[Gargantua]

Fire away.

[hapy]

we would rather ignore

[Catspaw]

There aren't enough Moore threads to suit you, huh?

[End Times Sentinel]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says that "The State shall be openly hostile to Christianity in order to give a hand up to other religions and secularists to make a more even and diverse society." but I'll have to check.

 

That's what I learned in publick skool anyways.

 

 

Owl_Eagle

”Guns Before Butter.”

[Redwood71]

Fine. All they have to do is get an artist to paint a picture of the stone, make it 4'X6', then put it on the wall above where it currently stands, and remove the rock. We now have art, and it is protected by the first amendment. If the government can put funds into pictures of crosses in a glass of urine, then this one is tollible.

[Budge]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This is what the ACLU has corrupted into meaning - NO GOD ALLOWED!

And the sheeple ignore what is actually written there -- thank you ANTI-AMERICAN COMMUNIST LAWYER UNION, and thank you NEA for for teaching our children the LIE about it!

[Da Mav]

I had no idea that Moore's freedom of speech as an individual was constrained in any way. I thought this applied to his actions as a government official. Thank goodness the Bill of Rights constrains the actions of government officials. As a conservative, I wouldn't want it any other way.

[TheBigB]

Our Congress is strictly and explicitly probitied by our Constitution from passing any laws prohibiting the free excercise of one's religion.

It is also prohibited form passing any laws that prohibt free exercise of speech. However, no right is absolute in and of itself. There is no right to yell Fire in a crowded theater, regardless of who might think it would prohibit their freedom of speech. And what is to prevent one form inventing a religion and saying that certain actions are part of said religion? Human sacrifice used to be part of many religions, yet that cannot take place today. You cannot do whatever you want and say your religion tells you to do so.

[NutCrackerBoy]

This court [A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion.] needs to be slapped down, hard, and Judge Moore is just the man for the job.

Be patient but firm. It will take more than this battle. There are forces in play for more correct, more originalist, interpretation, and against activism.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

This court needs to be slapped down, hard, and Judge Moore is just the man for the job.

Your boy has already been slapped down by all 8 of his associate justices (all but one of whom are GOP), after being slapped by the very conservative Judge Carnes of the 11th circuit, and having had his "evergency" filings denied by the USSC. For that matter, hes been slapped by Pryor as well.

Its over. He was wrong, and his little grandstanding campaign backfired in so very many ways.

[Budge]

Ping!

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Migraine]

I can see the establishment clause being invoked here due to the 1st and 2nd commandments (1]no god but "the LORD thy God", Jehovah Elohim -- a specific God, the God of the Bible, the God I love, cherish, worship and serve; and 2] no graven image, which goes against the religion of Catholics and virtually every East Asian or tribal belief system in the world). Too bad for me, but that's where we've come as a nation. Sooner or later, e pluribus unum was destined to overwhelm In God We Trust, as the e pluribus came to mean not states but nationalities.
And as my self-interest is best served by prohibiting Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist mantras from adorning the public byway, so I must accept what that does to my own favorite expressions.
Now, none of this would have prohibited commandment #s 2-10 from being posted inoccuously, along with, perhaps, a few of the Beatitudes. I'd have been perfectly happy, and who could gainsay it? If extended throughout the land, I believe we'd all have been better for it, and no particular religion would be established.

[Doe Eyes]

Americans off all religions should be free to place whatever religious icons they desire on public property. Well, lets limit it to Christian icons.

[Looking for Diogenes]

If Judge Moore's religion (Christianity) demands that he spread the Word of God (and it does), then the issuance of a legal order which deigns to prevent him this religious right is both unconstitutional and out of order in the extreme.

OK, if you're interested in debating this point, I'll jump in.

Placing a state in a publicly owned building is not a religious right. Judge Moore is free to place such a statue in his home or private office. As a private citizen his freedoms are guarantted by the Constitution. But when he acts as a government official he loses his right to do whatever he feels like. He becomes an agent of the state and his actions are bound by the Constitution.

This is the same for other clauses of the same amendment. Judge Moore, acting privately as a parent, is free to tell his children that they may not criticize the government. But he may not in his official capacity as a judical officer order those same people not to criticize the government.

[TigersEye]

From this Washington Times article.

"A U.S. district court under Judge Myron Thompson ruled against Chief Justice Moore on Nov. 18, 2002. On July 1, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Chief Justice Moore, saying displays on government property cannot promote or be affiliated with a religion."

The following display, on the East Pediment of the Supreme Court Building (government property), would seem to me to be affiliated with a religion.

inscription reads - "Justice, the guardian of liberty."

It not only depicts the Ten Commandments tablets it even shows the Jewish prophet Moses holding them. If my limited knowledge of Judaic and Christian Scripture serves me, Moses claimed that God made these tablets and gave them to Moses to be the law of His (God's) and Moses' people.

That ought to qualify it as affiliated with a religion. Two religions, in most people's minds. Does it fail to meet the definition of 'display' or does the Supreme Court Building fail to meet the definition of 'government property'? What is the exception here and who or what is the authority that governs that distinction? Is there a law that makes one Constitutional and the other not? Is it the ruling of a judge or judges that makes it so? But how can that be? This is a nation of laws not of men, right?

If the Thompson ruling stands on the criteria given above then the SC's Moses and Ten Commandments has to go too. So does the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

"And ye shall make hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee."
This inscription, cast into the Liberty Bell in August 1752, is an excerpt from Leviticus 25:10.

Get out the chisels and fire up the forge, boys. It's time to give this country a facelift!

[steve in DC]

Firstly, Judge Moore is limited as to where he can take his personal religeous beliefs and impose them on the public at large.

Neither he, nor I, have any express right to erect temples to the God of Israel, or statues of Ganesha Ganesh, on public property, no matter how we may interpret any religious exhortation to preach our faith to the unconverted.

Nonetheless, we can, I feel, have public monuments that recognize or enshrine certain basic truths, no matter whence their origins.

For example, the teachings of Aristotle contain many pertinent quotes regarding the nature of man, moral behavior, and even thoughts on laws.

One would likely find little opposition to a particular state court building having something of Aristotle's, the Code of Hamaraubi, or quotes from Thomas Moore, as these eminate from books and records that are not expressly religions. But that position unfairly excludes much of our past from comemoration, because of its origin.

The extreme positions, taken by the Courts, regarding poetry from the Psalms, on stone monuments overlooking the Grand Canyon, or monuments commerating the Ten Commandments (the Commandments which are broadly recognized as a moral underpinning of our legal code) are, of themselves, the establishment of a State Religion of Atheism.

I am not in favor of us creating any kind of sterile society, where nothing can be carved in stone in our government buildings. But it strains belief that we could legally protect words printed in a newspaper, and even enshrine them in public places, should anyone so chose, but, at the same time proscribe the commoration of any words from the Bible, simply because the work, as a whole acts as an underpinning of several religions.

Perhaps they fear the day someone might enshrine the Second Psalm in a courthouse somewhere, as a daily reminder of our Ultimate Judge.

[lugsoul]

False premise. Christianity does not require that Moore, or anyone else, USE THE STATE to spread the Word. Game, set, match.

[PISANO]

The SCOTUS has so far seen fit to BYPASS this obvious controversy. Lower Federal Courts have varying rulings on this specific case. I.E. The display of the 10 commandments on public property. IMHO the SCOTUS is failing miserably to rule on this subject once and for all.

[gorush]

I heard Alan Keyes give an excellent account of the Constitutional issues that would seem to address this issue...he even talked about the Tenth Amendment. That was when I realized this issue is lost.

The Tenth Amendment was effectively repealed when the North Defeated the South in the Civil War. The Constitution today is meaningless, every important word or concept has been redefined. The individual, which was once so protected by the Constitution, is now an impediment to the "social good".

And our Supreme Court will not now, nor will they ever, render a Constitutionally correct argument again. (If they do, it will be serendipitous)

It's over, folks, we'll not reinstate the actual meaning of the Constitution through voting. (IMHO)

[Frapster]

If Judge Moore's religion (Christianity) demands that he spread the Word of God (and it does),

I support Judge Moore but not for these reasons. Your argument completely falls apart at the quote above.