Skip to comments.
Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed
AP on Fox News ^
| 8-21-03
| AP on Fox News website
Posted on 08/21/2003 8:33:17 AM PDT by rwfromkansas
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:37:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
MONTGOMERY, Ala.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: 10commandments; 1stamendment; 666; allyourcommandments; antichrist; antichristian; arebelongtous; bigotry; firstamendment; freedomofreligion; monument; moore; religiousfreedom; roymoore; tencommandements; tencommandments; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 1,201-1,220 next last
To: HurkinMcGurkin
Huh?
301
posted on
08/21/2003 10:58:51 AM PDT
by
iranger
To: HurkinMcGurkin
Pardon me for butting in, but, I don't understand why anyone should be offended by this monument (or anything similar).
If it is not of interest to you, ignore it and walk on!!!!!!!
What if black robe offend me? Do the "judges" have to wear some other color? After all, they of all people, should not offend anyone!
302
posted on
08/21/2003 10:58:51 AM PDT
by
T Wayne
To: ConsistentLibertarian
A lot of hostility towards the ACLU on FR stems from ignorance. Au contrare.
It stems from knowing all too well what the ACLU stands for and the types of causes it has it has been most prominent in litigating for.
It also stems from knowing all too well the predominantly leftist political and social views embraced by the majority of ACLU lawyers.
303
posted on
08/21/2003 10:59:37 AM PDT
by
ppaul
To: lugsoul
I disagree with Story on this. While there is some evidence to back his claim, in my opinion, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that the First Amendment's prohibition of establishment refers to any religion, not just non-Christian ones. This is pretty clear.
But, I posted his quote anyway to show that not everybody in early America, including those in powerful positions, would agree with george.
304
posted on
08/21/2003 11:00:02 AM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
("Men...stumble over the truth, but most...pick themselves up...as if nothing had happened."Churchill)
To: sinkspur
This is part of the megalomaniac's plan. He intends to ride this into the governor's mansion.
Yeah right, everyone with an ambition is a megalomaniac and wrong all over. Typical commie thinking. This has nothin to do with the case in point - that the fed courts are making up new law. If Judge Moore exposes them for that and in the process ends up at a higher place, we end up with two rights, not a wrong.
305
posted on
08/21/2003 11:00:36 AM PDT
by
singsong
(Demoralization does not kill people, it kills civilizations.)
To: missyme
"If you go to an Islamic country..."
Once again - we have religious freedom, they don't. It seems that you would prefer it if the USA took the same approach to being a Judeo-Christian nation that Iran takes to being an Islamic one.
306
posted on
08/21/2003 11:00:47 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(-)
To: missyme
"How can anybody in there right mind find the Ten Commandments offensive? That is what I am saying"
Huh? That's easy. I'm an atheist, so the first four are right out for me. If I were a Hindu, I'd feel the same way. Some of the others are pretty good advice, but only a couple have made their way into valid laws, the ones against murder and theft. The rest are simply ignored by our laws.
Covetousness? Shoot, that's the foundation of our economic system. Keep up with the Jones's and all that.
Honor your parents? A heckuva good idea, but where are the laws requiring that. With so many elder parents dumped in nursing homes, I don't see that it's honored much by Christians, either.
Adultery? Heck, that's not against the law in hardly any states, and is unenforced in the ones that still have it on the books. Christians violate this one just as much as non-Christians.
But...it's the first four that are a bit frightening, if they are the law of the land. I don't worship any deities, much less the one the Jews and Christians worship. I blaspheme all the time by saying that your deity doesn't even exist.
Sure, I'm offended by the Ten Commandments, when they're placed in the government buildings I must visit.
307
posted on
08/21/2003 11:01:41 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(godless atheist)
To: rwfromkansas
"While there is some evidence to back his claim, in my opinion, the overwhelming evidence supports the view that the First Amendment's prohibition of establishment refers to any religion, not just non-Christian ones. This is pretty clear."
RW, this is monumental [no pun intended]. We may actually have found a point on which we agree entirely.
308
posted on
08/21/2003 11:02:39 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(-)
To: general_re
Then maybe I exercised a poor choice of words. The school principle has a legal mandate to provide a particular service. By pursuing that mandate, I said he was "administering" the law, in the sense that he's carrying the law into effect. The police officer, on the other hand, is enforcing the law. The law is just as much in effect - that is, just as binding on those subject to it - whether the officer chooses to enforce it or not in a particular instance. Does that clear it up?
309
posted on
08/21/2003 11:03:01 AM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: sakic
Taliban logic. mine or his?
To: libravoter
Thank you for showing me more than one. I am so relieved to see two among the many hundreds of others.
311
posted on
08/21/2003 11:04:04 AM PDT
by
beachn4fun
(Beware of the burka man....he will ruin your taste in clothes.)
To: jethropalerobber
His logic
312
posted on
08/21/2003 11:04:11 AM PDT
by
sakic
To: MineralMan
There are no true atheists, If you are master of your own fate, then you are placing yourself as a god...therefore monotheist...
313
posted on
08/21/2003 11:04:18 AM PDT
by
Zavien Doombringer
(I seem to be the source of gravity, everything seems to fall on me....)
To: inquest
Indeed. One might even say that the settled law regarding the Establishment Clause is binding upon Judge Moore, whether he decides to adhere to it or not ;)
314
posted on
08/21/2003 11:05:37 AM PDT
by
general_re
(A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.)
To: rwfromkansas
Note these requirements for proof:
...
3. historical precedent ***starting in 1789 and up to no later than 1900*** that supports your views that's an interesting condition.
should he make his argument blindfolded and with one hand tied behind his back also?
Comment #316 Removed by Moderator
To: lugsoul
So you are saying no-one religion has any dominancy over another? If Judeo-Christian principles are not the religious laws of our land: we are on a dangerous road to hell.
Devil Worshipers,Atheists, Muslims, Buddhists and any other psychotic faith will come out of the woodwork claiming to live by religious freedom here.
317
posted on
08/21/2003 11:06:34 AM PDT
by
missyme
To: stands2reason
yeah, you're probably right.
i put it too strongly.
Comment #319 Removed by Moderator
To: laffercurve
How could Ronald Reagan win in 1908? =)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 1,201-1,220 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