The people's judge: Justice Roy Moore. Joseph Farah on why Moore is genuine national hero

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, August 22, 2003 | Joseph Farah

[Northern Yankee]

Influences of Greek civilization...

Yep... I've always liked Hurcules.(sp?)

And just what happened to those guys on Mt. Olympus? *Grins*

[Non-Sequitur]

You are not defending your faith, you're spoiling for a fight. You're free to go out a get a monument with the "version" you want posted and display it where and when you like.

And will Judge Moore post the 'version that I like' in the Supreme Court building? Or will he, as Madison warned, hold up one sect of Christianity as better than others?

[Northern Yankee]

Yep... I gotta agree with you.

As a Catholic there really is no big difference between the versions of the ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill still means thou shall not kill!

[texgal]

And will Judge Moore post the 'version that I like' in the Supreme Court building? Or will he, as Madison warned, hold up one sect of Christianity as better than others?

Neither Judge Moore, nor anyone else is obligated to post the "version" you like - that's up to you as an individual. But, if you feel strongly enough about it to stand up for your right to do so, then you'd better hurry because you're about to loose that right under the lie of "separation of church and state".

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...who should know better but have allowed their usual common-sense conservatism to become waylaid by over-focus on the legal aspects of the matter."

What a pompous ass. When did you get elected the arbiter of conservative thinking, and did you check with TLBSHOW before stealing "the gift"?

I need to remind you that observing "the legal aspects" of a legal situation and acting on those legalities rather than raw emotional content is much more in line with conservative thinking than acting on your "feelings" about an issue...that's usually liberal territory.

"I say that line-up deserves Freeper respect and support."

Since someone else already brought this up, which side of the lined-up FReeper did you "respect and support" during the Elian Gonzalez controversy? Either side you pick will have some FReepers telling you that you did not take the "conservative" stance.

"On the other side we have the ACLU, militant gays, secular leftists, and a handful of senior Freepers"

In other words, belittle and demean anyone who doesn't think as you do...that's the American way...according to the Clintons anyway.

"Now I am asking you guys to suppress your concerns, to go with the collective view"

That's right, who needs independent thinkers anyway, they don't make for good "conservatives" as far as you're concerned.

[MarthaNOStewart]

Amen,and well said.

[lugsoul]

It is actually pretty pitiful that this guy repeatedly claims he cannot "acknowledge God" without a two-ton rock. Funny, I still haven't found where Jesus requires giant monuments in order to acknowledge one's faith.

[gridlock]

At one time or another all of these have been codified into law in one form or another.

OK, so you're charged with coming up with the language for the Omnibus Parental Respect Law of 2004, the Adultery Eradication Amendment or the Covetous of Thy Neighbor's Goods Act of 2005. What, exactly, are you going to put into these laws? How are they any of the Government's business?

You finish drafting those laws, and I'm sure we'll find a place for burqas in there somewhere...

[MarthaNOStewart]

Criminal Justice Law was established in American Colonies from the Common Law in England, which was ESTABLISHED by justices decisions declaring the TEN COMMANDMENTS as its origin. IT IS HISTORICAL FACT, NOT RELIGION.
WE DO NOT REMOVE LEANARDO DI VINI's name from the MONA LISA because we don't agree with him, its the same thing.
Too many people spouting arguments that have NOTHING TO DO WITH the subject matter. IT is historical fact that our criminal justice laws are derived from Ten Commandments, check out the ORIGINAL CRIMINAL CODE OF 1676 handed down by Duke of York to Pennsylvania Colonists. LETS NOT BE CHANGING HISTORY TO SUIT A BUNCH OF ATHEISTS.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

You've missed my point.

It's bigger than the pros and cons of this issue. What we have here is a bunch of people who are passionately concerned about the way America is heading, and their response is to jump in the car and head on over to the courthouse to let their feelings be known. Meantime you've got a handful of dilittantes and intellectuals back here undercutting their efforts in an elitist, almost sneering way. Forget posting excerpts from Madison's writings, Luis. This is about action, not debate. About rolling up your sleeves. Ask yourself not what interpretation should be placed on some Founder's tangential writings on the subject- rather, what would the Founders themselves have done?

You know they'd all be in Moore's corner, don't you?

[reasonseeker]

I vascillate between thinking that liberals or conservatives are the most guilty for trying to impose their collective wills on individuals. The thing is, since liberals, in principle, embrace collectivism, and conservatives, in principle, reject it, then it seems that conservatives are being more hypocritical for advocating collectivism when it suits their religious agenda.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The "have to have a big stone monument" part of the Bible can be found in those copies in the section of the library where the Constimatooshin talks about fringe on the flag, gold and fiat money. And the assistant librarian in charge of the section is David::Wynn:@$:Miller...

[Aegedius]

Judge Moore has implicitly endorsed..

I checked my thesaurus, and "endorse" in not a synonym of "establish". Furthermore, Judge Moore is not "congress". If you don’t agree with the wording of the First Amendment, and wish to amend it, replacing "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" with "no government official shall take action endorsing a religion", you are free to propose that. Check Article V of the U.S. Constitution for instructions.

[=Intervention=]

Of course, because what's the spirit that animates our laws? Why, existentialism, of course! Set up the shrines to Sarte at once!

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..I need to remind you that observing "the legal aspects" of a legal situation and acting on those legalities rather than raw emotional content is much more in line with conservative thinking than acting on your "feelings" about an issue...

PS you are stifling your potential to affect change, by adopting those restraints. I think a day in the devil suit would do you a heap of good. Cheers, By

[=Intervention=]

You've already been corrected on your slander of Crouch and Dobson by other posters. Stop spreading lies.

[jwalsh07]

And if as a Catholic I say that you are wrong, that the 10 Commandments actually are:

I am a Catholic as well and I take absolutely no offense at Judge Moore posting a version of the Ten Commandments that is not the Catholic version.

What does offend me is Catholics and Conservatives who continue to assist the ACLU and the judicial activists in the construction of the mythical "WALL" whistling the tune to the Bridge Over the River Kwai all the way.

But I have to acknowledge that I am not invoking my Constitutional RIGHT not to be offended since that is almost as abused as the omnipotent 14th Amendment.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"What we have here is a bunch of people who are passionately concerned about the way America is heading"

America will head the way the American people wish her to head, that's what a government by the people, of the people, and for the people is about.

This means that in spite of whatever adjective you wish to attach to my opinion, it is still the opinion of an American citizen, and it carries with the the full rights and guarantees that any other opinion from any other American citizen carries.

"Forget posting excerpts from Madison's writings, Luis.----Ask yourself not what interpretation should be placed on some Founder's tangential writings on the subject- rather, what would the Founders themselves have done?"

You're not even making any sense anymore...I have been telling you EXACTLY what the Founders would have done.

[=Intervention=]

" is the sole basis of the laws"

No-one's claiming that the 10 Commandments are the SOLE influence.