US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Commandments

Sean Hannity Show ^ | 8-20-03 | Sean Hannity

[Atlas Sneezed]

US Supreme Court refuses to block removal of Ten Ccommandments from Alabama courthouse.

[Kevin Curry]

A Supreme Court that never reversed itself would be a meaningless institution.

One that usurps the prerogatives of another branch is a tyrannical and dangerous institution. You may applaud it as a benevolent tyrant today, but a benevolent tyrant can turn brutal with an arbitrary snap of the finger.

This nation was established to be free of tyrants. The ACLU and libertarians are working overtime to re-enthrone tyranny--an anti-god formed in their own godless image.

[Modernman]

Are you Catholic, Orthodox or Jewish or Atheist?....If so does that guide your analysis or is your opinion derived purely from objective reasoning of your knowledge of the founder's written words or known opinions.

I'm Orthodox, which is one of the reasons I don't like Moore shoving his particular brand of snake-handling Protestantism into what should be a secular government building. Note that the 10 commandments that are posted are the Protestant version of the commandments. The translation is slightly different from the Jewish, Catholic and Orthodox versions. Do I get to put the Orthodox version of the commandments in the rotunda, or is it reserved for Protestant commandments only?

This is just part of the can of worms that Moore has opened up with his little stunt. This whole thing is a distraction from what a courthouse should be- a secular, neutral, evenhanded location for the application of the law.

[kegler4]

Gosh, I got you more riled up by not replying than when I was (I had other things to do and couldn't get back to the computer). I see that when you get frustrated you resort to words like "idiot" and "DU." I must admit I HAVE been to DU, but I got thrown out.

I see there's a curtain around the monument now. Thank goodness. I can hardly wait until it's torn out, even if they have to do it with dolts like you kneeling around it.

[Modernman]

As for your last sentence, it would be a complete, unmitigated disaster for the rule of law -- and a violation of his oath to uphold the federal and Alabama constitutions -- for the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to take that position.

That's what pisses me off about Moore. Here's a guy who took an oath when he was admitted to the bar that probably included something to the effect that he would support the Constitution (both of the bars I was admitted to had a similar oath). He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama. This is a man who has spent his life supporting and implementing the rule of law. Now, he wants to chuck all of that away because of a federal ct. decision he doesn't agree with. He is supporting anarchy and lawlessness and disrespect for the Constitution.

To hell with him- he's no conservative. Conservatives believe in this country's institutions.

[kegler4]

"Did that hit too close to home?"

I love it, I point out the complete stupidity of somebody's post so somebody else suggests I'm gay because of it. That's an even more moronic post than the original.

[xzins]

The intent was to disempower forever and always the federal government from interfering with states and individual citizens in matter of religion, i.e., no establishment of a national religion and no interference whatsoever at state levels and beyond in matters of religion

That's my sense. The wording indicates a total ban on their touching ANYTHING in the area of religion.

Which means that Judge Moore is correct.

Whoever is the next chief justice can put up whatever monument he feels like, and the next can do as he likes, and.....ad infinitum.

[Modernman]

of course.....liberals love separation of church and state.

So did Thomas Jefferson. It was his idea. But what the hell did he know? He's just a dead white male....

[Modernman]

geez, I wonder what I should do next time I am in court and asked to SWEAR ON THE BIBLE "SO HELP ME GOD"

If you don't want to swear on the bible, you don't have to. You can just take an oath to tell the truth- no bible necessary. There have been court cases on this matter- atheists and certain ultra-fundamentalist protestants brought the case up.

[DanTheAdmin]

"UBL"

Who's UBL? Did you mean OBL? If so, then I get it...

[Modernman]

WE DO NOT RESPECT THE FEDERAL JUDGES? How many people must be arrested before you guys get it? We've had it with them!

Fine. At least you're honest enough to admit that you're in the same camp as those idiots who dress up in black and scream "Anarchy!" while they call the President a Nazi. And don't forget that great proponent of liberty, George Wallace, who stood in the dooorway of a schoolhouse in an attempt to prevent a federal judicial order from being implemented. Or, how about those folks who "had it" with Brown v. Board of Education and showed it by lynching blacks and beating freedom riders? Proud moments in American history, let me tell you.

We've all seen what happens when the rule of law breaks down. Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan.....

[Labyrinthos]

On the bright side, none of the citizenry would have to suffer the intolerable and insufferable placement of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments in their courthouses and extermination camps.

If not for the "establishment clause" in the First Amendment, some (but certainly not all) of the Christian zealots you have referred to would use their religious beliefs as a benchmark for political office and employment in the public sector, and reduce those who don't believe and practice their particular religious persuasion to third class citizenry.

[Modernman]

Your country, and your legal system, and the Alabama Constitution, was founded on Christian principles. That's why he's well within his rights in installing the monument.

Sigh... Not even close. This country was founded on Christian principles and government officials have every right to be Christian and to rely on their Christian principles to guide them in their decision-making. Nobody is saying that Moore should try to ignore his religious beliefs. What he absolutely is not allowed to do is try to force his Christian beliefs onto others through his position as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. He's free to preach on his own time- he shouldn't be using the tax-payers' money for his little crusade.

[Modernman]

Maybe it's necessary to be an attorney to understand the vast difference between those two arguments. If so, I apologize for not being able to articulate this in terms that are understandable. But they are very real.

Basically, Moore is engaged in a legal temper tantrum. He's stomping his feet and holding his breathe and is refusing to abide by a court decision for the very basic reason that HE DOESN'T LIKE IT. My niece does the same thing when she's told she can't do something she wants to do.

I wonder what his reaction would be if somebody appearing in his court took the same legal position and ignored one of his decisions?

[Modernman]

OK: it is permitted to have a gay homosexual sodomite bishop leading in the Episcopal Church, and to conduct homosexual marriages between sexual deviants, but it is not permitted to have the ten commandments symbolically on display in the supreme court building of a state.

My tiny little mind is having trouble comprehending all this stuff.

Sorry to hear that. I'll use small words: The Episcopal Church is a private organization. It is free to set its own rules as to who can and cannot be a Bishop and who can and cannot be married in the church. The 1st Amendment does not apply. Judge Moore is a government offical. The 1st Amendment does apply to his actions on the job. He is not free to promote the establishment of a certain religion while acting in his official capacity. Some people on this board are saying that the 1st Amendment does not apply to the States. 100 years of legal decisions disagree with them.

[petitfour]

And don't forget that great proponent of liberty, George Wallace, who stood in the dooorway of a schoolhouse in an attempt to prevent a federal judicial order from being implemented.************************************* A few months ago, I was present when the first black female student to attend the U OF A gave a speech about those trying times. Over and over again, she recalled how she asked God to get her through. And He did. George Wallace was wrong to deny folks based on the color of their skin the right to attend a state school. Many God given rights were denied to black people. And many God fearing people agreed, and they changed man-made laws to better suit God's laws.

[rwfromkansas]

I almost don't know when I try when I post clear evidence to the contrary, yet you morons still cite this lie.

[kesg]

Fully agree. And as someone else pointed out, this type of thing is going to make it harder, not easier, for other conservatives to be confirmed to federal judgships.

[First Amendment]

"It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated
seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator
and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt,
molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for
worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of
his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments;
provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others
in their religious worship." --John Adams