God Bless Judge Roy Moore - Save the Ten Commandments

http://www.dondodd.com/zeiger/hans.html ^ | August 21, 2003 | Hans Zeiger

[TigersEye]

I am going to have to go with THEIR determination, not yours.

I said hyperbolic rhetoric not empty rhetoric. You need to get a grip. While you're at it try making your own determinations. You don't need to take mine or 'theirs' if you just put a little effort into it.

[TigersEye]

Fine with you?

Did he pay for it? Do his constituents object? Does it have anything to do with American history? Don't stress yourself trying to answer those questions, my answer to you is yes. Constitutionally it's fine.

I'm not crazy about Islam but I have no attachments to Christianity or Judaism either.

[Delphinium]

Reread the article its very clear.

[bjs1779]

They elected him to be a Judge, which is to apply case law to cases brought before him, not to be an activist.

You now sound like the type of guy who would send Elian back to Cuba to me. Did you agree with the courts back then?

[strela]

I have to wonder about people who do what the courts tell them to.

They're called "citizens." You can tell them from the ones who don't - they're called "anarchists."

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, and I do not agree with Judge Moore now.

By the way, if you ever get past my place of birth, you may come to the realization that I think on many, many levels, and that your typical response to me, always based on one subject, is damned insulting and bigoted, as you truly believe that my entire core of beliefs is centered about one incident.

I am an American bjs, granted the right to think freely, and hold free opinions on many, many levels, and this issue being discussed now, has nothing to do with Elian Gonzalez.

Not only that, but you are willingly misrepresenting the facts and setting down spin worthy of James Carville...the extra-judicial activism going on here is coming from Moore.

[strela]

I am an American ... granted the right to think freely, and hold free opinions on many, many levels

And, take it from me, Luis has the coolest shirts on the planet. Trust me on this.

[Luis Gonzalez]

LOL!!!!

The cat's out of the bag!

[daughterofTGSL]

Let me correct my phrasing.

"I have to wonder about people who do exactly what the courts tell them to do whether it's right or wrong."

I find something wrong when people blindly follow laws just because they're laws.

[TigersEye]

daughterofTGSL - I have to wonder about people who do what the courts tell them to.

strela - They're called "citizens." You can tell them from the ones who don't - they're called "anarchists."

"Yavol, herr strela. Zee court says zey vill be gassed so ve vill gas zem."

The founding fathers were 'anarchists' by your definition.

[harpo11]

When I heard Chief Justice Moore on the radio today as he gave his address I felt tears almost squeeze from my eyes because his passion and his words were so strong and inspiring. He is truly a man. Man the way men are made to be by God. Truly the Light of God shines on Judge Moore and those who stand tall in the front of those who wish to deprive our souls, our destiny, our liberty, our very freedom given to us by God.

Men who convene to rip the very foundation of our rule of law, our Constitution are men who should be questioned, not Judge Moore.

[strela]

The founding fathers were 'anarchists' by your definition.

False analogy. Refusing to allow a piece of rock to be erected in a public place in no way compares to taxation without representation, murdering citizens, etc.

[TigersEye]

Nor does it equate to anarchism.

[fightu4it]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or to often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

Patrick Henry

[strela]

Yes it does.

[Dog Gone]

Judge Roy Moore is not "Congress" nor is he establishing a religion.

The legal reasoning is this. The First Amendment is binding on the states. Whether or not you agree is interesting but irrelevant. This has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court, which is why you have 1st Amendment rights in every state. Normally, I would expect all of us to like that.

So now the STATES may not establish a religion.

Well, that would apply to state courts, would it not? They are created and funded by the states.

Now, the legal question comes down to what "establishing" a religion is. This is where the debate can continue. "Establishing" has been held by the courts as "official expression for one religion over another." That's not a quote from court case. It's a paraphrase.

What Judge Moore did with his monument, in the state-funded courthouse, was to pretty much blatantly promote his view about religion and law.

Regardless of how correct he might be, it's pretty much a blatant violation of the Constitution, or at least how it's been pretty much been construed over many decades.

That's why we're where we are at today.

[TigersEye]

strela - They're called "citizens." You can tell them from the ones who don't - they're called "anarchists."

That was your statement. That would include the founding fathers.

Refusing to allow a piece of rock to be erected in a public place in no way compares to taxation without representation, murdering citizens, etc.

It is a perfect comparison to having a state mandated church like the Church of England.

[TigersEye]

Now, the legal question comes down to what "establishing" a religion is. This is where the debate can continue. "Establishing" has been held by the courts as "official expression for one religion over another." That's not a quote from court case. It's a paraphrase.

What Judge Moore did with his monument, in the state-funded courthouse, was to pretty much blatantly promote his view about religion and law.

Yes, he promoted his view but he did not establish it. There is no compulsion under the law to observe his religious convictions. His freedom to exercise his view has been infringed. All he was doing is expressing it. He in no way used the law to enforce his view.

[=Intervention=]

"But I do know some of the judges better than either you or moses.

I am going to have to go with THEIR determination, not yours. "

Because you know the judges better (not because the judges have made more sense, or are in keeping with other rulings, or a thousand other valid reasons), you are going with their ruling? *LOL*

[strela]

That was your statement.

Yes it was. And I stand by it.

That would include the founding fathers.

No, it doesn't. There is a world of difference between taxation without representation, et al and not being able to pay for a hunk of rock out of public funds.

It is a perfect comparison to having a state mandated church like the Church of England.

Care to explain this one a bit more completely?