JUDGES SELECTED TO HEAR TEN COMMANDMENTS APPEAL

Drudge Report link ^ | Dec. 15, 2003 | AP wire

[exmarine]

The President and Congress can overpower the courts easily, and should! They are despots! Read what Jefferson said on the matter:

"... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

Time to put the politburo on notice!

[exmarine]

Thus with religion; we give it special protection, yet we exclude it from areas where we permit other expressive activities.

And it is done in contravention of the founder's intentions and writings. That is clear. The establishment clause WAS CLEARLY intended to prevent a State denomination ONLY. Following that, there were 175 years of religious freedom BEFORE the concoction of the "Wall of Separation" doctrine in Everson in 1947. It can't be denied. Judges are re-inventing the Constitution - which is illegal.

I see absolutely no conflict between forbidding the US Government from interfering with religious belief; and forbidding it from promoting such belief in any way. In fact, the two are almost interdependent.

Spoken like a true secular humanist. They interfere with religious activity all the time. No one can influence belief - a conscience cannot be observed - it is the illegal interference with EXERCISE (read the clause again) that is illegal, and that is happening ALL THE TIME. Need examples?

[tracer]

My fault, actually. The truth too often is stranger than fiction -- and humor. All the best.....

[Poohbah]

It's hard to do good satire these days. It usually sounds plausible--either the government is doing something that crazy, or the writer is as whacked-out as he sounds...

[sinkspur]

Are all couples you counsel "informed" and therefore morally culpable if they practice birth control?

I inform them. Whether they are culpable is for God to judge.

Now, answer a question for me:

In your flame-out last March, you asserted that our troops "did not deserve the protection of the Geneva Accords". Do you think we should afford Saddam Husssein with the protection of the Geneva Accords?

IOW, should we afford protections to a mass murderer that you don't feel our own soldiers deserve?

[tracer]

"....or the writer is as whacked-out as he sounds.."

Roger that.... 8~)

[Askel5]

Oh brother.

You are one sorry SOB. Is this going to be the new tack for you and the Girls every time one of you is caught emptyhanded? You're going to direct folks to my comments so that they can see how ridiculous was my being banned as a "Saddam apologist" and how rational were my questions in the first place?

We have a cadre of U.S. officers currently asking the same questions in a court case that has yet to be thrown out of court. My questions were not without merit and stemmed primarily from my lifelong regard for the military, Army brat born at Ft. Sam that I am.

To my knowledge, my "flameout" (in which I flamed no one but only asked twice how it was Rumsfeld could ENDANGER our troops with his careless language) is still a viable thread. Anyone can go have a look at what an utterly lame liar you are and what a despicable display ensued as the Usual Suspects came to celebrate my banning for a good couple hundred posts.


=== Whether they are culpable is for God to judge.

You have already passed judgment, Sinkspur.

Remember?

It's your contention that no ignorant party to an essentially disordered or intrinsically evil act can be held culpable for their actions.

It's a simple question: do you inform couples of Catholic teaching such that they understand they are in grave moral peril if they practice birth control? Or do you lead them astry with the same Clintonesque "I didn't inhale" schtick you use on threads here?

[sinkspur]

I inform them. Their culpability is between them and God.

[sinkspur]

You didn't answer my question:

Does Hussein deserve the same protections you would deny to the US military?

[Askel5]

=== IOW, should we afford protections to a mass murderer that you don't feel our own soldiers deserve?

The more interesting questions at this point are these:

(1) Will we hand over Saddam to the International Court, Milosevic style, thereby cementing the Internationl Court's sovereignty over our prime war booty?

(2) If so, why aren't we likewise handing over the pennyante criminals we are holding at Gitmo? Without a doubt, the crimes of Saddam clearly outstrip those of barefoot, uniformless teenagers and assorted ragtag supporters of Bin Laden. Why is it we would afford Saddam "due process" and assure his receipt of a speedy trial and preservation from capital punishment while we hold onto the pennyante prisoners with no foreseeable trial or other resolution of their guilt or fates?

There seems to be a lack of consistency here that I find troublesome. If we have a policy, I'd sure like to hear it, that's all. Because I have a feeling that -- if we're in the midst of setting a precedent here -- it's our rank and file soldiers who'll rot as POWs while the more glamorous targets kidnapped or otherwise detained or extradited will receive red carpet treatment.

[Askel5]

=== I inform them. Their culpability is between them and God.

No. It doesn't work that way.

Judgment is between them and God. His mercy is his own and he judges with the perfect knowledge of each man's heart.

My question is much more simple. Based on your contention that knowledge of the nature of act is grounds for culpability -- regardless who's actually meting out the judgment -- are the couples you inform actually culpable for their acts?

You "inform" folks all the time about the Church's teaching on birth control. I don't think anyone but a mental pygmy with a brain as smooth as a pea would believe for a moment you agree with the Church's teaching. You give hope to plenty of "adult" Catholics that the position they take is not only rational but one which the Church eventually will understand is tenable.

[Askel5]

=== Does Hussein deserve the same protections you would deny to the US military?


I would deny no protections to the US military.

It's not I who am in favor of playing fast and loose such that others will look to us as the example of how best to circumvent the requirements of Geneva.

It's been my contention since the Battle of Afghanistan (which Ziggy B. hopes we'll be back to finish soon) that we err on the side of treating all with the same measure of respect we rightly demand for our own.

As an example ... I understand the privileges of US citizenship (which go hand in hand with the obligations also attaching to citizenship). However, I don't use the technicalities of US citizenship as a proactive means to DENY others those rights we consider essential or "inalienable" to human beings.

[sinkspur]

are the couples you inform actually culpable for their acts?

I don't know.

I don't think anyone but a mental pygmy with a brain as smooth as a pea would believe for a moment you agree with the Church's teaching.

I don't agree with the rationale the Church gives for objecting to birth control. But, I teach what the Catholic Catechism teaches. Straight down the line.

You give hope to plenty of "adult" Catholics that the position they take is not only rational but one which the Church eventually will understand is tenable.

Since you haven't a clue how I teach (and I don't usually teach about sexual morality in our RCIA classes anyway; someone else does that), that's mere conjecture on your part.

Just like your brain-dead assertion that I used birth control because I had too many kids.

I had two boys and have never used birth control in my life, nor has my wife.

Believe it, or not.