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

Skip to comments.

Judge Moore Ain't Removing Ten Commandments (FOX NEWS)

Posted on 11/19/2002 8:36:24 AM PST by Dallas

You gotta love this guy....


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10commandments; alabama; benny; judgemoore
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 781 next last
To: bulldogs
Thanks bulldogs :)
201 posted on 11/19/2002 10:27:57 AM PST by Ready2go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: FF578
Well written God Bless You All!

Ops4 God Bless America!
202 posted on 11/19/2002 10:28:18 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DeathfromBelow
And, you aren't the Judge. Run for Office, get elected Chief Judge, and you can try to do whatever you want.

So might makes right and the first ammendment extends as far as some good ole boy is willing to let it go?

203 posted on 11/19/2002 10:28:45 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: OPS4
" In God We Trust and Jefferson, Adams and Hancock were Christians not Moslems"

How did Moslems get into the conversation?

204 posted on 11/19/2002 10:28:51 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: pitinkie
Why is he right?

Because the Ten Commandments are the very foundation of Western ideas of jurisprudence, and the very basis on which the U.S. Constitution rests?

Judge Moore is right, and I hope he sticks to his guns.

205 posted on 11/19/2002 10:29:29 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
So you advocate tossing out the swearing in of witnesses?

On a funny side notee, my late grandmother had to go to court back in the 1980's over some estate issue or for jury duty. She was a devout Christian and would not "swear to God" on a Bible. The judge finally politely said, "Mam, do you promise to tell the truth in front of the court". She said, "Yes sir". He said "Thank you, mam".

206 posted on 11/19/2002 10:29:34 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

Comment #207 Removed by Moderator

To: Dave S
Then you've joined the Taliban.

You're swooning, too. Loosen your necktie. Let some oxygen percolate up.

208 posted on 11/19/2002 10:29:35 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Suppose if SCOTUS ruled against Dubya upholding the decisions of the Florida Supremes and a recount using subjective criteria in Democrat-controlled counties gave Gore the presidency? Can you see that some might feel an obligation to treat Gore's decisions and actions as president as tyrannical?

I'd have bitched and moaned about it, but you still have to follow the decision. Otherwise, the opinions of the Court are meaningless because people will only follow the opinions with which they agree. Part of being in a democracy is following the rule of law, even when you disagree with the outcome of that process.

Now if you think that the rule of law doesn't exist, or that you don't want to follow it, then grab your gun and start your revolution. But you cannot selectively follow rulings of the Supreme Court without becoming a worse hypocrite than the Dems.

Bush v Gore was a tolerable and reasonable ruling. If courts issue intolerable and unreasonable ones they shouldn't have an expectation of those rulings being respected.

From your perspective and mine, it was a reasonable ruling. But from the perspective of the Dems, you're wrong. In which case, Democrats in the armed forces could and should refuse to follow all orders of President Bush and states controlled by Democrats should ignore all federal law. The fact is that the Supreme Court was appointed by Presidents, and its members were confirmed in accordance with Constitutional mandates. So as long as you wish to live in a democracy, you've got to follow even those rulings with which you disagree.

209 posted on 11/19/2002 10:29:37 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Bull, Jefferson was a Believer in the Bible and took his oath of ofice on it like all others, a Judeo-Christian Bible

Not a theocratic oath. Stop the propogandizing!
Ops4 God Bless America!
210 posted on 11/19/2002 10:30:06 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Yes, he's right. The power's not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belong to the States and the people. One of those powers is the establishment of religion ("CONGRESS shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."). At the time of ratification, many states had religious tests for their leaders... and it wasn't unconstitutional. As a State official, he can be as religious as he wants to be with no Constitutional problem.

That was true prior to the enactment of the 14th Amendment. Now that the 14th is in effect the restrictions on Congress have been extended to the states.

211 posted on 11/19/2002 10:31:41 AM PST by FreedomCalls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cake_crumb
What is a Homeland Security Officer?
Since no one in Congress read the "USA Patriot" Act before voting on it, who knows? I'd just as soon not find out.

-Eric

212 posted on 11/19/2002 10:32:52 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: DeathfromBelow
What a crock of Shite!

What an intelligent argument. Are you saying you are a Suni Moslem?

213 posted on 11/19/2002 10:33:18 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Simple, a comparison of another religion that existed at the time of the founding of the United States, and was disregarded when it came time for swearing in the Continental Congress.All hands were laid on the King James!

Proof that Judeo-Christian heritage was the Guide for this Country, and no other!

Ops4 God Bless America!
214 posted on 11/19/2002 10:33:28 AM PST by OPS4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
do you have a right to place expressions of your religion on taxpayer property that I do not have? Where is that enumerated in the Constitution?

And where, in the Constitution, does it say that the displays of one's religious beliefs is unconstitutional?

And where does it say that the display of the Ten Commandments establishes a religion? And what, pray tell, is the specific religion that the Ten Commandments establish? (Because that is the test: the Constitution states: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING RELIGION.) Jewish? Baptist? Catholic? Protestant? Mormon (they use the Bible, too)? Born-again non-denominational?

You can't lump all of those together and collectively call them a "religion." They are, in fact, different, having many kinds and variations of doctrine?

So, which religion does the Ten Commandments refer to? If you chose one, then I may chose a different one, and I daresay we could have thousands of answers to that question.

215 posted on 11/19/2002 10:33:51 AM PST by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
"My comment was part of a sarcastic retort to posting the Buddhist writings along with the TC. "

Oh I see, so it had no relevance to the issue being discussed, freedom of religion.

216 posted on 11/19/2002 10:34:11 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
He does not have to. Executive privilege.

The concept of Executive Privilege has nothing to do with enforcing the decisions of the courts. It's a completely unrelated legal concept.

If you think the President should refuse to enforce Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees, fine. But just remember that if/when you get a Democrat in the White House. Because you'll have opened a door that can't be shut again.

I'm a big fan of Dubya's. But if this made it up to the Supreme Court, and the President publicly stated that he wasn't going to enforce the decision because he didn't like it, he should be impeached.

217 posted on 11/19/2002 10:34:25 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Emmylou
When I see this judge and all the people who support his actions push to outlaw work on the Sabbath -- close all malls, restaurants, football games, television programming, etc. -- then I'll believe their sincerity.
That would be forbidden by the First Amendment and made a poor idea by the Second as well. >:)=

-Eric

218 posted on 11/19/2002 10:34:26 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

Comment #219 Removed by Moderator

To: Dave S
So might makes right and the first ammendment extends as far as some good ole boy is willing to let it go?

You know, that is essentially how are country has always been run. From "blue laws" to Wild West sheriffs proclaiming "no guns allowed here", whoever had the force of the gun behind them, well, their rules went and tough pooh to anyone who disagreed.

The Constitution has some great ideas and concepts, but they were routinely violated from the day the document was signed. We kid ourselves into thinking the FF's were some great, "moral" men who wanted freedom and liberty for all.

220 posted on 11/19/2002 10:34:30 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 781 next last

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.

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