Author Topic: Alabamas Judge Roy Moore (Read 3479 times)

majic · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2003, 07:51:29 PM »

Simply Nimitz because the "Establishment Clause" was not intended to banish religion from public view. It was intended to let people have their own choice of religion without the government mandating or banning them. (i. e.- it lets you call the bible fiction without any censure, because that is the right it gives you.)

BTW- I am not religious at all, I just don't have a problem with people that are.

As far as the what if's? If he wanted to put a plaque up with quotes from the Koran or L. Ron Hubbard, fine by me as long as I don't have to pay for it.

And finally, as for the judges motive's, well he probably does have an agenda and hopefully people will see it for what it is. (agree or not.)

Karnak · « **Reply #16 on:** August 21, 2003, 07:58:51 PM »

majic,

Nobody is trying to ban religion from public view. We simply desire our government to remain studiously neutral in regards to religions.

The moment that people start trying to ban religious symbols from being openly displayed on private property I will be up in arms on the side of the fundamentalist Christians.

However, this is not that case.

Martlet · « **Reply #17 on:** August 21, 2003, 08:00:43 PM »

I listened to him on Hannity today, he had a very valid case.

Karnak · « **Reply #18 on:** August 21, 2003, 08:25:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
I listened to him on Hannity today, he had a very valid case.

How? By ignoring most of what the Founding Fathers wrote, or worse, outright distorting it as most fundi Christains do?

miko2d · « **Reply #19 on:** August 21, 2003, 09:28:26 PM »

It seems that many of you guys cannot tell the Federal Constitution from the State one.

The Federal Constitution specifically prevents the Congress from establishing a religion.

The judge in question is Alabama Chief Justice and the building is the Alabama Judicial Building.

If the people of Alabama want to get rid of the Commandments, it's their business, but a federal judge has no right to interfere in internal state matters.

rpm371: Hotels are not paid for with Tax dollars and are not run by Government officials. If you do not like having a Bible in your room you have the option to a) call and have the book removed, b) check out of the hotel. Not the same thing.
What if this guy was a Buddist and wanted a Budda there? People would be climbing the walls to get him out. Government buildings should be a Switzerland of religious beliefs. Neutral.

Are you an resident of Alabama? Then solve your problems withing your state anyway you want to, I don't care.
If not, why do you care how Alabamans prefer to spend their tax dollars?

miko

fd ski · « **Reply #20 on:** August 21, 2003, 10:33:14 PM »

Does anyone here thinks that he would get a fair trail in this judges court ?

I sincerly doubt it. I'm sure that by choosing to affirm rather then swear any poor bastard at mercy of this moron is guaranteeing himself a worst sentence possible.

Historically important ? Hehehe so is santa clause...

What Nimitz said. Heyya nimitz, where you been ?

Karnak · « **Reply #21 on:** August 21, 2003, 11:34:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
It seems that many of you guys cannot tell the Federal Constitution from the State one.

The Federal Constitution specifically prevents the Congress from establishing a religion.

The judge in question is Alabama Chief Justice and the building is the Alabama Judicial Building.

If the people of Alabama want to get rid of the Commandments, it's their business, but a federal judge has no right to interfere in internal state matters.

False.

The United States Supreme Court has long ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the Federal Government. Think of the utter morass we would have if it were not so. AKA, women vote? (butt out lazs;) ) Sure in California, but not in Alabama or in Oregon you are presumed innocent and cannot be forced to confess but in Massachusetts they can use any torture method they like to get that confession.

Sorry miko2d, you need to read up on your Constitutional law more.

rc51 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 21, 2003, 11:40:55 PM »

Why do people fear christianity?
Afraid there may be a power greater than you and your little ego's just can't handle it

Montezuma · « **Reply #23 on:** August 21, 2003, 11:51:59 PM »

He's just a stupid redneck ayatollah.

AWMac · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2003, 12:18:45 AM »

Okay, Separation from Church and State?

Then explain to me where the "Left" hand of the newly sworn President is?

Hmmm every coin has "In God We Trust".

The Pledge of Alligence?

Seems the more that America turns away from GOD...never mind, seems to be too touchy of a subject.

I do know one thing, when a man is hurt badly in combat he first cries out to Mom... then to God.

OWN3D!

Erlkonig · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2003, 12:41:16 AM »

Precedent in the courts has long interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as restricting states from infringing basic rights like those enumerated in the First Amendment, the same as the Bill of Rights restricts the federal govt.

SaburoS · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2003, 12:51:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rc51
Why do people fear christianity?
Afraid there may be a power greater than you and your little ego's just can't handle it

Being on govt property, it can be construed that the govt has taken a position supporting a religion (in this case Christianity).
It's not about whether the Ten Commandments are a good set of rules (they are imho) but the idea of the possibility of infringing the ideal of the separation of Church and State.
Do I object to religious ideals in general? Nope, nothing wrong with moral compasses.
Would I object to govt sponsorship of religions? Yes, Separation of Church and State is a very important ideal. Enough so, to ensure religious freedom in our country.
Would I object to govt intervention into the various religions? Yes, (see reason above).
For those that think it is okay for religious objects to be shown on govt property (being supported by tax dollars) is an okay thing, is it okay for the govt to start taxing the various religions?
How about forcing evolution classes in Sunday school?
Maybe separation of Church and State is a good thing

Puke · « **Reply #27 on:** August 22, 2003, 01:06:59 AM »

Why can't people be happy just having their 'church stuff' in their church?

I think that placing such relics publicly really is a basis and a hope for creating converts and forcing people under a religion.

As far as laws, be it Federal, State, County or Homeowner's Association, it's usually the most *restrictive* that holds relevance.

Martlet · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2003, 01:18:08 AM »

People just look for something to be mad about. They like having their panties in a bunch.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #29 on:** August 22, 2003, 02:55:51 AM »

wondered when this would come up