Moore is a judge no longer

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3383873,00.html)

Speaking immediately after the decision, a defiant Moore told supporters he had only acknowledged God as is done in other official procedures and documents.

``I have absolutely no regrets. I have done what I was sworn to do,'' he said, drawing applause.

``It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty. That's all I've done. I've been found guilty,'' he said.

Moore said he had consulted with his attorneys and with political and religious leaders and would make an announcement next week which he said ``could alter the course of this country.'' He did not elaborate. He could appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court.

Unrepentant as ever and he seems to have some trick up his sleeve, he's starting to sound like the mirror image of Larry Flynt!

[zimv20]

alter the course of this country? i can't wait.

[question fear]

this case is...odd. in more ways than one.
for one thing, the separation of church and state is rightfully in place and has been for a very long time. unless this judge has an amendment to the constitution up his sleeve, hes not getting far.
further, his actions in both installing and refusing to remove the monument pressed the issue to the point it did. he violated the constitution, and his subsequent objections makes any appeals to his removal from office seem that much more irrational.
--Carly

[jonapete2001]

I did not agree that the monument had to be removed, but i do recognize that moore did not follow the higher court decision. I do how ever find it ironic that the supreme court has the 10 comandments displayed in its court room. I dont know if it is hypocritical or what. I have mixed feelings about if the monument was rightfully there or not. Couldnt the state put in muslem and other important documents on a sort of history of law display? Maybe an attempt at an amendment is due? And what article of the constitution did they use to ban the ten comandments?

[mactastic]

Moore will be governor or junior senator from Alabama soon.

[mcrain]

My faith in God is now restored... Moore is a judge no longer!!!! I feel so happy, I'm going to have a party.

Justice has been done!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I did not agree that the monument had to be removed, but i do recognize that moore did not follow the higher court decision.

At least you agree that he violated the rules of his office. Regardless of his personal convictions, he refused to stand down, which is unprofessional at best.

I have mixed feelings about if the monument was rightfully there or not. Couldnt the state put in muslem and other important documents on a sort of history of law display? Maybe an attempt at an amendment is due?

What kind of amendment? If you show 2 religious symbols you can pick the first one? It's either "all" or "none" when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."

And what article of the constitution did they use to ban the ten comandments?

First Amendment. Simple and clearcut violation.

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.

And, by the way, they did not "ban" the Ten Commandments, they simply barred the display of them in a public building.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
At least you agree that he violated the rules of his office. Regardless of his personal convictions, he refused to stand down, which is unprofessional at best.



What kind of amendment? If you show 2 religious symbols you can pick the first one? It's either "all" or "none" when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."



First Amendment. Simple and clearcut violation.



And, by the way, they did not "ban" the Ten Commandments, they simply barred the display of them in a public building.

I am not sure the first amendment says that the 10 comandment could not be displayed.

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..

Displaying comandments is not passing a law in favor of them. But the issue i have is that could not the very passage you pointed out be used to ensure their display. "the free exercise thereof". This part of the 1st amendment could be used to do just that. The amendment i am in favor of would allow the display of religious articles in public places(all religions). If the public voted in favor or against the issue would be settled on what the constitution meant or did not mean.

The constitution is a tricky document, it can be read any way one wants to read it. this is a problem.

I saw we let the people decide in a national amendment vote.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Displaying comandments is not passing a law in favor of them. But the issue i have is that could not the very passage you pointed out be used to ensure their display. "the free exercise thereof". This part of the 1st amendment could be used to do just that. The amendment i am in favor of would allow the display of religious articles in public places(all religions). If the public voted in favor or against the issue would be settled on what the constitution meant or did not mean.

The constitution is a tricky document, it can be read any way one wants to read it. this is a problem.

I saw we let the people decide in a national amendment vote.

Ok, my issue is, where in the bible does it say that it is necessary or essential for a christian to display a granite monument of the 10C in a public courthouse.

My understanding of christianity is that there should be no idols nor should a christian force his religion on other people.

By taking this issue to such extremes, Moore only has proven that US christian fundamentalism is only interested in furthering its own goals, not christian values.

I agree with you wholeheartedly but as pb stated, you're not going to be able to find your way around government buildings because they will be so cluttered up with religious idols, icons, bibles, mummies, caskets, dead chickens, that govt. will be essentially hamstrung. Religion has no place in government. It is a private and personal issue that needs to be dealt with in mosques, synagogues, and churches. The US was settled by people who were escaping religious totalitarianism in Europe and yet people like Moore want to recreate it. What is up with that!

[SPG]

Not to get lost debating the minutiae of this, but the monument had more than just the ten comandments on it. There were other biblical passages on the sides.
I don't see what the fuss was all about on this one...clearly by putting an unauthorized block of biblical scripture in the courthouse lobby moore was trying to infer a leaning to a particular religion, thereby violating the seperation of church and state.
The guy is a fundamentalist of the highest order who let his religion (and his stubborness and his pride) get in the way of his duties and I for one am glad that it got him kicked out on the street.
My message for Roy is if you're that fired up for religion go to seminary and become a priest.

[IJ Reilly]

Moore said that he was displaying the Ten Commandments monument by way of promoting what he sees as his religion's connection to the law and the nation. He left no doubt that he was challenging church-state separation. This was decidedly not a neutral display, and wasn't intended as such.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I do how ever find it ironic that the supreme court has the 10 comandments displayed in its court room.

it does?

[Frohickey]

Sometimes, you have to stick to your guns and fight for what you believe in...

Other times, you have to know when to back down...

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
it does?

Yes it does.

Here is link

10 Comandments in the supreme court (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm)

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Yes it does.

Here is link

10 Comandments in the supreme court (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm)

well, how 'bout that. thanks for the link.

when you'd mentioned it originally, i was picturing something on the order of the alabama monument. i now see that it's reliefs and friezes built into the building (and a door).

this doesn't concern me nearly as much as the Moore monument. in that case, it was the man himself that worried me. the current Supreme Court justices had nothing to do w/ the placement of the images in their building, afaik.

[jonapete2001]

The supreme court refused to take the cases regarding the ten comandments. When this issue was in the news originally with moore, many said that if they supreme court took the case and ruled against moore they would have to modify the supreme court house to come into line with their ruling.

But still it is odd that obvious conections with the 10 comandments is ok for the supreme court of the US, but not ok for the lower courts in the nation. Now that smacks of hypocracy.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
The supreme court refused to take the cases regarding the ten comandments. When this issue was in the news originally with moore, many said that if they supreme court took the case and ruled against moore they would have to modify the supreme court house to come into line with their ruling.

But still it is odd that obvious conections with the 10 comandments is ok for the supreme court of the US, but not ok for the lower courts in the nation. Now that smacks of hypocracy.

No, it doesn't. Moore was making an explicitly religious statement with his monument, and he did it intentionally.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
No, it doesn't. Moore was making an explicitly religious statement with his monument, and he did it intentionally.

This is kind of a long meandering post, please bear with me.

So what if he is making a religious statement. You dont think that having the 10 comandments in the supreme court and not having them in lower courts, by judicial mandate, is hypocrtical. If the comandments have to be removed from one court then why not all.

Here is a real mind bender for you all of you guys to think about.

pseudobrit said this further up the thread.

"...when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."

IF athiesm is a religion(some say it is not, I say that it is.) If "none" is the religion of athiesim then can one who believes in "one or some" rather than "none" be outraged at the display of "none" in a court house. The religion of "none" is opressing the religion of "one or some". this is why i think possible all (the "none" the "one" and the "some" religions should be represented.

More simply if nothing is the religious identifcation of athiests, then couldn't nothing in the courthouse be interpreted as a supportive move in favor in the believers of nothing, the athiests?

Also someone pointed out before in the thread that the original settlers of the US were escaping religios tyrany in the UK. This was true, but once they got here, if you study early amerian history, you find that they set up their own form of religious tyranny. Look at American money, it says "In god we trust".Their is no seperation, and it says that no where in the constitution.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.dispatch.com/news/features01/jan01/566590.html)
In God We Trust, which is stamped on more than 20 billion coins and notes each year, is a message to the ages from a Civil War-era pastor who was fearful about what future generations would think of this nation.

The Rev. Mark R. Watkinson of Ridleyville, Pa., who identified himself as simply a "minister of the Gospel," proposed a national motto in a Nov. 13, 1861, letter to Salmon P. Chase, Abraham Lincoln's Treasury secretary.

"One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form in our coins," Watkinson wrote at a low point in the war for the Union.

"You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were now shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is . . . the words, God, liberty, law."

A few days later, Chase, apparently moved by the letter, wrote James Pollock, Mint director.

"No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

"You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition."

Watkinson's suggested motto didn't make it to metal. But around Christmastime of that turbulent year, theprototype motto God Our Trust was placed on a handful of experimental coins. By late 1863, the motto had evolved into the familiar In God We Trust.

In God We Trust began appearing on the reverse side of dollar bills only in the late 1950s. Detail at top is from a Series of 1935 silver certificate without the motto; at bottom is a modern bill.

Chase lacked authority to add the motto to coins until April 1864, when Congress authorized a new denomination, complete with whatever legends he deemed appropriate. In God We Trust promptly appeared on a scroll above a federal shield on the front of the 2-cent piece, a short-lived denomination created to help alleviate a wartime coin shortage.

The following year, Congress ordered the motto placed on all gold and silver coins, as space permitted. It was added to the quarter and most larger denominations in 1866. But it wouldn't appear on all coins for nearly 75 years and on all paper money for a century.

In God We Trust was added to the cent in 1909, the dime in 1916 and the nickel in 1938, when the first Jefferson 5-cent piece was produced.

In the early 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt, a religious man who was offended by the motto's appearance on grubby coins, ordered it omitted from newly redesigned $10 and $20 gold pieces. Placing the phrase on coins was "irreverence which comes dangerously close to sacrilege," Roosevelt wrote in a 1907 letter to a New York pastor.

Congress, responding to public criticism of the godless 1907 and 1908 coins, declared in early 1908 that the motto must be added to "all such gold and silver coins as heretofore."

The phrase didn't appear on paper money until about a century after the Civil War, except in one case -- a scarce 19th-century issue that pictured coins on its back.

In the mid-1950s, Congress ordered the motto added to paper money. The change had been advocated by Matthew Rothert Sr., father of future Ohio first lady Hope Taft. It was tied, however, to the installation of new printing presses, causing it to be phased in over the next decade.

In God We Trust first appeared on $1 bills on July 25, 1957, and worked its way up to larger denominations through the '50s and early 1960s as old presses were retired.

While the first such bills were printed in the 1950s, they were dated 1935, the year of the last major design change.

As far as the 10 Commandments in the SC, the courts have ruled that historical references, particularly when they are accompanied by other images, are to be left alone, and I agree with them to the extent that I don't want to see a historical building torn down or otherwise modified just to remove the 10 Cs. But as far as money and the pledge go, Congress made laws that allowed those words into those places. I know the establichment clause has been posted here a number of times so I will only quote the intro again...

"Congress shall make no law...."

That makes IGWT and UG clearly unconstitutional. One day the courts will have the courage to say so.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001

pseudobrit said this further up the thread.

"...when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."

IF athiesm is a religion(some say it is not, I say that it is.) If "none" is the religion of athiesim then can one who believes in "one or some" rather than "none" be outraged at the display of "none" in a court house. The religion of "none" is opressing the religion of "one or some". this is why i think possible all (the "none" the "one" and the "some" religions should be represented.

More simply if nothing is the religious identifcation of athiests, then couldn't nothing in the courthouse be interpreted as a supportive move in favor in the believers of nothing, the athiests?

I see what you're grasping at but you're off target. The absense of religion is not automatically an endorsement of atheism.

Isn't it just a lot simpler to ignore the whole concept of religion when dealing with matters of law?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
This is kind of a long meandering post, please bear with me.

So what if he is making a religious statement. You dont think that having the 10 comandments in the supreme court and not having them in lower courts, by judicial mandate, is hypocrtical. If the comandments have to be removed from one court then why not all.

Here is a real mind bender for you all of you guys to think about.

pseudobrit said this further up the thread.

"...when it comes to fairly representing religions, and "all" includes athiesm, which is "none," so you're stuck with "none."

IF athiesm is a religion(some say it is not, I say that it is.) If "none" is the religion of athiesim then can one who believes in "one or some" rather than "none" be outraged at the display of "none" in a court house. The religion of "none" is opressing the religion of "one or some". this is why i think possible all (the "none" the "one" and the "some" religions should be represented.

More simply if nothing is the religious identifcation of athiests, then couldn't nothing in the courthouse be interpreted as a supportive move in favor in the believers of nothing, the athiests?

Also someone pointed out before in the thread that the original settlers of the US were escaping religios tyrany in the UK. This was true, but once they got here, if you study early amerian history, you find that they set up their own form of religious tyranny. Look at American money, it says "In god we trust".Their is no seperation, and it says that no where in the constitution.

No religion is oppressed in the United States. All are free to worship as they please, as a fundamental right. The Constitutional prohibition is against using the levers of state power to promote any one religion over another. I'm amazed at how often this simple principle is misunderstood.

The legal history of the establishment clause is extremely complicated, and does not lend itself to neat, clean interpretations. This is why intent is important. The former judge Moore made clear his intent to use the courthouse as an advertisement for his religion. The entanglement was deliberate and brazenly formulated to attack the entire concept of church-state separation. It should be clear to everyone now that some people, even those who sit on the bench, do no believe in church-state separations, and Moore (and his supporters) are of that mind. The Alabama case created Constitutional issues if for no other reason then this is what Moore intended.

[jonapete2001]

What the religion of atheism opressing the religion of others. If athiesim wants nothing represented in teh building is it not then the government who is bending to the will of atheists. The establishment clause could equally used against athesism. Does no one see this.

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
What the religion of atheism opressing the religion of others. If athiesim wants nothing represented in teh building is it not then the government who is bending to the will of atheists. The establishment clause could equally used against athesism. Does no one see this.

No, the courts don't see that because that is not correct. The courts have specifically said that they will not allow the government or agents of the government to actively promote any religion. The absense of religion is not the same as advocating no religion.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mcrain
No, the courts don't see that because that is not correct. The courts have specifically said that they will not allow the government or agents of the government to actively promote any religion. The absense of religion is not the same as advocating no religion.

Right. Another critical fact is frequently missed: It is not the case that all people of faith believe that their religion should be endorsed and promoted by the government. As nearly as I can tell, only Christians have this desire, and then only some of them.

[jonapete2001]

Right and the islamic governments of the middle east do not endorse any religion?

You are still ignoring the fact that athiests want their beliefs endorsed by the government. The reason it seems like only christians want their religion endorsed is because you live in a country with a huge majority of christians. ALso the 10 comandments is a jewish and christian symbol.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by mcrain
No, the courts don't see that because that is not correct. The courts have specifically said that they will not allow the government or agents of the government to actively promote any religion. The absense of religion is not the same as advocating no religion.

When no religion is a religion it is.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Right and the islamic governments of the middle east do not endorse any religion?


that has nothing to do w/ the US' separation of church and state.


You are still ignoring the fact that athiests want their beliefs endorsed by the government.

???????

atheism is best described as a lack of belief.

regardless, who are these atheists who want the US to 'endorse' atheism? how would that even manifest itself, outside of the gov't prohibiting religion, which i don't think _anyone_ wants?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Right and the islamic governments of the middle east do not endorse any religion?

You are still ignoring the fact that athiests want their beliefs endorsed by the government. The reason it seems like only christians want their religion endorsed is because you live in a country with a huge majority of christians. ALso the 10 comandments is a jewish and christian symbol.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but we don't live in a Middle Eastern country with an Islamic government. Please, please tell me you understand why this is an important distinction.

I don't know where you get the bizarre idea that government neutrality towards religious faiths is somehow akin to atheism.

No, it just doesn't "seem" like Christians (some, at least) want their religion endorsed by government. In fact they are the group that insists on it. You don't find anyone proclaiming the United States to be a "Jewish nation" or an "Islamic nation," or a "Buddhist nation," do you?

The Ten Commandments come in three, distinct versions: the Hebrew, the Catholic and the Kings James Protestant. Guess which one former judge Moore choose for his display?

[jonapete2001]

Interesting, I never knew their were 3 different sets of 10 commandments. I take it Moore displayed the King James Version. I myself being Catholic never even thought of any other version. They all say the same basic thing, the catholic verison just seems more condenced.

You guys have your view I have mine. No one hear is gonna change the others mind, I am just glad I found somewhere to discuss some of the political issues happening in the world today.

I still think the seperation of church and state should be written in an amendment and put up for a national vote. Then one could see what people really want the constitution to say. That is the only remedy(IMO) for situations like this.

[IJ Reilly]

No in fact they don't all say the same thing. The King James versions contains the prohibition against graven images, which neither the Hebrew or the Catholic version do, for example.

We don't need a referendum on the establishment of religion -- this prohibition was included in the Bill of Rights as a product the wisdom of the nation's founders, and has served us very well for the last 200 years. The thought that some people would like to see it stricken from the Bill of Rights is frankly scary.

I don't need to change your mind. All you need do is study up on the issue and your mind will be changed without any urging from me.

[jonapete2001]

yes I have studied the issue and now i have seen the light. thank you for pointing out to me how dumb i was and that i needed to study more. Ha Ha.

Do you think that everyone who does not believe in the seperation of church and state is dumb. I think that people can know all the same things and still have different opinions. this is a typical left wing idea, You dont agree with me, then you must either be stupid or not know what you are talking about.

Also i said they all say the same basic thing. You are wrong about the jewish comandments not saying anything anbout graven images. Here is the link.
Jewish ten commandments (http://www.keithhunt.com/jesse/10com-jud.htm)

read commandment 2,

i said that the catholic verision is the most condensed and still the same basic message. If you believe in the ten comandments at all then the catholic and king james versions are the least likely to be the most acurate. the jews were the ones who recieved them, I wonder why protestants and catholics changed them in the first place.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Right and the islamic governments of the middle east do not endorse any religion?

What does that have to do with anything?

You are still ignoring the fact that athiests want their beliefs endorsed by the government.

What? I find that most atheists want no religion endorsed by the government, including theirs.

Let me spell this out and make it simple for you:
The belief that there is no God is a "religion."

By ignoring all religions, the government is not saying that there is no God. It is not endorsing that view, but ignoring it along with the others.

It just so happens that you might misconstrue the refusal to endorse any religion as being identical to the refusal to endorse the notion God. It is not.

The reason it seems like only christians want their religion endorsed is because you live in a country with a huge majority of christians. ALso the 10 comandments is a jewish and christian symbol.

I'm Catholic and I don't want Moore's type of Protestant **** shoveled down my throat. How's that?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I think that people can know all the same things and still have different opinions. this is a typical left wing idea, You dont agree with me, then you must either be stupid or not know what you are talking about.

You don't need to be stupid or uninformed or of a particular politcal persuasion to arrive at illogical conclusions.

But you arrive at illogical conclusions nonetheless. Thinking that separation of Church and State is bad is an illogical conclusion.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
When no religion is a religion it is.

Again, you confused "no religion" with "no God"

Athiesm is "no God," while separation of Church and State is "no religion [will be endorsed or disenfranchised]."

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001

Do you think that everyone who does not believe in the seperation of church and state is dumb. I think that people can know all the same things and still have different opinions.

for clarification, are you saying that
- your interpretation of the separation is different from IJReilly's and pseudobrit's, or
- you intrepret it the same way, but disagree with separation of church and state?

[IJ Reilly]

I take from his response, that he believes that the US can and perhaps even should be a theocracy.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I take from his response, that he believes that the US can and perhaps even should be a theocracy.


You have arrived at an ironious conclusion with this one. I believe that the 10 commandments do not need to be displayed in a court house or any where else. How ever I do recognise that EVERY YEAR the president(repub or dem) lights at CHRISTMAS TREE and a Jewish minora(sorry about spelling). Should the US get rid of that. To believe that people who have been religios their entire life can artificially get rid of it when they work for the government is a joke.

Honestly I am not that religious, i could care less if religious symbology is present anywhere. I just think that athiests and everyone who is up in arms about these issues are rediculous. The inconsistancies in the legal interpretations are what get on my nerves. My idea on having a amdendment referendum would work if it was worded to to ensure the seperation of church and state as well.

As it stands right now i do not see the legal standing for the forced removal of religious symbol of any religion from any public place. Make a new law to clairify. Why is this such a scary idea to some people.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
How ever I do recognise that EVERY YEAR the president(repub or dem) lights at CHRISTMAS TREE and a Jewish minora(sorry about spelling). Should the US get rid of that. To believe that people who have been religios their entire life can artificially get rid of it when they work for the government is a joke.

This is not about getting rid of people's religion. This is about making sure their practice does not infringe on the rights of others not to have it shoved down their throats.

I just think that athiests and everyone who is up in arms about these issues are rediculous.

I'm Catholic, not atheist. I'm up in arms. Why? I've been subjected to discrimination for my beliefs and culture. I don't want Protestant **** shoveled down my throat or my kids' throats. Nor would I want my children forcefully exposed to any religion at a young age that I don't expose them to personally.

What's so ridiculous about not wanting to have the government forcibly take your taxes AND tell you you're going to Hell?

The inconsistancies in the legal interpretations are what get on my nerves. My idea on having a amdendment referendum would work if it was worded to to ensure the seperation of church and state as well.

The amendment is already clear. It just needs judges with balls to enforce it more than the half-assed effort that's been done thus far. Just because one guy gets away with murder on a technicality doesn't mean you let all the murderers go free to be fair.

As it stands right now i do not see the legal standing for the forced removal of religious symbol of any religion from any public place. Make a new law to clairify. Why is this such a scary idea to some people.

The clause is already there, in our Constitution. It's not even a law -- it's the explicit barring of government endorsement of religion. There need be no new law.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
You have arrived at an ironious conclusion with this one. I believe that the 10 commandments do not need to be displayed in a court house or any where else. How ever I do recognise that EVERY YEAR the president(repub or dem) lights at CHRISTMAS TREE and a Jewish minora(sorry about spelling). Should the US get rid of that. To believe that people who have been religios their entire life can artificially get rid of it when they work for the government is a joke.

Honestly I am not that religious, i could care less if religious symbology is present anywhere. I just think that athiests and everyone who is up in arms about these issues are rediculous. The inconsistancies in the legal interpretations are what get on my nerves. My idea on having a amdendment referendum would work if it was worded to to ensure the seperation of church and state as well.

As it stands right now i do not see the legal standing for the forced removal of religious symbol of any religion from any public place. Make a new law to clairify. Why is this such a scary idea to some people.

If you're asking me, I don't think the President ought to be lighting a national Christmas tree and I don't really see why Christmas is a federal holiday. But as I said before, the legal history of the establishment clause does not lend itself to the nice, neat black-and-white interpretations that many (on both sides of the debate) think it ought. The courts have decided that some of these displays are sufficiently secular, or disentangled from government, to be permissible, and others not. As I also said previously, intent matters, and in the instance we were discussing, the intent on the part of the judge was to use his government office to promote his religion. Moore wanted a confrontation on this issue, and he got one. If the establishment clause means anything at all, it means this should not be allowed.

I'm sorry the legal inconsistencies "get on your nerves," but this is very much in the character of constitutional law. These issues are never entirely settled, and it's kind of creepy to suggest that any provision of the Constitution should be stricken to make you or anyone else feel better.

The idea that anyone is asked to "get rid of their religion" when they work for the government is a red herring. Also a red herring argument is your suggestion that religious symbols must be removed from all public places. Talking positions like these illustrate what I mean when I say you should become more educated on this issue before you try to express opinions about it.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
If you're asking me, I don't think the President ought to be lighting a national Christmas tree and I don't really see why Christmas is a federal holiday. But as I said before, the legal history of the establishment clause does not lend itself to the nice, neat black-and-white interpretations that many (on both sides of the debate) think it ought. The courts have decided that some of these displays are sufficiently secular, or disentangled from government, to be permissible, and others not. As I also said previously, intent matters, and in the instance we were discussing, the intent on the part of the judge was to use his government office to promote his religion. Moore wanted a confrontation on this issue, and he got one. If the establishment clause means anything at all, it means this should not be allowed.

I'm sorry the legal inconsistencies "get on your nerves," but this is very much in the character of constitutional law. These issues are never entirely settled, and it's kind of creepy to suggest that any provision of the Constitution should be stricken to make you or anyone else feel better.

The idea that anyone is asked to "get rid of their religion" when they work for the government is a red herring. Also a red herring argument is your suggestion that religious symbols must be removed from all public places. Talking positions like these illustrate what I mean when I say you should become more educated on this issue before you try to express opinions about it.

typical, if i have a different opinion, then i am not educated enough to discuss, i have studied the constitution from front to back many times, all through college. Why will you not recognize that this issue will not be settled untill a new amendment is passed. Are you afraid that a pro religion amendment might actually pass?
And yes a judge is expected to ignore his religion when he takes the bench, this is something that is not humanly possible.( it is not a red herring. and also the same people who demanded the removal of the ten commandments also will demand the removal of all religious symbols from public buildings.

You can never win a arguement by calling me stupid or uneducated, because it is not true, I have one bachelors degree and 2 associate degrees. I know to constiutional issues that are present here. The constitution needs to be amended either to allow of ban, but it needs to be clear and the people must decide!!! Not some liberal or conservative judge who are just interpreting a hazzy(at best) clause.

[IJ Reilly]

Typical of what, exactly?

I have not called you "stupid," or anything remotely like it, so please drop that game -- it leads nowhere but getting people banned from these boards.

You claim to be educated on this subject, but then again you claim that church-state issue need to be "settled," when in reality, no Constitutional issue is ever entirely "settled." If Constitutional issues could be so easily resolved, the Supreme Court could have been disbanded long ago.

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept of a red herring argument. A red herring is a phony argument designed to distract from the issue under discussion. So whether you recognize it or not, a statement such as: "a judge is expected to ignore his religion when he takes the bench," is a red herring because it is not a factual statement.

[pseudobrit]

You can tell us you have as many degrees as you like, but your debating tactics, grammar, spelling and arguments still say you fail to understand the subject we're debating and that you're quite ineffective at this sort of thing. What are your degrees in?
(You're the one who brought up education)

[mcrain]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
You can never win a arguement by calling me stupid or uneducated, because it is not true, I have one bachelors degree and 2 associate degrees. I know to constiutional issues that are present here. The constitution needs to be amended either to allow of ban, but it needs to be clear and the people must decide!!! Not some liberal or conservative judge who are just interpreting a hazzy(at best) clause.

Congrats on your bachelors degree and 2 assocate degrees. Also, congrats on your undergrad level government courses that you say you took, I'm sure you learned a lot.

That being said, let me counter your argument without calling you stupid or uneducated.

I have a bachelors and 1 JD. That is a Juris Doctorate. That means I'm a lawyer. That means I've probably studied the constitution and the way the courts have interpreted it more than you will ever dream of doing. Oh, on top of that, I've had several cases that touch on constitutional issues, I've worked with judges, and I've been involved with the political process.

The people do not need to decide to amend the constititution to allow some ban. If you really had studied the constitution, you would know that the people ALREADY DECIDED! The US constitution was ratified a long, long time ago. But, just in case there was any doubt, all 50 states have their own state constitutions, and most of those have even stricter clauses requiring separation of church and state.

So, I may not be able to change your opinion, but frankly, I don't care so long as you don't manage to become a Supreme Court justice.

[jonapete2001]

Wow congrats on the law degree you say you have. If you did not care what i thought then why did you bother to post. Judges and lawyers disagree every day. If you really were a lawyer you would have known that. I know that all states have a constitution of their own. I have studied the constitution. Just because i am not a lawyer does not mean i can not understand what is going on here.

Do you not agree that the specific reference in the constitution to religion is a little open to interpretation. I do not argue your right to interprete it any way you want. My arguement is to close down all interpretation on the issue. Make it clear and we would not be debating this issue. i do not understand why that would be so wrong. tell me why it would be wrong to have the public clearify what they want the constitution to say on this issue.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I don't really see why Christmas is a federal holiday.

what...?!
and i'm gonna leave it at that

as for roy moore...
his situation, as he saw it, was no different than citizens in the past who have broken laws and have been praised by later generations for being movers and shakers and breaking the injustices and norms of society. we revere the once oppressed in this country who stood up against racial discrimination by breaking laws in a peaceful maner- and rightly so. i guess i just wonder if in 30 years the nation will have moved to a point where roy moore is looked at in the same way?

any thoughts?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
we revere the once oppressed in this country who stood up against racial discrimination by breaking laws in a peaceful maner

are you saying those who want to remove the separation of church and state in the US are oppressed?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Wow congrats on the law degree you say you have. If you did not care what i thought then why did you bother to post. Judges and lawyers disagree every day. If you really were a lawyer you would have known that.

You're becoming increasingly belligerent the deeper you go into losing this argument. mcrain is a tax attorney working for the IRS.

The reason there is no need for an additional amendment is that there has been one in place that has been proven over the past 200 years to be certain enough in meaning. If the public were allowed to vote in an amendment, they'd likely vote for allowing Protestant Christianity into the government, and quite possibly make us into a theocracy.

Which is why I'm glad it was up to the founding fathers and not the modern public.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
as for roy moore...
his situation, as he saw it, was no different than citizens in the past who have broken laws and have been praised by later generations for being movers and shakers and breaking the injustices and norms of society. we revere the once oppressed in this country who stood up against racial discrimination by breaking laws in a peaceful maner- and rightly so. i guess i just wonder if in 30 years the nation will have moved to a point where roy moore is looked at in the same way?

any thoughts?

Well, religious fundamentalism took over much of the middle east and look where it got them. If that's where we are headed with men like Moore, then this country is in big trouble.

Moore isn't interested in standing up for anything other than his own self promotion. His fundamentalist, fatalistic, armageddon based approach to the law is what made all those Puritans leave Yrup. We've run out of continents so maybe it is time to put this to rest for once and for all. Moore and his ilk have the right to practice whatever religion they like BUT they have no right to force it down the throats of the rest of us.

Moore is turning away from science and common sense to the foggy legends of ancient pre-Christ religions. Methinks he wants us to live in the dark ages instead of going forward.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
what...?!
and i'm gonna leave it at that

as for roy moore...
his situation, as he saw it, was no different than citizens in the past who have broken laws and have been praised by later generations for being movers and shakers and breaking the injustices and norms of society. we revere the once oppressed in this country who stood up against racial discrimination by breaking laws in a peaceful maner- and rightly so. i guess i just wonder if in 30 years the nation will have moved to a point where roy moore is looked at in the same way?

any thoughts?

Moore is not Martin Luther King. To even hint at such a connection is an insult to the Reverend.

Since when did pushing a secular Christian agenda onto the helpless public become an act of breaking an injustice?

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by zimv20
are you saying those who want to remove the separation of church and state in the US are oppressed?

I'M not saying anything. but it appears that roy feels like it is his right to leave the monument in the building. if he feels like his rights have been violated, then i i'm sure he feels oppressed

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Ugg
Well, religious fundamentalism took over much of the middle east and look where it got them. If that's where we are headed with men like Moore, then this country is in big trouble.

Moore isn't interested in standing up for anything other than his own self promotion. His fundamentalist, fatalistic, armageddon based approach to the law is what made all those Puritans leave Yrup. We've run out of continents so maybe it is time to put this to rest for once and for all. Moore and his ilk have the right to practice whatever religion they like BUT they have no right to force it down the throats of the rest of us.

Moore is turning away from science and common sense to the foggy legends of ancient pre-Christ religions. Methinks he wants us to live in the dark ages instead of going forward.

What exactly are the foggy legends of ancient pre-Christ religions. Do you speak of the Jews? What does science have to do with this? You lost me with this one. Please explain.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
I'M not saying anything. but it appears that roy feels like it is his right to leave the monument in the building. if he feels like his rights have been violated, then i i'm sure he feels oppressed

What about the rights of all the people who must conduct business in his courthouse? Don't you think some of them feel their rights have been violated? Moore is the powerful oppressive authority here, not the weak and humble victim.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Moore is not Martin Luther King.


this is just my point though. i'm just wondering if moore will be looked at in the same light 30 years from now, depending on how the country swings, thats all. do you think the reverend would have aggreed with moore? that leaving the comandments in the building was a good idea?

i'm just trying to get conversation going guys- dont be so angry! hahaha

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You're becoming increasingly belligerent the deeper you go into losing this argument. mcrain is a tax attorney working for the IRS.

The reason there is no need for an additional amendment is that there has been one in place that has been proven over the past 200 years to be certain enough in meaning. If the public were allowed to vote in an amendment, they'd likely vote for allowing Protestant Christianity into the government, and quite possibly make us into a theocracy.

Which is why I'm glad it was up to the founding fathers and not the modern public.

I merely stated my post like this because this is exactly whou he posted towards me. Take the issue up with him. If this forum was not so liberal, maybe i would have more support. Currently it is like me versus 4 other posters. I have lost nothing.

Macrain posted in response to me:

...Also, congrats on your undergrad level government courses that you say you took, I'm sure you learned a lot....

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
this is just my point though. i'm just wondering if moore will be looked at in the same light 30 years from now, depending on how the country swings, thats all. do you think the reverend would have aggreed with moore? that leaving the comandments in the building was a good idea?

No. If anything he will be seen in worse light.

i'm just trying to get conversation going guys- dont be so angry! hahaha

These forums are for expressing your political viewpoints, not for inciting conversation for your own amusement.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What about the rights of all the people who must conduct business in his courthouse? Don't you think some of them feel their rights have been violated?

personally? no... but maybe those who were so offended should give me all of their money since it all has 'in God we trust' on it. ;) what is more public than money?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
If this forum was not so liberal, maybe i would have more support. Currently it is like me versus 4 other posters. I have lost nothing.

If your ideas were more logical, maybe we'd agree with you. As it is, you're proposing nonsense and then getting angry when everyone calls your spade a spade.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
These forums are for expressing your political viewpoints, not for inciting conversation for your own amusement.

ohhhhhhhhhhhh

well then

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
personally? no... but maybe those who were so offended should give me all of their money since it all has 'in God we trust' on it. ;) what is more public than money?

Maybe the notion of trusting in a God is generic enough that most people don't feel oppressed by it.

Having a specific set of Biblical passages shoved down your throat by a judge preaching from the bench is quite another matter, and the one we're debating here now. So stay on topic.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
If your ideas were more logical, maybe we'd agree with you. As it is, you're proposing nonsense and then getting angry when everyone calls your spade a spade.

I get it if i disagree than i am not logical. What is not logical that half the country probably agrees with me? That I think that athiesim can be a religion on to it self? That I am a republican. Or is it that you can not understand why someone would disagree with you? Tell me why am I not logical.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
ohhhhhhhhhhhh

well then

Go ahead and scoff; others have been banned for such grenade-throwing.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Maybe the notion of trusting in a God is generic enough that most people don't feel oppressed by it.

Having a specific set of Biblical passages shoved down your throat by a judge preaching from the bench is quite another matter, and the one we're debating here now. So stay on topic.

that IS the topic. people can ignore a monument in a building. they dont HAVE to go and read it. just like they dont pay any attention to what the money says. i feel like the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves knowing that we want to disavow all reverance in this country to make sure we dont offend anyone.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Maybe the notion of trusting in a God is generic enough that most people don't feel oppressed by it.

Having a specific set of Biblical passages shoved down your throat by a judge preaching from the bench is quite another matter, and the one we're debating here now. So stay on topic.

Shoved down there throught. Is this a joke. No one was making these people read these passages. You make it sound like Moore was making these people swear an allegance to the bible or something. No one made the people read the monument. Pretty soon it will be against the law to have a church next to a court house, some people will say, why do we have to walk by that church it is like christianity is being shoved down our throat.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I get it if i disagree than i am not logical. What is not logical that half the country probably agrees with me? That I think that athiesim can be a religion on to it self? That I am a republican. Or is it that you can not understand why someone would disagree with you? Tell me why am I not logical.

Your argument that there needs to be a new amendment to the Constitution is illogical.

Your argument that atheism is a religion of no religion is wrong. It is a religion of no God. Your idea that atheism is being supported when the government ignores all religion is illogical.

The only thing that half the country and you believe together is that it's okay to subject religious minorities to your viewpoints as long as you're in the majority.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Your argument that there needs to be a new amendment to the Constitution is illogical.

Your argument that atheism is a religion of no religion is wrong. It is a religion of no God. Your idea that atheism is being supported when the government ignores all religion is illogical.

The only thing that half the country and you believe together is that it's okay to subject religious minorities to your viewpoints as long as you're in the majority.

Why is an amendment to the constitution illogical? it has been done before. Let the people decide, that sounds so scary to me. This is after all america let the people vote. Does not sound illogical to me.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
that IS the topic. people can ignore a monument in a building. they dont HAVE to go and read it. just like they dont pay any attention to what the money says. i feel like the founding fathers would be spinning in their graves knowing that we want to disavow all reverance in this country to make sure we dont offend anyone.

I think if they could see the diverse population we've come to embrace, they'd be very comfortable yielding their own personal beliefs (remember that many were simply deists and not religious at all) to dissuade the majority from overpowering the minority.

As a matter of fact, they wrote a little amendment for that specific purpose, so don't go thinking they'd be outraged if references to God were removed from public buildings.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
that IS the topic. people can ignore a monument in a building. they dont HAVE to go and read it.

the danger is that moore could use his beliefs, rather than the law, to render judgements. that's why the AL state attorney general had him removed.

though people could ignore the monument, they wouldn't have such a luxury if moore's biased opinion went against them.

edit: oops, wrong word

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Shoved down there throught. Is this a joke. No one was making these people read these passages. You make it sound like Moore was making these people swear an allegance to the bible or something.

You haven't read much about Moore, have you?

No one made the people read the monument. Pretty soon it will be against the law to have a church next to a court house, some people will say, why do we have to walk by that church it is like christianity is being shoved down our throat.

Now you're just being silly. And you're still losing the argument.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

As a matter of fact, they wrote a little amendment for that specific purpose, so don't go thinking they'd be outraged if references to God were removed from public buildings.

the REASONS for the removal would upset them. i have no problem with having other religious texts on the monument too. the 10 comandments is just a moral list of a way to live a healthy life. seems like a perfect fit for a court. i'm sure that other religions make references to moral and rightous ways to live- why not inscribe the monument with those too.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by zimv20
the danger is that moore could use his beliefs, rather than the law, to render judgements. that's why the AL state attorney general had him removed.

though people could ignore the argument, they wouldn't have such a luxury if moore's biased opinion went against them.

if you think judges do not use personal opinion to establish bench ruling then you dont knwo what is going on. It is impossible for a person to remove them selves from their religion all the time. It goes the same for personal politics, Just look at Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court. Right down the party line.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by zimv20
the danger is that moore could use his beliefs, rather than the law, to render judgements.


federal judges do this all the time. 9th circuit court of appeals anyone?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why is an amendment to the constitution illogical? it has been done before. Let the people decide, that sounds so scary to me. This is after all america let the people vote. Does not sound illogical to me.

There are not enough votes throughout the amendment process to pass such an amendment that you propose. And for good reason.

One does not use a simple majority to discard the ground-breaking, forward-thinking liberal brilliance that is the First Amendment.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
You haven't read much about Moore, have you?



Now you're just being silly. And you're still losing the argument.

Why am i losing, becaue you say it. Well i say it is you that is losing!

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
if you think judges do not use personal opinion to establish bench ruling then you dont knwo what is going on. It is impossible for a person to remove them selves from their religion all the time. It goes the same for personal politics, Just look at Bush v. Gore in the Supreme Court. Right down the party line.

Just because it happens sometimes doesn't mean it should be allowed to be pushed to the extreme.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
if you think judges do not use personal opinion to establish bench ruling then you dont knwo what is going on. It is impossible for a person to remove them selves from their religion all the time.

how far is too far?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Why am i losing, becaue you say it. Well i say it is you that is losing!

"but your arm's off"
"no it isn't"
"i'll have your leg"
"have at you!"

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
the REASONS for the removal would upset them. i have no problem with having other religious texts on the monument too. the 10 comandments is just a moral list of a way to live a healthy life. seems like a perfect fit for a court. i'm sure that other religions make references to moral and rightous ways to live- why not inscribe the monument with those too.

Because then you've endorsed religion(s), which is not allowed. It doesn't matter if you include every religion.
It's still not the government's business to dictate, suggest, legislate, judge, or force faith of any creed.

If they wanted to include a list of ways to live a healthy life, they'd have instructions for eating right, exercising and flossing. The first three refer to a Protestant God. That's not my faith. Goddamn anyone who wants to force it on me.

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
There are not enough votes throughout the amendment process to pass such an amendment that you propose. And for good reason.

One does not use a simple majority to discard the ground-breaking, forward-thinking liberal brilliance that is the First Amendment.

I realize that it is just not a simple majority. and how do you know if there is enough votes. that is like saying we can win next weeks football game so lets not try.

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.

My idea of a new amendment would not touch this one. it would simply say that monuments or other displays of any religious material in any public building is ok or not ok(based on public vote). It would not establish a national religion. It would not allow CONGRESS to do anything. If you read the constitution(1st amendment) it clearly states this
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;(religion)



edit:forgot the word not

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
it would simply say that monuments or other displays of any religious material in any public building is ok or not ok(based on public vote).

This is why you're losing the debate. You fail to understand even the process of amendments.

You don't put it to public vote, and you don't get it to go either way. You write a specific clause to achieve a specific result and pass it around through all the state legislatures.

It would establish a national religion.

Now we know where you stand.

It would not allow CONGRESS to do anything. If you read the constitution(1st amendment) it clearly states this
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;(religion)

All clauses and amendments are aimed at limiting or expanding the powers of Congress, the President or the Supreme Court.

If we have a "national religion," isn't that prohibiting the free exercise of my religion?

[jonapete2001]

I honestly was typing so fast i forgot th e word not. It was in my head and it just did not transfer to the screen.

also i do understand the process. I do mean that the amendment be worded either or. I mean an amendment should be written to either outlaw or allow. One or the other.

I mean that if an amendment should be written and the people should decide. If it in favor of baning public building from displaying any religous material then it shall be. If this would fail then another amendment should come to issue, allowing this display of religious material.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
this is just my point though. i'm just wondering if moore will be looked at in the same light 30 years from now, depending on how the country swings, thats all. do you think the reverend would have aggreed with moore? that leaving the comandments in the building was a good idea?

i'm just trying to get conversation going guys- dont be so angry! hahaha

Generally speaking, extremists aren't looked upon very fondly by the history books. McCarthy and his "red Scare" for example. Hitler had a lot of support in the US during the early to mid thirties. gw's grandpaw made a lot of money from that support.

I think that what will happen is that now that we've gone through the godless 60s and 70s and suffered endlessly from Tammy Faye and her ilk in the 80s and Moore and gw in the 90s, that the public will be nauseated by such extreme forms of piety and a more normal and much healthier attitude towards religion will prevail. At least that is what I hope, but the US has always had a love hate relationship with religion and those who preach it, and I'm sure the pendulum will swing once again.

It is pretty fascinating to watch the rest of the world shake their heads over our religious squabbling. Why does religion have to play such a major role in this country?

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by Ugg

It is pretty fascinating to watch the rest of the world shake their heads over our religious squabbling. Why does religion have to play such a major role in this country?

Because is was originally an escape for people who were strick fundamentalists. people like to believe the the puritans and what not came to america to escape opression, and then lived happily ever after. Some what true but, the puritans then quickly established their religion and wanted others to follow it. They left britian because britian was to liberal for their blood.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
also i do understand the process.

Obviously you don't:

I do mean that the amendment be worded either or. I mean an amendment should be written to either outlaw or allow. One or the other.

I mean that if an amendment should be written and the people should decide.

The people don't decide. It's not a popular vote. It has to pass state legislatures with 3/4 favor. I can assure you that at least 25% of state legislatures understand the importance of separation of church and state.

Unless you want those legislatures to first write an amdendment nullifying the current amendment clause, thus ceding their carefully arranged amending power to a simple popular vote over 1/2.

If it in favor of baning public building from displaying any religous material then it shall be. If this would fail then another amendment should come to issue, allowing this display of religious material.

Neither would pass. So you're back where you started, and the First Amendment is still in place. You lose and so does Moore.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
The first three refer to a Protestant God. That's not my faith. Goddamn anyone who wants to force it on me.

but surely you can appreciate the beliefs of another religion? i have read religious texts from other groups and find them elightening, they usually offer a great way for me to discover my own faith. i dont think most people look at the comandments as forcing a religion on anyone, they can ignore what they wish. i dont get offended when i see menorahs in public spaces. *think the big menorah on the white house lawn each year*

[jonapete2001]

i do know that state governments do decide. I also knew that 3/4 vote of states is required. 38 out of 50 to be exact. also if the state politicians did not vote the will of the people, they would make or break their careers.

if it ends up back to square one then let it be so. It is worth a shot.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by Ugg
At least that is what I hope, but the US has always had a love hate relationship with religion and those who preach it, and I'm sure the pendulum will swing once again.


this is what i meant originally... thanks for getting the point

[jonapete2001]

i am done on this thread it obvoiously is going no where. It is a typical discussion between left wing anti religion and the right wing pro- any religion. No one can change anything in this mac forum. If you want to know my real opinion then here it is.

America is a country of the majority. Let the majority rule. If the majority steps on the toes of the minority then I dont really care.

America is a country for the majority, for the majority.

I know this will get a rise out of some of you. HA

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
i am done on this thread it obvoiously is going no where. It is a typical discussion between left wing anti religion and the right wing pro- any religion. No one can change anything in this mac forum. If you want to know my real opinion then here it is.

America is a country of the majority. Let the majority rule. If the majority steps on the toes of the minority then I dont really care.

America is a country for the majority, for the majority.

I know this will get a rise out of some of you. HA


WHOA! i love this country cause we CAN talk about things like this. we may not always agree but i LOVE that we dont. we keep each other in check. you saying that the majority is always right is RIDICULOUS

[jonapete2001]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
WHOA! i love this country cause we CAN talk about things like this. we may not always agree but i LOVE that we dont. we keep each other in check. you saying that the majority is always right is RIDICULOUS

Oh no I did not say they are alway right. I just wanted to point out the majority rules. That is just how it is.

Now that was honestly my last post on this thread. I promise.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by jonapete2001

America is a country for the majority, for the majority.


a civilized society ensures it works for the minority, too. including you.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
i am done on this thread it obvoiously is going no where. It is a typical discussion between left wing anti religion and the right wing pro- any religion.

I'm left wing Irish Catholic. I'm not anti-religion (but you're not arguing against my ideas, you're arguing against stereotypes of what kind of person I am, which is why you've lost this debate).

The problem is that other people's religions are anti-Catholic.

I don't want that in my government.


America is a country of the majority. Let the majority rule. If the majority steps on the toes of the minority then I dont really care.

America is a country for the majority, for the majority.

Are you in the minority on anything?

Do you ever wonder what it would be like?

"Do unto others..."
I know this will get a rise out of some of you. HA

And I can see you've just come to pointlessly incite people afterall...

[Ugg]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
but surely you can appreciate the beliefs of another religion? i have read religious texts from other groups and find them elightening, they usually offer a great way for me to discover my own faith. i dont think most people look at the comandments as forcing a religion on anyone, they can ignore what they wish. i dont get offended when i see menorahs in public spaces. *think the big menorah on the white house lawn each year*

It's one thing to honor a religion by inviting them to the WH and another to promote it year round by installing a protestant version of the 10C in a courthouse. And that is what this argument is all about, where to draw the line? Moore was promoting a particular form of Christianity with his monument. That is against the law. 9 AL Supreme Court Justices agreed. Count them, 9. That indicates to me that his coworkers, most of whom probably share Moore's basic beliefs, felt that he went too far. That he broke the LAW.

Once again, I have yet to hear from any god fearing christian in this forum where in the bible does it say that a christian must display in his workplace the 10C? It doesn't does it? Christ was big on humility in his teachings, he didn't feel that he should have to force people to "see the light". He also made a big show of kicking the moneylenders out of the temple and discouraging graven images and embracing the poor and downtrodden. Isn't that ultimately more important and more Christian than going up against the law of the land for reasons of self-promotion? And believe me you, this is all about roy moore's inflated ego. He wants to tell the US that they must see the world and religion and god they way he does. That is not Christian behaviour nor is it legal and it is directly opposed to what the founders of this country wanted.

He is a martyr only to his own inflated self worth, just like Ashcroft and gw.

[gwuMACaddict]

this is a country for everyone. while it has been getting a little testy in here, it doesnt mean that i want everyone i disagree with to have to leave the country. just like i'm hoping they'll let me stay too ;) when you say that this is a country for the majority only, you forget what makes this country great. we can argue all we want and not get in trouble for it. there are plenty of decisions made by presidents and judges and congress that i dont always like, but i respect them because i understand that everyone's convictions have been taking in to account when reaching a final decision. to leave one group or many groups out of the decision making process is not what this country is about.

[pseudobrit]

Keep in mind that this, "we rule, damn the peasants" talk is both unAmerican and anti-Christian.

What kind of country do you want to live in? A Christian version of the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan?

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by Ugg
where in the bible does it say that a christian must display in his workplace the 10C?

well of course it doesnt... i just dont know that there is anything wrong with it.

that said, of course i respect that decision of the 9 judges. the fact that we can debate this and have all the voices heard is what makes this the best place to live in the world, in my opinion. i dont have any problem with him being removed.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
well of course it doesnt... i just dont know that there is anything wrong with it.

What if your boss was Muslim and put passages from the Koran on your cubicle walls or forced you to listen to him preach every day before work (Muslims wouldn't do this, but bear with me)?

Would you feel uncomfortable? Would you feel obligated to patronise his beliefs even though you didn't share them? Would you be influenced against acting out your own religious beliefs so as not to offend his?

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
What if your boss was Muslim and put passages from the Koran on your cubicle walls or forced you to listen to him preach every day before work (Muslims wouldn't do this, but bear with me)?

Would you feel uncomfortable? Would you feel obligated to patronise his beliefs even though you didn't share them? Would you be influenced against acting out your own religious beliefs so as not to offend his?


moore didnt hold anyone in front of the monument and force them to read it.

that said, its past my bedtime and i need some sleep

night all

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
moore didnt hold anyone in front of the monument and force them to read it.

No, but neither did your boss in the scenario above. He simply made you change the way you feel and act about your faith in order to fit in.

That's wrong. In private enterprise, it's unethical. In government, it's unconstitutional.

Moore refused to allow either the ethical or constitutional scruple get in his way, and he paid with his bench.

[SPG]

Interesting take on the monument...
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2003/11/roy_moore_and_n.html

[pseudobrit]

It's never healthy when you hold a religious symbol above or equal to the idea or person that symbol is meant to portray.

I'm Catholic, and we have statues in Church. We don't pray to them or hold them in overly high regard, but we do honor and/or worship the people or ideas they stand for.

The fact that people are equating the ten commandments with God himself shows how dangerous this idea can be -- making something intangible tangible in order to sway zealous opinion your way for your own ambition and political agenda.

Moore is a minion of Satan.

[mactacular]

Originally posted by pseudobrit

Moore is a minion of Satan.

I hope this was a joke, because that is so far off. HA

[SPG]

A bit of a stretch to call him a minion of Satan, but perhaps a lot more accurate than an agent of Christ.
Moore is obviously using this to further his own career or ego.
By creating a graven image and inviting people to worship it he is breaking one of the very commandments he had carved into that rock. BTW, there is also a whole bunch of religioius scripture on that monument too, so it's more than the ten commandments.
What does he really hope to do with this? jonapete2001 seems to think that this is the beginning of drive for a nationally recognized governmnet endorsed religion.
I think it's a red herring to fire up the fundamentalists and born agains.

[mactastic]

If this was a country ruled by the majority we'd all be using Windows right now. Think about it.:p

Wanna put the One True Operating System up to a popular vote?

[mcrain]

Originally posted by gwuMACaddict
but surely you can appreciate the beliefs of another religion? i have read religious texts from other groups and find them elightening, they usually offer a great way for me to discover my own faith. i dont think most people look at the comandments as forcing a religion on anyone, they can ignore what they wish. i dont get offended when i see menorahs in public spaces. *think the big menorah on the white house lawn each year*

The original inhabitants of this country were native americans. They believed, as do druids, that the earth is a god. As such, even merely saying something as trivial as "under god" is basically saying that their god is not truly god. There are wonderful things about every religion, and many things to be learned and discovered from them, however, the courts have uniformely agreed that the wording of the 1st amendment specificlaly prohibits the establishment of religion by the government or by government actors. The term "establishment of religion" has been uniformly interpreted to mean exactly the type of things like what Moore was trying to do. There really is no issue left to be decided.

As for my comment about the con law classes you say you took, several constitutional law classes are a requirement of the law curriculum, and anyone who is a lawyer has taken them. I know of very few, if any, undergrad level curriculums that have required con law classes, and since I don't know what major you were, or what you studied in your associate level degrees, I really don't know if you took those courses. It wasn't meant to be a dig, merely a statement that we have to take your word for it, while I can show you my diploma and nothing else, and you know what courses I've taken.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
Because is was originally an escape for people who were strick fundamentalists. people like to believe the the puritans and what not came to america to escape opression, and then lived happily ever after. Some what true but, the puritans then quickly established their religion and wanted others to follow it. They left britian because britian was to liberal for their blood.

Once again, you have your story exactly backwards. They left because as "non-conformists" they were persecuted by the established Church of England. The founders in their wisdom accordingly decided that for religious liberty to thrive in the New World, that government and church should not be entangled, as they were in England and elsewhere in Europe.

[gwuMACaddict]

Originally posted by mcrain

As for my comment about the con law classes you say you took, several constitutional law classes are a requirement of the law curriculum, and anyone who is a lawyer has taken them. I know of very few, if any, undergrad level curriculums that have required con law classes, and since I don't know what major you were, or what you studied in your associate level degrees, I really don't know if you took those courses. It wasn't meant to be a dig, merely a statement that we have to take your word for it, while I can show you my diploma and nothing else, and you know what courses I've taken.

HOLD UP! i never said i took any con law classes!! you have me confused with someone else!!!


edit: however... i do know that lots of universitys offer con law classes at the undergrad level. we do anyway, gw in dc

[mactacular]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Once again, you have your story exactly backwards. They left because as "non-conformists" they were persecuted by the established Church of England. The founders in their wisdom accordingly decided that for religious liberty to thrive in the New World, that government and church should not be entangled, as they were in England and elsewhere in Europe.

This is true, but in my studies I also learned that once the puritans got to america and established little conlonies they began persecuting others who did not believe in their way of life. I think jonapete2001, in his original post about the puritans,(if i read it right) was saying that the purtins left europe fleeing persecution only to become the persecuters in america.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by mactacular
I think jonapete2001, in his original post about the puritans,(if i read it right) was saying that the purtins left europe fleeing persecution only to become the persecuters in america.

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. --Frederick Wilhelm Nietsche

i used to work at Andersen Consulting. some of my coworkers and i spun off our own consulting company, in part because there were aspects of management we didn't like. naturally, after a couple years and many employee hires later, we became worse in certain ways.

so while some people in the New World became oppressors, i don't think that was the original intent on leaving England. nor does that mean the Puritans fine tradition of religious persecution should be used as a model for today.

[mactastic]

Hey, I've got an idea. For all those who think it's a good idea to put tracts from various religions on a monument in order to skirt it, lets put these guys list of beliefs up alongside the ten C's...
Kingdom Identity Ministry (http://www.kingidentity.com/doctrine.htm)

In part:
WE BELIEVE in YHVH the one and only true and living eternal God (Isa. 44:6); the God of our fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Exo. 3:14-16), the Creator of all things (1 Cor. 8:6) who is omnipotent, omnipresent, unchangeable and all-knowing; the Great I Am who is manifested in three beings: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all one God (Deut. 6:4).

WE BELIEVE the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as originally inspired, to be the inerrant, supreme, revealed Word of God. The history, covenants, and prophecy of this Holy Book were written for and about a specific elect family of people who are children of YHVH God (Luke 3:38; Psalm 82:6) through the seedline of Adam (Gen . 5.1). All scripture is written as a doctrinal standard for our exhortation, admonition, correction, instruction and example; the whole counsel to be believed, taught and followed (II Tim. 3:16. Acts. 20:27).

WE BELIEVE membership in the church of Yahshua or Messiah (Jesus Christ) is by Divine election (John 6:44, 65, 15:16; Acts 2:39, 13:48; Rom. 9:11, 11:7; II Thes. 2:13). God foreknew, chose and predestined the Elect from before the foundation of the world (Psalm 139:16; Jer. 1:5; Matt. 25:34; Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:4-5; II Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8) according to His perfect purpose and sovereign will (Rom. 9:19-23). Only the called children of God can come to the Savior to hear His words and believe; those who are not of God, cannot hear his voice (John 8:47, 10:26-27).

WE BELIEVE Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus the Christ) came to redeem (a word meaning purchase back according to the law of kinship) only His people Israel (Psalm 130:7-8; Isa. 54:5; Matt. 10:5-6, 15:24; Gal. 4:4-5) who are His portion and inheritance (Deut. 32:9).

WE BELIEVE individual Israelites are destined for judgment (II Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27) and must believe on the only begotten son of God, Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), in whom only there is salvation (Acts 4:12), that they be not condemned (John 3:18; Mark 16:16). Each individual Israelite must repent, putting off the old corrupt man and become a new creature (Eph. 4:22-24; II Cor. 5:17) walking in the newness of life (Rom. 6:4). This spiritual rebirth (John 3:3-6; I Peter 1:23) being necessary for a personal relationship with our Savior.

WE BELIEVE Yahshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) to be our only High Priest (I Tim. 2:5; Heb. 3:1, 6:20, 7:17, 24-25) and head over His body of called-out saints, the Church (Rom. 12:5; I Cor. 12:12, 27; Eph. 1:22-23, 4;12, 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18, 24). His bride, the wife of the Lamb, is the twelve tribes of the children of Israel (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 3:14; Hosea 2:19-20; Rev. 21:9-12).

WE BELIEVE God chose unto Himself a special race of people that are above all people upon the face of the earth (Deut. 7:6; Amos 3:2). These children of Abraham through the called-out seedline of Isaac and Jacob (Psalm 105:6; Rom. 9:7) were to be a blessing to all the families of the earth who bless them and a cursing to those that curse them (Gen. 12.3). The descendants of the twelve sons of a Jacob, called "Israel", were married to God (Isa. 54:5), have not been cast away (Rom. 11:1-2), have been given the adoption, glory, covenants, law, service of God, and promises; are the ones to whom the messiah came (Rom. 9:4-5) electing out of all twelve tribes those who inherit the Kingdom of God (Rev. 7:4, 21:12).

WE BELIEVE that the New Covenant was made with the Children of Israel, the same people the Old Covenant was made with (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:8-10) in fulfillment of the mercy of promised our forefathers (Luke 1:72).

WE BELIEVE the White, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic and kindred people to be God's true, literal Children of Israel. Only this race fulfills every detail of Biblical Prophecy and World History concerning Israel and continues in these latter days to be heirs and possessors of the Covenants, Prophecies, Promises and Blessings YHVH God made to Israel. This chosen seedline making up the "Christian Nations" (Gen. 35:11; Isa. 62:2; Acts 11:26) of the earth stands far superior to all other peoples in their call as God's servant race (Isa. 41:8, 44:21; Luke 1:54). Only these descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel scattered abroad (James 1:1; Deut. 4:27; Jer. 31:10; John 11:52) have carried God's Word, the Bible, throughout the world (Gen. 28:14; Isa. 43:10-12, 59:21), have used His Laws in the establishment of their civil governments and are the "Christians" opposed by the Satanic Anti-Christ forces of this world who do not recognize the true and living God (John 5:23, 8:19, 16:2-3).

WE BELIEVE in an existing being known as the Devil or Satan and called the Serpent (Gen. 3:1; Rev. 12:9), who has a literal "seed" or posterity in the earth (Gen. 3:15) commonly called Jews today (Rev. 2:9; 3:9; Isa. 65:15). These children of Satan (John 8:44-47; Matt. 13:38; John 8:23) through Cain (I John 2:22, 4:3) who have throughout history always been a curse to true Israel, the Children of God, because of a natural enmity between the two races (Gen. 3:15), because they do the works of their father the Devil (John 8:38-44), and because they please not God, and are contrary to all men (I Thes. 2:14-15), though they often pose as ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:13-15). The ultimate end of this evil race whose hands bear the blood of our Savior (Matt. 27:25) and all the righteous slain upon the earth (Matt. 23:35), is Divine judgment (Matt. 13:38-42, 15:13; Zech. 14:21).

WE BELIEVE that the Man Adam (a Hebrew word meaning: ruddy, to show Blood, flush, turn rosy) is father of the White Race only. As a son of God (Luke 3:38), made in His likeness (Gen. 5:1), Adam and his descendants, who are also the children of God (Psalm 82:6; Hos. 1:10; Rom. 8:16; Gal. 4:6; I John 3:1-2), can know YHVH God as their creator. Adamic man is made trichotomous, that is, not only of body and soul, but having an implanted spirit (Gen. 2:7; I Thes. 5:23; Heb. 4:12) giving him a higher form of consciousness and distinguishing him from all the other races of the earth (Deut. 7:6, 10:15; Amos 3:2).

WE BELIEVE that as a chosen race, elected by God (Deut. 7:6, 10:15; I Peter 2:9), we are not to be partakers of the wickedness of this world system (I John 2:15; James 4:4; John 17/9, 15, 16), but are called to come out and be a separated people (II Cor. 6:17; Rev. 18:4; Jer. 51:6; Exodus 33:16; Lev. 20:24). This includes segregation from all non-white races, who are prohibited in God's natural divine order from ruling over Israel (Deut. 17:15, 28:13, 32:8; Joel 2:17; Isa. 13:14; Gen. 1:25-26; Rom. 9:21). Race-mixing is an abomination in the sight of Almighty God, a satanic attempt meant to destroy the chosen seedline, and is strictly forbidden by His commandments (Exo. 34:14-16; Num. 25:1-13; I Cor. 10:8/ Rev. 2:14; Deut. 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12-13; I Kings 11:1-3; Ezra 9:2, 10-12; 10:10-14; Neh. 10:28-30, 13;3, 27; Hosea 5;7; Mal. 2:11-12).

WE BELIEVE God gave Israel His Laws for their own good (Deut. 5:33). Theocracy being the only perfect form of government, and God's divine Law for governing a nation being far superior to man's laws, we are not to add to or diminish from His commandments (Deut. 4:1-2). All present world problems are a result of disobedience to the Laws of God, which if kept will bring blessings and if disregarded will bring cursings (Deut. 28).

WE BELIEVE men and women should conduct themselves according to the role of their gender in the traditional Christian sense that God intended. Homosexuality is an abomination before God and should be punished by death (Lev. 18:22, 20:13; Rom. 1:24-28, 32; I Cor. 6:9).

WE BELIEVE that the United States of America fulfills the prophesied (II Sam. 7:10; Isa. 11:12; Ezek. 36:24) place where Christians from all the tribes of Israel would be regathered. It is here in this blessed land (Deut. 15.6, 28:11, 33:13-17) that God made a small one a strong nation (Isa. 60:22), feeding His people with knowledge and understanding through Christian pastors (Jer. 3:14-15) who have carried the light of truth and blessings unto the nations of the earth (Isa. 49:6, 2:2-3; Gen. 12:3). North America is the wilderness (Hosea 2:14) to which God brought the dispersed seed of israel, the land between tow seas (Zech. 9:10), surveyed and divided by rivers (Isa. 18:1-2,7), where springs of water and streams break out and the desert blossoms as the rose (Isa. 35:1,6-7).

It's a little long, but I'm sure they would be happy to condense it if it got to go on a monument. And it is just a sect of Christianity. Right?

Or do we only allow statements from those religions we agree with? What about the 13 points that witches use to guide their lives? Can we put those up too? Or would we rather just not have any religious monuments in a courthouse? I can only imagine the monument the CI people would erect. I'm sure it would sicken most of us.