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

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: 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.

Typical.

65 posted on 07/01/2003 3:57:31 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | 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: Kevin Curry
bttt...
107 posted on 07/01/2003 4:38:16 PM PDT by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

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

This, and the SCOTUS decisions this week - especially the sodomy one, are I HOPE waking people up. The slippery slope of moral relativism/leftist/homo-promoism/atheism has turned into a screaming nose dive.

292 posted on 07/01/2003 9:34:28 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

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