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
US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: aclu; roymoore; scotus; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 801-809 next last
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Not all Protestants support Judge Moore, which is somewhat interesting. The Seventh-day Adventists, for example, have traditionally been somewhat fearful of government/religion ties, basically because they were concerned that a theocracy could arise which would threaten their believers.
While I think their concerns are overblown, they would view Judge Moore as a threat.
Comment #442 Removed by Moderator
To: laffercurve
I notice that we do not see Chief Justicxe Moore out there with the faithful. I just saw the story on FoxNews. No, Chief Judge Moore was not among the arrested, at least I didn't see him in the crowd of men (or mostly men) inside the ropes around the monument and their faces were clearly visible.
As the only person with final authority over the administration of the judicial building (which he held open until late in the evening to install the monument), I think it is notable that he has not authorized these good people to stay in the building.
The live shot--and the FoxNews reporter was inside the Courthouse--showed three people--a man, who was standing, and two women in folding camp chairs--inside the ropes that surround the monument. Standing just outside the ropes was a law enforcement officer (the ones making the arrests was earlier were sheriff's deputies, but this may have been a police officer or court security officer). The FoxNews reporter said the building was closed. I would assume that at some point, these protesters are going to be removed as well.
443
posted on
08/20/2003 4:16:00 PM PDT
by
Catspaw
To: Labyrinthos
People who think the Constitution has anything to do with monuments on public property are destroying the Constitution. They strain at gnats and swallow camels.
Comment #445 Removed by Moderator
To: george wythe
OH my gosh.
There are Biblically defendable times to rise up. I take it you would have supported the American Revolution, which was supported by many Christians, even pushed by the churches.
It should be noted that Romans also calls the govt. the sword of God...not His enemy! But, this govt. likes to act like it is the enemy of God. In most cases, we should respect the govt. I don't believe this is one of those cases.
You see, this is not just a law that we as Chrstians could accept in deference to civil authority. This is war against the Lord and it is in these cases in which disobeying the law is acceptable.
446
posted on
08/20/2003 4:19:09 PM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
To: lugsoul
Damn it, the 14th Amendment does not apply the BOR to the states.
Stop spreading your lies.
447
posted on
08/20/2003 4:20:18 PM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
Comment #448 Removed by Moderator
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Selective Scriptural usage sure is convenient, isn't it?
Those losers need to learn that there is more in the Bible about the Christian's relation to govt. than that passage.
449
posted on
08/20/2003 4:21:22 PM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
To: Dog Gone
Some people lead, some people run, and some people follow. At least we choose. The 10 Commandments monument doesn't hurt anyone's freedom. It's a symbol, erected to honor God above all things. It amazes people that someone actually has a Constitutional argument backing up the action. He's an amazing man, as far as I'm concerned. He knew the Feds would underestimate him. He saw this coming years ago. And he is facing it with courage. FReegards....
Comment #451 Removed by Moderator
To: Modernman
I wonder if you would have said that to our founding fathers rebelling against a tyrannical govt. I bet you would not have said so. Hypocrite.
452
posted on
08/20/2003 4:23:06 PM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
(http://www.collegemedianews.com *some interesting radio news reports here; check it out*)
To: laffercurve
"I know of another notorious figure who was willing to put others into harm's way while remaining at a safe distance. . . ."
To whom are you referring? Just curious
To: votelife
geez, I wonder what I should do next time I am in court and asked to SWEAR ON THE BIBLE "SO HELP ME GOD"
454
posted on
08/20/2003 4:23:35 PM PDT
by
Mr. K
(mwk_14059 on yahoo IM - why dont we have a FR chat yet Jim? (i can give you the code))
To: SedVictaCatoni
It's the same as impeaching the President. The House brings articles of impeachment, and then the trial is in the Senate. Thank You very much :) What say we begin inundating Congress!
455
posted on
08/20/2003 4:26:49 PM PDT
by
Havoc
(If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
Comment #456 Removed by Moderator
Comment #457 Removed by Moderator
To: kesg; Modernman
Obedience to unconstitutional rulings or laws is repugnent to the Constitution. What is unconstitutional about this particular ruling?
The fact that CONGRESS made no law establishing or restricting a religion here. The fact that the Supreme Court keeps a copy of the 10 Commandments on their walls in the FEDERAL court.
One, a judge did this (not congress; two the hypocrisy couldn't stink any further on this case if they tried.
Sometimes courts are meant to be defied in the name of decency. The system is broken; ask any divorced guy or anit-abortion protestor.
458
posted on
08/20/2003 4:28:30 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
He's going to lose, though. Everyone here might as well accept that.
Case law is too strong on the point, and this court is not going to do a major reversal of its previous holdings.
While the display doesn't bother me, and I think the current case law is too far in favor of ridiculous separation of church and state, there is one thing that really bothers me.
Judge Moore should not be defying a judicial order. If that is tolerated, the Rule of Law in this country means nothing. Nothing.
To: rwfromkansas
Now it's Moore's fault that people are being arrested, according to these Moore bashers. Good grief. They're as bad as Bush bashers.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 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