Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

11th Circuit Refuses Ten Commandments Appeal
Associated Press ^ | August 19, 2003 | Bob Johnson

Posted on 08/19/2003 5:10:00 PM PDT by Selmo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 721 next last

1 posted on 08/19/2003 5:10:01 PM PDT by Selmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Selmo; Chancellor Palpatine; BamaG; Catspaw
And the Supreme Court will not intervene either.

Moore is going to begin costing the Alabama taxpayers for his little stunt.

2 posted on 08/19/2003 5:13:49 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
um, if it's ok in his office...............
3 posted on 08/19/2003 5:15:35 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: rwfromkansas
That is a real Christian act, threatening physical harm over the placement of a stone idol. Is anything about this decision depriving you of an ability to follow the 10 Commandments or to worship God in your home or church?
5 posted on 08/19/2003 5:20:37 PM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine ("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Yeah, it's OK in his office where no one will be 'offended' by it. If the values represented in the 10 commandments offends someone, they should STFU. Personally, I'd rather have a judge who tried to follow those commandments.

This isn't about "separation of church and state". Technically, the judicial branch of government does not make policy, so displaying the commandments in his courtroom or court building has nothing to do with official policies of the state. This is about removing any moral basis for decisions by a conservative judge who the liberals dislike.
6 posted on 08/19/2003 5:21:03 PM PDT by 11B3 (Looking for a belt-fed, multi-barreled 12 guage. It's Liberal season, no daily limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
I am hoping the protestors get violent.

What a stupid thing to say!

Bust somebody's head who's obeying the law?

Yep, let blood flow in Christ's name.

7 posted on 08/19/2003 5:21:28 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Moore, who installed the 5,300-pound monument in the rotunda of the judicial building two years ago, contends it represents the moral foundation of American law and that a federal judge has no authority to make him remove it.

Wouldn't call this stance a stunt!

It's a 10th Amendment issue if I ever saw one.

Moore is right. These 10 items are the root of our laws.

Rather than the Ten Commandments, let's just leave the monument there and call 'em "A Partial List Of Really good Ideas To Live By"

It's ALL out of balance now but sanity will return someday.

8 posted on 08/19/2003 5:22:44 PM PDT by FixitGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Moore is going to begin costing the Alabama taxpayers for his little stunt.

So, does that mean that you agree that the highest judge in any state is obligated to submit to a ruling from a federal judge that is clearly without constitutionality?

9 posted on 08/19/2003 5:23:08 PM PDT by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 11B3
This isn't about "separation of church and state".

This is about the First Amendment and the rights of the state and the people to be free from the Federal government coming in and legislating religion, something the constitution SPECIFICALLY bars from happening!

10 posted on 08/19/2003 5:24:42 PM PDT by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
So, does that mean that you agree that the highest judge in any state is obligated to submit to a ruling from a federal judge that is clearly without constitutionality?

I don't accept your premise.

11 posted on 08/19/2003 5:25:40 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
"So, does that mean that you agree that the highest judge in any state is obligated to submit to a ruling from a federal judge that is clearly without constitutionality?"

Bingo!

12 posted on 08/19/2003 5:25:44 PM PDT by FixitGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Agreed - 100%.
13 posted on 08/19/2003 5:26:14 PM PDT by 11B3 (Looking for a belt-fed, multi-barreled 12 guage. It's Liberal season, no daily limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: tet68
um, if it's ok in his office...............

Yep, it's very much OK in his office. Offending people is not the point. I'm sure he can offend lots of folks with his rulings. Imposing his religion on people who appear in his court is very much the point. The religious props are inappropriate.

14 posted on 08/19/2003 5:27:03 PM PDT by Mushinronshasan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Don't bother trying to debate that one; he is a troll
15 posted on 08/19/2003 5:27:13 PM PDT by candeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
Its time for the Christians to stand up for GOD in America
16 posted on 08/19/2003 5:30:30 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mushinronshasan
If you look at other religions, you'll notice that those "religious props" as you call them are basically the same worldwide. They're called human values. They are part of the Bible, true, but they're part of all religion except for religions like Satanism which worship evil.

I'm not overtly religious, or even Christian, and I believe these commandments are a sound foundation of humanity. To force their removal is insane.
17 posted on 08/19/2003 5:31:40 PM PDT by 11B3 (Looking for a belt-fed, multi-barreled 12 guage. It's Liberal season, no daily limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I don't accept your premise.

:-} Why not sink?

18 posted on 08/19/2003 5:32:03 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Congress, shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..."

Why is this so hard to understand?

19 posted on 08/19/2003 5:32:10 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe (This tag line has been intentionally left blank.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: candeee
Don't bother trying to debate that one; he is a troll

Nice comment. Got any input to the subject of the thread, or are you playing thread monitor?

20 posted on 08/19/2003 5:32:40 PM PDT by sinkspur (Get two dogs and be part of a pack!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 721 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