Skip to comments.
Moving morality - Ten Commandments on wheels (Caption this!)
Posted on 08/28/2003 6:30:08 AM PDT by amexmike
![](http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/CommandRemove.jpg)
CAPTION THIS PHOTO
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: captionthis; purge; tencommandments
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
To: truthandlife
See post 20.
21
posted on
08/28/2003 10:14:46 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: Lost Highway
There is no first amendment guarantee of a 2.5 gallon toilet, unlike your religious freedom.
22
posted on
08/28/2003 10:15:35 AM PDT
by
tdadams
To: amexmike
23
posted on
08/28/2003 10:28:57 AM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: tdadams
So you feel secure in the premise that becuase the Constitution says something it will always be "interpreted" by the Supreme Court that way?
To: Pahuanui
Det cord.
25
posted on
08/28/2003 11:43:47 AM PDT
by
Chancellor Palpatine
("What if the Hokey Pokey is really what its all about?" - Jean Paul Sartre)
To: truthandlife
Don't forget Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion". He made a movie straight out of the Gospels and it was classified as "hateful and just made to stir up anger"Sure, you can't please everyone, can you? Did you classify Scorcese's The Last Temptation of Christ as "hateful and just made to stir up anger?"
26
posted on
08/28/2003 11:51:25 AM PDT
by
RoughDobermann
(Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.)
To: tdadams
There is no first amendment guarantee of a 2.5 gallon toilet There's no second amendment right to an individual owning a toilet, only to communal toilets run by the states.
27
posted on
08/28/2003 11:56:40 AM PDT
by
palmer
(paid for by the "Lazamataz for Supreme Ruler" campaign.)
To: Lost Highway
I don't see the right to worship the way you wish in your own home or church being under any threat in this country, ever.
There are many who seem to think that the first amendment guarantees them the right to promote their religion in public buildings, which, strangely is nearly antithetical to what the amendment actually says.
28
posted on
08/28/2003 12:03:48 PM PDT
by
tdadams
To: tdadams
There are many who seem to think that the first amendment guarantees them the right to promote their religion in public buildings, which, strangely is nearly antithetical to what the amendment actually says.While I think many people are overreacting to the situation in Alabama, it does lead one to think what could be next. I'm not religious at all, but I shudder to think of people being forbidden to wear, say, a cross or Star of David on a necklace in a courthouse or public school. After all, doesn't that qualify as "promotion of religion?" Does it make a difference if such a "promotion of religion" is worn on the person, and not a big chunk of stone?
29
posted on
08/28/2003 12:10:44 PM PDT
by
RoughDobermann
(Nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.)
To: amexmike
30
posted on
08/28/2003 7:16:30 PM PDT
by
FreeRep
(Proud to be American)
To: amexmike
The devil came down from Georgia.
31
posted on
08/28/2003 11:04:27 PM PDT
by
floriduh voter
(MTV is PUSHING PIMPS & HOS not MUSIC.)
To: windchime; All
Ping here. Folks, there's an outrage going on in Florida involving a disabled woman. Please check out windchime's link that will be here shortly or on Friday. There are four or five Terri Schiavo threads but the one posted by windchime right here has email addresses and phone numbers, including the media. Thanks in advance. We need your help and ping everyone you know in case they want to help.
32
posted on
08/28/2003 11:13:18 PM PDT
by
floriduh voter
(Freepers Please Help Terri Schiavo.. Fla. Judge Picking Starvation Date on 9-11-03)
To: rapture-me
I heard the monument was going on tour. The Governor of Alabama said so? The aclu and southern poverty law center will just file another lawsuit but if the monument goes on tour of buildings like the Capital, by the time the "taliban" get an order to have the Ten Commandments removed, the Commandments will be on the road again to another public building.
33
posted on
08/28/2003 11:20:25 PM PDT
by
floriduh voter
(Freepers Please Help Terri Schiavo.. Fla. Judge Picking Starvation Date on 9-11-03)
To: floriduh voter
To: tdadams
I don't see the right to worship the way you wish in your own home or church being under any threat in this country, ever.If you were a Branch Davidian you might feel differently.
35
posted on
08/29/2003 12:43:06 AM PDT
by
Between the Lines
("What Goes Into the Mind Comes Out in a Life")
To: tdadams
A friend of mine was at their church the other day and they were debating same sex relationships for ministers. She pointed to the Bible as our reference and was told hatefully and angrily "keep the Bible out of this!". If people within the church can see the Bible as some thing to be vehemently avoided then what about the rest of the world.
God Bless
Mel
36
posted on
08/29/2003 12:50:22 AM PDT
by
melsec
(One God, One faith, One Baptism.)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
Det cord. Philistine. That's a waste of perfectly good statuary-quality marble.
Artificial reef.
37
posted on
08/29/2003 12:54:58 AM PDT
by
strela
("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
To: palmer
There's no second amendment right to an individual owning a toilet ... Actually, the Bible has some very interesting things to say on the subject:
"Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee."
Deuteronomy 23:12-13
Do all of those good, Bible-believin' folk whining and crying about this rock being moved out of a public courthouse really dig a slit trench each and every time they need to relieve themselves? If not, then why should the rest of us be expected to follow Biblical teaching when they can't be bothered to do so themselves?
38
posted on
08/29/2003 1:04:20 AM PDT
by
strela
("Each of us can find a maggot in our past which will happily devour our futures." Horatio Hornblower)
To: strela
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972219/posts?q=1&&page=101 To: lugsoul
Jusge Moore is standing up for the rights of all. Religious freedom is for all.
Free speech is for all. The first amendment is for all. The ACLU is trying to
restrict our freedoms to only what they approve (atheism).
129 posted on 08/28/2003 3:18 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND...
ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
39
posted on
08/29/2003 1:07:35 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
To: Lost Highway; tdadams
So you feel secure in the premise that becuase the Constitution says something it will always be "interpreted" by the Supreme Court that way? You make a very good point. Justice Story, one of the first Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court, in 1833 wrote Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States in which he says:
"In some of the states, Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, Congregationalists; in others Quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the free exercise of religion and a prohibition ... of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State Governments to be acted upon according to their sense of justice and the state constitutions."
The First Amendment concerning religion is generally divided into two clauses: the Establishment Clause - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; and the Free Exercise Clause - or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. At the time of adoption, and for over a hundred years after, the Bill of Rights was construed to apply only to the federal legislature. The Free Exercise Clause wasn't extended to the states until 1940, and the Establishment Clause wasn't extended to the states until 1947.
40
posted on
08/29/2003 1:09:12 AM PDT
by
Between the Lines
("What Goes Into the Mind Comes Out in a Life")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 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