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 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 801-809 next last
To: george wythe
"Nevertheless, this judge is either acting out a Super Christian fantasy or looking for free publicity."
No, he's fed up with tyrannical Federal judges who ignore the Constitution. If he wants it stamped on his forehead and plastered on his robes, it's none of their Clinton business. It's a state building and a state matter.
To: Roscoe
Somewhere, on one of these threads, someone came up with a dandy idea: after the monumnent is removed, have people dressed in t-shirts (one side the 10 Commandments, the other the Bill of Rights) strand in peaceful protest were the monument once stood.
282
posted on
08/20/2003 2:42:03 PM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: All
and let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without relegion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined educatio on the minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle ____ George Washingtons Farewell Address
So what do yall thing was on ole Georgies mind when he said this.?
283
posted on
08/20/2003 2:42:14 PM PDT
by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire with meetings,they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: Modernman
Nobody here would argue that putting up the magna carta would be religious
Don't be too sure
THE MAGNA CARTA (The Great Charter):
Preamble:
John,
by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings.
Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement of his holy Church and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warenne, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerold, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert De Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d'Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and others, our liegemen.
284
posted on
08/20/2003 2:42:30 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Gracey
THe courts of this land have allowed and gave their blessings to, the public display and forced public funding of the most grotesque and offensive slime imagenable, by ruling that anything called art is a form of free speech and fully protected under the first amendment. This rock is obviousely art, regardless of who it offends, and the entirety of it, ten Commandments and all, is protected by the first amendment. If the Supreme court of the US rules otherwise or refuses to rule at all, as it did: They have exposed their bigotry toward anything Judeo/Christian, and have forfeited their credibility upon the altar of incompentence, thus revealing their unfitness to serve.
285
posted on
08/20/2003 2:43:13 PM PDT
by
F.J. Mitchell
(Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
To: Catspaw
Make the checks payable to the Alabama treasury. I was under the impression that the State of Alabama was not party to Moore's struggle, and that any fine would be paid directly by him, not by the state.
Am I mistaken (about the legal liability?)
286
posted on
08/20/2003 2:43:28 PM PDT
by
libravoter
(Live from the People's Republic of Cambridge)
To: lugsoul
Nope but it hurt to sit down for a while...
No indication that that dad punched any kid in the face though
287
posted on
08/20/2003 2:43:51 PM PDT
by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire with meetings,they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: Catspaw
Somewhere, on one of these threads, someone came up with a dandy idea: after the monumnent is removed, have people dressed in t-shirts (one side the 10 Commandments, the other the Bill of Rights) strand in peaceful protest were the monument once stood. That is perfectly fine. Because then it won't be the government establishing religion, it will be private citizens engaging in free religious speech.
288
posted on
08/20/2003 2:44:33 PM PDT
by
SedVictaCatoni
(The only difference between Judge Moore and Mullah Omar is one of specifics.)
To: lugsoul
I was a teen...not that it helped my dad was 6'5" and 235 and ex-fighter jock....sort of Great Santini without the verbal abuse and I was a long-haired dope smoking southern hippie freak...we clashed...he was the alpha male of the house. I love him all the more for it now..RIP.
Now, are you a social liberal masquerading as a conservative or are you simply anti-Christian right like many in your posse on this topic.
You already know I support Moore and I'm happy to see the Cultural Rightists (like me) taking the offensive...exploitative or otherwise. The anti-pluralists have been chopping away at my worldview for nearly half a century now. I wish we had about 1000 Judge Moore clones all over the country taking the fight to the established living document order of things on this issue anda host of others.
But I repsect your opinion...well the right to have one naturally.
289
posted on
08/20/2003 2:45:12 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
(lost in a knuckledragger wilderness of my own making)
To: lugsoul
But, to Judge Roy Moore, none of that matters because Mom is a godless lesbian.I "beat" my kid and still got custody from my ex-wife because overall I was the better parent and she wasn't a lesbian.
290
posted on
08/20/2003 2:45:35 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Modernman
most of them aren't religious, they are just obscene..not in the porno sense but just that they are so bad, it should be criminal to pay for them with taxpayer money.
To: Labyrinthos
"The issue is personal to me, but has nothing do do with a hatred of God. What it does have to do with is my personal experiences practicing law before a judge who wears his religion his robe."
I can understand that. Sorry if I came down hard on you in particular. I mention now and then, I'm not a very good Christian, myself. But I get so angry when I see a good Christian and know how his or her tax money is misused. To me, this is the same fight as how tax money was used to fund anti-Christian art. It angers me to no end. This looks like the same thing. I'd rather have the Moore etreme over the Piss Christ extreme any day of the week. Respectful FReegards....
To: SedVictaCatoni
If you would like to deny that most of the legal concepts have nothing to do with the bible go ahead, stay ignorant. .
293
posted on
08/20/2003 2:47:30 PM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: BulletBobCo
Isn't the Bible used as an instrument of the court when someone is sworn in? Not everywhere. And in places where it is, you don't have to swear on a bible, or anything else for that matter.
To: wardaddy
"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
295
posted on
08/20/2003 2:47:44 PM PDT
by
Havoc
(If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
To: VRWC_minion
Good for you.
296
posted on
08/20/2003 2:48:32 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
(lost in a knuckledragger wilderness of my own making)
To: SedVictaCatoni
Oh please. The ancient Israelite debt system is not the bedrock of civilized law. The 10 Commandments are. Nice try.
To: Labyrinthos
apparently the 10 commandments are viewed as one judge's belief in alabama since so many are there protesting. Feds have no rights telling the states what to do, especially if it is against the public's will.
To: wardaddy
In response to your question about my views, let this statement suffice:
No government ever did anything which truly advanced the cause of encouraging or promoting faith, and government's efforts in this regard have invariably had the effect of sullying the faith it allegedly seeks to aid.
I am sick of the baseless allegations on this thread that anyone who doesn't drink Moore's Kool-aid is "anti-Christian." I am profoundly of the opinion that he is harming both the state of Alabama and true faith with his antics.
299
posted on
08/20/2003 2:49:10 PM PDT
by
lugsoul
To: wardaddy
Bingo
300
posted on
08/20/2003 2:49:39 PM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(California Democrats, a State Party worth -$38 billion.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280, 281-300, 301-320 ... 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