Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[Eastbound]

Keyes on Hannity and Colmes just said "I will not let him stand alone," when asked by Hannity if he was willing to go to jail if Judge Moore was arrested?

Interesting exposition on federal jurisdition, stating that 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishing of religion.,' and that the gummint has no business being involved in this issue. It was up to the individual states to resolve the question of whether or not the people of the state wanted to establish a religious-oriented state government, noting that several states in our early history were oriented as such. He also ruffled Colmes' feathers considerably. I thought Colmes was going to burst out crying. Keyes ended all of his statements with his usual double-wide, full-keyboard smile. . Check Fox News and see if the transcript is up yet. What a kick

[apackof2]

I think Pat probably has a better understanding of the slippery slope of losing our freedom of religion than you do

1CO 2:10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. [11] For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. [13] This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.* [14] The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:

[WOSG]

"That was exactly my point about the 6th Amendment--as I stated earlier, it clearly does NOT allow for appointed counsel. But yet this is now an unquestionable right in our society."

Excuse me, it's *not* an "unquestioned" right - that's arrogant - as I for one am questioning it! It's a "right" that does not exist legally in the constitution. Re-interpreting the Constitution doesnt really change that.

"Do you really think that we should have a society in which the poor are left to fend for themselves in the judicial arena?"

It's good policy, but I find it no more of an important thing or good thing than for the poor to be fed in times of need. In BOTH cases, this is public policy, and our Democratic process has a way to address such things. This "feel good" thinking has led to many excessive acts of judicial over-reach where judges have eg forced taxes (violating separation of powers, Kansas City desegregation cases). Just simply because you would find it wrong for hungry to be left unfed you cant go around falsely claiming it as a constitutional right.

The ends dont justify the means.

"Seeing as you said that it is a nice social policy, I would think the answer to that question is no. The result is that the 6th Amendment is expanded, as it should be."
To answer your question, I'm not really bothered by any recent "invention" of rights."

Well, that IMHO is sad ... you've just rewritten the Constitution from what it *is*, to what you think it *should* be. it's the "Tempting of America" that Justice Bork talked about, and it leads, as he showed, to many ill effects.

The 6th Amendment has not been expanded at all.
You've merely crossed the line from correct interpretation to fanciful interpretation. It SHOULD bother you ALOT to see this happen because constructing public policy via Judicial fiat means the end of Rule of Law. What is to stop the next Justice to "invent" a "right" of "socialized medicine", a "right" to "public nudity", a "right" of "aggreived groups to act violently" even? Nothing! The law is what a judge says it is, suddenly, nothing more nothing less. It has no end. Rule of Law is dead. Democracy is Dead. That is no victory, that is a disaster!

" See my discussion on the 9th Amendment. There may be a judicial decision that I don't like, but I'm never really concerned with a judiciary that jealously guards the liberties of the citizenry, ..."

IMHO, this Judicial ruling violates the rights of Judge Moore to express his views and excercise his rights. This ruling violates ALL OUR RIGHTS. You have blinders on if you think judicial activism is about 'expanding rights' - more rights have been *lost* from judicial activism, far more, than have been gained. Likewise, a ruling forbidding the protection of the unborn for the sake of "right to abortion" violates the rights of the unborn. This is like Dred Scott. There are two sides to each coin, and the loss is always much greater than the gain when the Judicial system oversteps its bounds.

And the terrrible thing about it is, these mistakes - unlike the mistakes made in public policy via the democratic process - are not easily reversible. Judicial imperialism and Judicial activism are forms of TYRANNY and are *very dangerous* and quite damaging to our legal, social and political system.

[MineralMan]

"I could have 100 in my congregation within a year, just by saying stuff they wanted to hear.
What an utter waste of time. Not worth the time unless it is by saying stuff He wants them to hear.

---

"

Of course it would be a waste of time. I would never do such a thing. But I could. It's so easy to dupe most people into believing whatever darn fool thing you want them to believe. Any good speaker could start a church and fill it with an avid congregation. How do you suppose Falwell does it?

[MineralMan]

"Yes, but you need religion. Otherwise there is no purpose and no future after death. Surely, you believe that you are above the animals. Surely you believe there is something after this life. "

Surely? I don't think so. I _am_ one of the animals. I'm a mammal, just as you are. And I do not believe there is something after death. I am content with my three score and ten, and hope to do some good things that help others in that time. After that, I will be cremated and only other folks memories of me will survive.

How arrogant we are to assume that we are so important that our identities continue after our deaths!

[rwfromkansas]

No problem. I had just finally had it with the same stuff being tossed about about how Moore is a "tyrant" etc. and that he is violating the Constitution, though that is only true in the mind of somebody who doesn't understand the Constitution.

I have been of FR a lot tonight though. Nice to get a rest...lol.

[MarthaNOStewart]

The next move should be ours, to MONTGOMERY, ALA to stand with Moore and prevent the removal of those Ten Commandments. It is origin of criminal law in America. SEE CRIMINAL JUSTICE TEXTBOOK "CRIMINAL JUSTICE, SEVENTH EDITION, BY JAMES A. INCIARDI", it is most widely used textbook in colleges. On page 43 under Common Law it explains how our criminal laws originated from England's common laws based on ten commandments and holy scripture. THIS IS ABOUT REMOVING GOD FROM TEXTBOOKS IN COLLEGE, NOT SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, and perpetuating a lie!

[MineralMan]

Both. Society is a reflection of history, and bases its codified rules on what has worked and not worked in the past. Individuals, too, define right and wrong based on experience. Only some individuals, psychopaths, do not seem to have this capacity. Deities are handy devices for societies to lend some sense of external authority to their rules. Most often this is done when the rules don't make a lot of sense to the average person. Do no harm to others unless you are in danger. That is really the only rule that is needed. All others follow.

[rwfromkansas]

thanks

[WOSG]

"Maybe we need to investigate the background of those in the ACLU and those "unbelievers" to see where they are really coming from. Maybe the assault on our country and our freedoms is already beginning."

ACLU's assault on our freedoms has gone on for a long time ... the ACLU was started by a Communist called Baldwin in the 1920s and has gotten only more and moree unreasonable over time.

http://www.chuckmorse.com/communistbackground_aclu.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/aclu.htm

eg see this comment ...


http://forums4.aclu.org/messageview.cfm?catid=42&threadid=2784

"The ACLU says the sale and distribution of CHILD RAPE PORN and CHILD MURDER films should be legal, yet the ACLU claims it doesn't endorse them. The ACLU should oppose the sale and distribution of CHILD RAPE PORN. Other civil liberties law firms do. Something is terribly wrong with the ACLU, and it is unworthy of donations."

[rwfromkansas]

God is a God of love AND hate.

I believe it is Psalm 8 or something which goes "I hate all workers of iniquity."

His love and hate are paradoxical, but they are both parts of the Almighty.

[Protagoras]

Perhaps I said that wrong:

Way wrong. In fact what you are saying now is nothing whatsoever like what you said the first time. But this new statement you are close to being correct.

[rwfromkansas]

Ever hold a pencil in front of your face and shake it up and down? It looks like rubber instead of wood and is all wobbly. Kind of cool.

[rwfromkansas]

833 posts. I must say this is probably the biggest thread I have ever started.

[MarthaNOStewart]

"render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" has to do with paying your taxes and nothing to do with historical fact!
This is about changing history...in the criminal justice textbooks. America's first criminal laws in 1676 were handed down from Duke of York to Pennsylvania Colongist and were based on England's Common Law derived from justices decisions relating to Ten Commandments. The "Original Criminal Code of 1676" is based specifically on Ten Commandments....thereby it is HISTORICAL FACT. There should be no reference to seperation of church and state, it is history...Should we remove Leanardo Di Vinci's name from his painting "Mona Lisa" and give someone else the credit?? Don't let the atheists do this, and they are one's behind it, they will rewrite the textbooks!

[WOSG]

"You are aware that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, right?"

What a totally ignorant and dumb comment.
Let me guess, you also buy the "Jihad just means struggle to find God" cr*p.

The only thing shared between the two is the concept of a monotheistic being. Even then, Islam (falsely) slams Christianity for claimed polytheism (aka "The Holy Trinity"), and their conception of God is philosophically and practically quite different. Islam's borrowing from Judaism and Christianity are ad hoc, totally contrary to orthodox Judaism and Christianity respectively, and given Christianity's influence from Greek philosophy (to Augustine and Aquinas) that Islam lacks, the foundations of the two religions are quite different - indeed irreconcilable. (In contrast, for example, the philosophy of Buddhism is far more reconcilable with aspects of Christian belief, even thought on the surface they seem more different.)

Go here - the truth will set you free:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968155/posts

[MarthaNOStewart]

Amen