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

[Dallas]

You gotta love this guy....

[stands2reason]

You actually believe this display interferes with your freedom of religion?

[Greek]

You are arguing what Dershowitz the Athiest always argues. The Constitution does not contain a "list" of our rights.

Inalienable rights do not have to be in the Constitution in order to exist.

[XJarhead]

You are ovelooking the Biblical basis for civil disobedience, and that is any "law" that is in direct conflict with natural law and the laws of God, are nullified ipso facto and we have no obligation to follow such a law.

I'm not overlooking anything. If he can't follow the secular law because he believes it violates his duties as a Christian, he should resign, and put up the Commandments in his own front yard. We're not talking about what a private citizen may due on their own property. We're talking about a judge's obligation to follow the law.

Don't get me wrong -- I think the Commandments should stay. It's a damn impressive monument. But a Judge is sworn to uphold the law, not toss it out simply because he doesn't like it. The man issues rulings as Chief Justice of the State of Alabama. Presumably, he expects lower ocurts and people who appear in that Court to follow the orders of that Court. And I suspect he gets pissed when they don't.

If the U.S. Supreme Court tells him it has to go, and he keeps it, he should resign his position on the Court because he's lost his moral authority as an impartial arbiter of the laws.

[XJarhead]

Don't ask me. I never made that argument in the first place.

[fatidic]

How about forming a human chain of freepers to shield the Ten Commandments if needed? I'd drop everything and go to Bama.

[Greek]

I see your distinction, but respectfully disagree because of my previous comment. I'm not saying that the ruling is just "wrong", in which case you are correct; he would have an obligation to abide. I am saying that a law against nature is "non-law" so to speak, and therefore in reality he is not deviating from his obligations to uphold laws.

[Kerberos]

"Taxpayers didn't pay for the monument or to install it. But since it's on public property, they somehow actually did... you are too much. "

Well it's really very simple. Let's say I want to put my monument of the four noble truths in your front yard. Now I am going to pay for the monument and to have it installed, but it is on your property. Would you not think that you should have some say as to what gets put on your property?

The courthouse is the taxpayers property.

[nicmarlo]

The courthouse is the taxpayers property

But primarily the anti-God, atheistic, or liberals, right?

[RobbyS]

Isn't this the same Tom Jefferson who ws attacked by his enemies for being an atheist? Tom's religious views were eccentric, closer to those of the Jacobins than different those of the typical Virginian. This includes the Baptists whose freedom he rightly championed. Furthermore, his views of Anglo-Saxon history are, to say the least, outdated. Much of what he thought came out of the forests of Germany came in fact from the Justinian code and canon law and, more directly from Norman law.

[FreeTally]

Liberals, left wingers, anti-God, athiests have twisted "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion" and attempted to take away protected rights given to all Americans under the Constitution.

I can't say I disagree that these types continuously attack Christianity.

They have done this on the bench (Separation of Church and State---not in the Constitution); no displays of nativity scenes, displays of "Ten Commandments," attempts to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge, and on an on.

Sure, they have done that.

These people want the law of the land to be Freedom FROM Religion (any religious displays, mention of God, public prayer, such as at graduation ceremonies, etc.). I think you well know what I mean by "Freedom FROM Religion."

I think maybe you are being more clear now. I just wanted to make sure that you are not defining the notion of "freedom from religion" simply as an individual not wanting money confiscated from them being used to further a religion. Or that an employer can't simply set a rule that all religious issues stay out of the workplace because there is no "freedom from religion".

I am very, very far from the type of person who says "any public mention of religion is a violation of the Constitution". The same with nativity scenes and the like. I think they are idiots, way over the edge.

[Kerberos]

"You actually believe this display interferes with your freedom of religion?"

I don't beleive I ever said that it did.

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

Thank you for those quotes! I have a great book that has many of them, but I've never gotten around to writing them all down in one place.

[Kerberos]

"But primarily the anti-God, atheistic, or liberals, right?"

If they happen to be taxpayers it would include them also.

[r9etb]

Why is he right?

Quite simply because this is a state court, and there is no actual Constitutional basis by which the Federal courts can tell him to take it down.

[Greek]

Where do you stop? I don't like the black robes they wear, nor do I like mohagany benches; I believe in saving trees....You're still too much!

[Kerberos]

"Inalienable rights do not have to be in the Constitution in order to exist. "

Then where do they exist?

[RobbyS]

What about the First? Remember Judge Bill Douglas's remark that our institutions presuppose the existence of a supreme being? He caught heck from agnostics on the Court (like old Felix the Apostate) for that aside, but he did say it.

[E Rocc]

Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence took the next step in the Reformation in which the people justified their independence from despots using the Bible and by declaring their supreme allegiance to God not the State.

For the first time, The Bible was used as justification for individual liberties instead of authoritative oppression.

Where in the Declaration did Jefferson directly cite the Bible? The way I read it, his Creator references could have just as easily been made by a non-Christian Deist. Which history tells us he was.

-Eric

[Diamond]

It doesn't matter

Curious that it's mentioned in the "blueprint", don't you think? In the completely dominate atheistic milieu of late 18th century America, one should be amazed that it appears at all.

Cordially,

[stands2reason]

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.

You mean, forcing citizens to observe the Sabbath? I don't think so.