Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

AP on Fox News ^ | 8-21-03 | AP on Fox News website

[Moby Grape]

I was not wrong about the state court having to obey the law. I was wrong about the number of dems/repubs on the state court, and did not hesitage to acknowledge the correction. I do not get testy about being wrong. I get testy about name calling, and I fired back. Try actually reading for content. I also get testy about someone like you not getting the core facts...read a little slower...pronounce each word.

[BamaG]

hmmmm....nothing you said contridicts that. I said that he commanded it, and you said " Had to be stopped by an angel sent by God, then a Ram ws put in Issacs place... "

Sounds to me like old Abraham intended to do it. Why? because he was told to?

Read your bible.

[Moby Grape]

I have already been corrected, and rightly so...

[Protagoras]

Good one, Protagoras!! I think many here are from the "I'll tell you what the Bible means, and you'll like it" school.

Sadly, way too many IMO.

[lugsoul]

What do you think it means when he says that considering Hinduism or Buddhism to be "religion" for purposes of the 1st Amendment would be an "erroneous assumption?" What part of that am I misreading?

[ClancyJ]

So can we, and frankly we are getting tired of being trampled on.

[rwfromkansas]

The history of the First Amendment’s adoption provides important insight into its intent. James Madison introduced the First Amendment in the House of Representatives June 8, 1789, with the original text reading: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed” (Annals of Congress). By August 15, it read: “No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” Importantly, in the debate that day, Roger Sherman is recorded in the Annals as thinking, since Congress had no power to establish religious establishments, an amendment to forbid it was unnecessary. Such was the belief of both Madison and Jefferson. In a significant announcement, Madison explained the intent of his amendment recorded in the Annals for August 15, as it is recorded that “He apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.” Nothing in this explanation supports a contention that the federal government could not ever pass an act supporting religion in general, even perhaps generally the Christian religion. Madison (who in some cases seems to broadly interpret “establish”) very narrowly construes the meaning of establish in the amendment.

Of course, this amendment went through further changes. An example is the final draft of the House version in the Annals for August 20, 1789: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed." A person attempted to alter the amendment in the Senate to stop any “state” from doing such, not just Congress. However, the motion failed. The final version in the Senate (from the Annals of Congress for September 9) read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” It should be noted that the Senate beat back attempts to alter the language to prohibit the establishment of a particular “denomination” (Annals, September 3). One major First Amendment authority believes that rejecting the wording of "denomination" shows that the narrow constructionist view of the establishment clause was rejected (Stokes & Pfeffer). However, in the very final Senate version quoted above, the legislators did narrowly construct the amendment. Congress is only forbidden from establishing articles of faith and manner of worship, not a broad restriction in any sense of the word. Furthermore, a consistent wording in changes to the First Amendment as offered initially is the banning of acts “establishing” a religion (an example is the House version), putting in doubt the statement of one author that any law even touching upon something of a religious nature is unconstitutional.

[Egg]

It's all but official: we have a Constitutional Republic no longer. It has been slowly replaced with a democracy executed according to the whims of the judicial branch and their gauge of public opinion.

Such democracies [i.e. non-republic in nature] have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. --James Madison

A respect for law rooted in Christian morality is the only reason that our constitution hasn't been wholly trampled upon by now, but with this taking off of the gloves, there is no hope that any remaining portion of government restraint will be respected.

[inquest]

Alas, we've wandered into hypothetical-land now.

And that's supposed to be some kind of effective counterpoint? Whenever you lay down a principle, you should be expected to be able to apply that principle to different situations. Otherwise, it ain't much of a principle, now is it? Would you care now to answer my questions?

[MineralMan]

"I think it Madline O'Hara or something like that who was the Top Dog Atheist in your belief, and she was betrayed and murdered by her followers if I am correct, I think Atheism is not conducive whatso ever with a civilized culture.
I would say this Madeline woman is proably being tortured by demons or maybe she just did
SEE THE LIGHT."

You make a common mistake. There is no Church of Atheism. Madeleine may have been an atheist, but I can't think of a single thing we agreed on. Just as all Christians do not share the same political beliefs, you will find atheists of every political belief system.

[missyme]

I think immigrants ruined this country that came after 1970.

[MineralMan]

"Just curious why would you think human sacrafices would be wrong, after all Satanists who beleive in Human Sacrafices are hidden all over this world practicing this barbaric faith. Sacrafice of any living thing goes agaisnt G-D"

What? You're making no sense at all. I'm an atheist, not a Satanist. And I challenge you to find a single, documented case of human sacrifice by any religious group in the United States.

Your deity INSISTED on the sacrifice of animals a few thousand years ago, for pete's sake.

[general_re]

A historical display does not implicate the First Amendment Establishment Clause, does it? Not to mention that the courts do not now, nor have they ever issued advisory opinions about what might happen in some hypothetical situation - all they can do is deal with the facts arrayed before them. Facts which, in this particular case, are clear as to what the intent of Moore was...

[m1-lightning]

Maybe another good thing to hope for is that you can get your state and local government to stop spending your taxes on these failures so that you can put the money towards homeschooling or private schooling.

It would take a change in power of our state government to do such a thing and with the waves of brainwashed socialistic kids coming out of our schools each graduating year, it becomes more and more difficult to get the voting support. It was an ingenious political technique by the liberals to form teacher's unions.

[HurkinMcGurkin]

There would have been no Emancipation Proclamation had it not been for the Ten Commandments.

Oh, good grief. Talk about circular.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Which has nothing to do with having the ten commandments in a court building. What is the purpose of it anyway?

Exactly, the SCOTUS Has no jurisdiction on a ruling because it must be blind! By removing the 10 commandments a precedent is in place that NO religion is allowed, thus establishing an Atheistic Government! A religion/belief in itself...

[MineralMan]

"I think immigrants ruined this country that came after 1970."

Amazing! Where did that date come from? Was that the year you were born or something?

[Protagoras]

Exactly, the SCOTUS Has no jurisdiction on a ruling because it must be blind!

Maybe that's why they didn't take the case.

By removing the 10 commandments a precedent is in place that NO religion is allowed, thus establishing an Atheistic Government! A religion/belief in itself...

I disagree with these conclusions.

[libravoter]

I think immigrants ruined this country that came after 1970.

Yeah, well I think this thread is made foolish by all Freepers who joined less than two months ago.

Oh. Wait. That would be you.

[Protagoras]

What was the purpose of placing the commandments there anyway?