| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2003 06:07:55 PM |
| Object: |
Moore ignites new multicultural vision |
This will come as quite a shock to leftists everywhere. Over 1000
Orthodox Rabbis, as well as representatives from the black
community such as Alan Keyes and T.D. Jakes, voiced support along
with an estimated 10,000 folks who showed up at the Ten
Commandments Rally in Montgomery Alabama.... for Judge Roy Moore
and his stand on the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, 35
atheists also showed up to protest.
At any rate, leftists everywhere will only be making fools of
themselves as they try to portray God-fearin' American Christians
(especially Alabamians) as racists, or neo-nazis, white
supremists or something even worse.
Yeah, they may whine, moan, and sling vile accusations, mock etc.
.... but it's all a hoax on their part. Especially now that their
absolute hypocrisy has been revealed. Think of it... blacks, Jews
and whites standing together in unity. Wasn't their dream a
"multicultural" America? Yes, but it was a hoax. A hoax to
pander support from all the various minorities merely for the
purpose of enslaving them by encouraging "sin".
Perhaps Jews and Blacks from across the nation and portions of
Canada joining in with us Alabamians was just the thing needed to
reveal their devious plots to undermine Americas moral foundation
and their actual hatred for true multicultural unity (especially
the "One nation, under God" type of multicultural).
Honestly, I'm not noted for being a "multicultural" type guy as a
few here can attest. Have I changed? Of course not. If the
fruit's good, the tree is also.
"Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." - Jesus
A spokesman (Rabbi Yehuda Levin) for one of the two major
Rabbinical organizations which support Judge Moore, joined in an
Alabama talk radio show today and further explained how
conservative Jews have found themselves in a similar position as
that of conservative Christians WRT the leftists agenda for an
immoral America. He was the same Rabbi that went to Montgomery
(from New York) to show support for Judge Moore. He actually
made alot of sense. I even e-mailed him a thank-you note for
his efforts.
Here's the release which voices the support of over 1000 Jewish
Rabbis.... for Judge Moore's cause:
THE UNION OF ORTHODOX RABBIS
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA
and
THE RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA
August 15, 2003 / for immediate release
CONTACT: RABBI YEHUDA LEVIN 718-469-6999
TWO MAJOR RABBINICAL GROUPS SUPPORT
"TEN COMMANDMENTS" JUDGE ROY MOORE
Two major Rabbinical organizations, representing over 1000
Orthodox Rabbis, today declared their support for Alabama Chief
Judge Roy Moore in his battle to keep the Ten Commandments on
display in the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Alabama.
Lawyer groups, led by the ACLU, have demanded that Judge Moore
remove the display, citing church-state concerns; and Federal
Judge Myron Thompson has given Judge Moore a deadline of August
20 to remove the display. But Judge Moore is refusing to be
intimidated.
Rabbi Hirsch Ginsberg of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis said: "The
Ten Commandments are the basis of civilized society and the rule
of law. It is no accident that legal testimony begins with
swearing to tell the whole truth, while holding a Bible. Here, in
New York City, many courtrooms have a plaque on the wall, right
above the judge's head, proclaiming 'In G-D we trust'."
Rabbi Abraham Hecht of the Rabbinical Alliance added: "It's no
surprise that the ACLU, a radical left-wing organization of
ambulance-chasing rip-off artists, should object to the Ten
Commandments. The Biblical injunctions against lying, stealing,
and adultery must make them feel terribly uncomfortable."
Rabbi Yehuda Levin who is representing the two Rabbinical groups
in Montgomery, Alabama this week, commented on a nasty New York
Times editorial that referred to Judge Moore as a demagogue:
"This is the worst kind of savage yellow journalism. The New York
Times has lately been rocked by scandals, in which it has been
revealed that senior reporters and editorial staff have knowingly
fabricated stories and distorted the news. They have some nerve
criticizing a moral, intelligent, and courageous man like Chief
Judge Moore."
Rabbi Levin will hold a press conference on the steps of the
Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery on
Friday, August 15, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.
After the press conference, Rabbi Levin is to meet with Chief
Judge Moore to make a presentation to him on behalf of the Union
of Orthodox Rabbis and the Rabbinical Alliance.
http://www.jewsformorality.org/aaaw090.htm
-----------------EOF-----------------
"Police would not estimate the size of the crowd, which appeared
to be several thousand people, possibly as many as 10,000.
Falwell said Moore is right to defy Thompson's order if he
believes he is obeying God. "Civil disobedience is the right of
all men when we believe breaking man's law is needed to preserve
God's law," Falwell said.
Evelyn Bradley of Norwalk, California, said she made the trip
because "the Ten Commandments is the most precious and most
important thing in my life right now." "No judge has the right to
tell us we can't post them," said Bradley, 73.
After the rally hundreds of people walked several blocks to the
judicial building, where they lined up to view the monument
inside. Some debated with about 35 atheists holding a counter
protest across the street.
"Personally I believe in science and reason and the only way you
can have freedom of religion is to have separation of church and
state," said Todd Kinley, a research scientist from Huntsville
participating in the counter protest."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/16/ten.commandments.ap/index.html
-------------------EOF-------------------
Jewish Leaders Rally Around Chief Justice
Ten Commandments Fight Heads To U.S. Supreme Court
POSTED: 4:49 p.m. CDT August 15, 2003
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. -- The fight to keep a Ten Commandments monument
in the Alabama's Judicial Building is winning wider support as
religious leaders rallied with Chief Justice Roy Moore Friday.
"Moore appeared with orthodox Jewish rabbis in Montgomery who
support efforts to keep the monument in the state Supreme Court
building. "If our country does not return to the Biblical values
and standards on which it was founded, who knows what could
happen to us?" Rabbi Yehuda Levin said.
Also backing Moore's monument fight, nationally recognized Bishop
T.D. Jakes, who was in Birmingham Friday. "Well, I think that the
Ten Commandments transcends beliefs and theology and goes down to
core values and morality that every American should want to
embrace," Jakes said."
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2409426/detail.html
"Buses and vans from as far away as California brought Moore
supporters to Montgomery for an enthusiastic rally on a hot and
muggy morning. Evangelist Jerry Falwell and former presidential
candidate Dr. Alan Keyes were among a half-dozen speakers urging
the crowd to take back America from what Keyes described as the
"unruly courts."
"We stand here today in a great tradition," Keyes said. "Not as
our lying critics would have it in the tradition of those who
defied courts in order to oppress and destroy fellow human
beings, but those who stood against unjust laws in order to stand
for rights of all people. This is where we stand."
http://www.nbc13.com/news/2409426/detail.html
-------------------EOF-------------------
"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of
America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in
the name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies,
solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and
of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are
Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the State of Great Britain,
is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and
Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude
Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all
other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on
the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
(Declaration of Independence)
"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and
guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama"
Constitution Of Alabama 1901
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer
that breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:27:36 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:24 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
[snip]
The justices were obviously taught the same wrong things about
Jefferson's perspective of church/state separation that you and I
were. "The People," you and I included, will decide what to do
about Jefferson's more complete perspective of church/state
separation with respect to the power that the Constitution has
given the states to address religious issues.
The justices, who have spent years with the law and know the cases
and actually have educations, are right.
We are a government of the People, by the People, for the People, you
I included, and not a government of the justices, by the justices, for
the justices. I'm sure that when the People become more aware of
Jefferson's more complete perspective of church/state separation that
things are going to change.
And the system was built to prevent demagogues like Moore from gaining a
power base with which to destroy the country and wreck our heritage. Do
you get it yet? Moore wants political power. That's all this is about.
Somebody certainly wants power.
Given people who hate religious expression have been suppressing
constitutionally guaranteed religious by means of 1st amendment scare
tactics, I'll have to agree that the reverse is also possible.
Again, you lie.
But I expect that from christians these days...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 05:11:44 AM |
|
|
(M. Clark) wrote in message news:<1g0i0f0.1j2kkuq9tulv4N%>...
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes:
...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
federal rights of their citizens.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of
church and state" into the 1st amendment.
M. Clark
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Actually it does thought there have been a number of attempts by the
Relgious right to make it say the opposite, they often point to the
Slaughterhouse case as proof of this, but they forget to look a little
closer and a lot further, Starting in the 1940's to the present, it is
the very reson that States may not have offical prayer in schools and
force children to say the pledge.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
01 Sep 2003 10:05:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
federal rights of their citizens.
Bottom line is what the people who wrote the 14th were intending to do.
Such as:
"Beginning in January 1866, a Joint Senate-House Committee was established
to begin the task of drafting the 14th Amendment, which as Republican John
Bingham of Ohio stated, gave 'Congress power to make all laws necessary
and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal
protection in their rights of life, liberty, and property'"
(http://nths.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/social/opennotes/art2.htm)
"On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced,
and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an
amendment to the Constitution
'so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce
and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in
that instrument.'
"This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment
to incorporate the Bill of Rights."
(http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm)
That last part bears repeating:
THIS RESOLUTION THUS ANTICIPATED THE INTENT OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO
INCORPORATE THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
"The House then returned to debate on the bill. Supporting its passage,
Representative Ignatius Donnelly noted that 'there is an amendment offered
by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] which provides in
effect that Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate
legislation all the guarantees of the Constitution.' Once again, Bingham's
draft of the Fourteenth Amendment was seen as protecting Bill of Rights
guarantees."
(ibid.)
"The first draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment was debated in the
House for three days, beginning on February 27, 1866. Bingham, its author,
argued on its behalf that previously 'this immortal bill of rights
embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement
hitherto upon the fidelity of the States.'"
(ibid.)
And one of the MOST interesting things is the response to the above which
was:
"Representative Robert Hale of New York saw no need for the amendment,
because he interpreted the existing Bill of Rights to bind not just
Congress but also the States: 'Now, what are these amendments to the
Constitution, numbered from one to ten, one of which is the fifth article
in question? . . . They constitute the bill of rights, a bill of rights
for the protection of the citizen, and defining and limiting the power of
Federal and State legislation.'"
(ibid.)
How interesting! Not only was the 14th being debated with the *assumption*
that it extended the Bill of Rights to the States but questions were
raised whether that was even necessary BECAUSE THEY ALREADY APPLIED TO THE
STATES.
Hm.
"Bingham responded that the proposed amendment would 'arm the Congress ...
with the power to enforce this bill of rights as it stands in the
Constitution today.' Representative Frederick E. Woodbridge of Vermont
characterized the sweep of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment as empowering
Congress to protect 'the natural rights which necessarily pertain to
citizenship.'"
(ibid.)
Well, Clarkie boy, you must like being wrong as you are *SO* determined to
be *SO* wrong on this one.
What do we have? Madison, who WROTE the 1st, believed it applied to the
states. The Congress who crafted the 14th believed it applied to the
states and intended to empower Congress to ENFORCE it (and others).
If the courts have done anything, they DODGED the INTENT, for many years
(and to some extent today) by trying a "watered down" version of
"incorporation."
Establishment of religion of any kind is forbidden by the US Constitution
in every single square inch of the country. Congress has the power to
enforce this. You can go suck an egg.
Interesting thing about the water down version is that the Court appears
to have been fretting over the idea of the 2nd (not the 1st) being
enforced. They were, get this, worried about letting the freedmen have
GUNS.
So you're not just wrong all the way around about the intent, you're
siding with racists...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 04:38:29 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the 10th
amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal government
does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to make sure that
the states don't use their unique power to abridge the federal rights of
their citizens.
And that is, indeed, what's going on in the Alabama case.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of church
and state" into the 1st amendment.
Then you are accusing the entire US judiciary of "hating religious
expression" (which is stupid).
You can *claim the 14th doesn't extend the limitations of powers (such as
the Bill of Rights) to the states but the courts don't agree with you.
Now if you want to accuse the entire US judiciary of some kind of
conspiracy, go ahead. But you're going to look very, very stupid...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 06:37:06 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the 10th
amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal government
does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to make sure that
the states don't use their unique power to abridge the federal rights of
their citizens.
And that is, indeed, what's going on in the Alabama case.
You're evidently ignoring the point that there are no laws, federal or
state, that say that Judge Moore cannot display his 10C in a state owned
public area. Indeed, both the 1st amendment and Alabama's constitution
say that such laws cannot exist in the first place. The courts are
effectively but illegally "writing" laws, exercising powers which the
constitutions give only to congressmen.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are reading
things into the 14th amendment as much as they read "separation of church
and state" into the 1st amendment.
Then you are accusing the entire US judiciary of "hating religious
expression" (which is stupid).
No, I'm not saying that. But I will say that the courts and everybody
else are proving that ignorance is bliss.
You can *claim the 14th doesn't extend the limitations of powers (such as
the Bill of Rights) to the states but the courts don't agree with you.
This issue is ultimately for the People to decide, not the courts.
Now if you want to accuse the entire US judiciary of some kind of
conspiracy, go ahead. But you're going to look very, very stupid...
Again, ignorance is bliss. The People, you and I included, will address
this issue.
M. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 06:54:05 AM |
|
|
"Ken Shaw" <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:uMb4b.120269$0v4.8644334@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0ikoh.6eval91xp9nnfN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of
church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the
first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does
indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as
opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do
with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th
amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government
does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to make sure
that
the states don't use their unique power to abridge the federal
rights
of
their citizens.
And that is, indeed, what's going on in the Alabama case.
You're evidently ignoring the point that there are no laws, federal or
state, that say that Judge Moore cannot display his 10C in a state owned
public area. Indeed, both the 1st amendment and Alabama's constitution
say that such laws cannot exist in the first place. The courts are
effectively but illegally "writing" laws, exercising powers which the
constitutions give only to congressmen.
The "Justice" is using state funds provided to him by a state law to fund
the maintenance of the building around and underneath this monument, the
land that the monument rests on was acquired by exercise of state law.
Therefore if this act was allowed to stand the state of Alabama would have
laws favoring one religion over others. This is expressly forbidden both
in
the federal and Alabama state Constitutions. The only way that this could
be
legal is if the core statements of all religions were also enshrined in
the
same place in exactly the same manner.
In case you believe this is a good idea I would like to introduce you to
the
core sacred tenets of KenShawism:
1. Ken Shaw is the one true God. Kill all unbelievers.
2. The Chicago Cubs are blessed by God. All who oppose them shall be
buried
in pig feces until dead.
3. Monday is offensive to God. All work shall cease on that day until the
sun is descending into the west. Those failing to obey shall be boiled
alive
in decaf coffee.
4. Each person shall tithe one unopened full liter of not less than 25
year
old single malt scotch per year. Failure to tithe is punishable by being
submerged in Wild Turkey up to the eyeballs.
I'll add some more as the mood strikes me. I'm sure some other religions
will want their commandments enshrined as well.
The 10C could be displayed as an historical document under the first
admendment only, as other religious and non religious documents could also.
Judge Moore of course decided not to.
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:06:36 PM |
|
|
[snip]
the
same place in exactly the same manner.
In case you believe this is a good idea I would like to introduce you to
the
core sacred tenets of KenShawism:
1. Ken Shaw is the one true God. Kill all unbelievers.
2. The Chicago Cubs are blessed by God. All who oppose them shall be
buried
in pig feces until dead.
3. Monday is offensive to God. All work shall cease on that day until the
sun is descending into the west. Those failing to obey shall be boiled
alive
in decaf coffee.
4. Each person shall tithe one unopened full liter of not less than 25
year
old single malt scotch per year. Failure to tithe is punishable by being
submerged in Wild Turkey up to the eyeballs.
I'll add some more as the mood strikes me. I'm sure some other religions
will want their commandments enshrined as well.
The 10C could be displayed as an historical document under the first
admendment only, as other religious and non religious documents could also.
Judge Moore of course decided not to.
There are no laws saying that such things cannot be displayed because
the 1st Amendment forbids such laws from existing in the first place.
The people of a state have to vote on such issues.
M. Clark
Lane
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:33:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:36 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
[snip]
the
same place in exactly the same manner.
In case you believe this is a good idea I would like to introduce you
to
the
core sacred tenets of KenShawism:
1. Ken Shaw is the one true God. Kill all unbelievers. 2. The Chicago
Cubs are blessed by God. All who oppose them shall be
buried
in pig feces until dead.
3. Monday is offensive to God. All work shall cease on that day until
the sun is descending into the west. Those failing to obey shall be
boiled
alive
in decaf coffee.
4. Each person shall tithe one unopened full liter of not less than 25
year
old single malt scotch per year. Failure to tithe is punishable by
being submerged in Wild Turkey up to the eyeballs.
I'll add some more as the mood strikes me. I'm sure some other
religions will want their commandments enshrined as well.
The 10C could be displayed as an historical document under the first
admendment only, as other religious and non religious documents could
also. Judge Moore of course decided not to.
There are no laws saying that such things cannot be displayed because the
1st Amendment forbids such laws from existing in the first place. The
people of a state have to vote on such issues.
Sorry, years of court decisions in understanding what "establishment" is
and is not won't be overturned by the Usenet rantings of a troll...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:15:48 AM |
|
|
Ken Shaw <noneof@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0ikoh.6eval91xp9nnfN%idontreply@toemail.com...
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of
church
and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across some
Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood what
Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the first
place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in these
writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does indeed
endow the states with the power to address religious issues as
opposed
to forbidding the federal government from having anything to do with
religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th
amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government
does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to make sure
that
the states don't use their unique power to abridge the federal rights
of
their citizens.
And that is, indeed, what's going on in the Alabama case.
You're evidently ignoring the point that there are no laws, federal or
state, that say that Judge Moore cannot display his 10C in a state owned
public area. Indeed, both the 1st amendment and Alabama's constitution
say that such laws cannot exist in the first place. The courts are
effectively but illegally "writing" laws, exercising powers which the
constitutions give only to congressmen.
The "Justice" is using state funds provided to him by a state law to fund
the maintenance of the building around and underneath this monument, the
land that the monument rests on was acquired by exercise of state law.
Therefore if this act was allowed to stand the state of Alabama would have
laws favoring one religion over others. This is expressly forbidden both in
the federal and Alabama state Constitutions. The only way that this could be
legal is if the core statements of all religions were also enshrined in the
same place in exactly the same manner.
Jefferson wrote that the states have the constitutional power to address
religious issues. It's up to the people of the State of Alabama to
decide if they want Judge Moore's 10C on display or not.
In case you believe this is a good idea I would like to introduce you to the
core sacred tenets of KenShawism:
1. Ken Shaw is the one true God. Kill all unbelievers.
2. The Chicago Cubs are blessed by God. All who oppose them shall be buried
in pig feces until dead.
3. Monday is offensive to God. All work shall cease on that day until the
sun is descending into the west. Those failing to obey shall be boiled alive
in decaf coffee.
4. Each person shall tithe one unopened full liter of not less than 25 year
old single malt scotch per year. Failure to tithe is punishable by being
submerged in Wild Turkey up to the eyeballs.
I'll add some more as the mood strikes me. I'm sure some other religions
will want their commandments enshrined as well.
Again, its up to the people of a given state to decide these things.
M. Clark
Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 08:53:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:15:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Jefferson wrote that the states have the constitutional power to address
religious issues. It's up to the people of the State of Alabama to decide
if they want Judge Moore's 10C on display or not.
And after he was dead, we amended the constitution. So it's different now.
We (the people as you love to put it) already decided to extend such
things as the restrictions of the 1st to the states of the union.
Sorry your side lost the civil war. But it's kind of time to get over it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:06:35 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:15:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Jefferson wrote that the states have the constitutional power to address
religious issues. It's up to the people of the State of Alabama to decide
if they want Judge Moore's 10C on display or not.
And after he was dead, we amended the constitution. So it's different now.
Just because the Constitution has been amended doesn't mean the precepts
we are talking about were changed.
Show me the relevant, lawful changes with respect to this issue or I
will continue to believe that you are bluffing.
M. Clark
We (the people as you love to put it) already decided to extend such
things as the restrictions of the 1st to the states of the union.
Sorry your side lost the civil war. But it's kind of time to get over it...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:34:19 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:35 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:15:48 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Jefferson wrote that the states have the constitutional power to
address religious issues. It's up to the people of the State of
Alabama to decide if they want Judge Moore's 10C on display or not.
And after he was dead, we amended the constitution. So it's different
now.
Just because the Constitution has been amended doesn't mean the precepts
we are talking about were changed.
Uh, dumbass, what do you think amendments are? Window treatments?
Show me the relevant, lawful changes with respect to this issue or I will
continue to believe that you are bluffing.
Oh think anything you want. It's not like ANYTHING you say will have ANY
effect on ANY 1st amendment case ANYWHERE in this country at ANY time.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 10:31:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 23:37:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:51:06 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes: ...
A week ago I would have reluctantly agreed that "separation of
church and state" applies to Judge Moore's case. But I came across
some Jefferson writings that indicate that we have misunderstood
what Jefferson really thought about church/state separation in the
first place. Jefferson reflected on the 1st and 10th Amendment in
these writings and evidently recognized that the Constitution does
indeed endow the states with the power to address religious issues
as opposed to forbidding the federal government from having anything
to do with religious issues.
The 14the admendment applies the 1st to the states. In Jefferson's
time, states could have official religions, but not now.
Thank you for replying.
Have you read the 14th amendment? It says no such thing. Given the
10th amendment shows that the states can have power that the federal
government does not have, the 14th amendment is a good precaution to
make sure that the states don't use their unique power to abridge the
federal rights of their citizens.
And that is, indeed, what's going on in the Alabama case.
You're evidently ignoring the point that there are no laws, federal or
state, that say that Judge Moore cannot display his 10C in a state owned
public area. Indeed, both the 1st amendment and Alabama's constitution
say that such laws cannot exist in the first place. The courts are
effectively but illegally "writing" laws, exercising powers which the
constitutions give only to congressmen.
No, this is a stupid red herring. The SCOTUS has the power to settle
disputes arising under the Constitution. PERIOD. You may not like that but
that's tough.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are
reading things into the 14th amendment as much as they read
"separation of church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Then you are accusing the entire US judiciary of "hating religious
expression" (which is stupid).
No, I'm not saying that. But I will say that the courts and everybody
else are proving that ignorance is bliss.
Now you're just being contemptuous of our legal system.
You can *claim the 14th doesn't extend the limitations of powers (such
as the Bill of Rights) to the states but the courts don't agree with
you.
This issue is ultimately for the People to decide, not the courts.
It was decided you IDIOT. We even had a war over it. The 14th came out of
that war.
Get it through your stupid head. STATES RIGHTS ARE DEAD.
Now if you want to accuse the entire US judiciary of some kind of
conspiracy, go ahead. But you're going to look very, very stupid...
Again, ignorance is bliss. The People, you and I included, will address
this issue.
Oh, yeah, like any of your Usenet drooling has EVER been used in ANY such
case EVER.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:06:09 PM |
|
|
[snip]
You're evidently ignoring the point that there are no laws, federal or
state, that say that Judge Moore cannot display his 10C in a state owned
public area. Indeed, both the 1st amendment and Alabama's constitution
say that such laws cannot exist in the first place. The courts are
effectively but illegally "writing" laws, exercising powers which the
constitutions give only to congressmen.
No, this is a stupid red herring. The SCOTUS has the power to settle
disputes arising under the Constitution. PERIOD. You may not like that but
that's tough.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are
reading things into the 14th amendment as much as they read
"separation of church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Then you are accusing the entire US judiciary of "hating religious
expression" (which is stupid).
No, I'm not saying that. But I will say that the courts and everybody
else are proving that ignorance is bliss.
Now you're just being contemptuous of our legal system.
So was Jefferson so I'm in good company.
You can *claim the 14th doesn't extend the limitations of powers (such
as the Bill of Rights) to the states but the courts don't agree with
you.
This issue is ultimately for the People to decide, not the courts.
It was decided you IDIOT. We even had a war over it. The 14th came out of
that war.
Get it through your stupid head. STATES RIGHTS ARE DEAD.
I presume that most of the Union doesn't know about Jefferson's other
relevant writings in the first place. I think many eyebrows are going
to be raised when people understand Jefferson's more complete
perspective of church/state separation.
M. Clark
Now if you want to accuse the entire US judiciary of some kind of
conspiracy, go ahead. But you're going to look very, very stupid...
Again, ignorance is bliss. The People, you and I included, will address
this issue.
Oh, yeah, like any of your Usenet drooling has EVER been used in ANY such
case EVER.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:32:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:06:09 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
[snip]
You're evidently ignoring the point that there are no laws, federal or
state, that say that Judge Moore cannot display his 10C in a state
owned public area. Indeed, both the 1st amendment and Alabama's
constitution say that such laws cannot exist in the first place. The
courts are effectively but illegally "writing" laws, exercising powers
which the constitutions give only to congressmen.
No, this is a stupid red herring. The SCOTUS has the power to settle
disputes arising under the Constitution. PERIOD. You may not like that
but that's tough.
The bottom line is that those who hate religious expressing are
reading things into the 14th amendment as much as they read
"separation of church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Then you are accusing the entire US judiciary of "hating religious
expression" (which is stupid).
No, I'm not saying that. But I will say that the courts and everybody
else are proving that ignorance is bliss.
Now you're just being contemptuous of our legal system.
So was Jefferson so I'm in good company.
You can *claim the 14th doesn't extend the limitations of powers
(such as the Bill of Rights) to the states but the courts don't agree
with you.
This issue is ultimately for the People to decide, not the courts.
It was decided you IDIOT. We even had a war over it. The 14th came out
of that war.
Get it through your stupid head. STATES RIGHTS ARE DEAD.
I presume that most of the Union doesn't know about Jefferson's other
relevant writings in the first place. I think many eyebrows are going to
be raised when people understand Jefferson's more complete perspective of
church/state separation.
Now I'm just laughing.
You really *do think you've found something nobody else knows about!
I don't which influence is stronger in you, the stupidity or the insanity...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
05 Sep 2003 08:46:15 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:41:26 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) posted in alt.atheism:
The only possible evidence that the 1st Amendment has been violated is
if there are federal laws which address issues such as religion.
The government is prohibited from supporting any particular religious
viewpoint. The 10 commandments is a particular religious viewpoint.
The government, by posting them on government property, is supporting
them.
It ain't rocket science.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "CB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
09 Sep 2003 04:11:09 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3filv8inj2ms3mnjbhm49vjk34prn164o@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:41:26 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) posted in alt.atheism:
The only possible evidence that the 1st Amendment has been violated is
if there are federal laws which address issues such as religion.
The government is prohibited from supporting any particular religious
viewpoint. The 10 commandments is a particular religious viewpoint.
The government, by posting them on government property, is supporting
them.
It ain't rocket science.
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
11 Sep 2003 12:56:42 AM |
|
|
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:<bjlfqd$f6u$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3filv8inj2ms3mnjbhm49vjk34prn164o@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:41:26 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) posted in alt.atheism:
The only possible evidence that the 1st Amendment has been violated is
if there are federal laws which address issues such as religion.
The government is prohibited from supporting any particular religious
viewpoint. The 10 commandments is a particular religious viewpoint.
The government, by posting them on government property, is supporting
them.
It ain't rocket science.
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Too bad for Polk County that there is plenty of reson to challenge it
and it will be removed along with a lot of County Commisoners when it
comes out how much the defense of this unconstitutional act will cost
them. They are being foolish with the County residents money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
12 Sep 2003 08:50:06 PM |
|
|
"Chris Morris" <Draccus874@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d6e5b.0309102159.3eede305@posting.google.com...
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:<bjlfqd$f6u$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3filv8inj2ms3mnjbhm49vjk34prn164o@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:41:26 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) posted in alt.atheism:
The only possible evidence that the 1st Amendment has been violated
is
if there are federal laws which address issues such as religion.
The government is prohibited from supporting any particular religious
viewpoint. The 10 commandments is a particular religious viewpoint.
The government, by posting them on government property, is supporting
them.
It ain't rocket science.
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county
government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Too bad for Polk County that there is plenty of reson to challenge it
and it will be removed along with a lot of County Commisoners when it
comes out how much the defense of this unconstitutional act will cost
them. They are being foolish with the County residents money.
Here in Loooeazyanneer, we have the govenor's election comming up, and one
of the candidates is you typical reich-winger, and in his radio ads (in
which he rips off Limbaugh's "EIB Network", ) he chimes in with "Today's
topic, Ten Simple Rules...", and goes on to briefly discribe the Alabammer
Ten Commandments situation, and then asks, "What Commandment are the
liberals afraid of? The one about stealing? Adultry? Lying?...."
Obviously he's not too bright, since the "rules" that are problematical is
obvious.
Boikat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
13 Sep 2003 04:01:26 AM |
|
|
Scríobh "Boikat" <Boikat@bellsouth.net>:
"Chris Morris" <Draccus874@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d6e5b.0309102159.3eede305@posting.google.com...
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:<bjlfqd$f6u$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3filv8inj2ms3mnjbhm49vjk34prn164o@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:41:26 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) posted in alt.atheism:
The only possible evidence that the 1st Amendment has been violated
is
if there are federal laws which address issues such as religion.
The government is prohibited from supporting any particular religious
viewpoint. The 10 commandments is a particular religious viewpoint.
The government, by posting them on government property, is supporting
them.
It ain't rocket science.
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county
government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Too bad for Polk County that there is plenty of reson to challenge it
and it will be removed along with a lot of County Commisoners when it
comes out how much the defense of this unconstitutional act will cost
them. They are being foolish with the County residents money.
Here in Loooeazyanneer, we have the govenor's election comming up, and one
of the candidates is you typical reich-winger, and in his radio ads (in
which he rips off Limbaugh's "EIB Network", ) he chimes in with "Today's
topic, Ten Simple Rules...", and goes on to briefly discribe the Alabammer
Ten Commandments situation, and then asks, "What Commandment are the
liberals afraid of? The one about stealing? Adultry? Lying?...."
Obviously he's not too bright, since the "rules" that are problematical is
obvious.
What are the chances of a reply ad about the "ten simple rules" in the
Bill of Rights, asking why the conservatives have such trouble
following them?
--
"Ferr fíor fertaib"
Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
09 Sep 2003 05:56:03 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:11:09 +0000 (UTC),
CB <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:p3filv8inj2ms3mnjbhm49vjk34prn164o@Pern.rk...
On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:41:26 +0000 (UTC), (M.
Clark) posted in alt.atheism:
The only possible evidence that the 1st Amendment has been violated is
if there are federal laws which address issues such as religion.
The government is prohibited from supporting any particular religious
viewpoint. The 10 commandments is a particular religious viewpoint.
The government, by posting them on government property, is supporting
them.
It ain't rocket science.
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
It's so darn heart-warming to see public funds being put to such good use.
Florida's fan-tan-tasic child welfare system will be so pleased that all
those funds will be chewed up fighting for fanatics' attempts to push their
religious beliefs.
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
09 Sep 2003 04:57:34 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/08/florida/d923244a.htm
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/search?Category=SEARCH
http://snurl.com/2anl
http://snurl.com/2ann
Even Gov. Riley of AL has learned absolutely nothing from the recent
debacle. Nor has he learned nothing from the Constitution.
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030909/APA/309090846
.
|
|
|
| User: "CB" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
10 Sep 2003 08:22:15 AM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county
government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's founding
principals have been replaced by Secular moral equality?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Stahl" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
10 Sep 2003 03:25:21 PM |
|
|
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message
news:bjn8lc$m4n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county
government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's
founding
principals have been replaced
yes, it is...
by Secular moral equality?
oops! this is where you misspelled fundamentalist christian lunacy. sorry,
you lose.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Krolczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
11 Sep 2003 10:37:57 AM |
|
|
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:<bjn8lc$m4n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's founding
principals have been replaced by Secular moral equality?
You're wrong, but...
The less power religious demagogues of any sect have,
the better. Keep in mind which day I'm posting this
and what it's the second anniversary of.
-Chris Krolczyk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Morris" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
11 Sep 2003 12:59:51 AM |
|
|
"CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in message news:<bjn8lc$m4n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>...
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county
government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's founding
principals have been replaced by Secular moral equality?
CB, History, law and the Constitution are all things that do not
support your position of course with your giant intellect, surpassed
only by your shoe size, that you incapable of grasping these matters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
10 Sep 2003 08:33:07 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in
<bjn8lc$m4n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's founding
principals have been replaced by Secular moral equality?
America's founding principles were secular. The experience with
state-run churches and church-run states was lousy. America's founding
fathers were not at all willing to have that happen to the new nation,
even if they would allow the individual states to still have established
churches.
The religion that seems to be trying to run the US today had not even
been invented when the US started -- Fundamentalism was developed after
the US Civil War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
12 Sep 2003 10:43:49 AM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote in talk.origins
In talk.origins, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote in
<bjn8lc$m4n$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com>:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida
the
10 Commandments will be placed in a government building and
county
government is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's
authority without statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down
the drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of
choice on everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's
founding principals have been replaced by Secular moral equality?
America's founding principles were secular. The experience with
state-run churches and church-run states was lousy. America's
founding
fathers were not at all willing to have that happen to the new
nation,
even if they would allow the individual states to still have
established churches.
Our founding fathers were well aware that some of the colonies were
founded as a place for less popular Christian sects, and that in others
the local powerbase had a strong interest in keeping the church in
place. Allowing the individual states to have official churches helped
keep the states united.
The religion that seems to be trying to run the US today had not even
been invented when the US started -- Fundamentalism was developed
after the US Civil War.
Interestingly enough, the largest sect whose members seem to be pushing
for this was founded to promote slavery.
--
***** #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
12 Sep 2003 11:10:10 AM |
|
|
The religion that seems to be trying to run the US today had not even
been invented when the US started -- Fundamentalism was developed
after the US Civil War.
Interestingly enough, the largest sect whose members seem to be pushing
for this was founded to promote slavery.
And in 1845...sixteen years BEFORE the Civil War.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
10 Sep 2003 08:40:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:22:15 +0000 (UTC),
CB <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1030909164417.19909C-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, CB wrote:
It was just announced on the radio that in Polk County Florida the 10
Commandments will be placed in a government building and county
government
is prepared to fight the state if it challenges it's authority without
statutory precedence.
Ain't it just amazing all the money the RRR is willing to ***** down the
drain to force their deity of choice and their religion of choice on
everyone else?
Ain't it just amazing how history has been distorted and America's founding
principals have been replaced by Secular moral equality?
The Founding Fathers separated church and state. Deal with it or move to a
place more in keeping with your notions; like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
