Posted on 07/01/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a Ten Commandments monument the size of a washing machine must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed a ruling by a federal judge who said that the 2 1/2-ton granite monument, placed there by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
[snip]
Moore put the monument in the rotunda of the courthouse in the middle of the night two summers ago. The monument features tablets bearing the Ten Commandments and historical quotations about the place of God in law.
[click link to read remainder of article]
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I am a well-read individual. I have read debates on the existence of God between Russell and various theists (e.g. Copleston and others). Russell could not defend his position very well in my opinion. You are right - people who don't believe in God don't hate God because they don't beleive God exists - they hate the IDEA of God! I also read of Russell's trip to China where he inexplicably called the rulers "immoral" - which begs the question as to just how immorality can exist without God - there's a question for Russell! Even De Sade understood that without God, there can be no morals ("what is is right").
So, now you admit that the framers did something wrong for purposes of expedience, and had to change it later. There goes the bottom level of the house of cards.
You completely misread me. I never said the framers were infallible, but even though we know they were fallible, that is no excuse for redefining the 1st Amendment. All men are fallible and make mistakes - that's precisely why we have the bill of rights - to prevent a tyrannous govt from oppressing the people; and that's why we have an electoral college - to prevent a tyrannous majority from oppressing the minorities. The founders fully understood the corrupt nature of mankind - apparently, you don't. The structure of the Constituttion was intended to secure our rights and ensure, as far as possible, a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, only a MORAL people and MORAL leaders will honor that system, and many of our leaders and judges are no longer MORAL. I, for one, will not sit by while my rights are eroded by imperious elitists.
I have no reason to avoid your questions. I'm a lifelong student of history - I know full well what was intended by the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and that is what we were discussing. You still haven't explained why the separation of church and state "idea" was not forced down our throats earlier than 1947 if it is a valid reading of the 1st amendment. You can't do it because you know full well that it is a perversion of the 1st Amendment. Only ignorant gullible people (which sadly includes most Americans) are not aware of that, and since we have government schools indoctrinating children with this lie, it's no wonder that it has taken hold.
So, my argument and comments are not so much with this ruling, but with the movement in general.
You called Judge Ed Carnes, Chief Judge J.L. Edmundson, and Judge Richard Story "godless amoral morons" who support killing babies, and you don't know the first thing about them, nor have you even read the opinion you are attacking. No one here needs to read my characterization to recognize the lack of class and character in those statements. And I'll say that wherever you want, as is my right.
I did not intend to specifically call them anything. Actually, my words were intended for any justice who supports abortion or the perversion ("separation" doctrine) of my 1st amendment rights. I know what I meant.
All of that being said, I no longer want to have a discussion with you. You say I have no class, then you proceed to call me all sorts of names (does the word "hypocrisy" mean anything to you?). Try applying your standards to yourself. I would gladly tell liberal judges to their face what I think of them if I had the chance. This isn't Cuba. That's what's beautiful about America - we have freedom of FREE SPEECH - oops! - not when it comes to saying the name of Christ in a high school speech or at a football game! But, one thing is certain, YOU can't shut me up.
But even more important than the actual words are the concepts and principles that were being laid down. It's the study of that which is the core of Constitutional Law today. I readily concede that our government is acting in an unconstitutional manner in many regards. The federal government is heavily involved in matters in which the Constitution gives it no jurisdiction. Education is the obvious example, but there are many others.
One could argue, for example, that the US Air Force is unconstitutional. Congress was given power to create an army and a navy, but no air force. Arguably, that's because the Founding Fathers were long dead before the first airplane was invented. But a very strict and limited reading of the document requires a constitutional amendment before the Air Force could be authorized.
Or, one could look to the principles laid down in the Constitution and come to the very reasonable conclusion that the intent was to vest the power to authorize armed forces of any nature in the legislative branch. But that requires more than understanding the plain intent of the words in the document.
I love Constitutional Law. I don't always agree with how courts construe the intent, but the debate is always fascinating.
This was your entire statement: "Just worship someplace other than public buildings and there will be no problems". ~ Hard to take that out of context when it wasn't put into any context. My sincere apologies to you if you were being sarcastic or playing devil's advocate. Some people write "sarcasm off" after such a statement, to let others know their intent. Again, I apologize to you if your intent was sarcasm.
It's a really a red herring to talk about "strict" readings of the Constitution. The issue is honest readings. It's like I said in my other posts - the purpose of the first amendment is to protect people's rights, not their sensibilities. When it talks about "no law", it's referring to laws - that is, official edicts that have real-world effects, such as benefits of some kind, or simple restriction of behavior. It requires a great deal of creative - that is to say, dishonest - interpretation to say it restricts government from making an expression, especially when the courts apply that interpretation in a highly selective manner.
The following statements are for purposes of the thread. I don't care what you think or say about them, but they are in response to your comments.
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in this opinion and is not a basis for the opinion. Since you haven't read it, you wouldn't know that. But you can't change the debate on this opinion by trying to make it about something that it is not.
You're take on the name calling is disingenuous. You made a comment about "godless amoral moron" judges. I responded that these three judges are good Christian Southern men. Your direct reply was "Which judges? Those who support killing babies?" What you were talking about is clear.
As far as the slavery issue, I was responding to your repeated statement that the U.S. Constitution is based entirely on moral absolutes that cannot be changed. That statement is only true is slavery is a moral absolute, which you apparently would agree is not the case.
Your statements about school prayer are inaccurate and misstate the law. Anyone can pray in any school. What upsets you is that they can't lead others in prayer, whether those others want to be lead or not.
Judge Moore made that same argument, but the question has previously been asked and answered by the US Supreme Court.
Their logic is not hard to follow, even if you disagree with it. It goes something like this: If a law authorizing the government to do something is unconstitutional, then that same action by the government in the absence of such a law is also unconstitutional.
Would a law requiring the installation of Judge Moore's monument in that courthouse be unconstitutional?
Yeah, clear as mud in a liberal southern swamp. Notice I asked: "Which judges?" Provide the proof that I was talking about the three specific judges you mention. You built a phoney straw man here based on a phoney accusation about my comments. Before you accuse, you had better be sure your understanding of my position is clear, and it's quite obvious that you chose the understanding you WANTED to choose, not the actual one intended by me. Next time ask for clarification.
As far as the slavery issue, I was responding to your repeated statement that the U.S. Constitution is based entirely on moral absolutes that cannot be changed. That statement is only true is slavery is a moral absolute, which you apparently would agree is not the case.
Again, a straw man. Show me where I stated that the Constitution is based ENTIRELY on moral absolutes...put up the quote I made or be exposed as a false accuser.
Your statements about school prayer are inaccurate and misstate the law. Anyone can pray in any school. What upsets you is that they can't lead others in prayer, whether those others want to be lead or not.
Again, stop with your infernal straw men! Once again, I DIDN'T SAY that students couldn't pray! Read what I wrote again and again and just read the black letters this time. What I said was accurate - restricting prayer in ANY way is a suppression of free exercise clause. Read the clause over and over until you get it thru your head. Tell me what part of that simple straight-forward unambiguous clause you don't understand.
Finally, I AM STILL WAITING for your explanation as to why the courts didn't act before 1947 if this was a proper constitutional reading. So, I will say to you what you said to me: JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION. History is on my side, not yours, and if you want to continue this discussion, you will answer my question, and you will provide historical support for your answer. If you can't do that, then let the record show that you have no historical basis for your position - all you have is ideology - which doesn't count in constitutional law!
Have a great and safe weekend everyone, and come back on Monday with all your fingers!
"Please - need I list all the past decisions that DID RESTRICT people's right to pray in schools"
The above comments are both yours.
I never claimed that a State can establish a state religion, and I would be vehemently opposed to any effort to do so.
This statement was actually referring to decisions that restricted prayer in any sense - which is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. I do not believe The Constitution allows for the courts to restrict any form of religious expression by individuals, whether they be teachers, football coaches, or student valedictorians. You can disagree but you can't parse the Establishment clause or show me from the founder's writings where schools are considered off limits for any prayer situation. In fact, the founders encouraged the reading and teaching from the bible in schools.
Nor do I. And neither do the Courts. But the cases you are complaining about is the restriction on teachers, football coaches, etc. leading others in religious expression, whether they want it or not. And when those people are acting as agents of the state, using state property and a state microphone.
You are right, you didn't say that explicitly. What you did say was that the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment apply only to Congress, and not to the states. So what else is there in the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit a state from establishing a state religion?
No, since it's not requiring the performance of any particular religious observance. I don't know if the law requires "In God We Trust" to be printed on our coins, or if Treasury does that of their own volition, but either way, that's constitutional also.
Besides, it's a pretty bizarre doctrine to say that if what you're doing might hypothetically be required by law, it should be treated the same as if the law actually does require it. But then, logic and judicial activism don't exactly constitute a match made in Heaven.
It's still a restriction on free exercise. No one is being forced to pray. Any student can just NOT PRAY. This whole idea of someone being OFFENDED by a prayer or rights infringed upon becuase people are being led in prayer around them is nonsensical and nauseating, particularly in view of the liberal license used in every other area of govt. school education. Moreover, it's tyranny of the lone protester. Also, you need to show how a govt. school teacher leading in prayer is tantamount to establishing a state religion. I don't see that connection and no common sense person does.
But that is what it all boils down to, anyway. You disagree with the way the Court has been ruling for decades.
That's fine. Your arguments have merit. It's just that the Supreme Court's arguments carry significantly more weight.
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.