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

[Dallas]

You gotta love this guy....

[Jael]

Just because the Catholic Bible takes out a commandment doesn't make it right!!!

Besides, how can a historical display force anyone into a religion?

[nicmarlo]

Protestant Christianity

You're a joke. I think the Catholics would say the Ten Commandments is part of their religion. Guess they're wrong? The Hebrews might take issue with you too since the Ten Commandments were written in stone originally; and had it not been for them, we wouldn't have it written down at all.

[Jael]

"He is exploiting his government position to promote his religion, on government property, to the detriment of those religions not promoted. If this isn't establishment, nothing is."

He has placed a historical display regarding the history of law. Period.

[andy_card]

Where do you suppose the Framers got their ideas of individual liberty, equal justice, and personal accountability from, andy_card

Enough with these abstractions. I have my thumbnailed copy of the Constitution in front of me. I want you to show me where ANY of the Ten Commandments appear, or any direct linkage of ANY kind. I await your prompt reply.

Do you suppose the Framers just suddenly started spontaneously hatching bright ideas one fine day, out of "whole cloth?"

No, they were Enlightenment products of the great Western intellecutal tradition, with many of the ideas deriving directly from Locke and Montesquieu. But what has that to do with the subject at hand, namely the Ten Commandments? Again, please show me any connection at all between the Ten Commandments and the US Constitution,

[MoGalahad]

After Colin Powells comments on allowing more Muslims to emigrate into this country and his recent degradation of Christian leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Franklin Graham it is becoming increasingly likely that the Republicans will have to win in 2004 without the help of the Christian 'right'.

[Sacajaweau]

A piece of stone does not a religion establish.

The End!

[E Rocc]

No, you're making up what's in the Constitution. Why don't you go re-read it, especially where it DOESN'T say: FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

It doesn't guarantee the right to never be exposed to religious belief. It absolutely guarantees the right to disbeleive in God and/or religion and have that disbelief respected as fully as any other religious belief.

-Eric

[southland]

RE post 313: We in Aalabama support our Honorable Judge Moore. The Constitution was established by God fearing men. Therefore, our right to free expression of our religion is being infringed upon. The US Supremes, in their Chamber, give reference to God like The Honorable Judge Moore does. I see little difference except that we have allowed people who do not believe in our God to enter our country and try to establish their religion by force (ex: Sept 9/11/2002)if necessary.

[pgyanke]

The connection between the Ten Commandments and the Constitution is found in the authors. Reading their own words on the subject you can clearly see the influence of the Ten Commandments on our law. They plainly said so.

[Kevin Curry]

If it is "the very basis" for the Constitution, the Framers hid it pretty damn well.

An elephant is easily hidden from a blind man.

[Leatherneck_MT]

First of all that which is created cannot be greater than the Creator.

The Federal Govt was Created BY the states, not vice versa. A lower Federal court is NOT superior to a State Court. Especially concerning a STATE issue. This IS a State issue.

Secondly, nowhere in the Constitution will you find anything that says the State and Religion must be kept separate. What it DOES say is that Congress shall make NO law that ESTABLISHES a religion.

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Third, which references the First point. This is a Classic 10th Amendment issue. The Federal Government or it's judiciary, has NO constitutional Right to tell the states what they can and cannot do.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Federal Govt the Right to tell the states what to do. If it does not specify that, then it does not have the power.

Period

[FreeTally]

Why don't you go re-read it, especially where it DOESN'T say: FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

"Freedom from Religion" would guarantee a legal right to go onto someone's private property and demand they abstain from practicing religion. No one here has proposed that notion.

In turn, "free expression of religion" means just that - any person has the right to believe in a certain religion and practice its beliefs(unless such beliefs include initiating force against those who dont believe). This right measn no more, or no less, if a majority is or isn't a believer in a certain religion. This right also does not include the ability to take money from people to support or fund a certain religion, obviously, as that's what the first part of the Amendment states.

[Kryptonite]

Isn't the appeals court the very conservative 5th Circuit, in Atlanta?

[XJarhead]

One point you seem to have missed is that "non christian" societies do have SOME of the same laws. But many pagan societies do not.

I'm not trivializing the worth of the Ten Commandments. But it's just bad logic to say 1) the Ten Commandments forbit murder, 2) the U.S. forbids murder, therefore 3) the U.S. forbids murder because of the Ten Commandments. You are overstating your case.

And many Middle Eastern countries do not have the Christian part of the law. They repay with revenge, not justice. Stoning women for adultery, even if they were raped. Cutting off a hand for stealing. All of that still happens today in those countries.

So what? The point made upthread was that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. You're now talking about the "Christian part of the law", which has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. Show me something in the Ten Commandments that bars stoning for adultery, or cutting off a hand for stealing.

The Grace, the Christian addition to law is very important, and can't be overlooked.

It can and should be overlooked when you're trying to prove that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. It's a separate issue.

[concerned about politics]

“I think I’ll start my opinion,” Thompson said, “ ‘The issue here is, can the state acknowledge God?’ ”

Sure, if they can acknowledge a " mother earth", why not?

[Argus]

I believe we have the obvious candidate for the first vacancy on the US Supreme Court. Talk about driving the Dems nuts...

[Jael]

May I quote you?

A piece of stone does not a religion establish. The End!
~Sacajaweau

[Old Professer]

It would be an image that would stick in the minds of people, like the stormtrooper shoving his rife in Elian's face. Reemmebr the outrage about the Taliban dynamiting the statues of Buddha?

You lost your own argument; of course, no one remembers; Tianamen Square might barely ring a distant bell.

[Kerberos]

"Gee and here I thought that Churches were places of religious expression, not courthouses or other government offices. How stupid of me. "

You know I was under the same impression but obviously, I was wrong.

[XJarhead]

Cain was punished by God...the same God who later codified the law. He's remarkably consistent. If you understand this action and consequence, you understand that God is serious in his instruction.

That and a buck will get you a Super Big Gulp if you're trying to prove that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments.

The point isn't whether God's law is right, just, or should be posted in schools. The limited point I was addressing was the argument that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. The historical evidence is that laws against adultery, etc. have existed in some cultures that do not follow those Commandments. If you can refute that point, fine.