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

More proof that courts don't understand the difference between "Freedom of Religion" as stated in the First Ammendment and "Freedom from Religion" which is not guaranteed or implied by the constitution.
1 posted on 03/28/2005 12:36:11 PM PST by Sola Veritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last
To: Sola Veritas

Current Communist Goals (1958)

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272893/posts


56 posted on 03/28/2005 1:02:38 PM PST by The Spirit Of Allegiance (ATTN. MARXIST RED MSM: I RESENT your "RED STATE" switcheroo using our ELECTORAL MAP as PROPAGANDA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

The jurors can talk about whatever they want... this is HORSE$H!T~!!


57 posted on 03/28/2005 1:02:40 PM PST by Mr. K (mwk_14059 on yahoo IM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
Crap like this was the intended end purpose of the bogus 'seperation of church and state'.

As long as government acknowledged God's laws were SUPERIOR to man's laws, it couldn't lie, murder, cheat, etc.

Now, it does whatever it wants because Americans believe the lie!

Affidavit in Support of the Ten Commandments

59 posted on 03/28/2005 1:02:56 PM PST by MamaTexan (The foundation of a Republic --- Man owes obedience to his Creator...NOT his creation!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
including the verse that commands “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,”

They should have just quoted the Clint Eastwood movie where Clint says "a head for an eye ..."

61 posted on 03/28/2005 1:04:24 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
A juror or the entire jury may discuss any biblical verse or doctrine they choose. But no jury anywhere or under any circumstance may bring in material not approved by the court. And that approved material may be only those things, tangible, papers, maps, drawings, charts, books , etc that were admitted into evidence during the open course of the trial. Likewise, no juror may visit the scene of an incident, civil or criminal, that is under that body's consideration.

No one is knocking the Bible in this opinion, it's a book everyone should read and follow. But it has absolutely no role to play in a jury's consideration of fault in a civil case or guilt or sentence in a criminal case. If it were it were otherwise, a prosecutor or defense counsel in a criminal case or a plaintiff or defendant in a civil case could use the courtroom lecturn as a preaching pulpit to inspire jurors to do this or that because the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or whatever may be the book of some other religion to based their decision on.

The court is not only correct, it was compelled to issue the opinion and rule the way it did----all of the FR howls of protest to the contrary notwithstanding. Juries just cannot be allowed to act on their own like this...

71 posted on 03/28/2005 1:09:30 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
Blood-sucking attorneys and blood-sucking attorneys acting as judges have completely turned the meaning and duty of juries 180 degrees from the original intent.

Juries used to be expected to judge the law as well as the evidence in the case. Not any more. Today, the judge orders the jury, and sometimes will even reverse a jury, if s/he disagrees with the jury decision.

Grand juries were originally intended to provide some protection against power-mad prosecution. Not any more. Today, whatever the DA says is what happens.

75 posted on 03/28/2005 1:14:00 PM PST by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

How I wish the Judge read the bible in Terri's case, so she could have a life sentence instead of death.


80 posted on 03/28/2005 1:20:30 PM PST by JewishRighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

Who knows.

Maybe they were going to quote "Let he without sin throw the first stone." That could have led to a life sentence.

Better kill him to teach them a lesson. ;^)


87 posted on 03/28/2005 1:36:58 PM PST by MWS (Errare humanum est, in errore perservare stultum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

More proof that judges have declared themselves GOD. And are responsible to NO ONE.


103 posted on 03/28/2005 1:54:49 PM PST by YOUGOTIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
Oh Lord. . .so how could they convict for murder since the Bible says, "Thou Shalt not Commit Murder."

Sheesh.
106 posted on 03/28/2005 1:57:11 PM PST by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

America is still going to hell bump.


109 posted on 03/28/2005 1:59:07 PM PST by Lancey Howard (....tick.... tick.... tick.... tick....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

-The court said Bible passages, including the verse that commands “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” could lead jurors to vote for death-

Any authority higher than a judge is strictly forbidden.


127 posted on 03/28/2005 2:37:03 PM PST by AmericanChef
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

Just Incredible.. I can't believe how low our justice system has sunk.


130 posted on 03/28/2005 2:48:16 PM PST by LowOiL ("I am neither . I am a Christocrat" -Benjamin Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

Where the hell was this kind of mercy for Terri damnit ?


133 posted on 03/28/2005 2:53:36 PM PST by Centurion2000 (Nations do not survive by setting examples for others. Nations survive by making examples of others)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
but remember, all, we must always, always follow what the judges say, afterall, they are better than us (and more IMPORTANT!!!) and infact, they are GOD.....like Judge Greer.....

the Terri Schiavo case has everything to do with our out of control and arrogant judicial system, yet people still want to play by the "rules" and let it continue....

135 posted on 03/28/2005 3:00:14 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawyers. Kill them all, and start over.


142 posted on 03/28/2005 3:27:52 PM PST by 7.62 x 51mm (• Veni • Vidi • Vino • Visa • "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

The victim.

153 posted on 03/28/2005 4:25:40 PM PST by csvset
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
This is major bullshit. What ever happened to freedom of conscience? The court probably isn't a big fan of jury nullification either.
184 posted on 03/28/2005 9:16:55 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1366853/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas

INTREP - see my tag line


188 posted on 03/28/2005 9:27:04 PM PST by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sola Veritas
More proof that courts don't understand the difference between "Freedom of Religion" as stated in the First Ammendment and "Freedom from Religion" which is not guaranteed or implied by the constitution.

You are very correct.

First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Can't for the life of me understand how even State Supreme Court Justices can't understand "make no law........//..........prohibiting the free exercise thereof". IMHO if Congress has made no law to that affect, then by what authority, other than self imposed, does ANY court have to impose prohibition of free exercise of religion?

203 posted on 03/29/2005 5:44:29 AM PST by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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