Alabama SC justices cave, order Ten Commandments removed

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

[rwfromkansas]

MONTGOMERY, Ala.

[lugsoul]

You can call a cat a bird, but it doesn't make it one.

[Zavien Doombringer]

I do have some nerve...

1. You professed to smoke dope!

2. I was replying to your posting to name other laws we should follow other than the 10 commandments...

3. I do not Drink, smoke or Chew...

4. And if you are referring to Matthew Chapter 7 verse 1, then I suggest you read it again! I am not judging you by the same degree, I cannot be judged for smoking dope, I don't. So I am not a hypocrite!

5. I am familiar with your knowledge of scripture and you are lacking...

6. I am not saying that you cannot have an opinion nor post one.

7. Didn't say or imply you were hurting anyone...but you you are doing it well enough to yourself...

8. By being a "brother in Christ", telling you to lay off the dope is in fact "Loving you"! You need to read your bible again!

[general_re]

The only possible offensive thing he can do that gets your goat is EXPRESS A RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT...while denying that same forum to others who wish to do the same.

Wouldn't want you to accidentally misrepresent me.

[lugsoul]

Yes - not a single mention relating to the adoption of the Amendment, but why trifle with detail.

You talk of my "interpretation" of establishment in Islamic countries, but you post nothing to refute or even question it. Feel free, if you can. But those countries have state religion, with a relatively unorganized religion. The fact that this is alien to your experience does not make it any less so.

As far as your remarkable twisting of Madison's words - we certainly do disagree on what constitutes a "religion" since you contend that it means a "church." So, tell me, what level of organized religion do I need to be involved with before my "religious beliefs" rise to the level of "religion." Do I have to have an ordained pastor? Do I have to attend services in a consecrated building? Do I have to subscribe to a set of Biblical interpretations handed down by a central authority?

You need to realize that not all religions resemble your own - and that this does not make them any less "religion".

[WOSG]

I was asking for the "Constitution" not case law.
Please quote what Constitutional text forbids "promoting" religion generally.

For me, citing a quote from the reliably wrong and incorrigible Justice Brennan on proper Constitutional law is about as convincing as a cite from Yasir Arafat on how to achieve mideast peace.

What stuck in my craw was "promote". IMHO part of the bogosity of Federal jurisprudence on establishment is this false idea that anything that remotely, indirectly or partially promotes religious sentiment is a bad thing. SORRY, that is *not* what the establishment clause is meant to forbid, and "promotion" does not generally deny other people freedom. Is it really pervasive, exclusionary and non-volutnary, or is the promotion open, non-exclusionary and more of an expression than a prosyltization?

A US Army general does more to "promote" a religious sect when he hires a Catholic chaplain that Judge Moore has done. IMHO your statement would deny the right of much that we do today! Quite dangerous and wrong!

It's why we've had these horrid rulings that make it so difficult for proper govt support to private schools that happen to have a religious component to them. Yet the Govt can fund exactly te same stuff (eg sending secular textbooks) for secular private schools. the net result is to really hamper *real choice* in education. Once again this becomes BIAS AGAIST RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION rather than any fairness.

[general_re]

A US Army general does more to "promote" a religious sect when he hires a Catholic chaplain that Judge Moore has done.

The Army doesn't hire only Catholic chaplains. Roy should take that as a very broad hint of how he can save his display.

But he won't.

[missyme]

First of all: I never said that anyone should follow any other commandments that were not of the TEN? I don't know where you got that one from.
And as far as my dope smoking you think I do apparently at any given moment is false.
I said I have smoked pot when I did, if I do is nothing you can comment on. Your are not perfect I am sure of that. I don't know how old you are but I am sure through-out your life you did things that were not perfect. I don't know if you gamble, commit adultry, are mean to kids and animals, but I do know that you have been not very nice to me. If you are asking me if I think marijuana is bad I will say no as I think Pot, Alcohol, food have benefits if they are done in moderation. You are judging POT because of the illegality of it, just like you would say about Alcohol if we had prohibition today. Maybe I am not as smart as you, but I am a wonderful kind person that has alot of friends.

[Zavien Doombringer]

no, I am judging pot because of the euphoria it produces.

The bible calls it Witchcraft...Deuteronomy...

[Zavien Doombringer]

This pot smoking has clouded your discernment of scripture.

[WOSG]

If you define Communism, Socialism, Nazism, etc. as 'religions', you've more of less expanded the term religion to meaninglessness, to 'any set of beliefs'.
Thus "most wars are wars over religious differences" are "wars over differences in beliefs" well - duh - and yet Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan didnt terrorize and kill for ideas, they did it for - POWER.

Almost all wars are and were about POWER.

The point is that secular belief systems and ideologies of Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and the many modern "isms" are far more bloody than traditional religions. The other point is that in ALL cases, they rejected the limits of traditional morality and the view of traditional religions that put man as a repsonsible and unique individual created by God. The main crime of the "isms" is rooted in their REJECTION of the individual and making man subservient to the State. NO traditional religion does this in the manner that Fascism and Communism do. It's the result of that belief that created the bloodiness of Collectivist ideology.

We've fought wars against colllectivism because we was the POWER to reside in the individual, in democratic rule, and not in a collectivist dictatorship.

As for blaming religions, that's just ignorant prejudice against the old:
Only Islam comes close historically in terms of bloodiness (eg India, Persia, Balkans, etc.) but that is over centuries, and is a consequence of Islam's use of the "Jihad" concept. Yet Islam, unlike he modern "isms" had times of great toleration and advance. Islam is not today and has rarely been as oppressive and cruel as say Maoist Communism.

And trash the flaws of Christian rule, but it gave rise to Western civilization, science, philosophy and all our modern way of life. Only Christian cultures were able to advance as much because of the foundations of Greek philosophy and Christian faith.

You can even go back to the French revolution to see the roots of modern blooody-mindedness. The Guillotine was the first Enforcer of Modern Political Correctness.

[WOSG]

But be aware in reading Brennan's opinions that Brennan was a Liberal shill for the extremist agenda of the ACLU.

Sadly, in this corner of Constitutional jurisprudence, that extremism as embodied in Lemon has triumphed in court to give us these awful and antiConstitutional rulings.

[general_re]

As is usual, I agree with a few things Brennan did, and disagree with others. Nevertheless, the proper course of action is for Judge Moore - if he gets no relief from the Supreme Court, as I expect - is to change the law.

I suspect that someday fairly soon, the Court will take on an establishment case and revise the Lemon test to make it a bit more sensible, but I highly doubt they'll choose Judge Moore as the avenue for that. Until then, it's the law, and we don't get to pick and choose which parts of the law we obey. That would make us liberals ;)

[WOSG]

"It doesn't make it "okay" but it is not unconstitutional. The simple reason is that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of a uniform code of SECULAR beliefs. It does, however, prohibit the establishment of religion. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Founders. "

Again, you express the absurd conclusion that law could be deemed unconstitutional or constitutional based solely on the state of mind of the legislators at the time of enactment. And how pray tell will you read their minds?

Either the *text* of the state law violates Constitution, or it does not. So again - Burkhas - in or out? Mind reading at this extreme level is flawed Constitutional jurisprudence.

I have no bone to pick with the founders, they are on my side. My bone is solely with bad constitutional interpretation of the past 30 years and the animus against Free Excercise of Religion in Federal courts.


"The simple reason is that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit the imposition of a uniform code of SECULAR beliefs. "

The ACLU would love you - but NOTE - the 1st Amendment free speech etc. clause protects us from imposition of *any* beliefs, secular included!!

[WOSG]

Your evading the point!

Hiring Chaplains "promotes" religion.

Dont deny the obvious.

And since 98% of Army Chaplains are Judeo-Christian, it is hardly less 'exclusionary' than a display that represents the whole Judeo-Christian ethic.

[inquest]

The only mention in Lemon of the 14th amendment was right at the beginning: "Both statutes are challenged as violative of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Absolutely nothing beyond that throughout the entire ruling that makes any reference to it at all. Abington makes a few more references to it, but nothing beyond the level of "their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments". In short, neither of these two rulings shed any light whatsoever on how Moore's action abridged anyone's privileges or immunities, deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied anybody the equal protection of the laws.

[WOSG]

"You posted judicial activism run amok. Now I know you don't have a problem with judicial activists but that's what you posted."

LOL ... a good retort.


BTW, with all this high falutin 'high wall' stuff, I have yet to see a single post that indicates anyone citing someone actually HARMED by this display. Not liking it cause you cant abide them 'bible thumpers' doesnt count!

[general_re]

Hiring Chaplains "promotes" religion.

So? I object to the promotion of one particular sect or faith over another, not promotion in general.

And since 98% of Army Chaplains are Judeo-Christian

I guess that still makes them less exclusive than Moore, who insisted on 100% of the space for himself.

[jwalsh07]

OK, we'll try again.

The same displays and prayers that were Constitutionsl for the first 170 years of the union are now Unconstitutional.

When was the Constitution amended in the twentieth century making such a thing possible?

[WOSG]

"That's pretty much Moore's defense too - putting his hands over his ears and shouting out "LALALALALALA...I don't have to listen to you...LALALALALALA"

Really? Post Moore's court briefs and we'll see about it.

[lugsoul]

You continue to ignore the fact that "intent" is an integral element of the majority of our laws, including the Ten Commandments. Until you squirm your way around that, your rant means little.