's no longer any reason for you to *still* find my posts incomprehensible.
I did read the article you FINALLY gave a link to, after umpteen verbose and rambling posts
"FINALLY"? In fact, I told you about the link as soon as I realized you had overlooked it in Unruh's article. You seriously think *I'm* somehow at fault for not having spoon-fed Unruh's article to you? Why on earth would I have presumed from the get-go that you didn't see the link in the article? Get real. You were posting on the thread; forgive me for assuming that you had actually read the article at issue.
Oops! Silly me; how could I forget? The link to DuBord's article isn't *really* in Unruh's article! I made that up! It was one of my many lies which you caught and corrected me on. Remember? ;-)
Yeah right; keep dreaming.
Anyway, it's time for my meds. I'm done with this thread. Later.
That's a bogus quote-- Madison never said that.
I say that it is possible if one looks at the context of the two sculptures.
In the context of the Oscar Solomon memorial, he is remembered for his accomplishments as a Jew. A clearly religious reference. A reference to the Ten Commandments is not unexpected nor is it unusual.
In the context of the other sculpture, the frieze in the Supreme Court, the figures are representing the Majesty of the Law and Power of Government. Two concepts that are clearly not a reference to religion. The presence of a tablet representing the Bill of Rights is not an unexpected nor unusual thing to see depicted there.
I do not disagree with Mr. DuBord's assertion that there is a concerted effort to revise our history as a nation.
But I do disagree with his statement as quoted above that the identities of the tablets in two different sculptures being different is unlikely. It is as likely as unlikely.
Glad to be of service.
Yes, I probably should have said, "Judea-Christian" to be more precise.
AMERICA'S God and Country p.411. I will be happy to research this further using cross references just to make certain that he did say or did write it. Thank you for bringing your concerns to me regarding this quotation. Do you think that the following is a bogus quotation as well:
"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage...Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."*
Again, thank you. I will get back to all who have read this quotation and either retract it or further document its veracity.
Nancee
*1Ibid., p. 410
Getting harder and harder to pretend otherwise, isn't it...
Nancee
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.