FOX NEWS: ALABAMA TEN COMMANDMENTS JUDGE SUSPENDED...

Drudge Report ^ | 08/22/03 | Matt Drudge

[Pokey78]

Orlando Salinas broke in a few minutes ago and announced this on Fox News.

[ArneFufkin]

Your dripping chew juice all over the forum.

[Roscoe]

Not surprising, some of the most vehement advocates of suppressing religious expression are champions of pornography and pedophiles.

[concerned about politics]

Yeh, like that really stupid stuff like the Constitution, Declaration of Independance, and all that pro-Christian crap on the sides of it. They all speak of God.

Yes, God. NOT the Ten Commandments.

Ummmm. Isn't your argument about God being involved in the 10 Commandments, and that's why they have to go? If they have to go, all our founding fathers documents have to go. They also speak of the name "God."

[WOSG]

"our rights are being violated, as free excercise and free expression is being limited and denied by the ACLU's cultural cleansing of the public sphere."


Why should I as a taxpayer support the funding of "Cesar Chavez" avenue when I oppose his political agenda and testimonializing him offends my views?
if you can get me out of that one, I'd be much obliged.


I am sorry you dont comprehend the principles of Civil Disobedience. Clearly, you dont get it. I recommend "Hind Swaraj" by Ghandhi.


maybe this will help you understand ...


http://www.foe.com/neweagletalk/_disc3/000001a7.htm


"Brian, I was once just the same as you. I still understand your point of view. I just don't support it as you do not support mine. My guess is you do not have children in public school who are punished by that school if they express any opinion on something based on their faith, while they are told they must agree with everyone else's viewpoints. Maybe you didn't know the Boy Scouts are loosing funding for standing by the faith morals and values that have always been part of their organization. Maybe you didn't know that people are fired for refusing to support programs that are not part of their faith values and morals. Maybe you missed the report on the 9th Circuit Court. It's not right for anyone, including people of faith, to get their way by smashing the other sides rights."

[strela]

For the same reason we yellow-bellied sap suckers are forced by law to support your ruby-throated hummingbird beliefs.

Which of my religious beliefs are you forced to support with your tax dollars? If you're receiving invoices for the tax bill for the church next door, you're either paying them willingly or somebody's handing you a line.

Why pay for land that supports only athiests when we're not athiests?

Is there "free land" out there that you don't have to pay for? Last time I checked, you had to go through a realtor to purchase land, and it isn't "free."

We'll keep the Moore courthouse, you can have the one in Hillarys neighborhood.

But, what happens if I'm forced to conduct business in the Moore courthouse? My tax dollars help pay for it as well. Why should it be incumbent upon me to worry about whether all the judges and officials also worship sapsuckers and therefore might not give me an even break.

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to try to keep personal religious beliefs out of official public life. And, this thread is a great example as to why.

[Roscoe]

There's no place for a Judeo-Christian religious monument in a COURTHOUSE

When do you want the Ten Commandments crow barred off of the Supreme Court?

[WOSG]

LOL!!!

I bet the ADL is really afraid of them. :-)

[WOSG]

No. You're spinning."

You'll find a lot of that from Luis.
Many posts later, you'll end up where you started.

[strela]

I didn't write a single one of the words or phrases you quoted in your Post 744. If you want to challenge something I wrote, then please do so. Otherwise, don't paraphrase me then expect me to be able to respond.

[strela]

Isn't your argument about God being involved in the 10 Commandments, and that's why they have to go?

No. My argument is that at least two courts have ruled that Moore's monument espouses the beliefs of one religion in preference to others. THAT is why it has to go.

[ArneFufkin]

Yes.

An American Buddhist or Hindu has ALL the assumptive individual rights of Constitutional protection as a Jew or Christian. A court of law should be pristine, our trust and faith in government depends on that.

[concerned about politics]

But, what happens if I'm forced to conduct business in the Moore courthouse? My tax dollars help pay for it as well.

What if I'm stranded in Hillaryville? I'd be forced to pay for yours! Fair is fair. If I pay, you pay. It's the American way.

[WOSG]

The case for allowing monument to Founders' quotes and the Ten Commandments in court is very solid - the only problem is Judge Moore had to present it to Judicial activist Carter-appointed ALCU favoring Judges ...

Chief Justice Roy Moore's Case Defending The
Display Of The Ten Commandments In A Public Building

The U. S. Constitution's guarantee against an "Establishment of Religion" is not violated by the placement in the Alabama State Judicial Building's rotunda of a 2 ½ ton monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments and a variety of other quotes. To the contrary, interpretations of the Constitution by a U. S. District Court in Alabama and a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals do violate the Constitution. The monument was designed and commissioned by Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in recognition of the moral foundation of the law.

1. This suit should never have gone to court. The plaintiffs complained that they found the monument "offensive," that it made them feel like an "outsider," that Moore was "using religion to further his political career," that Moore was guilty of a "shameless political use of religion," etc. None of these highly personal, subjective feelings qualifies as a "case or controversy"--the only type of action that Article III of the Constitution allows federal courts to hear.

2. There is no "law" involved in this case. A "law," by definition, commands, prohibits, or permits a specific action. Chief Justice Moore's installation of the monument does not command, prohibit, or permit any action by any party.

3. There is no unconstitutional "establishment of a religion" involved in the monument's creation and placement.
   1. The Ten Commandments as displayed in the Judicial Building are memorialized as a fundamental source of American and English law and Western civilization. A "law" and its "source" are not the same thing. The Ten Commandments as the moral foundation of our law are supported by a variety of large, influential religious groups--evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, orthodox Jews, and Mormons (for example). If the Ten Commandments per se constitute a "religion," which of these "religions" is "established"?

   2. Interrelationships between law and non-legal values, reflected in the Ten Commandments, are inevitable. "Without religion, there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law" (top-ranking British judge Alfred Lord Denning, 1977). Reflecting this truth, the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly ruled that "This is a Christian nation" (1892, 1931).

   3. A "pluralism" of fundamental religious and legal values can extend only so far. Both federal courts ruling against Chief Justice Moore argue for religious "pluralism"--asserting a "history of religious diversity" in America (the Court of Appeals) and branding any effort by law to recognize a single definition of "religion" as "unwise, and even dangerous" and as "tending towards a 'theocracy'" (the District Court). But the courts call for the impossible. "Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others" (American historian James Hitchcock, 1981). Thus, American law can be based on the Ten Commandments or on a non-theistic value foundation. There is no alternative. And if public acknowledgement of the former constitutes "establishment of religion," so does the latter.

   4. All of the Ten Commandments have a secular significance to the law. Even the first four Commandments, most directly involving Deity, reveal that there are a Higher Authority and Higher Law to which human law must be submissive--the only sure safeguard against tyranny by human government.

4. There is an unconstitutional establishment of religion created by the two federal court decisions.
   1. The District Court's assertion that the state "draws its powersfrom the people, and not God" is a religious position (an anti-theistic one). This assertion throws the power of the court behind a religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause.

   2. Both federal courts base their conclusions on the mythical "wall of separation" doctrine. This concept is not in the Constitution's text, is not supported by American history and tradition, and calls for the impossible (see #3b. and #3c. above). Because the mythical "separation" doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in 1947--156 years after the Establishment Clause was written, and therefore has no fixed content--federal courts have had to constantly re-define and create "tests" of "establishment." The most notably is the Lemon three-pronged test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971). Since 1971, various Supreme Court Justices have exposed the true nature of this myth and the "tests" it has spawned, describing them as "all but useless," "mercurial in application," "unhistorical," "non-textual," and productive of a body of Establishment Clause law that is plagued with "insoluble paradoxes" and "unprincipled, conflicting litigation." Despite these fatal flaws in the "separation" myth and Lemon test, both federal courts utilize them as the basic standards for finding against the Chief Justice and the monument.

In a 1798 letter to American military officers, President John Adams declared that "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." Chief Justice Roy Moore's installation of the Ten Commandments monument in the Alabama Judicial Building recognizes this truth. Chief Justice Moore does not violate the U. S. Constitution. The two federal courts who have ruled against him do.

[strela]

What if I'm stranded in Hillaryville?

What you are describing is a phenomenon called "Balkanization." A patchwork of little autonomous fiefdoms, each with its own set of laws and customs. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers shines through yet again, in not granting complete autonomy to the several states.

[concerned about politics]

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to try to keep personal religious beliefs out of official public life. And, this thread is a great example as to why.

Nothing but thieves, whores, liars, and murderers on the supreme court? Really, I don't think that's quite the way they put it.
Indeed, the First Amendment reference was intended to protect the churches from interference by the state, not to protect a secular state from religion. It is about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The modern extreme separationist notion was fabricated out of thin air by the liberal-dominated Supreme Court that unconstitutionally struck down school prayer in 1962.

[strela]

Great. But none of that excuses Moore's responsibility to obey the law, which he failed to do by ignoring the court's order.

[strela]

The modern extreme separationist notion was fabricated out of thin air by the liberal-dominated Supreme Court that unconstitutionally struck down school prayer in 1962.

Why is a citizen's relationship (or lack thereof) with God any of the state's business?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Dude, I'm going to bed, well actually, I'm going to go bury my copy of Heston in Cinemascope someplace in the backyard...I heard it said that when Roy's Rotunda Rock gets removed, men in black are going to descend on all our houses, and erase any trace of Moses, and that crazy staff of his, from the all our videos and DVD's.

Can you imagine, Edward G. endlessly repeating "Where's your Moses now?" to Yvonne DeCarlo and a cast of thousands, and no one responding?

Then, Cecil B. yells "CUT!"...

[concerned about politics]

Great. But none of that excuses Moore's responsibility to obey the law, which he failed to do by ignoring the court's order.

And to think those damn fools threw all that good tea into the harbor. Those....those....crimminals!

[Roscoe]

[When do you want the Ten Commandments crow barred off of the Supreme Court?]

Yes.

When?