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

To: FBD
Anyone who has followed this subject, could cite hundreds of examples of denied religious "expression."

Yes, they can.. But in almost all those cases, courts have explained their constitutional basis for their opinions in that particular case.
Such cases build 'case law', -- but your constitutional right to expression remains.
In most instances, all you have to do is take your expression to private property.

Your views appear to be inconsistent, because you called the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court "artwork", and in the Alabama court, it is religious expression?

Moore admitted he placed his 'artwork' as a political statement. He was fired for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles.

Given the state of our state today, how can you honestly tell me that the coercion is in the establishment of a religion? Or is it really in the prohibition of "the free excercise ("expression") thereof"?

Our basic concept on this is fairly simple, imo..
--- You are free to 'exercise' most anywhere.. But try to stay out of my face while you do it.. -- Ordinary courtesy used to guide most of us..

Tell that to the ACLU, who gets in everyones face about the tiniest of assumed expression.

Yep, zealots abound on both sides of this issue..
Rest assured, I'm just as quick to tell an ACLU goon to butt out of my business as his counterpart in the fundamentalist movement.

My favorite quote on the subject of over-zealotry:

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion."
-Arthur Koestler-

89 posted on 03/02/2004 10:13:25 AM PST by tpaine (I'm trying to be 'Mr Nice Guy', but the U.S. Constitution defines conservatism; - not the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: tpaine
"He was fired for that expression of defiance to our constitutional principles."

No, he wasn't. He was fired because he failed to show "contrition."

I highlighted the pertinent part of the article below:


This article in the Seattle Times, by David Postman:

"As a lower-court judge, Moore was sued over the Ten Commandments plaque he hung on his courtroom wall. In 2000, he was overwhelmingly elected chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

He had a 5,280-pound monument to the commandments installed in the rotunda of the state courts building and was sued for violating the separation of church and state.

He lost his job when a special ethics panel ruled against him in November for defying a court order to remove the monument. At his trial, the presiding judge said Moore should be removed in part because he had not shown contrition."


I see. Religious folks must be must be apologetic, contrite. Or else they are "zealots". I wonder what the was intended, when the Ten Commandments were put on the USSC?

"My favorite quote on the subject of over-zealotry:"...."

Yeah. and -
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

90 posted on 03/02/2004 10:38:29 AM PST by FBD (...Please press 2 for English...for Espanol, please stay on the line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

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