Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[jethropalerobber]

A monument is not an "establishment" of religion. Anyone that reads that into it is, well, a moron.

check the alabama state constituation - it goes beyond establishment - moron.

[lugsoul]

You posted the link. I posted an excerpt from that link. Is there something wrong with that?

[jimt]

I guess to me it seems that if there is nothing after this life then who cares wether one does right or wrong? What motivates you to want to do right even when you know you could totally get away with wrong and you would never get caught? (Again, I am seriously curious)

If you do right you'll be rewarded in this life: others will respect you, aid you and generally do good things for you - and feel bad if they don't.

You can't totally get away with wrong. At the very least you know it's wrong, and that will injure you.

Doing right is usually the easiest way in the end. Doing wrong usually ends in making you unhappy. That's one of the easiest ways to tell it's wrong.

[Lost Highway]

I don't doubt that your family is fine and upstanding members of society. I would never attempt to claim that "religious folks" have some sort of lock on doing what it right. We all know that's not true.

I guess what I am driving at is what makes something right? In my case it's becuse God made it that way. What defines something as right or wrong? Society? Yourself?

[lugsoul]

It was obviously a response to your attempt to minimize Kennedy's wackiness, perhaps because you agree with him politically.

"If God didn't create the constellations, who did?" Well, that's simple. God created the stars, but there are no "constellations" outside of the minds of those who decided to draw lines between some stars to make pictures. Even some of those pictures are quite a stretch. A claim that the story of the gospel is represented in them is decidedly non-Scriptural.

[Helix]

I've found an example of the particular law I was referring to on the Association of the Bar of NYC's website.

Here are the relevent portions (and link for complete citation):

A religious purpose is not a justification for cruelty, so a religiously neutral cruelty statute such as § 353 may be enforced to prohibit ritual animal sacrifice.[5] Similarly, freedom of speech is not a justification for cruelty, so § 353 may be enforced to prohibit cruelty even where such cruelty was committed with an expressive purpose.[6] Moreover, the New York cruelty statute does not exempt animal husbandry practices. Thus, although the slaughter of animals in accordance with humane slaughter lawsa [7] would not violate the cruelty statute, abuse or neglect of farm animals that is not otherwise sanctioned by law is prohibited.[8] And acts that are ordinarily lawful, such as whipping a racehorse, may become unlawful when they are done to excess.[9]

footnotes:

[5]Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (a statute enacted with the legislative purpose of banishing or repressing a particular religious group is unconstitutional, whereas a neutral statute may incidentally restrict religious practice).

from: http://www.abcny.org/cruelty.htm


The florida case you referred to is mentioned in the footnote. The majority opinion in that case (written by Kennedy) struck down the Hialeah ordinance as being unconsitiutional due to the narrowness of it's application to religious groups. Animal cruelty laws not solely designed to constrict religious practice may be enforced.

Here is one example of someone convicted of cruelty to animals in a satanic mutilation case. Althought I wouldn't describe it as a "sacrifice" because the animals weren't killed.

from http://www.petfinder.org/journalindex.cgi?path=private/shelteroperations/petprotectors/humanearizona/2.62.107.txt

In southern Arizona, law enforcement often suspect that “dabblers” are present if animal mutilations are found in close proximity with other telltale signs – candle drippings, strange symbols, non-discernable alphabets, vandalized religious artifacts, etc. One of the most recent animal cruelty cases to have ritualistic overtones were the horse mutilations at the Fred Fry Stables on August 9, 2000. Tucson Police and Pima County Sheriff’s Department personnel noticed strange symbols cut into the skin of some mutilated horses. James Hart and Syljva King, both convicted in March 2001 of the crimes, reportedly told authorities that they practiced their own version of Satanism.

[Lost Highway]

If you do right you'll be rewarded in this life: others will respect you, aid you and generally do good things for you - and feel bad if they don't.

So you do right because it really benefits you. As I just asked MineralMan what makes something right or wrong? If not God soceity?

[wardaddy]

I am not informed enough to debate Kennedy's book having not read it.

I assume you have.

Man, you type fast.

I just rented 2 10X20s cash money in the interim. Divine Providence....lol

[Lost Highway]

Thanks for your comments and patience. Unfortuately I have to run. Hopefully we can pick this up again sometime.

[lugsoul]

Nope. But I've seen him talk on it.

Then again, I've yet to see the TV preacher who was willing to address that camel problem, either.

[jwalsh07]

22H.R.J. Res. 1, 44th Cong., (1875)

. Debated by Congress in August 1876, it passed the House by a vote of 180-7, but just fell short of the necessary two-thirds vote required for passage in the Senate. The Senate vote, held on August 14, 1876, was 28-16 in favor of the amendment. 4 Cong. Rec. 5595 (1876).

The importance of the proposed amendment, as suggested by one author, is three-fold. First, the first clause of this proposal, aside from its applicability to state action, was in the identical words of the First Amendment. Second, the measure was proposed and discussed only seven years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, it was considered by the Forty-fourth Congress, which included twenty-three members of the Thirty-ninth Congress, TWO OF WHOM ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED in the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment. Alfred W. Meyer, The Blaine Amendment and the Bill of Rights, 64 Harv. L. Rev. 939, 941 (1951)[hereinafter Meyer].

Even more poignant was Senator Fredrick Frelinghuysen’s comments regarding the proposed amendment, which attests that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the First Amendment: I call the attention of the Senate to the first alteration the House amendment makes in our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, enacted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, provides that – ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ This is an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States. The House article very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States.... Thus the article as amended by the Senate prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from prohibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office. 4 CONG. REC. 5561 (Aug. 14, 1876) (statement of Sen. Frelinghuysen)

. In arguing against the proposed amendment, Senator Stevenson intriguingly employed the statements of Thomas Jefferson when he declared:

Friend as he [Jefferson] was of religious freedom, he would never have consented that the States, which brought the Constitution into existence, upon whose sovereignty this instrument rests, which keep it within its expressly limited powers, should be degraded and that the Government of the United States, a Government of limited authority, the mere agent of the States with prescribed powers, should undertake to take possession of their schools and their religion… 4 CONG. REC. 5589 (Aug. 14, 1876) (statement of Sen. Stevenson).

In the end, the amendment failed to achieve the essential two-thirds majority necessary for it to begin the ratification process among the states. Mr. Meyer suggests that “ the debates on the Blaine Amendment and the later attempts to make the religious provisions of the First Amendment binding upon the states point out the historical inaccuracy of concluding that the First Amendment was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again, here is the proof I spoke of which gives evidence to the fact that those who wrote the 14th knew that it's intent was not to incorporate the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment. Pay particular attention to the bold and capitalised words. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies

[missyme]

Well I will tell you that without Moral Code from G-D we could give ourselves an excuse to be mean to people to do all sorts of drugs steal for need. G-D is what prevents us from impulse.

[Viva Le Dissention]

But what you've got to understand is that so-called "textualists" or "originalists" simply don't exist.

I think most everyone would agree that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents gender-based discrimination by the government. I think even Thomas or Bork would agree on this. But the authors of the 14th Amendment had no such intentions in the drafting of the Amendment--it was specifically meant to address only racial discrimination. So much so, in fact, that there were women jailed in several states for attempting to vote after the 14th Amendment was passed, and their sentences were upheld by the Supreme Court.

There's all sorts of examples on this subject, but you simply can't, with a straight face, claim to be a pure "originalist." The fact is the don't exist--and once you realize this, anything is possible.

[SedVictaCatoni]

This country is a Christian, english-speaking country. Those that dont like it, need to immigrate somewhere else!

Ohio had German-language newspapers for most of the first half of the nineteenth century, because it had tens of thousands of immigrants who didn't speak English.

Eventually, their children learned English and assimilated, and the German newspapers faded away.

[Sloth]

You missed my point. The post I was replying to implied that the ACLU would not target churches since they are private entities. I was pointing out that the ACLU has no such qualms, and that private organizations are not safe from ACLU harassment/lawsuits... I wasn't referring to their success or failure in court.

[jwalsh07]

But what you've got to understand is that so-called "textualists" or "originalists" simply don't exist.

Well, happily, you seem to have conceded the point that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not intended to incorporate the "establishment clause" of the First Amendment. You get big points for that.

But, the misunderstanding from my perch is yours and a lot of others who conflate indidual inalienable rights granted by the Creator, or natural rights for the less relgiously inclined.

In other words, the "establishment clause" was a constraint on the federal government and the federal government alone while the inalienable rights to speech and the written word are without a doubt are incorporated by the 14th Amendment.

[lugsoul]

Of course, the body of legal thought is also that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment means... well, nothing. Absloutely nothing. I'm sure they debated over this language and included it for no purpose whatsoever. But that's what the "originalists" would have you think.

[Republic]

I don't see any political gain here either. (Other than hillary and bill who are probably peeing in their pants with glee over the remaining justices donning their dresses and giving up.)

The ACLU is my enemy.

Judge Thomas is the only justice there who held to his oath of office in that state, who embraced and took seriously the reference to God for guidance.

Again-the ACLU is my enemy.

[jwalsh07]

Of course, the body of legal thought is also that the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment means... well, nothing. Absloutely nothing. I'm sure they debated over this language and included it for no purpose whatsoever. But that's what the "originalists" would have you think.

I have concluded that you are a joke.

[rwfromkansas]

Thanks for pinging me.

"I do not much care for Benny Hinn and his ilk and can make a distinction"

Ditto. As a matter of fact, I think Hinn is not even saved...