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

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments
Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

Posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:06 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 801-809 next last
To: Labyrinthos
..what they can't do, however, is to use their public position to promote their particular brand of religious beliefs...

It's not 'Moore's brand', mate. That's what you guys can't seem to grasp.

Your country, and your legal system, and the Alabama Constitution, was founded on Christian principles. That's why he's well within his rights in installing the monument.

581 posted on 08/20/2003 6:10:56 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas; lugsoul; Dog Gone; Torie; Byron_the_Aussie
22H.R.J. Res. 1, 44th Cong., (1875)

. Debated by Congress in August 1876, it passed the House by a vote of 180-7, but just fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote required for passage in the Senate. The Senate vote, held on August 14, 1876, was 28-16 in favor of the amendment. 4 Cong. Rec. 5595 (1876).

The importance of the proposed amendment, as suggested by one author, is three-fold. First, the first clause of this proposal, aside from its applicability to state action, was in the identical words of the First Amendment. Second, the measure was proposed and discussed only seven years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, it was considered by the Forty-fourth Congress, which included twenty-three members of the Thirty-ninth Congress, two of whom actively participated in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment. Alfred W. Meyer, The Blaine Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 64 Harv. L. Rev. 939, 941 (1951)[hereinafter Meyer].

Even more poignant was Senator Fredrick Frelinghuysen’s comments regarding the proposed amendment, which attests that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the First Amendment: I call the attention of the Senate to the first alteration the House amendment makes in our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, enacted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, provides that – ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ This is an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States. The House article very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States.... Thus the article as amended by the Senate prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office. 4 CONG. REC. 5561 (Aug. 14, 1876) (statement of Sen. Frelinghuysen)

. In arguing against the proposed amendment, Senator Stevenson intriguingly employed the statements of Thomas Jefferson when he declared:

Friend as he [Jefferson] was of religious freedom, he would never have consented that the States, which brought the Constitution into existence, upon whose sovereignty this instrument rests, which keep it within its expressly limited powers, should be degraded and that the Government of the United States, a Government of limited authority, the mere agent of the States with prescribed powers, should undertake to take possession of their schools and their religion… 4 CONG. REC. 5589 (Aug. 14, 1876) (statement of Sen. Stevenson).

In the end, the amendment failed to achieve the essential two-thirds majority necessary for it to begin the ratification process among the states. Mr. Meyer suggests that “ the debates on the Blaine Amendment and the later attempts to make the religious provisions of the First Amendment binding upon the states point out the historical inaccuracy of concluding that the First Amendment was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the proof I spoke of which gives evidence to the fact that those who wrote the 14th knew that it's intent was not to incorporate the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment.

582 posted on 08/20/2003 6:11:10 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
He is not. He is promoting Judeo-Christian values via the Ten Commandments, not a particular denomintion of Christianity or anything.

Since I am sure you have read post 491 and 541, I am sure you know that what Moore has done pales in comparison to church services in the SCOTUS building, Congress, Treasury building, etc. /sarcasm
583 posted on 08/20/2003 6:11:26 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 566 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
Dispute it.
584 posted on 08/20/2003 6:11:49 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos; Abe Froman
Please go back to "remedial constitutional law." Its a real challenge to have an intelligent conversation with people who don't even have the most basic understanding of our constitutional jurisprudence.

Abe Froman's comments reflect the Constitution as written and intended. Your post-modern jurisprudence reflects the Constitution as warped and twisted beyond recognition by liberal judicial activists.

585 posted on 08/20/2003 6:12:18 PM PDT by Kevin Curry (Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
...Byron, if you're advocating overthrow of the US Government just say so...

I'm advocating it sticks to the principles on which is it was founded, amigo.

What is your problem with that?

586 posted on 08/20/2003 6:12:28 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 578 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Dispute it.

I believe Judge Moore is doing just that.

587 posted on 08/20/2003 6:12:45 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

Comment #588 Removed by Moderator

To: webwizard
The PCA would have defrocked him long ago if your charges are correct.
589 posted on 08/20/2003 6:13:03 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Nice.
590 posted on 08/20/2003 6:13:32 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: webwizard
..are they teaching US history down under now?...

Yep.

And I think I've got a better grasp on it than some of you lib-lovin' FINOs who are lining up with the ACLU, on this one. Cheers, By

591 posted on 08/20/2003 6:14:32 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
What were Galileo's scientific and biblical conflicts with the Church?





<!- - - - SETS BASE FONT - - - ->

Earth and Sun. Illustration by Paul Taylor. Copyright, Eden Communications.
What were Galileo Galilei's conflicts with the Roman Catholic Church? It was not a simple conflict between science and religion, as usually portrayed. Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition. Galileo expressed his scientific views supporting Copernicus as well as his biblical views in a 1615 letter to the Grand Duchess of Tuscany which became the basis of his first Church trial and censure. A major work published in 1632 resulted in Galileo's conviction on suspicion of heresy and a lifetime house arrest. The Galileo affair provides important lessons and applications to the Church and to science today.

Background

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) believed the universe is finite and spherical with a stationary earth at its center. Enclosing the whole universe is the sphere of the Prime Motion turned by the First Unmoved Mover. Inside that were transparent spheres containing fixed and unchanging stars, planets, moon and sun.[1] Aristotle was also a renowned philosopher.

Clement and Origen (185-254 A.D.), both of Alexandria, sought to reconcile Greek wisdom (Aristotle's thoughts in philosophy and sciences) with scriptural wisdom. Origen imagined separate literal, moral, and spiritual senses of Bible passages (expanded to five senses in Concordism today).[2]

Van Bebber says, "This allegorical interpretation gave birth to a new brand of Christianity. Augustine (354-430 A.D.), although not as extreme as Clement or Origen, accepted this new approach. Through Augustine the mixing of philosophy, culture, and theology became inter-twined. And, since Catholic theology recognizes the traditions of the Church as equal in authority with written scripture, changing this trend became impossible. Eventually, the roots planted in Augustine took full bloom in Thomas Aquinas" (1224-1274 A.D.).[3] The Renaissance Period (1300-1600 A.D.), the rebirth of Greek philosophy, reinforced Aristotle's philosophy and science, already embedded in Roman Catholic theology and tradition. The most serious scientific error was acceptance of an earth-centered cosmos. But this error fit well in the man-centered theme of the Renaissance.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543 A.D.) was a Renaissance man educated in the classics, law, theology, mathematics, metaphysics, languages, and astronomy. Copernicus developed a cosmology with the sun at the center, the earth rotating about a polar axis, and the earth and planets circling the sun, essentially as we know it today.[4]

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642 A.D.) received a broad Renaissance education. Until 1610, when Galileo built his first telescope at age 46, he focused mainly on physics, not astronomy. He soon made discoveries which shook the foundations of the Aristotelian cosmos. He saw mountains, valleys and other features indicating change on the moon. He observed the motion of four of Jupiter's moons, now referred to as the Galilean moons. No longer could scientists say that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth. He also observed the phases of Venus, the only explanation of which is that Venus moves around the sun and not the earth.



<!- - - - SETS BASE FONT - - - ->Response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to very hostile. Never fearing a fight, Galileo actively defended his evidence which supported the Copernican cosmos. Hummel states,

"He was a passionate, powerful character who could dominate any room or discussion. His talent and wit won a variety of illustrious friends in university, court and church circles, ... At the same time his biting sarcasm against those whose arguments were vulnerable to his scientific discoveries made him some formidable enemies. Galileo thrived on debate... His professional life was spent not only in observing and calculating but also in arguing and convincing. His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view."[5]

Johnston, a Catholic defending the Church, wrote that Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. Johnston claims that Galileo's position and manner had alienated many and left the Church authorities no room to maneuver. While there is some truth in Johnston's assertion, it was a minor factor in the conflict.

The primary problem, as introduced earlier, was that Aristotle's science was going out of style; but the church was still attached to him. It could not make a distinction between Aristotle and Christian teachings; and in that era, there was no distinguishment or separation of science from philosophy. For the Church, if Aristotle was wrong, Christianity was wrong.[6]

Another background factor in Galileo's conflict with the Church was the influence of the Reformation. Because Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.D.) and the Protestant reformation (1517 A.D.) questioned Church authority, the Roman Church lost significant power and influence. It reacted with a list of literature forbidden to Catholics. Included were any writings challenging traditional Scripture interpretation.[7]

Letter to Madame Christina

In 1615 Galileo wrote a letter outlining his views to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "Concerning the Use of Biblical Quotations in Matters of Science."[8] The tribunal used this letter against him in his first trial in 1616. They directed Galileo to relinquish Copernicanism and to abstain altogether from teaching or defending this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it.[9]

Excerpts from the letter to Madame Christina help to reveal Galileo's view of Scripture and that of his predecessors. He writes, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood."[10]

He cited Copernicus in the same vein: "He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood".[11] He quotes Augustine relating true reason to Scriptural truth.

"And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there'"[12]

The Church had no problem with these solid orthodox views. Galileo was a man of faith as well as science.

Two examples from Galileo's letter help to illustrate his interpretation of Scripture dealing with science. Some say he should have left Scripture alone and just stuck to science, but he was in a "no-win situation" whatever he did, for the Roman Catholic Church's Aristotelian views were being challenged.

Job 9:6 says, "Who moveth the earth from its place..." Galileo cites the Commentary on Job (1584) by Didacus a Stunica which concluded that the mobility of the earth is not contrary to Scripture.[13] Today, creationists would term this passage "observer true." In Galileo's day, they used the equivalent phrase or expression "speaking according to appearances." That is, for us who live on the earth it does not appear to move under our feet. But Galileo's opponents would not accept this explanation.[14]

A second passage and Galileo's commentary illustrate that he felt Scripture dealing with science should not be interpreted literally. Job 26:7 states, "He stretcheth out the north over the void, and hangeth the earth above nothing." Galileo says, "St. Thomas Aquinas notes that the Bible calls 'void' or 'nothing' that space which we know to be not empty, but filled with air. Nevertheless the Bible he says, in order to accommodate itself to the beliefs of the common people (who think there is nothing in that space), calls it 'void' or 'nothing'."[15] As a side note, today we know that this verse is literally and scientifically true as written. No accommodation needs to be made for the common or uneducated person. Space is a void except for a thin layer of air surrounding our earth.

A New Book and a Second Trial

In 1632, Galileo completed his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems -- Ptolemaic & Copernican. This publication, a twelve year effort, presented all the arguments for and against the two great world systems--the Copernican (sun centered) and the Aristotelian or Ptolemaic (earth centered). Galileo also warned the Church of a trap they were walking into:

"Take note, theologians, that in your desire to make matters of faith out of propositions relating to the fixity of sun and earth you run the risk of eventually having to condemn as heretics those who would declare the earth to stand still and the sun to change position--eventually, I say, at such a time as it might be physically or logically proved that the earth moves and the sun stands still."[16]

The Roman Catholic hierarchy and their Aristotlean-Ptolemaic advisors did not heed this advice. The Roman Curia promptly banned and confiscated Galileo's monumental work; and it became the basis for his second trial, censure, and lifetime house arrest by the Holy Office of the Inquisition in 1633. The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis. They suspected him of holding heretical opinions condemned by the Church, which they ordered him to abjure [abandon a false opinion]. Seven of the ten Cardinals presiding signed his condemnation.[17]

The Holy Tribunal in Galileo's condemnation states: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith."[18]

Historical Aftermath of the Galileo Affair

As new observations poured in, evidence grew supporting a Copernican view. The Roman Catholic Church leadership looked like fools, opening a wedge between science and religion that has increasingly widened to today. As Johnston put it, "To the popular mind, the Galileo affair is prima facie evidence that the free pursuit of truth became possible only after science 'Liberated' itself from the theological shackles of the Middle Ages. ...the Galileo case is one of the historic bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church -- the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition."[19]

Applications and Lessons Today

Application to Science

Today, Science views Galileo's conflict with Church hierarchy as a great triumph of science over religion. Today Science is king, Nature is the Creator, and God (if He exists) is irrelevant. Galileo would not have viewed it thus, for his faith in the truth of God's Word remained strong. He recognized that God is King and Creator, not Nature.

Misapplication by Theistic Evolutionists and Progressive Creationists

Theistic evolutionists and Progressive Creationists often use a "Two Book" concept to reconcile or compromise the Bible with Science. They claim both the "Book of Nature" and the "Book of Scripture" are true or applicable in their own realm. But today, Science is always put first. Thus, religion must bow to scientific findings. The "Book of Scripture" must yield to and accommodate the "Book of Nature". Theologians must reinterpret or compromise Scripture to accommodate whatever today's Science says is true. When new scientific theories come along, Biblical interpretations must change accordingly.

The Two-Book concept was encouraged by Galileo's view that scientific descriptions in the Bible were not important, for the common man could not understand them. Galileo used the same terminology. For example, Galileo said, "The Book of Nature is written in (clearly-understood) mathematics."[20] Galileo cited Cardinal Baronius (1598) for the statement, "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[21]

Lessons to Religious Authority

The Roman Curia, the religious authorities, imposed Aristotle's view upon the Bible, allowing Greek philosophy to influence its theology. They steadfastly maintained their traditions and erroneous interpretations of Scripture[22] above increasing scientific observations to the contrary. Galileo's published works remained on the Roman Church's Index of Prohibited Books until 1835. Not until 1981 did the Roman Catholic Church officially forgive Galileo.[23]

Van Bebber aptly states, "The Bible is the only infallible, inspired revelation of God. Motivated by a love for the Creator and His word, the believer must carefully weigh his every thought against the standard of the Bible. Those ideas which oppose sound Biblical teachings must be abandoned. Had this been achieved during the days of Galileo, a peaceful and reasonable solution would have helped to strip the Catholic Church of traditional, non-Christian philosophies which proved to hinder its effectiveness."[24]

Lesson to All

A final lesson and warning applies to the Church, Science, and the modern Creationist movement today. Beware of holding steadfastly to a particular interpretation of Scripture and/or a scientific model, which may be in error. For instance, there are various scientific challenges to the Young-Earth Creationist position. We should hold many of our scientific views and their corresponding Biblical interpretations loosely. For we will never have all the right answers this side of heaven.

GoWhat is the lesson that Christians should learn from Galileo? [Read]



592 posted on 08/20/2003 6:15:43 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 568 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Please remember that most of us would like the Second Amendment to be extended to the States via the 14th Amendment.

Regardless, the First Amendment already has, so arguing that it shouldn't have is like me arguing that that the Packers shouldn't have defeated my Cowboys in the Ice Bowl. It's kind of a done deal.

593 posted on 08/20/2003 6:15:56 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

Comment #594 Removed by Moderator

To: Beelzebubba
The Supreme Scums fail to act on an issue that inflames Americans but does vote for the sodomists. Incredible! This is the worst Supreme Court ever!
595 posted on 08/20/2003 6:16:10 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus (RATS are scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Have you seen my posts 491 and 541? I hope I also added some 14th Amendment stuff in 491 you haven't discussed, but this stuff is gold.

I will also point out that in the original debates on the BOR (which is discussed in my 491), the founders rejected an amendment to the First Amendment which would have made it apply to the states. Then, the evidence is clear that the 14th Amendment was not intended to be made apply to the states. You bringing up this amendment after the 14th was passed (the Blaine Amendment) was gold. I will have to expand my paper and go into more detail about the Blaine Amendment than I have.
596 posted on 08/20/2003 6:17:26 PM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

Comment #597 Removed by Moderator

To: webwizard
..the televangelists who funded the whole fiasco are just using Moore to raise money...

Yo, Webby: what would Washington think, knowing someone like you had purloined his views, for their FR page?

He'd horsewhip you right across the Potomac, bud.

598 posted on 08/20/2003 6:19:04 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie (http://www.theinterviewwithgod.com/popup2.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Brian S
Where's Frank Capra when you need him?
599 posted on 08/20/2003 6:19:32 PM PDT by jwalburg (Line dry only)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Byron_the_Aussie
Maybe you haven't seen all my posts on this thread. My objection to Judge Moore has NOTHING to do with his stand on the First Amendment. It has everything to do with his refusal to obey court orders.

Can you understand the difference? It's not a subtle difference.

600 posted on 08/20/2003 6:19:42 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 801-809 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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