[DonQ]

Dobson, who has managed to worm his way onto the evening news for years, tries to hijack the reputation and nobility of the Civil Rights Movement for a church-subsidized artwork whose presence in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court benefitted no one - certainly not anyone in the other 49 states - and irritated some people who were compelled by circumstance to come to the courthouse. That artwork - essentially a massive church altar - could legally be put in a whole flock of places, but just not a govt building where some people are compelled to come in hoping for equal treatment regardless of religious affiliations.

[Theo]

Dobson, who has managed to worm his way onto the evening news for years, tries to hijack ...

I expected an anti-Christian response soon enough.... Seems like any post that deals with a Christian leader always gets knee-jerk Christian leader-haters within a few minutes....

[BibChr]

Is that ignorant slam on Dobson and free exercise of religion THE stupidest, most destructive thing you've ever posted, or could you link me to another?

Dan

[Vindiciae Contra TyrannoSCOTUS]

• Ten Commandments Defense Act of 2003
• Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
• Religious Liberties Restoration Act
• Pledge Protection Act of 2003 .
• Impeaching Federal Judges: A Covenantal and Constitutional Response to Judicial Tyranny
• It's Time to Hold Federal Judges Accountable
• Congress Must Curb the Imperial Judiciary
• WallBuilders | Resources | Impeachment of Federal Judges

O'BRIEN: A new poll from CNN and USA Today, and Gallup as well, 77 percent, in a nutshell, are against the federal court order to remove the monument. Do you feel that this is a strong vote from the American public, and that might actually pressure the Supreme Court into hearing your case?

TITUS: Well, the American people understand what the Constitution means better than federal judges do. Federal judges are so wrapped up in precedent that they have forgotten what the plain words of the Constitution are. The people of the United States understand that the First Amendment does not prohibit putting up a monument in a building, putting up a picture. They understand that that's not a law within the meaning of the First Amendment.

So, what you have here is common sense. Ordinary people understand that this is contrary to the Constitution, this ruling by the federal court. And I would hope that the judges on the Supreme Court would adopt that common-sense view. Justice's attorney: Commandments fight not over

[cwb]

"but just not a govt building where some people are compelled to come in hoping for equal treatment regardless of religious affiliations."

Yeah...those secular and atheist governments are so much more tolerant to the rights and freedoms of others. I'm not even a religious person, but I do know that where there is no God, Man makes the laws...and they are often contrary to the good of all, regardless of religious affiliation. As someone asked yesterday, "where would you rather be Tried: In a God-less Soviet Union or a God-fearing United States?"

[tame]

I hope you are only ignorant (which is curable) and not stupid (which is terminal), as well.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I suppose those 10 commandments couldn't apply to any human being

[My2Cents]

but just not a govt building where some people are compelled to come in hoping for equal treatment regardless of religious affiliations.

What religion, exactly, did this monument endorse? Baptist? Catholic? Lutheran? Methodist? And anyone who holds to a religion at variance with the Ten Commandments, probably is in court on criminal charges, and they're probably guilty to boot.

[Ginosko]

Such hostility toward Dr. Dobson and Christianity in general seems quite unwarranted. The nation's laws were founded upon the principles reflected in those commandments and the U.S. Constitution itself presupposes an acceptance of Judeo-Christian morality.

[truthingod]

I believe the only reason someone might enter a court and find those ten commandments to be offensive is if I was on the wrong side of them in the first place which might be the very reason I am in the courthouse. They certainly help to define who it is we should deal with fairly in the court of law. Heaven forbid that we should lose sight of those who violate the law.

[Damocles]

... irritated some people who were compelled by circumstance to come to the courthouse.

Can't have people being irritated now can we? That little thing called the Declaration Of Independence must be quite the irritant as well:

...the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.

Oh, yeah the prayer before Congressional business is conducted, the calling of ""God save the United States and this Honorable Court" before the Supreme Court session opens must really hack you off as well.

Yeah, those pesky moralists can be quite irritating.

It's a moral battle between those who wish to force their moral view (atheist, relativists) down the throats of those who appreciate the culture and history this great nation was founded on.

Your moral viewpoint and mine are incompatible, and I hope that those who have capitualted to your view have finally had enough. I hope that some will enter this fray to fight for what they believe as your side has for the past few decades.

If not it will be the death of the greatest experiment ever to populate the earth as we slouch back towards our European bretherns view of the world.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

The late Reverend Martin Luther King probably would be agreeing with Dr. Dobson; they have common religious beliefs.
A courtroom is a place where laws (like the Ten Commandments) are upheld. It is not just artwork or just religious. It is also symbolic of the importance of laws.
Countries built on the Judeo-Christian ethics, that the Ten Commandments represent, have freedom of religion; unlike Muslim countries or atheist countries.

[Gargantua]

Your screed implies that the presence of this statue — representing nothing more and nothing less than the very foundation of this Nation's system of Law — somehow indicates that Judge Moore would dispense justice unevenly between the churched and the un-churched, the Semite and the Gentile and the Heathen.

That assertion is not only unfounded, it also doesn't deserve the scant moisture needed to spit upon it, and you should be ashamed. But, I also truly believe that folks of your ilk are incapapble of shame.

[ClancyJ]

Funny how it is always "worming their way into evening news" or "grandstanding" when someone stands up for the Christian rights views. I am thrilled that they "worm their way into" and "grandstand".

Why is it only the ones destroying what Americans have, making Americans give up something, or telling Americans what they can and cannot do who are free to get on the news, grandstand, and speak out. All Christians are to shut up because it is "grandstanding".

Well - you better get use to it.

[ClancyJ]

Funny how it is always "worming their way into evening news" or "grandstanding" when someone stands up for the Christian rights views. I am thrilled that they "worm their way into" and "grandstand".

Why is it only the ones destroying what Americans have, making Americans give up something, or telling Americans what they can and cannot do who are free to get on the news, grandstand, and speak out. All Christians are to shut up because it is "grandstanding".

Well - you better get use to it.

[Agamemnon]

but just not a govt building where some people are compelled to come in hoping for equal treatment regardless of religious affiliations.

Just like in the US Supreme Court, right?

[ArGee]

That artwork - essentially a massive church altar - could legally be put in a whole flock of places, but just not a govt building where some people are compelled to come in hoping for equal treatment regardless of religious affiliations.

Get real. Do you really think that anyone who saw that monument for one moment thought about converting to either Judaism or Christianity? It was just a monument to the 10 commandments, nothing more, nothing less.

More importantly, if it had been a 6 foot tall cylindrical monument celebrating homosexuals in the law, it would be standing there today and anyone who complained about it would be a "hatemonger."

Shalom.

[votelife]

you make a good point, but if the person who put that their (Moore) feels that way to have the monument there, then doesn't it NOT matter at all whether or not it's there regarding the fairness of the case? What I mean is, even if Moore didn't put that their, he still feels strongly about Christianity, and how does the fact that people KNOW he's Christian change how he would rule anyways. To put another way, taking out the monumement will not change Moore and it will not change his verdicts.

[F.J. Mitchell]

If it was a work of art that shocked Christian values, the courts would have seen things very differently, and so would have everyone who supports the removal of this piece of art. It's place in the Rotunda would have been guarded 24/7 by armed US Marshals.

[carlo3b]

a church-subsidized artwork whose presence in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court benefitted no one - certainly not anyone in the other 49 states - and irritated some people who were compelled by circumstance to come to the courthouse. That artwork - essentially a massive church altar

Do you really HATE that deeply, or are you just another Christian bashing hate filled jew? Remember we are at war with just about the entire world for our support of Israel. We are shedding blood, and working overtime to give to Israel to use to support duel citizenship. Yet Israel is as close as anyone can get to a religious state. If I go to Israel, can I demand that jews not where their skullcaps in government buildings (THAT WE SUBSIDIZE) or religious symbols in government buildings and courthouses, You Hypocritical monster! Do you endorse "the spitting on the cross" for converts from Christianity to Judaism, organized in Kibbutz Sa'ad and financed by the Israeli government is a an act of traditional Jewish piety? Just curious!

[Proud Legions]

Hmmm,

You can disagree with Dobson, and the 10 Commandments issue. But I am puzzled why you would say he has "wormed his way onto the news for years." He is the founder and head of a very large organization that carries a pretty good political punch, regardless of whether you like the organization or not (Focus on the Family). Much larger than Barry Lynn's Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, and if I am not mistaken, about 6 times the size of NOW at NOW's peak. He clearly is a leader of the Conservative Christian side, and of the Social Conservative side. His being on the news occassionally is understandable, especially if he is making news.

Also, maybe it should be there, or maybe not. But why would you suggest that it would keep someone who did not like it there from getting a fair hearing in the building? None of the judges ask people in the Court if they saw the monument when they came in, if they liked it, and what religion they were...so why would you think they would get unequal treatment because of a stone outside the courtroom?