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

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: dogbyte12
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.

Sounds like a strawman to me. I've never heard any other interpretation than "kill = murder", and all I read is the KJV.

86 posted on 07/01/2003 4:07:28 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: dogbyte12
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?

The court building also contains plaques with quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr. So what does that bode for defendants who are on record as opposed to the fact that that Communist gets his own federal holiday?

108 posted on 07/01/2003 4:39:30 PM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies ]

To: dogbyte12
I have absolutely no concern at all about what a judge's religion is, whether it be Scientologist, Mormon, Hindu, Jehovah's witness... I am perfectly happy with them even if they don't have a religion at all.

However, when they use the First Amendment to crush speech simply because it might have or have had a religious affiliation of some sort, I know I am dealing with a damned bigot. We would be better off with Laplander shamen on the bench than these guys who see some sort of danger in the Ten Commandments, or the 238 Laws, or the 5 fold path, etc.

To the barricades!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

217 posted on 07/01/2003 7:41:28 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | 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