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 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 781 next last
To: FreeTally
I really think you are missing the point.

The point is this: Does posting the Ten Commandments on public property violate the First Amendment?

81 posted on 11/19/2002 9:26:10 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
I didnt say I believe it..I want some explanations thats all..your point of view!
82 posted on 11/19/2002 9:26:30 AM PST by pitinkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: TomT in NJ
I assume this will get appealed to the US Supreme Court. If they rule against the Alabama judge, what is the USSC going to do to enforce their decision? They don't have an army....

Sure they do. It's called the Justice Department, under the direct control of John Ashcroft, who reports to the President. Let's hope the Justice Department puts it under a very low priority.

83 posted on 11/19/2002 9:27:19 AM PST by FLCowboy,
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
Absolutely not. If someone posts a calendar on public property, is that the law of the land?

A calender does not represent laws handed down by God as believed in certain religions. Apples and Oranges.

I am sticking to a strict interpretation of the First Amendment here.

I too believe in the original intent of the passage in the 1st - which was to ensure America would not become a Theocracy and have a national religion like England.

What I ask is if the words "Thall Shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is written on a tablet in a COURT HOUSE(that's the distinction), does that not imply that taking the name of the Lord in vain is a crime, punishable by the court?

84 posted on 11/19/2002 9:27:50 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
Thanks Dallas. I may have seen her, but I don't remember the particulars. I vaguely remember a woman commenting on the case.
85 posted on 11/19/2002 9:27:59 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
My response was to the idea that our government is somehow based on them.

You won't get any argument from me on that one. Zwingly tried a theocracy in Zurich during the Reformation. It was a disaster. Any theocratic government is doomed to failure. My assertion is that posting a religious document on public property does not equal a theocracy.

86 posted on 11/19/2002 9:29:22 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: pitinkie
Sorry....just read others responses....gotta go get some work done!
87 posted on 11/19/2002 9:30:10 AM PST by goodnesswins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
What I ask is if the words "Thall Shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" is written on a tablet in a COURT HOUSE(that's the distinction), does that not imply that taking the name of the Lord in vain is a crime, punishable by the court?

ONLY if it is codified into law. ONLY if it is in the law books rather than hanging on a wall.

88 posted on 11/19/2002 9:30:52 AM PST by Skooz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Does the fact that this is posted on a COURT HOUSE imply that all Ten concepts are codeified in our law, and if one chooses to not believe in the Christian God, or doesn't keep the Sabath holy, then that person may find himself/herself in front of the court facing punishment?
There's that. The counterpoint would be that one might find excerpts from the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta posted as well. In a historical rather than a devotional sense, its permissable.

Now if the judge begins quoting the Commandments or other scripture in court, as a judge did in Cleveland a few years back, that's a different matter entirely.....

-Eric

89 posted on 11/19/2002 9:31:51 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
and NO ONE is forcing ANYONE to follow the TEN COMMANDMENTS.....

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?

90 posted on 11/19/2002 9:31:59 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
All your commandments are belong to us.
91 posted on 11/19/2002 9:33:02 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera
"They aren't going to drag it out except in pieces"

Why so? They put it in there in one piece, didn't they.

92 posted on 11/19/2002 9:33:58 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
ONLY if it is codified into law. ONLY if it is in the law books rather than hanging on a wall.

I'll go along with that.

93 posted on 11/19/2002 9:34:49 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
Yes, I did. That woman lawyer is of Middle East descent isn't she?
94 posted on 11/19/2002 9:35:28 AM PST by RepublicanHippy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
Have to look at the opposite side of the coin. Display of, the holding of references/artifacts of a religious nature are exactly what the Constitution confirms to us INDIVIDUALLY. That monument is only ONE OF MANY expressions of religion.

Do we edit the papers of our forefathers to eliminate any reference to God?? I think not!!

95 posted on 11/19/2002 9:36:12 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
The counterpoint would be that one might find excerpts from the Code of Hammurabi or the Magna Carta posted as well. In a historical rather than a devotional sense, its permissable.

I agree. None would bother me.

96 posted on 11/19/2002 9:36:32 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: RepublicanHippy
I think so.

Is India considered Middle Eastern ?

97 posted on 11/19/2002 9:36:43 AM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
" Is the objective to ban worshipping gods other than the Judeo-Christian "God", using said deity's name "in vain", not keeping the "Sabbath" holy (whatever that means) or making "graven images"? The fact is there's a lot of stuff in the Ten Commandments that is absolutely none of the government's business. -Eric "

Yes those are the objectives.

1) We have "One Nation Under God"; "In God We Trust"; Our individual rights are "God Given". I believe all men of faith worhsip the same God however they choose to approach it. However I will violently oppose an atheist government. Our rights are God-given they are not granted by men. That is a fundamental difference between our original government and socialism.

2)Public cursing and swearing is against the law in most places. It originates with that Commandment.

3) The Sabbath remains Holy as far as the Government and much of our government calendars are concerned (though it is under concerted assault). The Government does not work on Sundays (except essential services)

4) re: "graven images", I'm sure you agree the government has no business creating "graven images" of any God.

While the government justice system may have the 10 Commandments as a moral underpinning it does not mean that it forces others to follow a creed or doctrine. It does not stop you from making any graven image you choose. It does not stop you from cursing or worshipping the devil... but do it in your own church, on your own property.

Western Civilization is under attack. I for one am ready to defend it to the death, as were my ancestors.

Tell me what else in the 10 Commandments is none of the governments business.

98 posted on 11/19/2002 9:36:44 AM PST by Mark Felton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Mark Felton
This granite block...

Yes, this should be our rallying cry ..."THIS Granite Block"

99 posted on 11/19/2002 9:36:59 AM PST by shilohsvictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
'Ten Commandments' Judge Says The Monument Stays

(CNSNews.com) - "I have no plans to remove the monument," said Alabama's "Ten Commandments Judge" at a press conference on Tuesday.

Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore said he plans to appeal Monday's federal court ruling ordering him to remove the two-and-a-half ton granite monument he installed in a state government building one night last summer. The monument features a tablet on which the Ten Commandments are written.

In Monday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said Moore had created "a religious sanctuary within the walls of a courthouse." He reportedly gave Moore 30 days to remove the monument, but at Tuesday's press conference Moore said "there is no order in existence at this time to remove the monument."

Moore insists that the Ten Commandments are the moral foundation of law. On Tuesday, he noted that the first sentence of the Alabama Constitution invokes the guidance of "almighty God," and likewise, he said, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had only one purpose - "to allow the freedom to worship that God upon which this nation was founded."

Moore said that he, like all judges, is sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions. "Those constitutions are premised on the belief in God. I am bound by my conscience to acknowledge that God on whom [my] oath depends. I am committed to do my duty."


100 posted on 11/19/2002 9:37:03 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 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