Posted on 08/28/2003 12:12:24 PM PDT by quidnunc
-snip-
Judge Roy Moore, the publicity-seeker who put the 2.5-ton Ten Commandments in the Alabama state courthouse, declared Monday that he could disobey the direct order of a federal judge because "judges do not make laws, they interpret them." Since, Moore continued, an interpretation can be wrong, therefore he may defy a judicial order. So presumably Judge Moore also thinks that if he sentences a man to prison, the man can declare that the interpretation might be wrong and walk free? It's exactly the same logic.
Moore further said that the First Amendment precept, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," does not apply to him because "I am not Congress." Drag this incompetent lunatic out of the court quickly, please. Anyone with entry-level knowledge of Constitutional law knows that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was intended to extend the Bill of Rights to state governments; that a 1937 Supreme Court decision specifically declared that the First Amendment binds state officials like Judge Moore.
As a church-going Christian — TMQ was in this church on Sunday — I find it deeply embarrassing when Christianity is associated, in the public eye, with hucksters like Moore. I find it embarrassing, too, when Christians supporting Moore's hunk of stone suggest that a big object in a public square is what matters, rather than the power of God's message itself. Anyone who needs to look at a big object in order to believe, doesn't really believe.
And consider that in the same state, Alabama, where the Judge Moore sideshow is getting nonstop media attention, Republican Gov. Bob Riley is risking his political neck to campaign for tax-law changes that would increase taxes on the well-off while exempting everyone who makes less than $17,000 annually. Gov. Riley phrases the campaign in religious terms, saying, "According to our Christian ethics, we're supposed to love God, love each other and help take care of the poor." How come this pure and admirable Christian sentiment gets no media attention while the egomaniac with the hunk of stone in the same state's courthouse enjoys round-the-clock coverage?
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
I know that. Read my later post #142 and comment on it. If Disney/ABC/ESPN wants to mix sports with politics, then why not couldn't Rupert Murdoch form a Network that mixes conservative opinion and sports. Considering the demographics of the viewers of sports programming, I don't think the ESPN approach would win in the ratings.
All my life I've been seeing the views of religious conservatives defamed, denounced and distorted by those who claim to speak in defense of civil liberty, such as the ACLU.
This 10 Commandments controversy is no different. While some have argued the dangers of ignoring the traditions of jurisprudence -- an argument I respect but vehemently disagree with at this point -- a disproportionate number of the arguments from the anti-memorial side have been basically attacks against the character of Judge Moore -- that he's doing this for insincere reasons, that he won't judge fairly against those who hold a different cosmoligical view etc.
There is no evidence of this. There is no record of him discriminating against a religious minority.
Now, concerning the meat of the argument, this rock inscribed with words and images is no different than anything other publically funded rock inscribed with words and images.
If we can use public money to pay for displaying a cross in a jar of urine we can allow public property to be used to display this rock with the 10 Commandments on it.
Careful now JR, you're starting to paint yourself into a corner.
What if Muslims gain control of a city council — let's say in Dearborne Mich. where there is a big concentration of them — and they declare that henceforth Sharia law complete with amputations and stonings will be the only recognized law.
Still OK with you?
After all, it's according to the will of "the people".
They were certainly men guided by the Christian faith. Even Jefferson, who would not be considered a traditional Christian, espoused Christian values as supreme.
Actually, that's why Jefferson thought that Christian values should be supreme. And that's what Moore was saying when he noted that it is Judeo Christianity that allows us to protect the rights of disbelievers.
Our Consitution dovetails very nicely with fundamental Christianity. It doesn't do so with fundamental Islam.
Yeah, but if we're going to allow one kind of individual conscience to trump the Constitution then we have to allow all kinds — religious and secular alike.
And ultimately we're liable end up with a theocracy and stuff like Sharia law and the Spanish inquisition, or a militantly athiestic regime like Communism.
I think maybe we had better not tinker with a system which has served us well since 1889.
An ARTICLE? This FEDERAL JUDGE sided that the Ten Commandments could stay on STATE PROPERTY in FULL VIEW OF THE PUBLIC in a COURT OF LAW, just as your buddy Easterbrook didn't. You are biased in one direction and I am biased in another. SCOUTS should of rejected the order to remove that monument in Alabama until they ruled on the conflicting Federal judges opinions. If it is right is Texas, it is right in Alabama. Or vise versa.
That should read: "I think maybe we had better not tinker with a system which has served us well since 1789."
Both you and Roy Moore would have us believe that the same God who commanded "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" - in a statement so important it must be carved in a 2 1/2 ton monument in a government building in order to acknowledge that God - is also the ONLY God who is gracious enough to allow His children to worship Vishnu, or Buddha. And that this God is the SOLE source of anyone's right to worship those other gods.
Anachronistic, to say the least.
Those Christian Founders did not make such ridiculous statements in deciding to secure the religious freedoms of ALL Americans.
Everything comes down to conscience. Without conscience -- a fear of doing wrong and a reverance for truth -- the Constitution is just ink on paper. That's why culture and cultural values are important.
I think maybe we had better not tinker with a system which has served us well since 1889.
I think the system served us very well between 1889 and 1962. Since then our courts have been a disaster. They came very close to destroying this country three years ago.
This statement is in direct conflict with Judge Roy's sworn testimony about the Rock.
Do you dislike the facts of this particular case so much that you must work so hard to disown them?
Moore position is that the federal judge has ignored, overruled, misconstrued, and misapplied, settled law legally arrived at by duly constituted governmental institution.
BTW it's omnis gallia. . .
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.