I've gotta go start the holiday with my daughter. At this point, I say we shake hands, say we're sorry this got off to a bit of a rocky start, and it's been a enjoyable discussion. I was a bit prickly about folks jumping all over these particular judges, because they are good men, and Moore - who is a publicity-seeking pompous self-promoter with a very limited record of accomplishment as a jurist - pushed them into making the decision. With what he did, and what he said about it, this case wasn't even a close call. It's not simply about the Ten Commandments - as I said, this same court passed on the Ten Commandments in another courthouse a couple of weeks ago. It is about the overt, intentional, and unashamed promotion of one faith over another by a high government official, a judge no less. And that is the one area in our government where we are supposed to be able to believe that we will get a fair and impartial shake - no matter who we are - Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist.
Have a good 4th.
posted on 07/03/2003 4:05:09 PM PDT
I hope you had a good 4th with your family. I just wanted to provide this excerpt from a WND article. It's a quote from Stephanopoulis's ABC talk show:
"We see all the time, Justice O'Connor and I, and the others, how the world really it's trite but it's true is growing together," Breyer said. "Through commerce, through globalization, through the spread of democratic institutions, through immigration to America, it's becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people. And how they're going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations, I think will be a challenge for the next generations."
Clearly, any justice that believes that globalism trumps the Constitution should be impeached and removed from his office. This is scary to say the least!
As an epilogue to our earlier exchange, I would simply say that that many of our founders did use the federal government to promote Christianity (no particular denomination) and it was their stated intention that the church be protected from the state, not vice versa. In light of history, no one can deny that the "wall of separation" doctrine is a fabricated reading of the Constitution.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson