Skip to comments.
US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments
Sean Hannity Show ^
| 8-20-03
| Sean Hannity
Posted on 08/20/2003 1:10:06 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 801-809 next last
To: Labyrinthos
not a large granite object placed smack in the middle of the retunda for everyone to trip overIf people "trip" over it, they deserve the result. It may be large, but no one is forcing eye contact, the rotunda is rather a bit larger than the "object". This exhibit is not forcing anyone to adhere to specific religious beliefs.
Also, the 10 Commandments cross several religions - i.e. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and even Islam (as they profess to believe in Abraham, Isaac, Joseph - et al!)
181
posted on
08/20/2003 2:14:05 PM PDT
by
Core_Conservative
(Proud of my wife ODC_GIRL who Un-retired to support our War on Terror!)
To: Lurking Libertarian
You can tell that to the woman who lost custody of her children in a decision written by Judge Moore. He took the children away from their mother because she became a lesbian, and gave custody to the father, who used to beat them.And you beleive his ruling would be different if he wasn't a Christian ?
Lets put your facts to the "smell test". You indicate that the father "beat" the kids. In divorce cases all sorts of accusations are made by the parties about each other. Was this the wifes testimony ? Was there mandated reporters that reported these beatings ? Was the medical reports consistant with abused children ?
My bet is the facts don't back up the claim that the father beat the kids anymore than what is normal discipline in families.
182
posted on
08/20/2003 2:14:10 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Brian S
I detest the liberals on the Supreme Court.
To: webwizard
Do you have a problem with folks giving their money to anyone they choose, for what ever cause, anythime they wish?
Comment #185 Removed by Moderator
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
The establishment clause now applies to the states as well, through the 14th Amendment. Now, we can argue until the cows come home on whether putting a religious monument in a state courthouse violates the establishment clause, but the point is that Justice Moore -- a sitting Chief Justice of a state supreme court -- litigated that issue in the federal courts and lost. The Constitution vests the federal judiciary -- not Justice Moore or any other state judge -- with the ultimate authority to decide such questions. He should obey the order and remove the monument, appeal the order, and if he wins, then he will be free to put the monument back.
186
posted on
08/20/2003 2:15:02 PM PDT
by
kesg
To: VRWC_minion
Its a leap of logic to say his stand on the monument would affect his rulings in the court. Not what I meant, actually. My problem with this is that he is trying to bring religious symbols into a secular building. I'd rather take my chances with a Christian judge, too. But, I don't like having a government building turned into a showcase for a particular religious viewpoint.
Put another way- imagine a situation where a Muslim judge in say, New Jersey, wanted to put a 5,300 pound copy of the koran into a rotunda of the NJ supreme court. Would people on this board be giving him the same level of support? If not, what's the difference?
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Look for the ACLU to attack the military Chaplain Corps before long.
188
posted on
08/20/2003 2:15:22 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: Chancellor Palpatine
"Even if they should remove this monument -- and God forbid they do -- they'll never be able to remove it from our hearts," said the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis Baptist Temple.
and the lights come on... bingo pastor.
the light of the commandments shine brightest when displayed in people's lives, instead of being jammed down the throats of the "unbelievers" by force of law.
Some rather sharp Christian folks are going to get this right.
AFTER we live the commandments, they don't NEED to have monuments built to them... we are the monuments that God actually desired in the first place.
This judge did Christians a great disservice by misdirecting attention on the wrong type of monuments.
189
posted on
08/20/2003 2:15:43 PM PDT
by
Robert_Paulson2
(If we just erect a big, expensive stone monument... everything will be alright!)
To: Beelzebubba
My impression is that it's a location issue. If Judge Moore wants to have the 10 commandments displayed in his court, no one has a problem.
It's that he wants it displayed out in front of the courthouse---- that's creating the problem.
So why doesn't he just move the monument to his courthouse and everyone will be happy.
190
posted on
08/20/2003 2:16:11 PM PDT
by
Gracey
( All your base are belong to the Terminator)
To: Labyrinthos
Could you name ONE major religion that doesn't believe in the Ten Commandments??? Can you name ONE Commandment that we should do away with???
You must have some BIG OLE FEET to trip over that monument.....maybe you should watch where you are walking!
To: Modernman
The difference is between the Judeo-Christian society and an Islamic one.
192
posted on
08/20/2003 2:16:45 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: Labyrinthos
On your side you have judges who willfully disregard clear text and apply a meaning that does not exist in the Constitution, one that was an opinion expressed by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists.
Faulty interpretations and bad precedent should be reversed. There is no honor in continuing them.
To: Kaisersrsic
Oh, you should check out the 11th Circuit opinion. In it, the Court addressed Judge Moore's objections to the trial judge viewing the monumnent, even though Moore's lawyer had urged the judge to do so, and even made arrangements for the viewing, including parking at the judicial building. The 11th noted that, since Moore had requested that the judge view the monument, any error in doing so was "not only invited error, but invited error with a parking space."
194
posted on
08/20/2003 2:17:42 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
Comment #195 Removed by Moderator
To: SedVictaCatoni
The entire concept of cram down provisions can be found in Leviticus.
196
posted on
08/20/2003 2:17:53 PM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
("what if the hokey pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
To: petitfour
God will take care of the Supreme Court justices.
what does that mean?
197
posted on
08/20/2003 2:18:08 PM PDT
by
Robert_Paulson2
(If we just erect a big, expensive stone monument... everything will be alright!)
To: SedVictaCatoni
Have the federal marshals locked up anybody for practicing Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion, lately? Happens all the time in San Francisco. Willie Brown and his hit squad come for you in the middle of the night and take you to re-education camps where you are forced to listen to Marilyn Manson and watch old episodes of "Will and Grace"
To: cajun-jack
LOL! Well said Jack. Except for that part where you debased genuine dingleberries by that comparison.
199
posted on
08/20/2003 2:18:34 PM PDT
by
F.J. Mitchell
(Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
To: Gracey
There is a virtual tour of the Alabama Supreme Court building which houses quite a bit of stuff. It's rather a large place. I couldn't get the virtual tour to work without downloading some other program, but it's there at their website. They have lots of historical documents encased.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 801-809 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson