Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > Judge suspended over Ten Commandments
Search this Thread:
Pages (7): « First « 23 [4] 56 » Last »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #91  quote:

Richard Cohen, chief legal counsel for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said 'the monument's placement is a violation of law.

SHOW ME THE LAW WRITTEN THAT STATES PEOPLE ARE FORBIDDEN THE FREE EXERCIZE OF THEIR RELIGION.

THERE IS NO LAW.

ONLY CONGRESS CAN PASS LAW.

The 1st Amendment specifcally states "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion"

Justice Moore is not Congress, he is not a legislature, his free exercize of religion by installing a monument cannot be construed as making law respecting an establishment of religion. The very notion is absurd.

It's a clear government endorsement or promotion of religion, * * *

Fecal matter. Our Founders themselves would be in violation of such a backwards view of the Constitution, as their own Writings and public statements in establishing the law in our nation was credited to religion.

Congress and the legislature is prohibited from endorsing or establishing a religious preference in Law. Moore is not the Congress, nor making a Law by a display of the foundation of our laws. The People (meaning EVERYONE) cannot be prohibited their free exercize of religion - yet such a belief in the 'separation clause' mandates that the free exercize be prohibited.

'Justice Moore has used the monument to promote his version of Christianity

And what version praytell is that? Is it the Baptist version? The Catholic Version? The Jewish Version? Exactly what version is promoted by the presence of a monument to the very foundation of ALL Christianity and faith by which our Republic and our Laws were founded themselves?

and the government really can't play favorites when it comes to something so important as religion.

Wrong. Abject fecal spew. The Congress is forbidden to make any Law respecting an establishment of religion. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding an expression of favor and acknowledgement of religion by the government.

Justice Moore has even acknowledged that "I stand before the Court of the Judiciary because I've done my oath. I've kept my oath. I have acknowledged God as the moral foundation of our law."

Amen.

Therefore, he has admitted the monument is a religious structure and therefore the monument should be put in its proper place, a place of worship.

Oh really? DEFINE what constitutes a legal and 'proper place' of worship? What government laws will need to be enacted to define a 'proper place of worship' in which such monuments are permitted?

Such a statement from Cohen here is FRIGHTENING. In his push to remove any vestige of God from public view - he states that any free exercize of religion can only occur in 'proper places of worship' - by which inevitably, one will require government to define.

As such, government will have to MAKE LAW respecting WHERE an establishment of religion can be permitted.

This is FREAKING INSIDIOUS.

But that is where this is going.

For if a Federal Justice can violate the 10th Amendment to deprive a sovereign Judge of a sovereign state the free exercize of religion in public places - they now have precedent to deprive YOUR right to the free exercize of religion IN YOUR PRIVATE PLACES - as this imbecile Cohen himself states in ignorant remark.

It's time to STAND UP and stop this crap.


Old Post 08-27-2003 07:51 PM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

auntgoldie
Survivor

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 03:03 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1410

post #92  quote:

I see now why you are in the pink!!!

Old Post 08-27-2003 08:44 PM
Click here to Send auntgoldie a Private Message Find more posts by auntgoldie Add auntgoldie to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore auntgoldie REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

auntgoldie
Survivor

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 03:03 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1410

post #93  quote:

"As the monument was being removed from the rotunda, dozens of protesters continued their vigil on the steps outside the Alabama Judicial Building, kneeling in prayer."

And you call this NOT a religious monument???????


Old Post 08-27-2003 08:50 PM
Click here to Send auntgoldie a Private Message Find more posts by auntgoldie Add auntgoldie to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore auntgoldie REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

flapbreaker
Veteran

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 396

post #94  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by auntgoldie
This is an excerpt from an article from CNN.com

Moore stated
'"It's a clear government endorsement or promotion of religion, * * * 'Justice Moore has used the monument to promote his version of Christianity, and the government really can't play favorites when it comes to something so important as religion.'"


This is totally funny. Our government was founded on the belief of the Christian religion. How can they now say they cannot promote one religion. Have you looked at our money lately? Next time you get offended when you see "In God we Trust" on your money will you please send it to me????


Old Post 08-27-2003 09:34 PM
Click here to Send flapbreaker a Private Message Find more posts by flapbreaker Add flapbreaker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore flapbreaker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #95  quote:

"As the monument was being removed from the rotunda, dozens of protesters continued their vigil on the steps outside the Alabama Judicial Building, kneeling in prayer."

And you call this NOT a religious monument???????


I doesn't MATTER if this is a religious monument.

What part of "nor prohibit the free exercize therof" do you refuse to understand?


I see now why you are in the pink!!!

Yes, I disagree in strong terms and without apology, and that is taken as offense by those who cannot tolerate any disagreement with them.


Old Post 08-27-2003 10:38 PM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Senator
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 252

post #96  quote:

Nobody's freedom-of-speech is in question. Nobody's rights are being taken away from them. This is not even about Judge Moore, it's about the public display of a religious statue by a GOVERNMENT OFFICE. If Judge Moore wants to put that statue on display in his front yard. No problem. If he wants to strap it safely to the top of his car and drive around the city all day passing out 'Jesus Loves You' flyers. Go for it!

Every single judge in every court that has addressed this issue has been in favor of the statues removal. It has since been removed from public display, as it should be.

Anyone who thinks this is a confusing or complicated issue.. I'll pray for you.


Old Post 08-27-2003 10:44 PM
Click here to Send Senator a Private Message Find more posts by Senator Add Senator to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Senator REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Senator
Veteran

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 252

post #97  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by INVAR
What part of 'nor prohibit the free exercize therof' do you refuse to understand?
The government doesn't have free exercise of religion, only citizens do. If Judge Moore wants to display that statue then he certainly has the right to do so... so long as it's not on GOVERNMENT property. Which happens to be the whole point to this in the first place. It's not about Moore, the 10 commandments or a statue. It's about a government office endorsing, by public display, something they have no right to. It's not rocket science. Why do you refuse to understand that?


Old Post 08-27-2003 10:52 PM
Click here to Send Senator a Private Message Find more posts by Senator Add Senator to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Senator REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #98  quote:

Nobody's freedom-of-speech is in question.

Sorry Senator, EVERYONE"S freedom of speech is in question.

Nobody's rights are being taken away from them.

WRONG. A sovereign state and the sovereign people of that state are forbidden to acknowledge God, or dedicate monument to the Laws of God in the public square.

The 1st Amendment specifically states that the no one can prohibit the FREE EXERCIZE of RELIGION. Justice Moore and the People of Alabama were exercizing their religious rights - and a federal justice denied them that right.

it's about the public display of a religious statue by a GOVERNMENT OFFICE.

There is NO LAW that exists to prohibit such a display in such a place.

If Judge Moore wants to put that statue on display in his front yard. No problem.

He can put it wherever he pleases, and the People of Alabama that voted him into office KNEW and understood he was going to erect such a monument.

There IS NO LAW that can exist to prohibit the free exercize of religion and faith in the public domain. If you haven't paid any attention of late, judicial orders have been handed down to PROHIBIT crosses and scriptural messages that can be seen from the public streets, judicial orders have prohibited mentioning the name of Jesus in public meetings etc., etc., etc.

This is about the COMPLETE REMOVAL of any religious symbol that can be seen or heard in public.

Next it will be the prohibition of exercizing faith in private, as is already evidenced by those who have brought the lawsuits via the Southern Poverty law Center and the ACLU that have said preaching against homosexuality from the pulpit is a Hate Crime and actionable, that parents who teach their children that the bible is the Word of God are dangerous brainwashers.


Every single judge in every court that has addressed this issue has been in favor of the statues removal.

Who cares? If the entire Judiciary suddenly agreed and was in favor of upholding a law to load Jews in boxcars and truck them off to gas chambers, I'm sorry - but IT'S WRONG and UNJUST.

Our Founders fought the very same kind of tyranny you are apologizing for.

It has since been removed from public display, as it should be.

So you are comfortable with forcing people of faith underground, and to force them to be shuttered from public expression of their beliefs?

I see.

I guess the Bill Of Rights and our Constitutional Liberties are indeed nothing more than priveledges people like yourself can grant and take away if you so choose, yes?

The government doesn't have free exercise of religion, only citizens do.

You are ignorant of our Republic's history then and WOEFULLY misinformed. Our Founders not only engaged in public displays and practices of religion, several of them like Patrick Henry GAVE SERMONS with scripture IN HAND on and inside our Government.

The government is OF THE PEOPLE - and since they are OF US, and sovereign citizens themselves, are you telling me that THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO THE FREE EXERCIZE OF RELIGION?

If Judge Moore wants to display that statue then he certainly has the right to do so... so long as it's not on GOVERNMENT property.

SHOW ME THE LAW THAT STATES THAT.

THERE IS NONE.

It's about a government office endorsing, by public display, something they have no right to.

What about this statement do you fail to understand?: "Congress SHALL MAKE NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion".

Tell me WHERE in those words are found the prohibition that says government cannot endorse by public display any monument of religious faith?

Where?

It says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW.

A government building housing a religious monument, or plaque, or bible, or banner IS NOT CONGRESS MAKING A LAW.

DISPLAY of the very foundational Laws that established our Republic and our entire system of jurisprudence in a Court is not congress making a law with respect to the establishment of a religion.

It's not rocket science. Why do you refuse to understand that?

Because your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is wrong, flawed and redefined per our actual written history, the writings of the Framers themselves, and the plain English written in the Amendment itself.


Old Post 08-27-2003 11:32 PM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

@dam
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location: CA
Posts: 69

post #99  quote:

OK...lets play this as a freedom of speech issue, since you are correct that no law was made by congress here.

So, then would it be within the federal judges freedom of speech to remove the monument? I don't see the difference. Would it be within the freedom of speech to install a giant Buddah statue that takes up 75% of the Rotunda? Could a pagan cover the floor in dirt and plant trees to promote their religion as a freedom of speech issue? What if some obscure religion wants to build a pyramid or other religiously significant structure that consumes the whole rotunda, or obscures the existing monument?

It is a whole can of worms that shouldn't be opened. Public buildings should not be used as religious billboards.

And what does it hurt to remove it? Will Christians forget God's laws if it is removed?


Old Post 08-28-2003 12:33 AM
Click here to Send @dam a Private Message Find more posts by @dam Add @dam to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore @dam REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

grets
Mastermind

offline
Registered: Mar 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location: california
Posts: 596

post #100  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by auntgoldie
I see now why you are in the pink!!!
Huh??? me thinks disagreement is not a reason for pink. and, i read today that i am a racist, does that mean i can complain? you know, it's not nice to label someone and then complain when they respond in kind. I've re-read some of invar's posts and he is correct, others slam him and he replies in kind. are all liberals so intolerant? when a liberal can't argue with facts, they all turn to labeling, always! so life goes on, invar, keep doing what you do best. if others can't handle it, too bad, but til it changes, i consider your pink a badge of honor and so should you!


Old Post 08-28-2003 01:01 AM
Click here to Send grets a Private Message Find more posts by grets Add grets to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore grets REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #101  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by @dam
[B]OK...lets play this as a freedom of speech issue, since you are correct that no law was made by congress here.

So, then would it be within the federal judges freedom of speech to remove the monument? [B]


One could possibly look at it like that - but that would mean when someone parks in the street outside their home - I can move their car because it is my freedom of speech - it was in my way.

I would think someone throwing dirt on the floor would be kind of fun to watch - but they would be arrested for destruction of property. Don't ask me why, that's what they would classify it as though.

I think I would like to see a big Fat budda open in a public area - would give me something to shoot paint balls at. Can't miss - because its a statue of a man that lived long ago - A man with an eating disorder


No - christians would not forget God's law if removed from site - but its the attack on them and their religion that has them in an uproar.
If someone hit you, how would you feel?
That's how they feel (and christians aren't the only ones treated in this manner), but those are the ones the public usually goes after and uses as the scapegoat


Old Post 08-28-2003 01:37 AM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #102  quote:

Think of it as "The pink heart" as in "Purple heart"

Old Post 08-28-2003 01:39 AM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #103  quote:

@dam,

OK...lets play this as a freedom of speech issue, since you are correct that no law was made by congress here.

FINALLY! Someone understands and comprehends!

So, then would it be within the federal judges freedom of speech to remove the monument?

Huh? Ordering the removal of a monument that expresses a community's faith is NOT FREE SPEECH. That is an INFRINGMENT that abolishes and prohibits that community's FREE EXERCISE THEROF.

If the Federal judge simply said that he hates Christianity and thinks such a display moronic, juvenile and selfish - then that Judge would be exercising his freedom of speech, and well within his right to say so. We may not like what he says, but he has that enshrined birthright. If we sought to punish the judge by legally ordering him to never make such statements would be infringing on his freedom of speech.

But when such a Judge usurps power and authority he DOES NOT HAVE to ORDER the REMOVAL of such a monument - he violates the People's Sovereign Right to the free exercise of religious expression. These 'separation' rulings also infringe on the People's freedom of speech and expression by ordering them to refrain from invoking the name of God on public property.

I don't see the difference.

You honestly cannot discern the difference between someone exercising religious expression by a symbol, a display or a public prayer - and someone ordering them under pain of fine and imprisonment to cease from such expression?

Would it be within the freedom of speech to install a giant Buddah statue that takes up 75% of the Rotunda?

If the majority of persons in that community were of the Buddhist faith, they have EVERY RIGHT to erect such a monument if they so chose. Why they would erect such a statue in an American court of Law would be mystifying and serve no purpose other than antagonism since American Laws and American jurisprudence are founded on the Laws of God in scripture, and not on the laws of Buddha. But if the people of that community and state so chose - then they have the right of the free exercise of religion by establishment of such monuments.


Could a pagan cover the floor in dirt and plant trees to promote their religion as a freedom of speech issue?

Read above explanation. Your example is actually more suited to an Art Institute. Such examples of 'expression' are often displayed, right next to the American flags on the floor with elephant excrement smeared on them, and jars of urine with crucifixes in them.

What if some obscure religion wants to build a pyramid or other religiously significant structure that consumes the whole rotunda, or obscures the existing monument?

Same as the buddha explanation.

It is a whole can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

We've had over 200 years of religious expression in monuments, displays, invocations and beseeching vigils on and at our public Institutions that were NEVER an issue of contention. It has only been in the last 30 years that the 'can of worms' has been opened by a minority of people seeking to overthrow, undermine and redefine our culture and character to accept their religion of Self.

Public buildings should not be used as religious billboards.

Having a monument that acknowledges God's Laws as the basis for our laws is hardly a 'billboard' to any sect or denomination. Such is an historical fact, and like any military monument - serves to honor the foundation that was laid that we might be free.

And what does it hurt to remove it?

Our liberty to freely exercize our faith in recognizing and honoring upon where our laws are based in our government institutions. Institutions that enforce and uphold those very same laws we are subject to.

Will Christians forget God's laws if it is removed?

NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is whether we have a birthright to freely exercise our religion, or whether we merely have permission.

It is now obvious that we only have permission granted by government at theri discretion.

Just wait until the rest of you discover that you only have permission of free speech, or permission to peacably assemble, or permission to address grievances.

But since you are all so silent and complicit in this ruling, none of us will be left to speak up for you when it's your turn to lose a cherished right.


Old Post 08-28-2003 03:13 AM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

DAVID GOLDBLATT
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: Aug 2003
Local time: 08:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 9

post #104  quote:

I love it how you Christians think you have any "rights" left in the former U.S.A.....In the words of Ariel Sharon, "We the jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.".....now chew your cud and go to sleep sheeple....dont forget yo pay your taxes.


DAVID GOLDBLATT


Old Post 08-28-2003 03:26 AM
Click here to Send DAVID GOLDBLATT a Private Message Find more posts by DAVID GOLDBLATT Add DAVID GOLDBLATT to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore DAVID GOLDBLATT REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #105  quote:

Thank you DAVID GOLDBLATT for that stunning example of conspiratorial racism.

Old Post 08-28-2003 03:28 AM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #106  quote:

i consider your pink a badge of honor and so should you!

Thank you Grets.

Yes. I'm liking this shade of pink, except it hardly matches my ideology.

Makes me want to walk around in loafers and shout "Fabulous!" though.


Old Post 08-28-2003 04:00 AM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Kookaburra
In the Now Guru

offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 03:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 2411

post #107  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by grets
Huh??? me thinks disagreement is not a reason for pink. and, i read today that i am a racist, does that mean i can complain? you know, it's not nice to label someone and then complain when they respond in kind. I've re-read some of invar's posts and he is correct, others slam him and he replies in kind. are all liberals so intolerant? when a liberal can't argue with facts, they all turn to labeling, always! so life goes on, invar, keep doing what you do best. if others can't handle it, too bad, but til it changes, i consider your pink a badge of honor and so should you!


Here Here grets!

The same person who acknowledged INVAR's pink status said a few choice words to me, then put me on ignore because I disagreed with her. I think those choice words are worse than INVAR's lack of sensitivity for calling people an idiot (which is a sin by the way, according to the New Testament, that is.. fool / idiot) But anyway, one cusses, one calls people an idiot. If we are going to classify insults as pink status, then INVAR is experiencing double standards. Where is the cusser's pink status?


Old Post 08-28-2003 04:35 AM
Find more posts by Kookaburra Add Kookaburra to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Kookaburra REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #108  quote:

Not to chuck this thread off-topic, but both of you folks need to understand that there is a coordinated strategy being waged in the BBS and Discussion board world by mainly liberals and Leftists that have learned to sabotage boards and silencing ideological oppostion to their positions.

It is done by utilizing a discussion boards rules of civility, and complaining about anyone challenging or disagreeing with their position to moderators. The tactic is to goad the opposition into anger via insult (subtle or not), innuendo, supposition, outrageous claim or accusation, and then complain about the reply to moderators.

The desired result is for their postions to be posted without challenge or debate, or to so diminish the impact of any challenging reply as to make the reply appear accomodating.

Other factions of the BBS universe are also picking up on this strategy, as these methods are taught to seminar users in order to detract and silence opposition.



I am aware of this tactic however, and I do not capitulate to their game, and therefore I wear pink here at this board.


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:04 AM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

@dam
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location: CA
Posts: 69

post #109  quote:

Ahh...but the buddah came up and sort of formalized the golden rule many many many centuries BC. And the state didn't choose here- it was an individual.

We aren't talking about majority rule here. In fact, our rights are granted to protect the individual- not necessarily the group or the majority.

So why wouldn't you let me plant trees in the rotunda, and return it to a natural looking state. Does that not inhibit MY PERSONAL freedom of speech?

What the founding fathers had to say.

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian Doctrine." George Washington (treaty of tripoli)


"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:08 AM
Click here to Send @dam a Private Message Find more posts by @dam Add @dam to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore @dam REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #110  quote:

@dam,

You're grasping at straw men.

Ahh...but the buddah came up and sort of formalized the golden rule many many many centuries BC. And the state didn't choose here- it was an individual.

None of the Founders or People of the Colonies since John Bradford had devotion or faith in Buddha. They all shared a mutual faith of God as revealed in Scripture. Their laws were established upon that common faith, and as such - were carried down to the very Founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution.

We aren't talking about majority rule here. In fact, our rights are granted to protect the individual- not necessarily the group or the majority.

Our Republic was not founded by an individual, but by a communion of God-fearing men with a common purpose and goal. The Constitutional bounds and Rights of government to be restricted in regards to the individual is of course self-evident. Our Republic is dependant upon the Rights of individuals to conduct themselves in liberty so as to add to the entire community.

As James Madison wrote:

quote:
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


James Madison made apparent the morally acceptable and socially responsible creed upon which man must base self-governance if the constitution was to be maintained as the supreme law of the land.

At the state level, every individual, elected by secret ballot to represent the people, before taking office, takes an oath to uphold the state constitution, U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. As such, every elected representative of the people has taken an oath to uphold the law, to provide equal access under the law, and to provide equal protection under the law. Thus it is that every individual is guaranteed equal rights and equal protection under the law.


So why wouldn't you let me plant trees in the rotunda, and return it to a natural looking state. Does that not inhibit MY PERSONAL freedom of speech?

You advocate tyranny of the minority and your example violates property rights, whether they be community or private - and as such, you have no freedom to IMPOSE such environmental "speech", nor is your 'speech' or 'faith' being prohibited.

But if your community wanted your courthouse rotunda to have that 'natural' look, then you would of course be free to exercize your right to 'speech' by decorating the building in nauseating 70's earthtones.


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:32 AM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

flapbreaker
Veteran

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 396

post #111  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID GOLDBLATT
I love it how you Christians think you have any "rights" left in the former U.S.A.....In the words of Ariel Sharon, "We the jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.".....now chew your cud and go to sleep sheeple....dont forget yo pay your taxes.


DAVID GOLDBLATT


Wow what an inteligent read. Very insightful.


Old Post 08-28-2003 02:55 PM
Click here to Send flapbreaker a Private Message Find more posts by flapbreaker Add flapbreaker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore flapbreaker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

auntgoldie
Survivor

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 03:03 PM
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 1410

post #112  quote:

It's a shame that the Christian people have to stoop so low as to publicly advertise their faith. Is it because you feel Americans of different faiths than yours are taking away your "founding fathers" home. That's the reason. Isn't it. Admit it.

Old Post 08-28-2003 03:00 PM
Click here to Send auntgoldie a Private Message Find more posts by auntgoldie Add auntgoldie to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore auntgoldie REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

@dam
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location: CA
Posts: 69

post #113  quote:

Invar: Many of them were slaveowners too! It doesnt matter. It is about rights of the individual.

Also, I'd like to hear your take on my George Washington quote...

Personally, I feel modern morals are SUPERIOR to the God-given morals

1) Worshiping is morally ambigous
2) Slavery is bad, no matter what you think God says
3) The sexes are equals
4) Sex isn't bad, and violence is
5) Children shouldn't be punished for the disgressions of their parents
etc. etc.

Freedom of speech is NOT there to protect the majority. It is for the minority, unpopular opinions, so why couldn't somebody install a giant buddah in the courthouse? I'll tell you why: THE COURTHOUSE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BILLBOARD.

Sorry...I just woke up so I'm not particularly coherent at the moment.


Old Post 08-28-2003 03:14 PM
Click here to Send @dam a Private Message Find more posts by @dam Add @dam to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore @dam REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #114  quote:

Invar: Many of them were slaveowners too! It doesnt matter. It is about rights of the individual.

As an extention of intent, yes. But please note that the U.S Constitution NEVER utilizes the word: 'individual' but rather the plural phrase: 'PEOPLE'.

It's about the rights of the PEOPLE, meaning the whole BODY of the citizenry, those of ordinary stature, the collective persons making up the Republic.

Personally, I feel modern morals are SUPERIOR to the God-given morals

So you have made yourself God?

I see.

Well you feel what most feel, that they are better judges themselves of what is right and wrong - and our current cultural decay bears the fruits of that belief.

1) Worshiping is morally ambigous

Not according to God in scripture. Where do you think the concept of morals were derrived?

2) Slavery is bad, no matter what you think God says

An institution of human-owning slavery was never ordained by God. Yet, you could sell yourself into a form of slavery by simple debt.

The rest of your judgement examples against God's Laws by what you feel is inferior to your own opinions are irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the State can prohibit the free exercise of belief.

I am not going banty crude words against the tenets of the devout by one that has lifted himself and men above all.

Freedom of speech is NOT there to protect the majority.

Tyranny of the minority is as loathsome as tyranny of the majority - and perhaps even more insidiously so. This is what you advocate.

According to the PLAIN WORDS of the Constitution, THE PEOPLE shall not have the FREE EXERCISE THEROF prohibited in respecting an establishment of religion, speech, press or assembly.

You have bought into the myth and flasehood that speech is only there for unpopular speech and opinion to be FORCED upon the majority - when it is clear by the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Constitution - speech, or expression of faith CANNOT BE PROHIBITED PERIOD - WHETHER BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A MAJORITY.

Your argument is moot according to the plain English written as the Supreme Law of our Land.

THE COURTHOUSE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BILLBOARD.

No one is making it so, except by the insistance of those people wanting God removed from any public view.

Please note that the movement you support is also engaged in demanding by judicial decree, that any and all religious billboards be removed from public view.

Whether or not you want to think that a monument to the 10 Commandments as the Foundation of our law is a 'religious billboard' ignores the fact that the entire intent and purpose of those wanting them removed is to make any and all religious billboards, markers and symbols illegal and prohibited to be seen in public view. this is provable not only by the websites and statements of those attorneys and plaintiffs filing the suits - but by the nature of the lawsuits themselves. Even the name of God cannot be uttered in a public square meeting or gathering.

Also, I'd like to hear your take on my George Washington quote...

To modestly correct you, the quote is not of Washington, but an Article found in the Treaty of Tripoli 1796 which reads:

quote:
ARTICLE 11.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.



Please notice two things, that One: this was a treaty of freindship between America and an Arabic MUSLIM nation. Two: The treaty states (in defference to the Islamic concern that American government was theocratic); that THE GOVERNMENT (not our laws, or our society) but the government structure itself was not founded upon Christian doctrine in respecting an establishment of religious faith in it's execution of duty, and therefore impartial and of no hostility towards the Islamic faith as an institution that they were entered in treaty with.

Context is important. That language was expressly written to belay concerns by the Islamic government of Tripoli that because of America's common-Chrisitan faith, that the handling of affairs between nations would be done so based on the foundation of Christian tenet, and therefore in contention with Islamic tenet. Article 11 specifically states that the GOVERNMENT itself is not founded on such tenet - and therfore impartial in matters of state affairs between nations of differing faith.

In short, the Bey and Tripoli governments were worried that our business dealings with them as a nation would be done so in the context and favor of Established Christianity. Article 11 was included to assuage that concern.

The article in the Tripoli Treaty 1796 does not address America's foundation of laws, or the free exercize of religious faith afforded her people.

Sorry...I just woke up so I'm not particularly coherent at the moment.

I must always catch you in those moments.



BTW, how about addressing the points I have made in response to your charges before you go look to find and dredge-up another wild postulation or non-sequiter bash of Chrisitanity.


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:06 PM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

flapbreaker
Veteran

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 12:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 396

post #115  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by auntgoldie
It's a shame that the Christian people have to stoop so low as to publicly advertise their faith. Is it because you feel Americans of different faiths than yours are taking away your "founding fathers" home. That's the reason. Isn't it. Admit it.


Huh???

What are we supposed to do hide in shame all the while the liberals "stoop so low" as to publicly advertise thier sexual deviances and hold thier head up high for such discusting acts?


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:09 PM
Click here to Send flapbreaker a Private Message Find more posts by flapbreaker Add flapbreaker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore flapbreaker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

post #116  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by DAVID GOLDBLATT
I love it how you Christians think you have any "rights" left in the former U.S.A.....In the words of Ariel Sharon, "We the jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.".....now chew your cud and go to sleep sheeple....dont forget yo pay your taxes.


DAVID GOLDBLATT




LMFAO - Thats the best Joke i've heard in my WHOLE life.
LOL


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:15 PM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
mystic
Evil Queen

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357

post #117  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by flapbreaker


Huh???

What are we supposed to do hide in shame all the while the liberals "stoop so low" as to publicly advertise thier sexual deviances and hold thier head up high for such discusting acts?



HA! I agree.....

Isnt it ironic though, how people are so offended by the Ten Commandments, but when convenient, will use those moral codes to make a point?


quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker




LMFAO - Thats the best Joke i've heard in my WHOLE life.
LOL



Isnt it though!!


I love it how you Christians think you have any "rights" left in the former U.S.A.....In the words of Ariel Sharon, "We the jewish people control America, and the Americans know it.".....now chew your cud and go to sleep sheeple....dont forget yo pay your taxes

Thank you for those enlightening words Adolph Hilterbaum!

Since Im of half Jewish blood....does that mean I control half the world? I will assume so, and since thats the case....I willl now deport you to your half of the word....enjoy your peace in Israel.


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:34 PM
Click here to Send mystic a Private Message Find more posts by mystic Add mystic to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore mystic REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Dreamzwalker
Agent

offline
Registered: Feb 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location: Out there Somewhere
Posts: 2428

Lightbulb I found this interesting post #118  quote:

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"


In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.


Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school .... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.


Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.


Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."


(This is a little old but good non-the-less)


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:49 PM
Click here to Send Dreamzwalker a Private Message View Dreamzwalker's Journal Find more posts by Dreamzwalker Add Dreamzwalker to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Dreamzwalker REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
mystic
Evil Queen

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357

Re: I found this interesting post #119  quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her "How could God let something like this happen?" (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11).

Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"


In light of recent events...terrorists attack, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.


Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school .... the Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.


Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.


Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."


This makes so much sense!


Old Post 08-28-2003 05:54 PM
Click here to Send mystic a Private Message Find more posts by mystic Add mystic to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore mystic REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

INVAR
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 02:03 PM
Location:
Posts: 354

post #120  quote:

It's simple. If we remove God as the foundation of our laws and liberties as is being demanded - something must replace the vaccuum left behind.

What is replacing God's morality is the wickedness and selfish desires of men who have made themselves gods and the arbiters of what is right and wrong. As such, we have done away with our God-given Rights, and surrendered them to being priveledges granted by men, and are ruled by the tyranny of wickedness.


Old Post 08-28-2003 06:10 PM
Click here to Send INVAR a Private Message Find more posts by INVAR Add INVAR to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore INVAR REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote
Time: 08:03 PM Post New Thread   
Pages (7): « First « 23 [4] 56 » Last »   Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > Judge suspended over Ten Commandments
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.09772801 seconds (91.48% PHP - 8.52% MySQL) with 46 queries.

ADS

© 2018, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home