Top Alabama judge vows Commandments fight

AP | 8/22/03 | BOB JOHNSON

[general_re]

Since it's easy to assume you're referring to the 1st Amendment, if YOU had read it, you'd know that ONLY the legislature can violate that.

Your personal opinion is no substitute for knowing the law.

[general_re]

What has he done that is a violation of God's law.

Feel free to substitute your judgement for His. I will decline, thanks.

[savedbygrace]

Let the record show that you refuse to answer the question, "What law has CJ Moore violated?"

After all, the 1st Amendment bars Congress from making any law that deals with an establishment of religion. Therefore, if CJ Moore has acted to establish religion (I deny that) then there must be some law that he violated in doing so. Either that, or Congress passed a law that did deal with an estblishment of religion.

Since nobody has found the law that's involved, and the federal judge couldn't find one either, there must not be one.

[savedbygrace]

Then retract your earlier statements in which you made it abuntantly clear you know that CJ Moore has violated God's law. Otherwise, you'll be standing in judgment of a brother in the Lord, assuming you're saved by the grace of Jesus Christ.

[general_re]

Quote the post where I claimed such a thing.

[savedbygrace]

#37: "I know someone who can, though, and I'm fairly confident that Roy Moore will find the justice he seeks someday. He may not like it, but I think he'll find it."

[savedbygrace]

#134: "No, I just don't believe that being saved by grace gives one carte blanche to behave in any manner you see fit, acting any way you want simply because you think that you have gained special dispensation from above. Saved by grace, you bet - but you still gotta act like it. Being saved doesn't mean you get to be a jerk deliberately without facing any consequences.
"Roy's still a young-ish man - plenty of time for him to figure this out, I guess."

[general_re]

I'm fairly confident...He may not like it...I think...

I'm reading and reading, but I just can't find the part where I claimed that I "knew" Roy Moore's fate in the hereafter.

Interesting notion of free speech you've got there. Roy Moore can use a public courthouse as his personal playground, but heaven forfend I express my opinion of Roy Moore in public. Sheesh.

And in response to your question about what law, I told you - the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, see the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Everson v. Board, Abington School District v. Schempp, Lemon v Kurtzman, et cetera, et cetera...

[general_re]

#134

Nope, not there either. I expressed my opinion that he was behaving poorly, not that I knew his eternal fate. Do keep trying, though - you may eventually find something that you can twist to mean what it is you think I said.

[savedbygrace]

I wrote that you made it clear you knew, but I didn't write that you had SAID you knew. Any reasonable person reading your two statements would have no trouble reaching that conclusion.

In any event, since you have refused to back up those statements, no matter whether you define them as saying you know CJ Moore's violation or just suspect it, you should retract them, because it is clear you are intimating that you are standing in judgment of him.

What does that mean to you, as a Christian, to stand in judgment of a brother in the Lord?

[general_re]

I wrote that you made it clear you knew

I can hardly be responsible for your interpretation, now can I?

[savedbygrace]

Nobody is forbidding you from expressing an opinion. I challeged you to back up that opinion, and so far, you have refused. That's funny.

I asked you to cite the law he has violated and you continue to cite the Constitution. Any reasonable person would conclude you're referring to the 1st Amendment which forbids Congress to pass a law that deals with an establishment of religion. So, what is the law?

So far, you have been unable to cite any such law. The federal judge couldn't cite a law that violates the 1st Amendment either.

[savedbygrace]

It is clear that you refuse to be responsible for your own words as well.

I have challenged you to cite support for your wild-eyed charges, and you have refused. Why should anyone on FR ever listen to your opinions with a straight face again? You have discredited yourself. Buh bye.

[general_re]

So far, you have been unable to cite any such law.

I can't help you if you refuse to read the case history of these issues. I hate to break it to you, but court decisions have the force of law, whether you like it or not.

I have challenged you to cite support for your wild-eyed charges, and you have refused.

Why don't you start by substituting your judgement for His, by guaranteeing me that Roy Moore is A-OK in the eyes of the Lord. You're not going to run around failing to support your wild-eyed opinions, are you?

[MissAmericanPie]

Exactly.

[MissAmericanPie]

The Alabama Supreme Courts first duty is to protect the citizens of their State from a renegade Federal Supreme Court handing down judical edicts, double dealing the Constitution that granted them their power on the bench, and has granted them no authority to engage in social engineering from their ivory tower against the express limitations of Article ten and against the culture, norms and common laws of the people.

The Supreme Court rules, as does the rest of the Federal Government, at the pleasure of the people who rightfully resist any attempt by the Supreme Court to wiggle out of the agreement enjoined by both parties to obey the clear limits of the Constitution on their respective powers and whose reins, according to the Constitution, aka inalienable rights, are placed in the hands of the Supreme Law Giver before whose White Throne all men will be judged.

If the people so desire, they have the inalienable right to demand that each and every judge walk by a reminder of the limitations on their authority and under whose grace they are allowed to judge, be it the Ten Commandments, or what ever the people in a particular state wish displayed to remind those that judge them of the limitations of their power and that demands that they adhere to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the USofA has spent decades over stepping and degrading the document they took an oath to uphold and insure, yet expect the people to jump at their every unlawful whim. While they constantly break the law by going directly against the Constitution, or twisting it's clear meaning beyond all recognition, they bludgeon states and citizens equally with their unlawful, unConstitutional edicts. It's time for that to stop. The Alabama Supreme Court should stand up and say enough, you have over stepped your bounds. The Congress should stand up and say, enough, your impeachment is in the mail.

Believe me, no one here will enjoy the way their rights are protected if those rights are granted by man, rather than demanded and insured by God who is above all and over all.

[Dataman]

Seriously, what Constitution are they talking about? What ban? TELL me they DON'T mean the Constitution of the United States. TELL me that they DON'T mean the prohibition of CONGRESS (not the court) of enacting any LAW (not allowing a monument) respecting an establishment of religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

The Constitution of the Dumbed-down Liberals of America, the 115th amendment which states any public mention or display of any Christian belief or symbol is more dangerous than a nuke attack from a rogue Islamic group and must be stopped with taxpayer funding.

[BibChr]

Dang! I knew I wasn't keeping up with the revisions!

Dan