Posted on 08/21/2003 4:05:58 PM PDT by CtPoliticsGuy
Knock yourself out. Few Freepers would disagree.
With some, I guess they need a hunk of rock even if the law says it is not proper to do so.
Correct. Except that it's 100% lawful. Here you have a bunch of smart Alec, runt of the litter lawyers trying to banish God's word from the public square.
The courts say no.
Here you have a bunch of smart Alec, runt of the litter lawyers trying to banish God's word from the public square.
Nothing wrong with "God's word" - just don't ask for my tax dollars to pay for it.
Once they deny the historical sigificance of the the Ten Commandments in our system of law, the law will have no foundation beyond what someone in power at the time says it has. They can play havoc with it the same way they have played havoc with the Constitution.
Ultimately, the system will degenerate into what was quite eloquently said in another thread when referring to the mind set of the Islamists.
"There is no right and no wrong. There is only that which serves us."
Becki
Can they explain the significance of these displays to our system of law? What historical value do they have and what have they contributed to it?
There are several cultures founded on those ideals, but ours is not one of them.
Becki
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson
One of the displays was a tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his civil rights struggle...I say that's significant to our systyem of laws.
It would seem so, according to the current interpretation of the "Living Constituion". Of course, someone else may interprate it to mean something else on another day.
If they can overthrow Texas law, as they have recently done, they can do the same thing in Alabama, and anywhere else.
The line in the sand now is between a Republic and an Oligarchy. And from what I have been reading over the past few days, there are precious few who would be alarmed at this prospect.
Becki
According to this description of the 11th Circuit Court's decision it would be if you displayed it on public property.
"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."
"This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686.
"Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta.
"But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents.
"These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Tj was a blasphemer... but then again, so was galileo... as are all who dare to point religion to the back seat when it arises to try and take over our govenance, thoughts, reason and beliefs by the power of government and laws.
in other words, religionists LIE to try and get our foundation rewritten as "solely christian" when in fact it is not.
If the liberals learned to rewrite history, it appears they learned it from us...
I am pleased that this is the most pressing issue for at least one of our federal judges and he has nothing more important to worry about.
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.