From the printed decision, it appears that the court establishes the following:
- The wording in the Constitution isn't what matters. What matters is what other people have decided the Constitution should have said.
- The judge writing the decision is highly offended by any suggestion that there is a God whose laws were used as foundations for US law. Read Nebechednezzer.
- The discomfort caused by a godless lawyer's conscience can be appeased by destroying anything that would remind said lawyer that there is such a thing as good and evil.
- The fact that Martin Luther King's speech could not be seen from the spot where the Ten Commandments were placed was evidence that King is considered a mere human and not God. The fact that the Commandment statue could not be seen from the King plaque was evidence of nothing.
posted on 07/03/2003 4:08:51 PM PDT
(We've left the slippery slope and we are now in free fall.)
"The fact that the Commandment statue could not be seen from the King plaque was evidence of nothing."
You didn't get that out of the opinion. What the opinion said was the plaque couldn't be seen from the monument at a distance of 75 feet. It did not say that the 5,280 pound monument could not be seen from the plaque. You made that up. The rest of your conclusions are just as accurate.
posted on 07/03/2003 4:26:57 PM PDT
Oh - the godless lawyer is Jewish. I guess in your mind the God of Israel is no God at all.
posted on 07/03/2003 4:28:18 PM PDT
Jews are godless? I suppose that does take the "Judeo" out of "Judeo-Christian."
posted on 07/03/2003 6:50:34 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson