Skip to comments.
Ala. Judge Loses Ten Commandments Appeal
Washington Post ^
| July 1, 2003
| Associated Press
Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 621-630 next last
To: Dog Gone
I can envision the year 2400 when Islam or Gaia or some other religion has gained predominance in America. This ruling would protect me and uphold the Constitution. You have got to be joking. You seriously think that in some future Islamic-majority America that Muslim government officials who would otherwise want to quash Christianity will be shaking in their boots, their plans thwarted because of the 1st Amendment, much less some dumbass ruling on courthouse decor? I can imagine it now... "Darn it, Achmed -- we would have gotten away with it, too, it weren't for those 11th Circuit infidels and their meddling Constitutional interpretation!"
181
posted on
07/01/2003 7:18:26 PM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: jwalsh07
Yep, and your question amply demonstrated that you didn't even know what the case was about before you went off expressing opinions about it - opinions you are clearly entitled to state, no matter how uninformed they are.
182
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:17 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: jwalsh07
Yep, and your question amply demonstrated that you didn't even know what the case was about before you went off expressing opinions about it - opinions you are clearly entitled to state, no matter how uninformed they are.
183
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:18 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: Centurion2000
This is the stuff of Lexington and Concord. No it's not. This is about a publicity seeking politician trying to abuse the Ten Commandments and the Constitution to get himself elected.
184
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:18 PM PDT
by
FreeLibertarian
(You live and learn. Or you don't live long.)
To: jwalsh07
Yep, and your question amply demonstrated that you didn't even know what the case was about before you went off expressing opinions about it - opinions you are clearly entitled to state, no matter how uninformed they are.
185
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:18 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: lugsoul
You're just covering up for 'em.
To: lugsoul
You're just covering up for 'em.
To: lugsoul
Not even that, FL - you can worship in a public building as much as you like - as long as the government isn't assisting, participating, or endorsing the worship of your religion. Where do you get all that? Because that is what you want? There is no basis in the constitution nor history for that view of the first amendment. Only after FDR filled the court with socialists were Americans not allowed free exercise of religion.
Read some history. Congress not only hired ministers, Congress gave thousands of acres of land to Christian ministries. Even today, billions are spent every year on promoting religion. The Rev. Floyd Flake receives Federal money for his day care program--one in which children are required to memorize Bible verses. We even have religious prisons--Otisville is Kosher, New Mexico allows Native Americans certain programs others do get, ministers all over are on the public payroll.
188
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:42 PM PDT
by
DPB101
To: Centurion2000
This is the stuff of Lexington and Concord. No it's not. This is about a publicity seeking politician trying to abuse the Ten Commandments and the Constitution to get himself elected.
189
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:42 PM PDT
by
FreeLibertarian
(You live and learn. Or you don't live long.)
To: Sir Gawain
And the people of this state would be stupid enough to do just that! We got rid of (former govenor) Guy Hunt and the people of this state would make the same damn mistake all over again by voting in Moore if (unfortunately) he were to run!
To: jwalsh07
Yep, and your question amply demonstrated that you didn't even know what the case was about before you went off expressing opinions about it - opinions you are clearly entitled to state, no matter how uninformed they are.
Or perhaps it is your opinion, like Judge Moore's, that the Constitution allows any religious display in a government building, even when that display is expressly intended to promote a single religion to the exclusion of others. If that is your view, enough said.
191
posted on
07/01/2003 7:23:47 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: Dog Gone
The Koran acknowledges the Prophets and the Law. Didn't you ever wonder what that meant? BTW, it's not likely you would see the words of the Koran rendered into a large statue - that's un-Koranic. On the other hand, Moslems are in the habit of writing phrases on banners which are then hung on buildings.
Before you create these negative comparisons you might well educate yourself about what the adherents of other religions really do and what they think. I know you will be startled when you check out Islam.
To: lugsoul
Not even that, FL - you can worship in a public building as much as you like - as long as the government isn't assisting, participating, or endorsing the worship of your religion. Where do you get all that? Because that is what you want? There is no basis in the constitution nor history for that view of the first amendment. Only after FDR filled the court with socialists were Americans not allowed free exercise of religion.
Read some history. Congress not only hired ministers, Congress gave thousands of acres of land to Christian ministries. Even today, billions are spent every year on promoting religion. The Rev. Floyd Flake receives Federal money for his day care program--one in which children are required to memorize Bible verses. We even have religious prisons--Otisville is Kosher, New Mexico allows Native Americans certain programs others do get, ministers all over are on the public payroll.
193
posted on
07/01/2003 7:24:55 PM PDT
by
DPB101
To: lugsoul
You know what they say about people who assume.
You know what they say about people who assume.
You know what they say about people who assume.
You know what they say about people who assume.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
He is an egomaniac as well as (spit!) Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.
To: DPB101
Can you read? I didn't say anything about the government prohibiting free exercise. What I addressed was prohibiting the government from promoting the exercise of a specific religion. I don't know how you read history if that is a demostration of your reading comprehension skills.
196
posted on
07/01/2003 7:26:20 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: Texas_Jarhead
You must have referred to something ~ have no idea what it is. Maybe you didn't like my remark that someone else's religious sensibilities are nothing more than a narrow sectarian bias.
Besides, what are all you guys doing going to church on Sunday when you should be in full attendance on Saturday, as well as Wednesday night.
To: lugsoul
Yep, that will ensure the already impending death of the State of AlabamaExplain this statement please.
To: muawiyah
Muawiyah -
Since your post is so far up the thread, why not be clear what you are saying? You are saying that these three judges want to kill Jews in gas ovens.
Yep, you've got class.
199
posted on
07/01/2003 7:28:39 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: lugsoul
Now back to the first amendment.
Are Chaplains in the armed forces Constitutional?
Are prayers in Congress Constitutional?
They are both paid for with public funds and take place on public property, no?
Does the DOI have to strike the words "endowed by the creator".
Do the words "in the Year of Our Lord", have to be struck from the Constitution?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 621-630 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson