No, he would begin spastically spitting out the teeth I loosened. Waiting, waiting, waiting.........*tapping foot*
Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Much thanks- It is a good read-and a viewpoint I can agree with.
The writer of this article is aptly named. Response forthcoming from one Atheist Footmouth.
No, he would begin spastically spitting out the teeth I loosened. Waiting, waiting, waiting.........*tapping foot*
Pol Pot was an atheist.
Marx was an atheist.
Lenin was an atheist.
Stalin was an atheist.
Mao was an atheist.
Atheism is a good thing. Right?
I am no supporter of the separation of Church and state, but this quote seems fabricated. Here is the information about the actual letter. Bizarre that Jefferson should be relied on for interpretation, though. Justice Rehnquist debunked this nonsense in Wallace v. Jaffree:
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.
First off, England was a monarchy, not a theocracy.
Second, the Pilgrims did not flee from England to America, but instead they left from Holland to America. They could practice their religion any way they wanted to in Holland, but they were concerned about their children becoming too Dutch, losing their English culture.
Finally, I'm sure the founders were more concerned about the Federal government intruding upon the states in the area of religion, as some states had official state churches at the time of our nations' founding, than any kind of concern about the new country becoming a theocracy.
The colonies had more than their share of "religious intolerance" during the colonial period. Some colonies were founded, because the faiths of their people were outlawed in other colonies.
Yet the Alabama Constitution indicates that no particular religion (meaning including Christianity, and Judeo-Christianity) be given legal preference.
You can't erect the 10 commandments in a courthouse saying that the country's laws were founded on them, and then say you're not giving them preference.
But then again, this case is full of contradictions. Anything involving Roy Moore, the ACLU, and the Souther Poverty Center would. The clowns deserve each other, but they made a mockery of our laws in the process.
People who can't see the irony in what Roy Moore and his opponents did to each other are blind.
"That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship;" I don't think that Roy Moore's setting up a monument in his courthouse qualifies as a "law". My understanding is that judges can't pass laws.
The Alabama Constitution recognizes God's primacy and Judge Moore was simply following that Constitution.
He made no unconstitutional law and he violated no law.
Yes, but he was in fact saying that something had already happened that had never happened under US or Alabama constitutional law.
Religious freedom. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles.
How were the Ten Commandments given preference by law? Were the citizens of Alabama forcibly made to stop in the rotunda; read and reflect on them? Or could they just walk by the display, even making snide remarks if they chose to?
That makes no sense; the Torah is simply a superset of the old testament. Moore said on numerous occasions that he meant Christianity, or Judaism, or Judeo-Christianity. He in fact said that we were a Judeo-Christian nation by law, by the very laws, and the particular translation of the laws, that he erected.
Yes, he does backpedal and try to deny that his words meant what they said when confronted with their final implications, but we can all assume that he thinks our laws are founded on the 10 commandments.
That is why you are wrong so much. You make assumptions.
The whole idea that the Ten Commandments aren't law so they shouldn't be displayed is nothing but a straw man argument. Nobody ever even tried to enforce the Commandments as law, the left just can't stand to even look at the commandments because they are convicted by them.
It's in the public record, there's no need to assume one way or the other.
Ping to self for later pingout.
If a judge says that he thinks his law books are a proper superset of the 10 commandments, or if people think that's what he means, then people can start arguing that's what he's going to do.
That's the nature of our adversarial system of justice. People claimed he was making those inferences, and they asked for the symbol of his inference be removed.
I personally don't mind the display at all. I only mind what he said about it. Did what he say have any legal bearing on any case? Not really, but he couldn't defend himself when citizens of the State of Alabama argued that they felt that he were indicating such.
He meant that our nation was founded upon a higher law. He never claimed that the Ten Commandments were codified into written law.
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.