Alabama Justice Suspended Over Monument (10 Commandments Being Violated, Big Time!)

Associated Press ^ | August 22, 2003 | BOB JOHNSON

[garybob]

Amen!

The 1st admendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Religion as defined by Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: 1) The service and worship of God or the supernatural, 2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; 4) a cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith

Congress as defined by Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: The supreme legislative body of a nation and especially of a republic.

So for the literal meaning challenged the 1st Admendment really reads thusly: The supreme legislative body of this nation shall make no law respecting an establishment of 1) The service and worship of God or the supernatural, 2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; 4) a cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith, or prohibiting the free exercise of 1) The service and worship of God or the supernatural, 2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance, 3) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices; 4) a cause, principle, or system of belief held to with ardor and faith; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So who's not following the rule of law? It appears Myron Thompson and the ACLU are not following the rule of law.

[Texas_Dawg]

Texas Dawg, How about other scriptures that declare the wicked ruler as one who is hell bound?

Just because Paul said to obey the authorities when it didn't force you to go against God's commandments doesn't mean that those authorities weren't hell bound. In fact, many times God is making sure they are.

Paul also wrote: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden... What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?" -- Romans 9:18,23

[timesarechangin]

In the Book of Daniel, chapter 6, a similar event occurred: 3 Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. 4 At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. 5 Finally these men said, "We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God."
As a result, Daniel was then thrown into the lion's den but was miraculously rescued by God.

See any analogies here?

[Texas_Dawg]

See any analogies here?

The story goes on to describe how the administrators and satraps went and tricked the King into issuing a decree that unbeknownst to the King was specifically intended as an ad hominem, ex post facto law to be used against Daniel. The law also forbid Daniel and believers from doing that which we cannot help but do (which I have explained on this thread are the times where disobediance to the laws of man are understandable, as Paul (and others) later demonstrated).

These are very different circumstances than the situation in Alabama. As I've said repeatedly, I am all for seeking to overturn these laws through the courts and supported Judge Moore all the way up until the time he lost his lawsuit at the state and federal levels. Now he is seeking to break the law (thus his recent suspension) on an issue, that were he to cede, would not prevent one single person in Alabama from hearing or living out the Gospel. Two issues here: U.S. law and the Gospel. I am not for disobeying the courts and laws of the U.S. whenever people disagree (save for when it denies the right of Christians to live in a way which, as people controlled by a Spirit, we cannot help but live), and this case does not inhibit the Gospel (my bigger concern) at all.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Claim: "We are not promoting religion."

Argument: It is not possible for the government to promote religion unless "the government required someone to be christian to do something."

That's a howler.

Coca Cola and General Motors manage to promote soft drinks and light trucks without requiring anyone to purchase them.

---

"If the government was going to establish a religion ..."

Note that you inserted "a" between "establish" and "religion". Where did the indefinite article come from?

Lurkers are invited to read post #117

---

Claim: "It is idiocy to think that less state power means more freedom."

Argument: "The reason we have states is because they are closer to the people. It is far easier to influence state govertment than the federal. Therefore, it is far easier to hold them accountable."

Non sequitur.

If the issue were one about the _distribution_ of powers between the federal and state government, this would be a relevant point.

But _distribution_ of powers is not the issue.

You're confusing two different sorts of questions, ie

(a) If government should have the power to promote religion, should that power be vested in the State of Alabama rather than the federal government?

and

(b) If neither the federal nor the state government has the power to promote religion, does federal enforcement of that restriction restrict individual liberty?

You're making an argument for a "Yes" answer to question (a), on the assumption I'm arguing for a "No" answer to that same question.

You've misunderstood the point.

I'm making an argument for a "No" answer to question (b). If you have a (non-idiotic) argument for a "Yes" answer to question (b), let's hear it.

---

"IF you do not like your state government you can move. [...] Can't do that with the feds!"

Really? I thought the ability to move to another country was presupposed by the "Love it or leave it" slogan many conservatives cite when someone expresses dissatisfaction with the federal government.


BTW: You might be interested to know that the ACLU is the organization which successfully fought for the right to move freely from state to state ;-)

God Bless the ACLU.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I have been surprised that so many FR folks are vehemently opposed to Moore and his position [...] Logical arguments and rationality make no dent in these people."

It's interesting that you'd make this claim when you haven't responded to the arguments on the other side.

Have you had a chance to think about the arguments yet?

[First Amendment]

I'm busy today, not hiding. I'll get back to your questions and comments later. Duty calls.

[First Amendment]

I've added that "Law" site to my favorites, so I can check it out later. I don't have time to read it now, or even respond to C.L.'s requests for responses.
Do you mind offering a small summary of the "Law" and its relevance to the subject of the thread? I'd be much obliged.

[AmericanDave]

Well, Our Constitution is Judeo-Christian based. And if you don't believe that the ten commandments are fundamental to our legal system, think again. Thou shalt not steal, covet anything of thy neighbors, bear false witness... If it's ok to bear false witness, what legal system would we have?

[AmericanDave]

"Around 621 B.C. a citizen of Greece, named Draco, came up with laws (now referred to as Draco's Law) that we follow today. Such as: Giving the state exclusive right to punish a crime as compared to private justice. "

Private justice would include the right to self defense; a right we consider primary. Beware a state that has the sole power to punish.

[Texas_Dawg]

Well, Our Constitution is Judeo-Christian based. And if you don't believe that the ten commandments are fundamental to our legal system, think again. Thou shalt not steal, covet anything of thy neighbors, bear false witness... If it's ok to bear false witness, what legal system would we have?

I've said repeatedly I supported them up until they lost the court rulings at every level. The people supporting their disobeying the rulings need to be consistent and support, or at least say nothing, when some leftist anarchists refuse to obey the next court ruling they disagree with.

[sfRummygirl]

Well, first of all, I am definitely not the first one to embrace any of these ideas, especially here.
Ok, let's try it this way. You are believing that the ten commandments roots in our government is an indication that we have state run government. See, that is were you are turned around backwards. Because the ACLU type socialist commie stuff is the state run stuff.They want to get rid of religion. Like when Russia and Poland fell, etc-etc.
Ok, there used to be a statue in LA of Christ, I think at a church. Beneath it it said "The Source of Our Liberty".
Get it? It's not saying that everyone has to be Christian. It's saying that we have set up a government where you don't HAVE to be Christian....which is the whole point.
See, some people really feel threatened by the roots of all this. Maybe they grew up in a really repressive, angry household with religion, I don't know.
The part about getting closer to God, for alot Christians, and me being one of them, is that I am allowed to not be knee-jerk and pc in my worship. For instance, the concept of sin. But this would take a long time to discuss.

[sfRummygirl]

You keep comparing religion to Coca Cola.
I think the root difference with you is that you see religion as some kind of addiction, and think lowly of people who have found some kind of faith. Like it's a weakness or something.
It's not about politics, is it...

[Bluntpoint]

Self-defense and private justice were always two distinct acts.

One takes place at the time of the transgression and the other afterwards as retribution.

Apples and oranges.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"You keep comparing religion to Coca Cola."

No. I think people are badly confused about what it means to "promote" something. I picked two non-contentious examples to give people a chance to back up and get clear on the concept. Then I invited them, once they actually understood what they were saying, to reconsider whether it's possible to promote religion without requiring someone to join a particular faith.

But having read your previous post, if you're telling me you didn't understand, I believe you.