Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yumans want Ten Commandments back in Alabama;
yuma sun ^ | Randy Reese

Posted on 08/31/2003 9:08:43 AM PDT by AZ GRAMMY

Yumans want Ten Commandments back in Alabama; 50 protest removal of monument from courthouse, suspension of judge

By Randy Reese Aug 31, 2003

Pastor John Howe stood alongside about 50 other protesters early Saturday afternoon along 4th Avenue and braved the August heat to get his message across — "We want the Ten Commandments back in Alabama."

Howe, pastor of the Truth Baptist Church of Yuma, said the recent removal of the monument from the state capitol building's rotunda in Montgomery was a travesty and the suspension of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore an even worse affront to justice. Protesters line the corner of 24th Street and 4th Avenue on Saturday waving flags and banners protesting the removal of the Ten Commandment monument in Alabama. Photo by Randy Reese

"This is a culmination of the last 50 years of the spewing of untruths by the liberal media," Howe said as protestors stood along the street with signs conveying their wishes. "The people of this country have continued to be inundated by information that is not true and this is what happens." He said that media reports stating that the separation of church and state is a part of the U.S. Constitution is false. "This great nation was founded for the freedom of religion not for the freedom from religion.

"You can search the Constitution all you want and you will never find anything there about the separation of church and state. It's just not there. And now our federal government is taking it upon itself to tell states what they can and cannot do. That's just not right," he said.

Moore has been suspended by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled last year that the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government endorsement of a religion doctrine. Moore's suspension came about because of his fight to keep the monument in the rotunda.

Howe said he and his group, many from his church, have four demands they wish to be addressed concerning the incident. "We want the the Supreme Court to overrule the removal and have the monument returned to its rightful location. We also want Judge Moore returned to his job and we want the U.S. Congress to begin impeachment actions on Judge Thompson as soon as it is back in session.

"We also want Congress to enact legislation that will keep things like this from happening again," he added.

By 2 p.m., the group was ready to head home after what Howe thinks was a successful event. "We wanted to get the word out that there are people as far away as Yuma who are amazed at what has happened and that we want justice served," he said.

--- Randy Reese can be reached at rreese@yumasun.com or 539-6855.

http://yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_6974.shtml


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: impeachment; judgemoore; judgethompson; tencommandments; yuma

1 posted on 08/31/2003 9:08:43 AM PDT by AZ GRAMMY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AZ GRAMMY
"You can search the Constitution all you want and you will never find anything there about the separation of church and state. It's just not there. And now our federal government is taking it upon itself to tell states what they can and cannot do. That's just not right," he said. Moore has been suspended by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled last year that the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government endorsement of a religion doctrine. Moore's suspension came about because of his fight to keep the monument in the rotunda.

The establishment clause in the first amendment applies to Congress only. An individual state can establish religion all they want. Many had state religions when the Constitution was ratified.

2 posted on 08/31/2003 9:25:44 AM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
>>> The establishment clause in the first amendment applies to Congress only.

Like abolition, free speech, women's suffrage, and Habeas corpus?
3 posted on 08/31/2003 9:40:59 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: risk
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

I believe I am correct.

4 posted on 08/31/2003 9:53:26 AM PDT by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AZ GRAMMY
Bump
5 posted on 08/31/2003 9:57:36 AM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ GRAMMY
Bump!
6 posted on 08/31/2003 11:01:52 AM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZ GRAMMY
Moore has been suspended by U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson of Montgomery, who ruled last year that the monument violates the Constitution's ban on government endorsement of a religion doctrine. Moore's suspension came about because of his fight to keep the monument in the rotunda.

Who wrote this garbage?

Moore was suspended by an Alabama Judicial Ethics Panel when it referred his disobedience of a ruling from an Appeals Court to a Court for trial. Thompson had nothing to do with his suspension.

7 posted on 08/31/2003 11:06:41 AM PDT by sinkspur (How about rescuing a Bichon Frise? He'll love you forever!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Who wrote this garbage?

      Just a typical semi-educated reporter.
8 posted on 08/31/2003 11:20:48 AM PDT by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
>>>> I believe I am correct.

It's just a different perspective. Since I'm not religious, I see laws that are justified totally on religion as an abridgement of my civil rights. Indeed, no state has the right to pass such laws in my view. To me, when combined with the 14th amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.), California is forbidden to trample these rights.

Interpreting the separation clause as a "feds only" thing is much like the gun grabbers saying that a militia is only a government-sponsored collection of people, and the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. When the Constitution doesn't match someone's own personal preferences, there's always an obtuse circumvention based on reams of justification. Well, I just don't understand any of that justification. None of it makes sense to me.

And yes, I know several devout fundamentalist protestant Christians who agree with me. I'm not a Christian basher, and I'm not trying to drive morality out of government. American laws should be based on rationality. Basing them on religious text exclusively is counter to the spirit of the Enlightenment and a step backward in human progress.

Anyway, shouldn't all laws that are moral have a rational basis as well? Why not concentrate on the real issue before us: conservative Christians are being blocked from public service because they are considered unelectable, or there is the fear on the part of anti-Christians that they might change laws or take away priviledges where society's morals have eroded. For example, gay adoption in California is one of the most disgusting things imaginable. This is one reason I'm supporting McClintock. However, I fully expect him to give a rational explanation for his policies if he gives any religious one whatsoever. (Children need a mother and a father to be born, so those are their natural parents, not a couple who refuse to follow nature's way, etc...).

It's a tougher road for devout Christians to follow, which is why some of them shrink away from it. But it's the law, and it's the status quo for a reason.

9 posted on 08/31/2003 4:42:13 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson