Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
[snip]
Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.
[click link to read remainder of article]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I know. I scanned the decision yesterday, spent more time reading it today.
What surprised me was that appellate courts are usually extremely deferential to judges, generally using most polite & genteel language to slap them down. This decision was unusual in its tough talk towards Judge Moore.
I read in the Alabama papers that he'll be having a press conference at 11 a.m., and I assume he'll be appealling to the Supreme Court (although he has the option to ask for a hearing en banque). It's a gamble to see if the Supremes take the case.
You seem to be misreading my posts, the 11th decision, or both. First - NOTHING in this decision affects your right to pray anywhere or anytime. NOTHING. Second - you rail against "separation of church and state" - that phrase is not even found in the opinion and is not a basis for the decision - the decision is based on the State giving favor to one religion over another - which the judicial officer involved ADMITS he is doing. THIRD - as I have said above, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment limiting YOUR right to hang symbols you like in the courthouse, as long as the courthouse will let you hang things there (and doesn't pick and choose what it will let one hang based upon a preference for one belief over another). Nothing in this opinion is prohibiting YOU from doing ANYTHING. What the opinion prohibits is the STATE choosing to display some religious symbols which it prefers to the exclusion of others which it does not. Plain and simple. None of the other "prohibitions" you raise are either addressed in the opinion or constitute the the law of the land.
But I guess from your posts that, if you live a town that is dominated by Muslims, it is fine and dandy if the school requires praying to Mecca five times a day, and it is fine and dandy if the town imposes Sharia - the constitution is not violated, and if you don't like it you can just move. That is the the impact of your theory.
And who decides how the Constitution is interpreted? Who decides what the Framers intended? Where can we find that? If you say, "Look at the Constitution," it's a circular argument.
Please - need I list all the past decisions that DID RESTRICT people's right to pray in schools, e.g. at valedictorian speeches, football games, etc. One judge threatened to jail a student for 6 months if he didn't follow the ruling! I can look these up and give you a list tomororw. These are all part of the public record. I say it's time to DEFY these moronic god-haters.
Second - you rail against "separation of church and state" - that phrase is not even found in the opinion and is not a basis for the decision - the decision is based on the State giving favor to one religion over another - which the judicial officer involved ADMITS he is doing.
You bet I rail against it - I hear it every day from the ACLU, American United (and their apostage leader Barry Lynn), and Democrats. It's in many other opinions and is used as the de facto ideological basis for ALL rulings on related matters. Who are you kidding? By the way, the framers were concerned with one Christian denomination over another, not one "religion" over another. There was no other religion to speak of in this country at that time. It is only recently that our nation has been invaded by the third world to such an extent that there is no longer any national common ground. But teh fact remains that our founding documents (the law of the land) are predicated upon CHRISTIAN moral principles and our laws undergirded by those principles. Again, if you don't like it, call a constitutional convention or amend the constitution - until then, you don't have a legal leg to stand on - you only have the power of usurpation.
THIRD - as I have said above, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment limiting YOUR right to hang symbols you like in the courthouse, as long as the courthouse will let you hang things there (and doesn't pick and choose what it will let one hang based upon a preference for one belief over another). And as long as not one single person is offended by it! (tyranny of the single protestor). Case in point - the Pledge Allegiance ruling by the 9th Circuit.
Nothing in this opinion is prohibiting YOU from doing ANYTHING. What the opinion prohibits is the STATE choosing to display some religious symbols which it prefers to the exclusion of others which it does not.
The 10 commandments are the basis of our laws counsellor, and are the ABSOLUTE FOUNDATION OF ALL MORAL LAW. Again, moral relativism rears its ugly head. Do you and the ACLU deny that the 10 commandments embody absolute moral principles or that they are the basis of our laws? They are emblazoned on the Supreme Court - REMOVE THEM!
On many issues, it's quite clear what they intended. On others, like gay rights and abortion, the founders never dreamed that our people would become so evil as to require a constitutional sanction. On freedom of religion, it is quite clear.
And then the Declaration of Independence, I guess.
So what is it you disagree about? What's the difference, in terms of basic outlook, between "In God We Trust" and the 10 Commandments? If one causes certain people to "feel like outsiders" and believe that they won't be treated fairly (however hallucinatory that belief may be), then why wouldn't the other do the same?
Each state had to meet certain requirements at the time of their entry into the union. Those requirements were not laid out in the Constitution, but were requirements that were given to the states in order for them to be called states and given entry into the union. The requirement for a proper constitution guaranteeing the protection of the rights to the people of the states should have been met at that time. Thereafter, the only guarantee that the Federal government has over the State government's practices is that the Federal government has to ensure that the State government remains a "Republican" form of government.
do you take the position that a state can ban the exercise of a specific religion, and there is no Constitutional problem with that?
Before the misinterpretations of the tortured 14th, there would be no Constitutional problem with that. I would not want it, and I'm sure the voters in the state would not want it either. But it is left up to the state, like it or not, under the original intent of the Constitution.
Oh - you seem to be picking and choosing between which parts of the Bill of Rights the states would be required to adopt and which they would not.
Even a weak reader of the Bill of Rights can see that those amendments were obviously written to limit the Federal government. Again, what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you think applies to state governments under the original intent?
Kind of funny that you rail against a "living Constitution," while you are rewriting it wholesale.
I'm not rewriting anything. I'm sticking with the original intent of the Constitution. Twisted interpretations, emanations of penumbrae, tortured logic, judicial activism, jurisprudence (ie. st acking bad decisions upon bad decisions), and plain ignorance are what is rewriting the Constitution.
Really?
Built in 1763, the synagogue is the oldest Jewish house of worship in the nation and the only one to survive Colonial times. It is considered an architectural masterpiece.
Designed by Peter Harrison, the Georgian structure has a simple, almost austere exterior that contrasts with a graceful interior adorned with massive brass candelabras, hand-carved paneling, balustrades and 12 Ionic and Corinthian columns.
It was designated a National Historic Site in 1946. It continues to serve an active congregation and proper dress is required for viewing.
The Synagogue is located at 72 Touro Street.
And who decides how the Constitution is interpreted?
THIRD - as I have said above, there is nothing in the 1st Amendment limiting YOUR right to hang symbols you like in the courthouse, as long as the courthouse will let you hang things there (and doesn't pick and choose what it will let one hang based upon a preference for one belief over another).
And as long as not one single person is offended by it! (tyranny of the single protestor). Case in point - the Pledge Allegiance ruling by the 9th Circuit.
Nothing in this opinion is prohibiting YOU from doing ANYTHING. What the opinion prohibits is the STATE choosing to display some religious symbols which it prefers to the exclusion of others which it does not.
The 10 commandments are the basis of our laws counsellor, and are the ABSOLUTE FOUNDATION OF ALL MORAL LAW. Again, moral relativism rears its ugly head. Do you and the ACLU deny that the 10 commandments embody absolute moral principles or that they are the basis of our laws? They are emblazoned on the Supreme Court - REMOVE THEM!
Those will interpret it according to the intent of the framers and within the limits of their constitutional power, of course.
Well, I would hope that the constitution of that state would be sufficient to handle such violations of religious rights in that area. I would hope that the state would have never been allowed into the union of their constitution did not sufficiently guarantee the rights of its citizens. But this would not be a Federal matter. If, however, our goverment was instead modelled after a national government system with the states being simple partitions of the national government, then you would be right and the matter would be up to the national governmment.
Muslims have to abide by our Constitution. If they don't like it, they can go back to muslim-land. No one twisted their arm to make them come here. People are FREE to pray, but not FREE to make others do anything. I haven't heard of one school that FORCES people to pray. They can opt out. The idea that someone is offended by the Lord's Prayer makes me want to vomit - evidently they aren't offended by safe sex theology, or gay rights agenda, or any other issue - JUST CHRISTIANITY!
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.