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

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: Sir Gawain
Well, that is a semantic argument. They actually noted in the opinion his public comments on it. Basically he was acknowledging this as a christian effort, no attempt at being pluralistic here and doing this for jews or muslims.

They also documented how he got the Coral Ridge Ministry televangelists to film it's secret installation so they would have exclusive video to sell for profit.

Much of the opinion, I have just skimmed over the entire opinion, relates to how he has crushed his own valid constitutional arguments by opening his mouth. If he just put the plaque there, and didn't say anything, his argument would have been stronger, but he told all, and often that his motives were religious, and the court noted that it had allowed religious symbols, especially those that have been unchallenged after being around along time, if there are secular applications as well as religious.

The Judge denied himself that argument because he kept bragging on why he was doing it.

94 posted on 07/01/2003 4:12:57 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | 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