Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Reminds me of working as an EMT.;

A guy is dying from a self-inflicted stabbing. He hollers, "Leave me alone! Leave me alone!" What do you do? Just turn around and let him die? Or do you try to save him?- Well, because he is could be saved, I would try to save him, only to be sued by him later...If there were witnesses to me walking away and letting the man perrish, the family would sue me for not trying to save him

But in good conscience, I would try to save him and tell him about Jesus at the same time, if I wasn't sucessful in saving him, Jesus would be the next person he sees and he would need to be ready...

[MineralMan]

"The Bible does not say Hindu is a faith from G-D.

"

You might be surprised to learn that the Bible doesn't mention Christianity, either. It does say a lot about Judaism and that religion though. Perhaps Judaism is the only true religion. Certainly a lot of Jews think so.

[lugsoul]

I'm not saying he is trying to trample on them. But if they are not protected by the Constitution, others can. And he is pushing the view that they are not protected by the Constitution.

Now, since you seem to think that "religion" means something different when modified by the word "establishment" than otherwise, please explain how - why are these faiths not "religions" when modified by the word "establishment?"

[wardaddy]

Liberals always practice paternalism towards blacks...that's just how it is. I think your average ACLU paperhanger probably thinks he is genetically superior to your average black....that' s just a guess.

[Thorondir]

I know that of the top 5 or 6 antagonists on these threads (of which you are the ringleader) against the Judge that all of you are either Catholic or Orthodox.

No, my friend. These posters are POSERS of a most diabolical bent! Catholic is an easy thing to claim, and claiming it is an effective tactic for those who are out to destroy it. These same posers jump on every thread to defend sodomy, any degradation of the Church, liberalism and the methodical destruction of American culture--all the while taking careful measures, including packpedaling, sudden Clintonesque word-parsing and obfuscation just to maintain plausible deniability of what they really are. Just do a "find in forum" on any of them. You will see what will NOT surprise you.

[Happy2BMe]

"Do people have the right to teach their children the Wiccan religion?"

Mind posting the Wiccan Ten Commandments just soze we can compare?

[Helix]

I was just pointing out that there are restrictions to the practice if torture or extreme cruelty is involved. Most of the convictions I've heard about involved satanic rituals.

Judaism used to conduct animal sacrifices as part of their worship. Do you condemn that practise?

No, not at all. In fact, I took so long to reply to you because I went to sacrifice a chicken sandwich.

[Conservababe]

I can see now why you hate Judge Moore. He must have sat your lawyering arse down many times in court.

LOL

[lugsoul]

"Not judging from the words you posted. He wasn't talking about the free-exercise clause."

Okay, back to my earlier question that you didn't answer - do you believe that "religion" means different things in the establishment clause and the free exercise clause?

[MineralMan]

"Mind posting the Wiccan Ten Commandments just soze we can compare?
"

There aren't ten. Just one. "'An it harm none, do as you will."

Follow that and you'll be a pretty good person. But you do have to think about it a bit, making sure that the things you do really don't harm anyone.

[Thorondir]

I think I'll go with the guy anounced by hundreds of prophesies and who, after performing unheard-of miracles, raised Himself from the dead.

[MineralMan]

"I was just pointing out that there are restrictions to the practice if torture or extreme cruelty is involved. Most of the convictions I've heard about involved satanic rituals. "

Funny. Getting killed seems pretty cruel to me. Now, suppose you find a single conviction for me involving sacrifice and satanic rituals. I'm sure you've heard of some, but I challenge you to find them and report back, with legitimate sources.

[kegler4]

What is this G-D. Do you mean God? Why not say it?

[missyme]

And who would decifer that?

[missyme]

That is not repectful so out of respect G-D

[wardaddy]

are u back yet?

I could use your help...lots from your particular tribe here quoting lots of law.

[sport]

.....Now, if you're suggesting that montag813 is a straw man easily blown over, I might agree with you. But that's evidence for my original claim: there's a great deal of hostility towards the ACLU on FR, but very little of it is well-informed.


93 posted on 08/21/2003 9:16 AM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian

I agreei if the people were informed as to the goal of the alcu, the hostility would be turned to hatred of the alcu.

[MineralMan]

"I think I'll go with the guy anounced by hundreds of prophesies and who, after performing unheard-of miracles, raised Himself from the dead.
"

OK by me. I don't think you need anyone's permission, though.

[commonerX]

I don't know what the Wiccan Ten Commandments are. I do know someone who is a Wiccan and she said they follow one main principle. "Harm no-one, and anything you do will come back to you three times in its effect." If you steel, you will be stolen from three worst. If you are kind and generious you will recieve that generosity back three times what you give.

[general_re]

"Settled" does not mean accurate.

There are plenty of mechanisms to correct what you see as faulty interpretation, beginning with seeking an appointment to the bench, and ending with amending the Constitution. Again, you are arguing how the law ought to be - the wonderful thing about the Constitution is that you are free to do that. The other wonderful thing about the Constitution is that is specifies mechanisms for resolving disputes of this nature. And those mechanisms have been invoked, and under the law as it stands, Moore is wrong.

Specifically, if displaying a religious view while excluding others (X) violates equal protection (or due process or whatever), then how can it be that displaying a secular view while excluding others (Y) does not violate equal protection? I'd appreciate the courtesy of a direct answer - or an answer of "I don't know" if you don't know. Thank you.

LOL - I do believe you're a bit testy about this ;)

The direct answer is: that's a red-herring, neither applicable or relevant to this particular case.

The indirect answer is that the whole point of freedom of expression is to enrich society and the individuals therein by the free exchange of ideas in an open marketplace, where they may succeed or fail based on their own merits, rather than the based on whether or not its proponents hold temporal civil authority over other citizens. Deliberately and systematically using the power of the state to exclude one or more points of view from that marketplace is an offense to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution. In the less abstract sense, if and when you find a case that deals with the issues you raise, regarding exclusion of secular points of view from governmental expressions, and hence captures your new-found interest in the applications of the 14'th Amendment, I will be happy to discuss the specifics of it, and render my opinion based on the fullest possible understanding of the facts thereof. I even promise not to suggest that you've suddenly accepted the value of the 14'th Amendment ;)

The bottom line here is, does Judge Moore have the right to use the power of the state to advance his beliefs over and above all others? Feel free to answer directly, if you like, but for me the answer is clear - no matter how warm and fuzzy it may make us feel to use Caesar to promote Christ, the temporary gain is not worth the long-term peril we invite. Our grasp on the levers of power is always temporary and fleeting, and I have no desire to lay the foundations for someone else whom I find even more disagreeable than hucksters who try to nail themselves to crosses for secular gain to impose their beliefs on me with the sledgehammer of the state. I have no wish to see the Constitution perverted by giving someone else the precedent to declare that Sharia is the moral foundation of the law, or Ba'al, or whatever. Moore is a wonderful stalking-horse for forces that he thinks he can control, when in fact they will simply use him to their own ends, and we will have all abandoned any pretense at rational objection when they do.