[wardaddy]

I agree.

And lest anyone forget. Yes, I am culturally a Southern Prod (Baptist) but hardly pious. My dear wife, bless her heart is making a go at a PCA (the good ones) congregation. It's not the promotion of religion per se that has pulled me into this argument but rather an instinctual knowledge of right and wrong and a resistance to the corruption of our Constitution by those who wish to subvert it on just about every angle imaginable including the "wall of separation" invention.

My views on abortion(militantly anti), firearms rights, Israel (100% pro) and all the others on the "market list" which Moore's opponents have in their sights ....have nothing to do with my own particular religious doctrine. I simply choose to recognize right and wrong where I see fit. I have quoted no scripture here....not that I could even if I wanted.

[ChemistCat]

Now, the murder of unborn children for the sake of "convenience" IS a hill worth dying on.

[WOSG]

I think we are on the same page. I think the general point is that it is deeper than faith v. non-faith, it goes to a belief in absolutes in morality v. a belief in relative morality and the 'morality of the will'. The left is on the latter. In this fight, certain moralistic humanists and various religions should be common brothers against the 'barbarian' hordes of the leftists and amoralists. (And IMHO, abortion is a good example; isnt human life a worthy value irrespective of whether it is God-endowed with a soul? so why kill the unborn?)

FYI, the Balt Sun had an online editorial on this 10 Commandment matter. I didnt like it, it towed the usual Liberal line.

I summarized my thinking from all the thread in an opinion reply to them:

---

The 10 Commandment monument that Judge Moore made for his courthouse should
be allowed to stay, and should other Ten Commandement displays throught the
country that the ACLU is suing to remove. They are all just as
permissible as the 10 Commandment seals that are on doors today
in the US Supreme Court building. It does not at all violate the
Establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion"), for there is no establishment
of religion here.
It does not force or coerce any belief nor demand agreement, it harms
noone, and it properly informs in a historically significant way that indeed
faith in God is a part of our legal heritage.

Indeed, what impermissible sect or religion is being advanced in
Moore's monument, when it has quotes from the Declaration of
Independence, George Washington, the Pledge of Allegiance, and
first Supreme Court Justice John Jay?

Liberal activist Judges have manhandled the Constitution lately, and in the
name of "separation of church and state" (a term not even in the
Constitution) have tried to divorce religious expression from the public
arena. This is bad Constitutional law and bad for our society.
It is in the spirit of our Bill of Rights and consistent with the actions of the founding fathers, to properly allows for official recognition of our faith heritage and public
expression of religious sentiment in voluntary, non-coercive ways.
Removing this monument and repressing this expression
does not advance freedom, but diminishes it.