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

[Dallas]

You gotta love this guy....

[FreeTally]

Of course not. It's just a memorial to the 10 Commandments - and the fact that it's one of the cornerstones of some of our laws.

Thanks for the response. The argument has since progressed to the Ten Commandments being a cornerstone of "some of our laws" or being "the foundation of this country". I'm sure you'll see that as you keep reading. ;-)

I have no problem with them being displayed in that context. They should probably be paid for by private contributors since they are not a neccesity of government that "the people" should pay for. Not because they are religious, just because I morally object to government taking money for non-essential things.

[Greek]

Well put.

[yendu bwam]

I know no one is being forced to follow the commandments, and I do agree that their posting is not in violation of the 1st Amendment. All I simply ask is that when you have overtly religious "laws" posted in a court house, could that not imply that those religious laws are law of the land?

No. Our laws are what our laws are.

[FreeTally]

Of course not, FreeTally. You needn't have this absurd worry - no one is being arrested for such,

Sometimes it takes absurdity to get people to think. I try to cover all the bases. We wouldn't have thought that a letter writen by Jefferson over 200 years ago would be used as justification for removing nativity scenes from public lawns, but it happened.

nor will they be unless the good people of Alabama pass a law regarding such (which they haven't).

If they did, I would surely not refer to them as the "good people of Alabama". Maybe the evil people, but not the good people.

[yendu bwam]

It creates the impression that a citizen who (for example) does not worship the God of Abraham is not equal before the court to one who does. Such an inequality, or even the appearance thereof, is unacceptable. QED.

Absurd. The posting of the 10 Commandments has nothing to do with what kind of justice you'll receive. It's up to the good folks in Alabama to democratically decide whether they want those 10 Commandments.

[yendu bwam]

Now, I happen to be a Buddhist and I think that in addition to having the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse we should also have the Four Noble Truths on display as well, at taxpayer expense of course. Now you wouldn't have a problem with that would you?

It's up to Alabamans what they want in their courthouse. If they want the 10 Commandments, that's their business.

[HaveGunWillTravel]

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.

Truly free men do not have to observe any law which is not legitimate under the powers granted to the government by free men. Since none of us actually signed the constitution, we are deemed to have signed it and entered into the social compact, however, every time we avail ourselves of the benefits that it offers and when we participate in government by voting. That notwithstanding, any law which is repugnant to the constitution is still just that, an unconstitutional law, and is void.

Sovereign, free citizens are entitled to ignore illegitimate laws or rulings passed and enforced by those who ignore their oaths to the constitution. To do so is not to start a revolution. It's called resisting tyranny. If a war were to result, it would be because the government was declaring war on it's master, the people.

A free man who ignores a federal gun law without harming anyone else is simply exercising his right as a free man. He may, as a result, be tyrannized, imprisoned or killed, but he will die a free man, not a subject.

On the other hand, the SCOTUS ruling in the case of Gore trying to steal the election was correct. Had the Democrats ignored it, and resisted enforcement, they would have been starting a revolution. To put them down would be an exercise of the legitimate authority given the government by the people.

[Kerberos]

"I enjoy the wisdom in many of their writings, but consider that some of their concepts of "freedom" and "liberty" were kind of off. "

As do I, but by the same token I don't think there is any writer, or person, that I agree with on everything. So you take with you what makes sense and move on.

[yendu bwam]

What I find scary about your compromise is that a religious based idea can only be expressed if no one can be exposed to it. If that were to be accepted, then we would soon lose all our religious freedoms. Religious expression would soon be restricted to the walls of the church lest some passer by be offended.

I agree, sci fi guy! The first amendment, as the judge pointed out, guarantees that the federal government won't interfere in the right to religious expression. Alabamans have every right to express themselves religiously in any way they want.

[yendu bwam]

As we all are, but 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?

Kerberos - You're way off track here. The Constitution only restricts the federal government (Congress actually) from establishing a religion and from preventing the free exercise of religion. If Alabamans want a memorial to the 10 Commandments in their courthouse, they're free to put one there. There is NOTHING in the Consitution preventing them from exercising their rights to do so. In reality, your tax money goes for many things you don't want (and many things I don't want). That's because tax money goes to many different things. You're not going to want all of them.

[Focault's Pendulum]

He demonstrates his integrity for standing up to childish foes who have themselves all in a twitter over a document up which laws and morality throughout centuries are based upon.

I have come late into this debate. But I think it should be said, has it not yet been said....I am an Agnostic......there is nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments.

The basic rules of human behavior should be plastered over every freedom loving government building...wherever, in the world, that building takes up the space of the people who needs the intelligence within.

[yendu bwam]

Sounds similar to what the gay activists believe, they are only free if they can force us to accept their lifestyle.

Gay activists (usually the most intolerant and vituperative people in America) have the right to say whatever they want. NOBODY can force you to accept their lifestyle!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Here is the opinion. Looks to me like an elected judge, grifting up some free publicity by creating the situation.

Coral Ridge Hucksterism

[catonsville]

Eventually he is gonna lose. But he is going to make his point a thousand times before it happens.
Judge against judge. I LOVE IT.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Bump to #495. Looks like Moore wants to start a battle.

He is going to lose big.

[yendu bwam]

What he cannot do - what the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prevents him from doing - is use his Government position to help his effort.

The establishment clause prevents Congress from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise thereof. Judge Moore can do anything Alabamans allow him to do. It's their business, not yours.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

#495 bump. The text of the opinion. Looks like this slickster Moore has been grifting himself to election wins courtesy of a ministry.

[yendu bwam]

This isn't about history, this is about Judge Moore's religion, and his decision to use his public office as a platform from which to promote it.

But it's up to Alabamans to decide whether they want him to do that or not. Most Alabamans, I suspect, are in favor of what he's doing. Who are you to tell Alabamans what they may or may not do, or what they may or may not allow Judge Moore to do?