The Ten Commandments Debate (Federal Judiciary Tyranny Alert!)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 9/01/03 | Joseph Farah

[mrsmith]

"I like the lemon law, and I think it protects me the nonbeliever"

Well, don't be such a wuss. You're going to have to get along with the Constitution instead. If you want it changed amend it.

But it won't be as bad as you think. There will be no covernment coercion of religious belief; nor censoring of history, or of religion from the public square.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

make our nation stronger, more egalitarian, or more secure?

you are here using the language of the Marxists and the Statists.

[ninenot]

As you know, PJB wrote an editorial in WND today (same subject.) ALso a lot of fun to read.

Ol' Myron has a lotta 'splainin' to do around his neighborhood, I'd imagine.

[rottweiller_inc]

Do you really think that Justices Scalia and Thomas are just plain wrong about requiring states to observe First Amendment limitations? Do you think that they're just engaged in an unfair federal power grab?

until the rights in the bill of rights are legally repealed they are binding. It does'nt matter if the supreme court judges say that because there is a precedent saying so it makes it law or has the power to alter the constitution. The biggest problem in america with this is that there are many people that think only federal judges and lawyers can understand the constitution. If the people cannot understand the constitution how can the people they elect and those they appoint be held to it? The people would have to defer to lawyers and judges because they are incapable of understanding it for themselves. This of course transfers the power from the people to the laywers and judges who 'interpert' the constitution. That is hardly what the founding fathers had in mind.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

you have mail

[risk]

Apparently the Constitution is on my side. At least that's the case today. And if you've forgotten the Reformation and the battle between protestants and catholics in Ireland, and the Gunpowder plot, and the Anglican church's impact on the Pilgrims, then of course you could believe that religious freedom means the state's power to impose religious law.

[risk]

Oh no, it's the "he's a communist" attack!

[ninenot]

They were there to remind citizens that American laws were inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition of morality and personal responsibility. But Moore said they were the basis of our laws. These are two different things.

Huh?

I don't think you can find an antecedent "basis" or "inspiration."

[ninenot]

Get off the "imposition" line for once.

If someone is to be accused of "imposition," it is those who would substitute their judgment for Right Order. So happens that Right Order is neatly defined in the 10 Commandments.

If you would go to the trouble of constructing an alternative verbalization of "right order" you'd STILL wind up with the 10 Commandments--but it'd take a lot more ink and paper.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

You are the one who intruded the Statist argument, not me.

[mrsmith]

"the state's power to impose religious law. "
Just look how patheticly you've abandoned any pretense of an argument.

No force of law = no establishment.

There are atheistic governments that will assertively 'protect' you, try enjoying freedom in one of them.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, here's another way to approach all this. What changes, if any, were accomplished by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment? Did it change anything?

[ninenot]

I agree with the Federal Court's decision, as I would about any single faith display similar to this, not because I am against faith, I certainly am not, but because I find it disrespectful to those who find moral value in the teachings of other faiths.

Cut to the chase. Would you have sued for removal of the monument?

[LiteKeeper]

This is a national crisis.

This is one of the most profound statements to come out of this whole affair. And it is so TRUE!

[ninenot]

I would argue against a Mormon state religion in Utah based on the first amendment, as well. (And I'd win.)

NOT, surely, on the plain meaning of the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments (and the last two were NOT 'incorporated' by the 14th, initially.)

[risk]

>>>> I don't think you can find an antecedent "basis" or "inspiration."

It's more specific, he called it the moral foundation. I think he may have used the word "basis" in the CNBC interview I heard, which was when I started seeing him for what he really is.

From the ethics commission's complaint:

12. On August 14, 2003, Chief Justice Moore stated publicly that he would not comply with the injunction issued to him by the District Court. Among other things, Chief Justice Moore said in his statement in response to the Order directing him to remove the monument:

As Chief Justice of the State of Alabama, it is my duty to administer the justice system of our state, not to destroy it. I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments and the moral foundation of our law. To do so would, in effect, result in the [be a] disestablishment of our system of Justice in this State. This I cannot and will not do!

[ninenot]

BTW, you can have good moral character without being a Christian.

Yes--but by using the term "moral" you have acknowledge that there is a God, of one sort or the other--because without such, there IS no definition of "moral."

[Conservative Me]

Honestly? No, but that does not mean that I do not support the decision to have the monument removed. It would take a lot for me to sue over anything, no matter how wrong I felt something was. That is just the way I am. I avoid confrontation.

I agree almost completely with risk's posts.

[ninenot]

Why then are the Subcommittees doing nothing?

Because we are not holding their feet to the fire. It is time we all called our member of congress asking that they impeach some of these out of control activist judges.

Not quite. The reason that they are doing nothing is that they are scared silly of the politics. They can't win--so they will hide.

[risk]

>>>> You are the one who intruded the Statist argument, not me.

I don't understand how you linked my comments to Marxism.