Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 621-630 next last
To: Catspaw
I would presume that Chief Justice Moore will continue to defy their court order, and is willing to pay the consequences of that continuing defiance.

Go Chief Justice Moore! Where can we donate to his legal fund? He'll need it. Bail?

61 posted on 07/01/2003 3:55:17 PM PDT by Spiff (Liberalism is a mental illness - a precursor disease to terminal Socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
Whatever Kevin . . .

What do you mean, "whatever"?

The Ten Commandments is ordered removed by judicial fiat--not because of, but despite the First Amendment as it was designed.

Suppose it were replaced with a statue of two (fully dressed, for the sake of nominal modesty) men or two women, hands on chest or breast and thigh, engaged in a passionate kiss. Simply name the piece of excrement "The Gay Dawn" in honor of the Lawrence decision so that it can be fobbed off as symbolic of civil rights. Or how about a statute of a late term abortion entitled "Dr. Carhart's Loving Hands" (approriately draped so that the act of murder is strongly suggested but not depicted) would there be any legal basis whatsover for a court to order either statue removed? Absolutely not.

But posting the Ten Commandments is an abomination, all the machinery and rage of government is enlisted to remove it from the public sphere.

Black is white, and up is down. There is a backlash developing. I intend to encourage it.

62 posted on 07/01/2003 3:56:00 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Do you want to support the idea that any state official can define the meaning of the Constitution for himself, and can willfully ignore the Supremacy Clause if he or she so chooses?
63 posted on 07/01/2003 3:56:32 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
what -- in -- the -- hell -- are you talking about?
64 posted on 07/01/2003 3:56:54 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Ah, Mr. Curry. Of course, while you are opining about the meaning of the opinion, it is certain that you haven't read it.


65 posted on 07/01/2003 3:57:31 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
This is not about the Free Exercise clause. It is about the Establishment Clause. Why not just read the opinion?

Well ok, what law was being written by Moore then? The First Amendment only seems to place limits on Congress to keep them from creating a state religion, like the one they fled from in England. A reading of some material from the Founders would prove that this is indeed the case.

66 posted on 07/01/2003 3:57:34 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Think lots of Christians standing in the way. Think Christian U.S. Marshals who refuse to enforce the order.

I can dream can't I? Maybe a couple of news outlets will carry the picture of a couple of Christians trying to stand in the way of this tyranny. These Christians will simply go limp, have the plastic zipties placed on their wrists, and will be carried to a nearby bus for processing and be released later. Meanwhile the Marshals will gleefully remove the granite and by the next day the nation will be more interested in Laci's murder or J. Lo & Ben Affleck's relationship

I think your second paragraph is more accurate. There'll be a symbolic protest, people will get arrested and hauled off to jail, the Marshalls will come in and remove the statue and Judge Moore will have to contend with a contempt citation--probably more than one--and get slapped on the wrist.

67 posted on 07/01/2003 3:58:20 PM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
In fact, the Supreme Court doesn't even show the text of the Commandments, only the outlines of the two tablets.

As if that somehow matters. Do you think the numerals represent Clinton's 10 greatest BJs or something?

68 posted on 07/01/2003 3:58:49 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Whew! I haven't followed this case. He sounds like quite the guy.
We had the Ten Commandments, quotes from the Bible and other appropriate remarks on the walls of the courthouse when I was young.
I consider it all "de minimus" and good.
69 posted on 07/01/2003 3:59:08 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sir Gawain

Sir Gawain - your argument is addressed and dissected completely in the text of the opinion. Read it.

70 posted on 07/01/2003 3:59:13 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Does this mean the state will no longer funnel billions of dollars to all those "other" religous entities like the jewish school district in upstate NY which Bill Clinton gave pardon's to it's administrators and of course the Cathlic church for healthcare and services Mexcian nationals?

Or is this federal action only apply to Christian symbols in state buildings?

71 posted on 07/01/2003 4:00:08 PM PDT by Rodsomnia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
I will pick the people's logic that wrote the amendment over some judicial activists. I'm not agreeing with Moore's disregard for the higher court's ruling, I'm disagreeing with the complete mis-reading of the First Amendment ever since about 1934.
72 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:12 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
You don't understand the Establishment Clause, lugsoul (BTW, are you a character from The Screwtape Letters?). The Establishment Clause was designed to do two things: prevent the creation of a national religion and to keep the federal government from interfering with state-sanctioned religion.

A 20th Century liberal Supreme Court refashioned the First Amendment into the Judeo-Christian-despising weapon that it is today. It wasn't always so. You possess modern ignorance in abundance.

73 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:32 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
"Nobody is stopping Alabaman's from worshipping God, the courts just don't like the undue influence this has on potential jurors who might take the person's faith in mind more readily, with the religious reminder of their faith when they enter the court house."

Funny, the Ten Commandments displayed in the U.S. Supreme Court never seemed to have that effect on thier decisions. You're reaching for pie in the sky. Until the recent advent of fearful, politically correct automatons in our country walking around posing as Americans, all of our Law Schools taught that all modern law evolved directly from the Ten Commandments , (which, by the way, they did). Includng murder, adultery, stealing, and lying. Honoring your parents and giving your affection to your wife or husband instead of "the girl/guy next door aren't bad moral traits either. Nor is honoring God a bad thing. Who could possibly be intimidated or distressed by this beautiful moral code? Only the enemies of God.

74 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:46 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
look pal, this nation was founded upon judeo-christian beliefs. it wasn't founded in the name of allah or buddah.
75 posted on 07/01/2003 4:02:48 PM PDT by MatthewViti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
law enforcement authorities
76 posted on 07/01/2003 4:03:23 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write 'damnation' with your fingers." C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
How much money is the State of Alabama expending on the judge's ego trip?

Or is he only squandering the state court's time and reputation?
77 posted on 07/01/2003 4:03:32 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Myth: The Founders Established A Wall of Separation Between Church and State
78 posted on 07/01/2003 4:04:53 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Like typically, you refuse to engage the point.

Different religion. You go to a Federal Court House in Dearborn Michigan. A muslim gets appointed chief judge there. The community is mostly muslim. He installs a monument with Islamic justice moral codes written upon it.

Are you going to feel like you can get a fair trial as a Christian in that building? It is a tacit endorsement of a religious faith. If you bothered to read the opinion, they hung him on his own words. He was specifically not endorsing Judaism, because he used King James, and not the traditional Jewish interpretation of the commandments. For them: It is do not murder, rather than do not kill.

He said he was doing it to proclaim that all laws come from his Christian God. Yet, you for some reason are baffled as to why non-christians feel not very secure in their ability to go there and get equal treatment under the law?

The best test for any of these laws are the opposite foot. If the judge was a scientologist, a mormon, a Hindu, a jehovah's witness... would you feel comfortable with them giving a tacit approval of their faith, broadcasting it to potential jurors, while they are judging you? I wouldn't. The court agrees.

This guy campaigned on the ten commandment thing. He did not inform the other 8 justices that he was putting the plaque up. He waited until the dead of the night, and the only people allowed to be there was a film crew from "Coral Ridge Ministries" who were allowed to film it's emplacement for a fundraising drive. This was not a tough decision for the 11th circuit to make.

79 posted on 07/01/2003 4:05:06 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Funny enough, page 39 of the 11th Circuit's opinion addresses precisely this point.
80 posted on 07/01/2003 4:05:21 PM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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