Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-630 next last
To: exmarine
"Finally, I AM STILL WAITING for your explanation as to why the courts didn't act before 1947 if this was a proper constitutional reading. So, I will say to you what you said to me: JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. History is on my side, not yours, and if you want to continue this discussion, you will answer my question, and you will provide historical support for your answer. If you can't do that, then let the record show that you have no historical basis for your position - all you have is ideology - which doesn't count in constitutional law!"

That would've been back in post #422. Next.
551 posted on 07/03/2003 10:41:24 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: pram
I called your post a truism because I agree with you (and Crusader's message that you replied to.)

Have a great and safe weekend everyone, and come back on Monday with all your fingers!

552 posted on 07/03/2003 10:47:28 AM PDT by Kryptonite (Free Miguel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"Again, stop with your infernal straw men! Once again, I DIDN'T SAY that students couldn't pray!"

"Please - need I list all the past decisions that DID RESTRICT people's right to pray in schools"

The above comments are both yours.

553 posted on 07/03/2003 10:48:43 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Well, its not quite 175 years. The incorporation of the 1st Amendment was first addressed in Jones v. City of Opelika - and the doctrine that the 14th prevents the states from infringing upon the protections of the Bill of Rights goes back to the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. But these things are only decided by Courts when a case gets to them. There are no cases you can cite to after the passage of the 14th which hold that a State CAN establish a state religion.

I never claimed that a State can establish a state religion, and I would be vehemently opposed to any effort to do so.

554 posted on 07/03/2003 10:50:34 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
"Please - need I list all the past decisions that DID RESTRICT people's right to pray in schools"

This statement was actually referring to decisions that restricted prayer in any sense - which is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I do not believe The Constitution allows for the courts to restrict any form of religious expression by individuals, whether they be teachers, football coaches, or student valedictorians. You can disagree but you can't parse the Establishment clause or show me from the founder's writings where schools are considered off limits for any prayer situation. In fact, the founders encouraged the reading and teaching from the bible in schools.

555 posted on 07/03/2003 10:56:20 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 553 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"I do not believe The Constitution allows for the courts to restrict any form of religious expression by individuals, whether they be teachers, football coaches, or student valedictorians."

Nor do I. And neither do the Courts. But the cases you are complaining about is the restriction on teachers, football coaches, etc. leading others in religious expression, whether they want it or not. And when those people are acting as agents of the state, using state property and a state microphone.

556 posted on 07/03/2003 11:02:32 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"I never claimed that a State can establish a state religion, and I would be vehemently opposed to any effort to do so."

You are right, you didn't say that explicitly. What you did say was that the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment apply only to Congress, and not to the states. So what else is there in the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit a state from establishing a state religion?

557 posted on 07/03/2003 11:07:57 AM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Would a law requiring the installation of Judge Moore's monument in that courthouse be unconstitutional?

No, since it's not requiring the performance of any particular religious observance. I don't know if the law requires "In God We Trust" to be printed on our coins, or if Treasury does that of their own volition, but either way, that's constitutional also.

Besides, it's a pretty bizarre doctrine to say that if what you're doing might hypothetically be required by law, it should be treated the same as if the law actually does require it. But then, logic and judicial activism don't exactly constitute a match made in Heaven.

558 posted on 07/03/2003 11:46:44 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Nor do I. And neither do the Courts. But the cases you are complaining about is the restriction on teachers, football coaches, etc. leading others in religious expression, whether they want it or not. And when those people are acting as agents of the state, using state property and a state microphone.

It's still a restriction on free exercise. No one is being forced to pray. Any student can just NOT PRAY. This whole idea of someone being OFFENDED by a prayer or rights infringed upon becuase people are being led in prayer around them is nonsensical and nauseating, particularly in view of the liberal license used in every other area of govt. school education. Moreover, it's tyranny of the lone protester. Also, you need to show how a govt. school teacher leading in prayer is tantamount to establishing a state religion. I don't see that connection and no common sense person does.

559 posted on 07/03/2003 11:50:48 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I think I can say with 100% certainty that the Supreme Court would declare such a law unconstitutional.

But that is what it all boils down to, anyway. You disagree with the way the Court has been ruling for decades.

That's fine. Your arguments have merit. It's just that the Supreme Court's arguments carry significantly more weight.

560 posted on 07/03/2003 12:15:14 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
It's just that the Supreme Court's arguments carry significantly more weight.

Their errors carry as much weight as they do because too many people assume that how they rule truly does reflect what the Constitution says. And that enables them to go further and further overboard with their rulings. Now of course this is different from the question of whether their rulings have power to them. But we have a holiday coming up to remind us that might doesn't make right.

561 posted on 07/03/2003 12:25:16 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I think I will try this "tyranny of the lone protester" thing and challenge the govt. school's right to give my 12 year old daughter an abortion without my permission! (legal in California!). Do you think I have a snowball's chance in Hades? It's all about ideology, not objective right and wrong and you know it.
562 posted on 07/03/2003 12:42:42 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Well, we just disagree on this one. The Courts - not just "godless amoral morons," but all the Courts - agree on this one point. A government teacher, acting in his role as a government teacher, standing at the front of the room and leading a prayer, is not a person exercising his faith - it is the STATE praying. And the State praying to a Christian god is the State favoring Christianity. Just like the teacher turning on a broadcast of the muezzin, throwing down a prayer rug and facing Mecca for prayer is the State favoring Islam. Just like your boss can tell you pray whenever you want, but not on my time - these folks work for us, and they are on our time and on our dime.
563 posted on 07/03/2003 12:50:51 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Schools can give abortions in California? I kind of doubt that.

Well, the fact that you live there kind of explains what looks to me to be a suspicion that everyone is always acting out of some liberal motive. I am amazed you can stay there without your head exploding.

See, if you were here in the South, you'd know that striking Judge Roy's Ten Commandments was an aberration, so he must've been out of line. We have religious displays all over the place, and the courts allow them all the time. This very 11th Circuit allowed the Ten Commandments in a courtroom in Albany, Georgia just two weeks before they struck Judge Roy's monument. We still pray at football games, and at most graduations. So you have to know that this guy was crossing the line to get slapped down by a conservative panel the way he did. Just read it.

Remember the question I asked you about following orders? Imagine a unit commander just decides for himself that he doesn't agree with a standing order, and takes the position that he won't follow it, even if his CO tells him to. That's exactly what Judge Roy is doing - and he is also taking the position that he has more power than the Federal appeals court just because he thinks he knows better than them. This is about nothing more than his own appetite for power and publicity. Why do you think he filmed the installation, if he wasn't setting up the confrontation? Then he comes into court and gives testimony that absolutely ensures the court will rule against him? Just read it.

564 posted on 07/03/2003 12:58:55 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 562 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
And in a like sense, when a teacher is evangelizing on behalf of homosexuality, or affirmative action, or just more government funding, it is not a person saying these things, but the state, correct? But how many teachers would screech bloody murder if anyone tried to restrict their "free speech" in this way?
565 posted on 07/03/2003 12:59:54 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: inquest
They can screech all they want, but you will not find a court decision that says a teacher has a 1st Amendment right to say whatever they want when they are teaching - and retain their job. You won't find it. So your analogy fails.
566 posted on 07/03/2003 1:02:33 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Well, we just disagree on this one. The Courts - not just "godless amoral morons," but all the Courts - agree on this one point. A government teacher, acting in his role as a government teacher, standing at the front of the room and leading a prayer, is not a person exercising his faith - it is the STATE praying.

Oh really, then you need to write to SCOTUS and tell them they must stop the teaching of atheism in govt. schools! No honest person can look at the curriculum and deny that. Atheism/naturalism taught as the official state religion in every govt school. When a school teaches a kid that evolved from a chimp, that's not endorsing atheism as a state religion? Or when you teach him situational ethics rather than objective right and wrong - that's not endorsing atheism. It seems everything that is taught in govt. schools is wholly consistent with atheism. Are you going to try to claim that atheism is not a religion? Please try so I can pounce.

567 posted on 07/03/2003 1:04:12 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 563 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
But the court still isn't going to force them to stop saying it on the ground that it "offends" or "unduly influences" those who hear it. This despite the fact that many of these things are far more abusive of their power than simply saying a prayer.
568 posted on 07/03/2003 1:05:57 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Well, your examples are all over the map. Is teaching natural selection endorsing the position that there is not God? No. While "situational ethics" is a nice catch phrase, I haven't seen that course offering in school.

I read Nietzche and Satre in school - but I also read Kierkegaard. I don't think either was favored, but Kierkegaard left the greater impression. So maybe I was being taught Christianity.

In answer to your main point - call me whatever name you may want, but I don't think the schools in my part of the world promote atheism. If you think they do, you haven't seen either the school boards or the PTA here.

By the way - schools are local phenomena. There is no federal mandate commanding them to teach atheism. If your kid's school is teaching atheism, then the remedy lies with the parents, by dealing with the board and the administration. But it sounds to me like you don't want them to JUST not teach atheism, you want them to teach Christianity. You know, there are schools for that.

569 posted on 07/03/2003 1:11:51 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 567 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You are right - the court won't force them to stop, because there is not a constitutional prohibition it. But what happens is they get fired, and they have no constitutional redress. What's the difference?
570 posted on 07/03/2003 1:13:36 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Schools can give abortions in California? I kind of doubt that.

I think I know the laws of my own State. Schools take them to bet an abortion silly, they don't perform the abortion. And it's a fact! Want to defend it?

Well, the fact that you live there kind of explains what looks to me to be a suspicion that everyone is always acting out of some liberal motive. I am amazed you can stay there without your head exploding.

Our culture is dominated by liberal philosphy (which is embued with moral relativism) - of that there is no doubt. Just watch TV any night of the week, or read any major newspaper. In fact, those who hold to traditional Christian values in the United States (I would say about 30% of the population) are the ONLY significant block of such people left in the western world, but they are still a minority in America. Gore won the popular vote, remember? The guy who wanted to FORCE the Boy Scouts to accept gay scout leaders! THOSE EVIL BOY SCOUTS! I don't know how old you are, but when I was a kid, there were still some morals left in America. Then the 60s and their "if it feels good do it" ethics took the nation by storm. They threw out anything of any moral value and adopted their own moral values (morals by personal preference) and the courts and the legislatures and our culture and our media now all reflect those hedonistic amoral values. Those are not my values.

See, if you were here in the South, you'd know that striking Judge Roy's Ten Commandments was an aberration, so he must've been out of line. We have religious displays all over the place, and the courts allow them all the time. This very 11th Circuit allowed the Ten Commandments in a courtroom in Albany, Georgia just two weeks before they struck Judge Roy's monument. We still pray at football games, and at most graduations. So you have to know that this guy was crossing the line to get slapped down by a conservative panel the way he did. Just read it.

GOD BLESS THE SOUTH. They are the last bastion of traditional Christian values in America.

Imagine a unit commander just decides for himself that he doesn't agree with a standing order, and takes the position that he won't follow it, even if his CO tells him to. That's exactly what Judge Roy is doing - and he is also taking the position that he has more power than the Federal appeals court just because he thinks he knows better than them.

If any law contradicts my God-given freedoms or rights, it should be defied and ignored. Can you show me in the Constitution where churches are not allowed to have political views? Another restriction on speech by Christians. If I had my own church, I would say IRS be damned and pay their tax and I would say what I wanted - just as preachers did during the Revolution. MORAL PRINCIPLE trumps everything - even some elitist snob in a black robe. No one will every stop me from exercising my religion in any form I wish, anywhere I wish, any time I wish. If that means I get fired from my job, fire away! If that means I am arrested, get the cuffs out! I will not be cowed by intimidation of the State.

571 posted on 07/03/2003 1:19:02 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
You are right - the court won't force them to stop, because there is not a constitutional prohibition it.

If talking religion violates their rights of the students, then talking politics violates them also. Did you think the Founders were concerned about mere aesthetics when they wrote the first amendment? They wrote it to prevent government from exercising, in Jefferson's words, "tyranny over the minds of men". That's the only context in which the establishment clause can be judged. Religious establishments were used to control expression, so that's why they were proscribed.

And there was no requirement that "religion" had to involve anything supernatural. Anything which promotes one set of views about anything over another set, to the point where it infringes on people's right to express themselves, would have to fall under the purview of the clause.

572 posted on 07/03/2003 1:25:51 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 570 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Well, your examples are all over the map. Is teaching natural selection endorsing the position that there is not God? No. While "situational ethics" is a nice catch phrase, I haven't seen that course offering in school.

You can't win this one. They teach it started with the Big Bang, then the universe evolved over billions of years, galaxies, stars and planets formed; the molten earth cooled, oceans formed, life sprang spontaneously (haha) from the primordial ooze, and bacteria evolved into men, chimps or some common ancestor thereof, into human beings. That's not atheism? It most certainly is! Show me one single scientific or ethical teaching in govt. schools that is NOT consistent with atheism. They even hand out condoms because they reason that teenagers are hormone-stoked ANIMALS that couldn't control their drives if they wanted to - no animal can! If origins are not religious in nature, then why do they refuse to allow teachings of a theistic origin? huh?

In answer to your main point - call me whatever name you may want, but I don't think the schools in my part of the world promote atheism. If you think they do, you haven't seen either the school boards or the PTA here.

Oh well they don't do it overtly, they just ensure that every single curriculum is consistent with it. I'm sure there are some exceptions in the South. Come to L.A. or go to NYC and see what you find.

By the way - schools are local phenomena. There is no federal mandate commanding them to teach atheism. If your kid's school is teaching atheism, then the remedy lies with the parents, by dealing with the board and the administration. But it sounds to me like you don't want them to JUST not teach atheism, you want them to teach Christianity. You know, there are schools for that.

Local? Really? Tell that to the national teacher's union and the courts who treat them as an arm of the federal govt. The point is that your position is inconsistent and does not ensure EQUAL treatment under the law. It fails miserably.

573 posted on 07/03/2003 1:27:17 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"If any law contradicts my God-given freedoms or rights, it should be defied and ignored."

Maybe for a revolutionary, but not for an officer of the court. Unless, of course, you are an anarchist.

574 posted on 07/03/2003 1:29:21 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 571 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Add - if he can't enforce the law, he should resign. Just like if the officer can't follow the order, he should resign.
575 posted on 07/03/2003 1:30:02 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Didn't you know about the special abortion suites in California schools?

;)

576 posted on 07/03/2003 1:30:54 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (want me in your thread to insult True Conservatives? just summon me at http://www.minionofsatan.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 564 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Amazing. Argue on one hand that the words of the Constitution are absolute, and on the other that they have no meaning.

Religion is not politics. Religion is not philosophy.

There is no constitutional ban on the state having a political preference. There is no constitutional ban on the state having a philosophical preference. There is a constitutional ban on the state having a religious preference. If you can't distinguish between those, that is your issue. Most of us can, and the courts don't seem to have had any problem with it either.

577 posted on 07/03/2003 1:33:55 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 572 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Maybe for a revolutionary, but not for an officer of the court. Unless, of course, you are an anarchist.

Let me clue you in on something I mentioned before. The govt is not the highest moral authority - God is. The D of I says as much. The Roman empire slaughtered Christians NOT because they worshipped Christ, but becuase they would not worship the Emperor ALSO. They were deemed a threat to the State because they did not buy into the pluralistic morality of Rome. Rome could not tolerate any authority higher than it. Sound familiar? I am far from an anarchist. I am a Christian Constitutionalist. I have noticed that there aren't 5 people in Washington who even follow the Constitution with all of their anti- and extra-constitutional legislation. Show me in teh Constitution where it allows for an EPA, or an IRS. We fought a revolution over a 2% stamp tax! I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat - both parties are corrupt beyond repair. I am not a conservative - there is nothing left to conserve. I'm not a libertarian because they don't care about open borders and they believe that men are basically good by nature (wrong-headed!).

578 posted on 07/03/2003 1:35:52 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Well, I'm not trying to "win" anything. You believe that all of our schools and our entire culture and a large majority of our populace is infected with a godless amoral relativist disease pushed upon us with the sanction of the government and the complicity of a homo/feminist/atheist media. That's your world, not mine.
579 posted on 07/03/2003 1:36:50 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 573 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Maybe for a revolutionary, but not for an officer of the court. Unless, of course, you are an anarchist.

Let's see...what was the name of that famous Nazi judge who hung the bomb-plot conspirators....he followed the law as he understood it too.

580 posted on 07/03/2003 1:37:07 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 574 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Well, I'm not trying to "win" anything. You believe that all of our schools and our entire culture and a large majority of our populace is infected with a godless amoral relativist disease pushed upon us with the sanction of the government and the complicity of a homo/feminist/atheist media. That's your world, not mine.

Sadly, it's a spiritual blindness. Is there an objective right and wrong independent of the human will, or does the State decide for you?

581 posted on 07/03/2003 1:38:43 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Render unto Caesar. As I said above, if an officer of the court can't in good conscience follow the orders that bind him, he should resign, just as an officer in the military who can't in good conscience follow orders should resign. Instead, Moore chooses to claim that HE is the higher authority - because if he presumes to know God' will, then he is not a man of faith at all.
582 posted on 07/03/2003 1:39:38 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Show me one single scientific or ethical teaching in govt. schools that is NOT consistent with atheism.
583 posted on 07/03/2003 1:39:42 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 575 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
whoops - God's will.
584 posted on 07/03/2003 1:42:06 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Argue on one hand that the words of the Constitution are absolute, and on the other that they have no meaning.

Actually, I've done neither, your strawmen notwithstanding.

There is no constitutional ban on the state having a political preference. There is no constitutional ban on the state having a philosophical preference.

Is that so? So they can deny positions, promotions, and benefits - by law - based on the subject's political and philosophical views? That's the first I've heard of this.

Can you tell me in your own words what the reason for the establishment clause was? Because understanding that is essential to understanding its meaning.

585 posted on 07/03/2003 1:43:12 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 577 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Render unto Caesar. As I said above, if an officer of the court can't in good conscience follow the orders that bind him, he should resign, just as an officer in the military who can't in good conscience follow orders should resign. Instead, Moore chooses to claim that HE is the higher authority - because if he presumes to know God' will, then he is not a man of faith at all.

I wouldn't resign. I'd create new precedents just as the liberals are doing.

586 posted on 07/03/2003 1:43:50 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
In your mind? I'm sure there isn't one. As I said already, I read Fear and Trembling in a government school, but you'd probably say that is consistent with atheism. Science? Well, let's see - the periodic table of elements? Is that atheist? How about osmosis - is that atheist? I don't really think my physics class was atheistic, but I really didn't understand it well enough to be sure.
587 posted on 07/03/2003 1:45:06 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Go call up your ex-CO and tell him that.
588 posted on 07/03/2003 1:45:27 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Are you talking about employment law or constitutional law?

Make a real argument and I'll gladly continue.

The purpose of the Establishment Clause? Just like the Free Exercise clause, it was to prohibit religious discrimination or persecution. But the founders were wise enough to know that just one was not enough. You prohibit persecuting any particular faith, AND you prohibit favoring any particular faith.

589 posted on 07/03/2003 1:50:14 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
In your mind? I'm sure there isn't one. As I said already, I read Fear and Trembling in a government school, but you'd probably say that is consistent with atheism. Science? Well, let's see - the periodic table of elements? Is that atheist? How about osmosis - is that atheist? I don't really think my physics class was atheistic, but I really didn't understand it well enough to be sure.

Do you know who started universal education? The PURITANS. Ever hear of a New England Reader? the first english bible printed in America WAS SANCTIONED BY CONGRESS. Egad! Pull up their headstones and spit on their graves - they tried to establish Christianity as a State religion! You can create new precedents but you can't change history. Harvard, Yale, Princeton (New Jersey College), Penn - ALL Christian seminaries originally - now empty atheistic amoral cesspools of liberal thought. A Ph.D. from Harvard is worth about as much as a degree in Marxism at Moscow University.

590 posted on 07/03/2003 1:50:53 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Wow. That was quite a rant.
591 posted on 07/03/2003 1:52:36 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'll tell you the truth - I served under Reagan. But I would NEVER have served under that miscreant Clinton, and I would have refused to go to Serbia and serve under a criminal commander-in-chief, and I would never agree to wear a U.N. emblem on my uniform as our troops do in Bosnia and elsewhere. I owe no allegiance to the United Nations.
592 posted on 07/03/2003 1:53:01 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Is there an objective right and wrong independent of the human will, or does the State decide your moral principles for you? Or perhaps, do you decide what is right and wrong as an individual (you know, morals by personal preference)? Just curious. I want to see if you are a child of the "if it feels good do it" generation.
593 posted on 07/03/2003 2:01:29 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
I'm sure you will have your opinion without much regard to how I respond. But - Nah, I'm not a boomer. As old as I feel, I am too young to be a boomer - but just barely. Do I feel there is objective right and wrong? Yes. Do I feel each person decides for himself? To some degree, of course. There is no sacred text that covers every situation. There is no moral code that covers every situation. And both often require a little more than just rote application of a rule.

Does the state decide my morals? That's just silly. The state has no morals.

594 posted on 07/03/2003 2:18:58 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
An example of my point. Roy Moore says he can defy a higher court because God's law trumps man's law. There is no sacred text that says "Display the Ten Commandments in your court of law." Moore presumes to know God's will in that instance.

Even more accurately, there is no sacred text that says, "If, in a few centuries, a new faith arises based upon the teachings of my Son, whose coming will NOT be the arrival of the Messiah you have heard through my prophets, then the followers of the new faith shall display these tablets in their courts of law as a sign that these tablets are the source of their laws."

In fact, I can't really think of a command in the Bible to display religious symbols in civil institutions. Or not to. So whether or not it is right or wrong is left open to some interpretation. At this point, however, whether it is legal or illegal is not.

595 posted on 07/03/2003 2:46:40 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I'm sure you will have your opinion without much regard to how I respond. But - Nah, I'm not a boomer. As old as I feel, I am too young to be a boomer - but just barely. Do I feel there is objective right and wrong? Yes. Do I feel each person decides for himself? To some degree, of course. There is no sacred text that covers every situation. There is no moral code that covers every situation. And both often require a little more than just rote application of a rule.

Well, logically, if you believe in objective moral standards, there must be a source for those standards. Universal moral precepts can't just hang in mid-air with no authority behind them and no origin. What is the origin? There is a difference between objective moral principles and the moral choices of moral agents (people). People can make moral choices that are contrary to universal moral standards, but the standard exists whether or not any person recognizes it.

Does the state decide my morals? That's just silly. The state has no morals.

The laws of our nation and our state will inevitably reflect the moral values of the people behind them. If people of traditional values do not make our laws (such as people like our founding fathers), then people of the new morality will, and that is what has happened over the last 40 years. Laws are morally based. The state does have morals because people run the State and people have morals. The State holds that a human being isn't a person until it passes thru the birth canal - that is a moral decision as much as it is legal. The State had decided that reverse discrimination is a-okay - moral; the State has decided that it can legislate sexual mores in striking down sodomy laws - moral.

596 posted on 07/03/2003 2:50:42 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
An example of my point. Roy Moore says he can defy a higher court because God's law trumps man's law. There is no sacred text that says "Display the Ten Commandments in your court of law." Moore presumes to know God's will in that instance.

Roy Moore believes that all law comes from God - that is exactly what William Blackstone believed and Blackstone's legal philosophy was ascribed to by our founders. The 10 commandments are indeed the foundation for all moral and civil law. The 10 commandments embody absolute moral principles - lying, stealing, murder are wrong all the time for all time. It starts there. Mankind isn't and the State isn't.

Even more accurately, there is no sacred text that says, "If, in a few centuries, a new faith arises based upon the teachings of my Son, whose coming will NOT be the arrival of the Messiah you have heard through my prophets, then the followers of the new faith shall display these tablets in their courts of law as a sign that these tablets are the source of their laws."

Since God is eternal (notice our founders embraced monotheism), his moral precepts are also eternal as they flow directly from His character. So, lying was wrong before Moses, after Moses and still is. It's universal and transcendant truth.

597 posted on 07/03/2003 2:55:21 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Okay - I tried to make it simple on the first point. You tell me - which one of God's laws will Moore be violating if he removes the monument as ordered?

As far as the second point - do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday? That is explicitly commanded by the 4th. Should we have a law that prohibits Catholics from praying to a statue of the Virgin? Sure, SOME of the Commandments reflect universal law. But that can't be said for all of them. And all of them aren't even adopted by Moore's religion.

598 posted on 07/03/2003 3:06:33 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
In fact, I can't really think of a command in the Bible to display religious symbols in civil institutions. Or not to. So whether or not it is right or wrong is left open to some interpretation. At this point, however, whether it is legal or illegal is not.

There is one possible example in scripture about display. The Ark of the Covenant contained the tablets of the law and it was always carried before the people and was eventually placed in the temple in the Holy of Holies. Moore is right about one thing. The 10 commandments are the basis of U.S. law. All one has to do is read the founders' writings to know that. So, if they are the basis of the origin of our laws, what's the problem? There is only a problem if one believes that law evolves in the atheistic darwinian sense (here is that religious connection again!).

599 posted on 07/03/2003 3:09:55 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 595 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
Okay - I tried to make it simple on the first point. You tell me - which one of God's laws will Moore be violating if he removes the monument as ordered?

None really, except that they are the basis of our laws, like it or not.

As far as the second point - do you keep the Sabbath on Saturday? That is explicitly commanded by the 4th. Should we have a law that prohibits Catholics from praying to a statue of the Virgin? Sure, SOME of the Commandments reflect universal law. But that can't be said for all of them. And all of them aren't even adopted by Moore's religion.

I believe I explained this. Commandments 1-4 concern a matter of conscience between a person and His God, so these cannot be regulated by the State. In fact, the founder's expressly stated that religion was a matter of conscience (read Locke). It is 5-10 that concern behavior has it affects others and this can and should be regulated. Governments are necessary because people are sinful by nature and cannot govern themselves without strife and chaos.

600 posted on 07/03/2003 3:14:02 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 598 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600601-630 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson