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 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 1,201-1,220 next last
To: MineralMan
Why be offened at something that doesn't apply to you?
If there were no God in your mind, why all the fuss?
Your lack of American history is showing. It is because of the belief in God you have the liberties that you enjoy, the laws that were established. Our Government in 1789 was Christian, though through many denominations, all of the Founding Fathers believed in God and it was through this conviction America was born. Nope, not everyone was a believer, yet America is still considered a Christian nation!
321
posted on
08/21/2003 11:08:13 AM PDT
by
Zavien Doombringer
(I seem to be the source of gravity, everything seems to fall on me....)
Comment #322 Removed by Moderator
To: general_re
"Settled" does not mean accurate. The establishment clause is binding on Congress alone.
323
posted on
08/21/2003 11:08:18 AM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: missyme
"So you are saying no-one religion has any dominancy over another?"
As far as the government is concerned, that is exactly right.
"Muslims, Buddhists and any other psychotic faith will come out of the woodwork claiming to live by religious freedom here."
And, believe it or not, they actually have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to do so. That part is called the Free Exercise Clause.
324
posted on
08/21/2003 11:08:40 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(-)
To: sinkspur
It is not a strawman. I have read many insults towards Protestants from professed Catholics and Orthodox on these threads. It seems to be a preponderant theme.
I just answered one on another thread to Moderman (orthodox) who labeled my sect and judge Moore as snake-handlers.
Do you know what percentage of Prods are "snake-handlers"....about the same as Papalists who perform exorcism would be my guess....in any event...very very few.
If Montag advised violence then, indeed that was over the top.
I know that of the top 5 or 6 antagonists on these threads (of which you are the ringleader) against the Judge that all of you are either Catholic or Orthodox. I do not find that to be a coincidence.
325
posted on
08/21/2003 11:08:41 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(lost in a knuckledragger wilderness of my own making)
To: Mr Crontab
The USSC is not a "higher Court" when it comes to a state matter!
326
posted on
08/21/2003 11:08:51 AM PDT
by
candeee
To: TankerKC
As opposed to what other version of God? you'll have to ask moore about that.
he's well studied on the matter of which versions of the christian god are "true" and which are not.
i claim no such wisdom.
To: laffercurve
That's quite alright.
328
posted on
08/21/2003 11:09:15 AM PDT
by
inquest
(We are NOT the world)
To: jethropalerobber
So, let me get this straight. There should be no prayer in public - only in private (if one can find something considered by the state to be private).
Let me get this straight - if a bullhorn is owned by the state - no use for prayers? Therefore, if our salaries are taxed by the state/feds, salaries can not be used for donations to religion?
Let me get this straight - roads and streets are public property - does this mean no churches allowed on roads or streets unless they can find "private" streets?
Let me get this straight - the only voices to be heard in America are those that seek to "take away" the rights of others because they are "uncomfortable". The ones having something taken away may be "uncomforable" with the loss but you see - they have no rights in this society. Only those seeking to take away rights from others are listened to.
So, now more and more "belongs" to the government, so more and more cannot acknowledge God - only Allah, Muslim religious practices, wearing of veils?
Just who says so?
329
posted on
08/21/2003 11:09:22 AM PDT
by
ClancyJ
(It's just not safe to vote Democratic.)
To: lugsoul
The first time I actually agree with you!
330
posted on
08/21/2003 11:09:25 AM PDT
by
Zavien Doombringer
(I seem to be the source of gravity, everything seems to fall on me....)
To: T Wayne; HurkinMcGurkin
What if black robes offend me? Do the "judges" have to wear some other color?It's only a matter of time.....
331
posted on
08/21/2003 11:10:49 AM PDT
by
ppaul
Comment #332 Removed by Moderator
To: wardaddy
I guess I didn't make your top 5 or 6.
333
posted on
08/21/2003 11:11:03 AM PDT
by
lugsoul
(-)
To: jethropalerobber
The reason I have that requirement is that if I didn't say that, do you know what he would cite for judicial precedent?
1920-onward.
NOTHING prior. That's because the court took a turn on this issue in the 20th century. Before, they would have agreed with me perfectly on this matter.
334
posted on
08/21/2003 11:12:21 AM PDT
by
rwfromkansas
("Men...stumble over the truth, but most...pick themselves up...as if nothing had happened."Churchill)
To: smith288
I answered your question by telling you to seek the debate. I asked why YOU said it was a pity. Not someone else. You choose to defer to others and not say why YOU think it's a pity, oh well. No problem for me.
My comment wasnt an invitation to debate with you otherwise I would have addressed you by a ping.
Any post by anyone is an invitation to comment on it. That's why this is a bulletin board.
I havent once shown emotion in this debate.
And I never said or even implied that you did.
I dont count my "pity" comment filled with tear jerking emotion, either.
Never said you did. I said many did, and I'm not one of them.
335
posted on
08/21/2003 11:12:27 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
(Putting government in charge of morality is like putting pedophiles in charge of children.)
To: lugsoul
S0 if a person's faith says they are forbidden to pay taxes, or go to war or sacrafice and animal or speak about terrorism in there mosqe's they have Constitutional Rights?
9/11 happened becuse we give Constitutional Rights to everyone
The Law of G-D and The law of the land go hand in hand
336
posted on
08/21/2003 11:12:44 AM PDT
by
missyme
To: rwfromkansas
"The associate justices wrote that they are "bound by solemn oath to follow the law, whether they agree or disagree with it."
The problem here is that it is NOT the law. Its an imperial edict issued by a politically connected legal hack whose decision has no statutory basis.
The REAL problem is elected legislators and executives who have the testicles the size of peanuts and who continue to enforce these outrageous juridical mandates instead of simply IGNORING them!!!
The way things are proceeding, we won't need an elected legislature anymore except for the purpose of appointing judges who will enact the laws.
The United States is being converted from an independant free republic into a juridically run international atheistic,homosexual colony withou so much as a fight.
The men who fought and died at the Alamo, at Gettysburg, at Bunker Hill and San Juan Hill would be simply amazed.
337
posted on
08/21/2003 11:13:12 AM PDT
by
ZULU
To: m1-lightning
Failing to remove it is violating a legal Federal Court Order.
To: missyme
"So what does this mean?" It simply means our nation is no longer governed, led, inspired, or led by Chritians, Chrstian ethics, or the Ten Commandments.
The "bowing down to liberalism" actually began in 1925 (Scopes Trial - Evolutionism ~vs~ Creationism) when the American bought into evolution (now taught as a religion).
Christians today are considered "Neofascists" and "extremists" in American and it won't be long until many of the major precepts (e.g., homosexuality is a sin and unacceptable lifestyle) will be illegal.
339
posted on
08/21/2003 11:14:07 AM PDT
by
Happy2BMe
(LIBERTY has arrived in Iraq - Now we can concentrate on HOLLYWEED!)
To: missyme
Look at the Mormon Church, the LDS were forced to stop thier multiple marriage practices!
340
posted on
08/21/2003 11:14:29 AM PDT
by
Zavien Doombringer
(I seem to be the source of gravity, everything seems to fall on me....)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 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