| 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: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
29 Aug 2003 06:30:41 AM |
|
|
"John P. Boatwright" <name@For-God.net> wrote:
Moore knows God is right, the others are clueless and
should be voted out.
Moore was voted in while saying he'd support God's
10 commandments, he was quite open about it, and
the majority of the population voted him in KNOWING
that he supports saying God is right, that God is
the judge, the basis for us having rights and laws.
But he swore on the Bible that he claims is Holy that he would abide
by the Constitution, which overrides whatever campaign promises he
made when politicking and pandering to the people of Alabama who don't
know their basic civics.
They'll put statues up proclaiming evolution is the
source of it all...
What judge has ever done this?
The PBS had a documentary about Darwin, paid for by...
"we the people". Haven't you run across pledge week, when PBS goes to
get great lengths to convince people to give them money for producing
those shows?
And of course, that's OK, right?
Yes it is, since Darwin is not a religious teaching.
We can pay to claim God is a liar, but we can't pay
to say God is right.
Yes you can. Indeed you do. I see preachers on TV every Sunday, and
on the religious channels even more often.
But we cannot pay TAX money to say that God is right OR that God is a
liar - indeed we cannot pay tax money to have God mentioned at all.
The Constitution that "We the People" ordained and established set
limits on ONE means of promoting our individual religious beliefs.
Why???
Because "We the People" said so.
put a cross in urine and claim
it's art...
Last I checked, that was done by an artist, not a judge.
It's the same thing, they're looking to erase/degrade/destroy
what God said.
But artists can do so, and so can judges when they are not on the job.
That is none of the public's business.
and then tell you, you can't say God
made his creation...
Yes, you can. You just can't have the government promoting such a
statement.
Then why can they proclaim Darwin as "right"?
There is no "they". There is "we the people".
Darwin was (mostly) right, in terms of science. There is no
constitutional amendment saying protecting us from government
respecting an establishment of science. Indeed on the contrary, the
Constitution gave Congress explicit power
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts"
Why can the PBS claim Darwin is "right"?
Because science says so. And science is not religion.
Just because?
Read the Constitution. Then read the court decision.
but instead you have to say
NOTHING made everything, when NOTHING never said
anything.
No one has ever claimed that anyone had to do such a thing. On matters
of religion, the government must remain strictly neutral.
Then the government can't EVER claim Darwin as "right",
in schools, in public buildings, etc... can't fund
any university grants, etc...
Why not? No religion involved. Government is ONLY restricted from
supporting religion.
A monument
saying "there is no God" would be just as Unconstitutional as the
monument of the Ten Commandments. BTW, said monument is even more
blatantly Unconstitutional for promoting not just Judeo-Christianity,
but specifically, Protestant Christianity, as it is the Protestant
version that is enshrined, rather than the Roman Catholic or Jewish
version.
The government can't say anything about it, period.
Allowing it in a government building IS saying something about it.
If the people say "God is right", they have the right to say that,
Yes.
even in their own paid for public buildings
No.
or TV shows, etc... The goverment can't claim they're right or wrong about it.
Public buildings are government buildings, so you just contradicted
yourself.
Except that he can't, because that annoying Constitution prohibits it
as an unlawful establishment of religion.
They can't say right or wrong about God,
But they can say "allowed" or "disallowed" about the actions of a
government official acting in his official capacity. Moore did
something "disallowed".
They told Moore, he was wrong about the monument,
The judge told Moore that he was wrong about the Constitution and what
it permits and requires. Moore is perfectly entitled to make statues
of books as a private citizen, but he does not necessarily have the
power to put them in public buildings. Just as you have no right to
put a statue of Thomas Jefferson in the courthouse. You are a private
citizen, and private citizens do not get to decide what goes into
courthouses. Our elected representatives decide, and their decisions
are constrained not only by majority whim, but on the constitutional
protections "we the people" set down long ago to protect the minority.
They should be voted out
You have this paranoid thing about "they". "They" are "we the
people", and you cannot vote us out, nor can you vote out the
Constitution. Nor can you secede from the Union if you don't like the
Constitution, except by up and leaving the country.
One might start out by reminding Him that Paul insisted that it was
the duty for Christians to submit to lawful authority, which, for all
his godly intentions, puts Judge Moore in rebellion against God for
defying the same.
The laws side with Moore,
False. The laws are what the judges adjudicate them to mean. QED
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the EstablishmentClause |
29 Aug 2003 07:59:30 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, John P. Boatwright wrote:
The PBS had a documentary about Darwin, paid for by...
And of course, that's OK, right?
We can pay to claim God is a liar, but we can't pay
to say God is right.
Why???
The documentary did not claim God is a liar. The documentary,
entitled "Evolution," included information about Darwin but
was not about Darwin. Evolution is a provable fact. And
evolution does not in and of itself exclude a God. Indeed,
many religious folks believe God and evolution can both be
truths.
Last I checked, that was done by an artist, not a judge.
It's the same thing, they're looking to erase/degrade/destroy
what God said.
and then tell you, you can't say God
made his creation...
Yes, you can. You just can't have the government promoting such a
statement.
Then why can they proclaim Darwin as "right"?
Why can the PBS claim Darwin is "right"?
Why?
Because for the most part he was right. Yawn.
Then the government can't EVER claim Darwin as "right",
in schools, in public buildings, etc... can't fund
any university grants, etc...
Darwin is science, not religion. And while you and other US fundies have
been hiding your heads under rocks, the rest of the world's educated
population has moved on. They understand that science does not deny God's
role.
Ya, 'cuz I know 100% that God exists and he's the creator.
Evolution does not speak to creation. So your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
29 Aug 2003 08:18:14 AM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308290546470.8393-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, John P. Boatwright wrote:
The PBS had a documentary about Darwin, paid for by...
And of course, that's OK, right?
We can pay to claim God is a liar, but we can't pay
to say God is right.
Why???
The documentary did not claim God is a liar. The documentary,
entitled "Evolution," included information about Darwin but
was not about Darwin. Evolution is a provable fact. And
evolution does not in and of itself exclude a God. Indeed,
many religious folks believe God and evolution can both be
truths.
The Pope, for one.
Last I checked, that was done by an artist, not a judge.
It's the same thing, they're looking to erase/degrade/destroy
what God said.
and then tell you, you can't say God
made his creation...
Yes, you can. You just can't have the government promoting such a
statement.
Then why can they proclaim Darwin as "right"?
Why can the PBS claim Darwin is "right"?
Why?
Because for the most part he was right. Yawn.
Then the government can't EVER claim Darwin as "right",
in schools, in public buildings, etc... can't fund
any university grants, etc...
Darwin is science, not religion. And while you and other US fundies have
been hiding your heads under rocks, the rest of the world's educated
population has moved on. They understand that science does not deny God's
role.
Ya, 'cuz I know 100% that God exists and he's the creator.
Evolution does not speak to creation. So your point?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
29 Aug 2003 01:43:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, John P. Boatwright wrote:
The PBS had a documentary about Darwin, paid for by...
And of course, that's OK, right?
Why not?
We can pay to claim God is a liar, but we can't pay
to say God is right.
Many, many religious people and religious organizations support/endorse
the scientific theory of evolution.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/index.html
Why???
Where is the evidence that your deity of choice is "right" about anything?
It's the same thing, they're looking to erase/degrade/destroy
what God said.
Not everyone is in agreement over what your particular deity of choice has
said.
Do you have any evidence to support your agenda?
Then why can they proclaim Darwin as "right"?
Evidence.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/index.html
Why can the PBS claim Darwin is "right"?
Evidence.
Why?
Evidence.
I haven't checked in a while, but last I heard,
the PBS is set up by the government, so why can
they say Darwin is "right", but then Moore can't
say God is right, but instead has his expression
and/or statement of God being right, removed.
Why?
Evidence.
Just because?
Just because of the evidence.
Then the government can't EVER claim Darwin as "right",
in schools, in public buildings, etc... can't fund
any university grants, etc...
Sez you.
The government can't say anything about it, period.
If the people say "God is right", they have the right
to say that, even in their own paid for public buildings
or TV shows, etc... The goverment can't claim they're
right or wrong about it.
You are certainly entitled to say anything you want. Moore(on) can say
whatever he wants as a citizen. However, he may not endorse his religious
agenda in his official capacity. Why is that so hard to understand?
Ya, 'cuz I know 100% that God exists and he's the creator.
You are entitled to hold whatever religious ideas you choose to hold.
That is guaranteed on the same basis as is my right to choose none of the
above.
Except that he can't, because that annoying Constitution prohibits it
as an unlawful establishment of religion.
They can't say right or wrong about God, it's like
saying "air is right... oh wait, air is wrong"... they
can't say one way or the other... they can't tell you
that you're right or wrong about "air", or about God.
They told Moore, he was wrong about the monument, they
can't say that, only the people can... the ones that
voted him in... that's what they wanted, that's what
they got... until the government said they couldn't
have what they voted for... couldn't say God is right.
They should be voted out for failing to do what they
should have done... nothing.
Moore took an oath to uphold the Constitution of AL and the Constitution
of the USA. He has violated that oath.
The laws side with Moore, the other judges were wrong
and they should be removed.
Evidence for your claim and for your credentials to overrule the circuit
court?
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)
Mirror site at: http://For-God.net
Your zealous devotion to creationism is noted.
Please keep it out of the public education system.
Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/voices/legal/bkgrd.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wright" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 11:52:37 AM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference
shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomina-
tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law
to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or
other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for
maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test
shall be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 01:59:56 PM |
|
|
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference
shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomina-
tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law
to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or
other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for
maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test
shall be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
All Sec. 3 does is forbid the existance of laws pertaining to a certain
issue - religion - similarly like the 1st Amendment does. This means
that Judge Moore can say that there is no federal or state law that says
that he cannot display his 10C.
Jefferson's writings show that the federal courts violated amendments 1
and 10 of the Constitution, in fact, by interfering with the 10C display
in a state building. The courts are overstepping their constitutional
powers by "writing" laws when it's their job only to interpret the laws.
The bottom line is that Jefferson indicated that the Constitution has
given the states the power to address religious issues. In this case
it's up to the people of the State of Alabama, definitely not the
federal courts, to decide whether Judge Moore is able to display his 10C
or not.
Again, we've been wrongly taught Jefferson's incomplete perspective of
church/state separation for so long that it has actually illegally
replaced what the 1st Amendment clearly says.
M. Clark
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smitty Jagermanjenson" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 08:22:14 PM |
|
|
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0i7zj.10x2u7f4dicg6N%idontreply@toemail.com...
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no
preference
shall be given by law to any religious sect, society,
denomina-
tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by
law
to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes,
or
other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or
for
maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious
test
shall be required as a qualification to any office or
public
trust under this state; and that the civil rights,
privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner
affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
Maybe you can understand this. It is the statute that says who ca put a
monument on display in the courthouse. Judge Moore is even in violation of
the laws he says he is trying to uphold:
Section 41-9-141
Powers and duties generally; appointment, etc., of officers, employees
and agents; adoption of rules, regulations and plans; approval and
allocation of funds; notice of meetings required.
(a) The commission shall have full power and authority for, and on
behalf of, the State of Alabama to do any or all of the following:
(1) To acquire lands by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise.
(2) To plan buildings and designate the location thereof.
(3) To plan and provide for the improvement of all property now owned
or hereafter acquired by the state or any institution or agency
thereof.
(4) To construct, repair, equip, remodel, enlarge, renovate, furnish,
refurnish, improve, and locate buildings, structures, and facilities
for the use of the State of Alabama or any of its institutions or
agencies as in its judgment shall be necessary for state,
institutional, or agency purposes.....
The above is taken from the Alabama Code -- the compiled state
statutes. It seems to be correct in its wording -- I haven't found
any amendments to it recently that would change it -- though one would
have to keep that as a distant possibility.
So -- this is all just a Tempest in a Teapot, and why it was allowed
to become a Religious Issue at all is a Deep Mystery. Just a matter
of asking the Wrong Question, I suppose, and the Courts get snookered
into the discussion.
HizzonerDaJudge has No Authority to emplace a monument to Anything
"sua sponte" in the AL SC building. No more than any other AL-an,
which is to say None At All.
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:15:50 AM |
|
|
[snipped for bandwidth]
trust under this state; and that the civil rights,
privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner
affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
Maybe you can understand this. It is the statute that says who ca put a
monument on display in the courthouse. Judge Moore is even in violation of
the laws he says he is trying to uphold:
Section 41-9-141
Powers and duties generally; appointment, etc., of officers, employees
and agents; adoption of rules, regulations and plans; approval and
allocation of funds; notice of meetings required.
(a) The commission shall have full power and authority for, and on
behalf of, the State of Alabama to do any or all of the following:
(1) To acquire lands by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise.
(2) To plan buildings and designate the location thereof.
(3) To plan and provide for the improvement of all property now owned
or hereafter acquired by the state or any institution or agency
thereof.
(4) To construct, repair, equip, remodel, enlarge, renovate, furnish,
refurnish, improve, and locate buildings, structures, and facilities
for the use of the State of Alabama or any of its institutions or
agencies as in its judgment shall be necessary for state,
institutional, or agency purposes.....
The above is taken from the Alabama Code -- the compiled state
statutes. It seems to be correct in its wording -- I haven't found
any amendments to it recently that would change it -- though one would
have to keep that as a distant possibility.
The wording of the above Section is so vague in certain places that it
really doesn't tell me anything.
M. Clark
So -- this is all just a Tempest in a Teapot, and why it was allowed
to become a Religious Issue at all is a Deep Mystery. Just a matter
of asking the Wrong Question, I suppose, and the Courts get snookered
into the discussion.
HizzonerDaJudge has No Authority to emplace a monument to Anything
"sua sponte" in the AL SC building. No more than any other AL-an,
which is to say None At All.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 08:51:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:15:50 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
The wording of the above Section is so vague in certain places that it
really doesn't tell me anything.
Yeah, it's got words and stuff in it...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 02:44:46 PM |
|
|
(M. Clark) writes:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference
shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomina-
tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law
to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or
other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for
maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test
shall be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
All Sec. 3 does is forbid the existance of laws pertaining to a certain
issue - religion - similarly like the 1st Amendment does. This means
that Judge Moore can say that there is no federal or state law that says
that he cannot display his 10C.
True; Moore has every right to put his commmandments display
on his own property.
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
Jefferson's writings show that the federal courts violated amendments 1
and 10 of the Constitution, in fact, by interfering with the 10C display
in a state building. The courts are overstepping their constitutional
powers by "writing" laws when it's their job only to interpret the laws.
The bottom line is that Jefferson indicated that the Constitution has
given the states the power to address religious issues.
The later bottom line is the 14th amendment applies the 1st
amendment to the states, something that didn't exist during
Jefferson's lifetime, so depending solely on what he writes
means you're ignoring the constitution.
In this case
it's up to the people of the State of Alabama, definitely not the
federal courts, to decide whether Judge Moore is able to display his 10C
or not.
Nope; but you can't seem to understand that the constitution
has changed since Jefferson's time.
Again, we've been wrongly taught Jefferson's incomplete perspective of
church/state separation for so long that it has actually illegally
replaced what the 1st Amendment clearly says.
A government official erecting a religious monument in a
government building is an establishment of religion, which
is prohibited.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 04:54:13 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
idontreply@toemail.com (M. Clark) writes:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference
shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomina-
tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law
to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or
other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for
maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test
shall be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
All Sec. 3 does is forbid the existance of laws pertaining to a certain
issue - religion - similarly like the 1st Amendment does. This means
that Judge Moore can say that there is no federal or state law that says
that he cannot display his 10C.
True; Moore has every right to put his commmandments display
on his own property.
You're twisting words here. No laws pertaining to religion means just
that, no laws pertaining to religion.
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority by
implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
Jefferson's writings show that the federal courts violated amendments 1
and 10 of the Constitution, in fact, by interfering with the 10C display
in a state building. The courts are overstepping their constitutional
powers by "writing" laws when it's their job only to interpret the laws.
The bottom line is that Jefferson indicated that the Constitution has
given the states the power to address religious issues.
The later bottom line is the 14th amendment applies the 1st
amendment to the states, something that didn't exist during
Jefferson's lifetime, so depending solely on what he writes
means you're ignoring the constitution.
You are reading things into the 14th amendment as much as people are
wrongly reading "separation of church and state" into the 1st amendment.
In this case
it's up to the people of the State of Alabama, definitely not the
federal courts, to decide whether Judge Moore is able to display his 10C
or not.
Nope; but you can't seem to understand that the constitution
has changed since Jefferson's time.
People have evidently never understood the Constitution in the first
place. Indeed, "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the
Constitution.
Again, we've been wrongly taught Jefferson's incomplete perspective of
church/state separation for so long that it has actually illegally
replaced what the 1st Amendment clearly says.
A government official erecting a religious monument in a
government building is an establishment of religion, which
is prohibited.
Read the 1st amendment! The 1st amendment clearly has ONLY one
restriction that applies ONLY to Congress. US Citizens who are not
Congressmen cannot violate the 1st amendment; this is not to say that
they won't violate other laws if they are careless with what they say or
do.
The only things that embrace the so-called establishment clause is
ignorance and a hatred for religious expression.
M. Clark
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wright" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 05:25:28 PM |
|
|
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority by
implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not
do what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the
logic that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law.
Clearly, erecting religious monuments on public property in the course
of performing their judicial duties is not provided for by law, and
indeed is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do not
need to specifically add a law stating this, as judicial precedent, which
has always served as a substitute for excessively specific legislation,
interprets existing law in this manner.
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 08:00:29 PM |
|
|
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority by
implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not
do what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the
logic that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law.
Clearly, erecting religious monuments on public property in the course
of performing their judicial duties is not provided for by law, and
indeed is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do not
need to specifically add a law stating this, as judicial precedent, which
has always served as a substitute for excessively specific legislation,
interprets existing law in this manner.
The People, you and I included, will learn about Jefferson's more
complete church/state separation perspective and act accordingly.
M. Clark
Alan
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 12:32:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +0000 (UTC),
M. Clark <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority by
implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not
do what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the
logic that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law.
Clearly, erecting religious monuments on public property in the course
of performing their judicial duties is not provided for by law, and
indeed is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do not
need to specifically add a law stating this, as judicial precedent, which
has always served as a substitute for excessively specific legislation,
interprets existing law in this manner.
The People, you and I included, will learn about Jefferson's more
complete church/state separation perspective and act accordingly.
The Civil War decided the issue. Get used to it.
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 10:23:47 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with respect
to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority to put up
religious displays, since that's contrary to the constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority
by implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not do
what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the logic
that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law. Clearly,
erecting religious monuments on public property in the course of
performing their judicial duties is not provided for by law, and indeed
is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do not need to
specifically add a law stating this, as judicial precedent, which has
always served as a substitute for excessively specific legislation,
interprets existing law in this manner.
The People, you and I included, will learn about Jefferson's more complete
church/state separation perspective and act accordingly.
"The People," as you put it, already decided that the states cannot
abridge the rights protected by the federal constitution.
The issue of whether we would continue to be a rather loose federation of
sovereign states as opposed to have a federal government that could limit
state powers in the interest of citizen rights was settled about 140 years
ago.
Your side lost.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:05:55 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with respect
to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority to put up
religious displays, since that's contrary to the constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority
by implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not do
what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the logic
that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law. Clearly,
erecting religious monuments on public property in the course of
performing their judicial duties is not provided for by law, and indeed
is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do not need to
specifically add a law stating this, as judicial precedent, which has
always served as a substitute for excessively specific legislation,
interprets existing law in this manner.
The People, you and I included, will learn about Jefferson's more complete
church/state separation perspective and act accordingly.
"The People," as you put it, already decided that the states cannot
abridge the rights protected by the federal constitution.
The People will want to know that they have evidently made decisions
based on "diluted" information. Garbage in, garbage out.
M. Clark
The issue of whether we would continue to be a rather loose federation of
sovereign states as opposed to have a federal government that could limit
state powers in the interest of citizen rights was settled about 140 years
ago.
Your side lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:56:29 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:05:55 +0000 (UTC),
M. Clark <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with respect
to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority to put up
religious displays, since that's contrary to the constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their authority
by implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not do
what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the logic
that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law. Clearly,
erecting religious monuments on public property in the course of
performing their judicial duties is not provided for by law, and indeed
is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do not need to
specifically add a law stating this, as judicial precedent, which has
always served as a substitute for excessively specific legislation,
interprets existing law in this manner.
The People, you and I included, will learn about Jefferson's more complete
church/state separation perspective and act accordingly.
"The People," as you put it, already decided that the states cannot
abridge the rights protected by the federal constitution.
The People will want to know that they have evidently made decisions
based on "diluted" information. Garbage in, garbage out.
What "People"? Only the few extremist states rights nuts who think Abe
Lincoln was the devil incarnate seem to share an opinion anywhere near
yours. The Civil War decided the issue. Perhaps you heard of it.
--
Aaron Clausen
taocow@alberni.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 02:23:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 18:05:55 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 01:00:29 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"M. Clark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1g0igq2.opfjh21aq28aoN%idontreply@toemail.com...
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court
building. Since state law is what gives him the authority to act
with respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the
authority to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to
the constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from
doing what he is trying to do. The courts have overstepped their
authority by implying laws that don't exist. The courts are
illegally assuming authority that our constitutions give only to
our Congresses.
You seem to be quite adamant that government employees should not do
what the law does not permit them to do. Thus you should grasp the
logic that judges may also not do anything not provided for by law.
Clearly, erecting religious monuments on public property in the
course of performing their judicial duties is not provided for by
law, and indeed is implicitly forbidden to be permitted by law. We do
not need to specifically add a law stating this, as judicial
precedent, which has always served as a substitute for excessively
specific legislation, interprets existing law in this manner.
The People, you and I included, will learn about Jefferson's more
complete church/state separation perspective and act accordingly.
"The People," as you put it, already decided that the states cannot
abridge the rights protected by the federal constitution.
The People will want to know that they have evidently made decisions based
on "diluted" information. Garbage in, garbage out.
They did no such thing. You are a liar.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 05:09:37 PM |
|
|
(M. Clark) writes:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference
shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomina-
tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law
to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or
other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for
maintaining any minister or ministry; that no religious test
shall be required as a qualification to any office or public
trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges,
and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected
by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
All Sec. 3 does is forbid the existance of laws pertaining to a certain
issue - religion - similarly like the 1st Amendment does. This means
that Judge Moore can say that there is no federal or state law that says
that he cannot display his 10C.
True; Moore has every right to put his commmandments display
on his own property.
You're twisting words here.
No, I've stated a fact. Do you think Moore does NOT have the right
to put his display on his own property?
No laws pertaining to religion means just
that, no laws pertaining to religion.
And that means indirectly, too, by not permitting public officials
from exercising their authority (granted to them by the law) to
violate the federal or state constitutions, either.
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do.
The constitution prevents him; any law giving him the authority to
decorate the Talibama supreme court cannot include "decorations"
that establish a religion, so Moore was acting outside his
authority.
The courts have overstepped their authority by
implying laws that don't exist. The courts are illegally assuming
authority that our constitutions give only to our Congresses.
Nope; the courts said Moore can't legally do what he did, since
no law can grant him that authority. You obviously don't understand
the issues involved.
Jefferson's writings show that the federal courts violated amendments 1
and 10 of the Constitution, in fact, by interfering with the 10C display
in a state building. The courts are overstepping their constitutional
powers by "writing" laws when it's their job only to interpret the laws.
The bottom line is that Jefferson indicated that the Constitution has
given the states the power to address religious issues.
The later bottom line is the 14th amendment applies the 1st
amendment to the states, something that didn't exist during
Jefferson's lifetime, so depending solely on what he writes
means you're ignoring the constitution.
You are reading things into the 14th amendment as much as people are
wrongly reading "separation of church and state" into the 1st amendment.
Yeah, me and many current and past members of the supreme court.
Sucks for you, eh?
In this case
it's up to the people of the State of Alabama, definitely not the
federal courts, to decide whether Judge Moore is able to display his 10C
or not.
Nope; but you can't seem to understand that the constitution
has changed since Jefferson's time.
People have evidently never understood the Constitution in the first
place. Indeed, "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the
Constitution.
Duh, like who doesn't know THAT?
Apparently, you've only just discovered that. Some of us
aren't that ignorant.
Again, we've been wrongly taught Jefferson's incomplete perspective of
church/state separation for so long that it has actually illegally
replaced what the 1st Amendment clearly says.
A government official erecting a religious monument in a
government building is an establishment of religion, which
is prohibited.
Read the 1st amendment! The 1st amendment clearly has ONLY one
restriction that applies ONLY to Congress.
Read the 14th; states congresses are similarly restricted now.
US Citizens who are not
Congressmen cannot violate the 1st amendment; this is not to say that
they won't violate other laws if they are careless with what they say or
do.
The only things that embrace the so-called establishment clause is
ignorance and a hatred for religious expression.
You seem to have ignorance covered.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
30 Aug 2003 08:32:55 PM |
|
|
(M. Clark) writes:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes:
Brian Westley <westley@visi.com> wrote:
(M. Clark) writes:
Alan Wright <alanatyahoodotcom@giganews.com> wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f50b6c3$0$166$a1866201@newsreader.visi.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.
Whether or not you are wrong about the federal level, the point
appears to be moot in light of state law.
From the Alabama constitution (hopefully the current one):
Sec. 3 That no religion shall be established by law; that no
preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society,
denomina- tion, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled
by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes,
taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of
worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry; that no
religious test shall be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under this state; and that the civil
rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in
any manner affected by his religious principles.
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying regardless
that your assertion about it indicates that you are presently not
objectively understanding it.
All Sec. 3 does is forbid the existance of laws pertaining to a certain
issue - religion - similarly like the 1st Amendment does. This means
that Judge Moore can say that there is no federal or state law that says
that he cannot display his 10C.
True; Moore has every right to put his commmandments display
on his own property.
You're twisting words here.
No, I've stated a fact. Do you think Moore does NOT have the right
to put his display on his own property?
I meant that according to Jefferson's "forgotten" writings that Moore
has the right to display his 10C on state property if the people of the
State of Alabama decide he can do it.
But the 14th amendment changed the constitution, so this is
no longer true.
The federal courts had no
business sticking their noses into this particular freedom of
speech/religious expression affair.
Not in 1789, no. But ever since 1868, yes.
No laws pertaining to religion means just
that, no laws pertaining to religion.
And that means indirectly, too, by not permitting public officials
from exercising their authority (granted to them by the law) to
violate the federal or state constitutions, either.
I take "no laws" literally and perhaps many others will see the light
and take it literally also.
I am; you are failing to see that all of Moore's authority to
decorate the Talibama supreme court building STEMS FROM LAWS,
and that these laws CANNOT grant him the power to establish
religion as part of his authority.
Indeed, we've been duped for long enough
with Jefferson's incomplete perspective of church/state separation.
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do.
The constitution prevents him; any law giving him the authority to
decorate the Talibama supreme court cannot include "decorations"
that establish a religion, so Moore was acting outside his
authority.
The Constitution doesn't say any such thing. Moore is only violating
what people are wrongly reading into the 1st Amendment out of ignorance.
Me and the supreme court. Sucks for you, eh?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 01:16:03 AM |
|
|
[snipped for bandwidth]
This would appear to clearly prohibit Judge Moores actions.
Surely you are capable of understanding what Sec. 3 is saying
regardless that your assertion about it indicates that you are
presently not objectively understanding it.
All Sec. 3 does is forbid the existance of laws pertaining to a
certain issue - religion - similarly like the 1st Amendment does.
This means that Judge Moore can say that there is no federal or
state law that says that he cannot display his 10C.
True; Moore has every right to put his commmandments display
on his own property.
You're twisting words here.
No, I've stated a fact. Do you think Moore does NOT have the right
to put his display on his own property?
I meant that according to Jefferson's "forgotten" writings that Moore
has the right to display his 10C on state property if the people of the
State of Alabama decide he can do it.
But the 14th amendment changed the constitution, so this is
no longer true.
People are reading things into the 14th amendment as much as people
wrongly read things into the 1st amendment.
The federal courts had no
business sticking their noses into this particular freedom of
speech/religious expression affair.
Not in 1789, no. But ever since 1868, yes.
The People, you and I included, will decide how to address this issue.
No laws pertaining to religion means just
that, no laws pertaining to religion.
And that means indirectly, too, by not permitting public officials
from exercising their authority (granted to them by the law) to
violate the federal or state constitutions, either.
I take "no laws" literally and perhaps many others will see the light
and take it literally also.
I am; you are failing to see that all of Moore's authority to
decorate the Talibama supreme court building STEMS FROM LAWS,
and that these laws CANNOT grant him the power to establish
religion as part of his authority.
Jefferson was known to attend worship services in the chambers of the
Nation's capital building. Indeed, several government buildings were
used for worship services. People know where to draw the line with
respect to the government establishing a religion.
So what are you talking about?
See:
http://www.becketfund.org/other/Breyer-Jefferson.html
Indeed, we've been duped for long enough
with Jefferson's incomplete perspective of church/state separation.
However, he decided to put it in Talibama's supreme court building.
Since state law is what gives him the authority to act with
respect to the court building, it cannot grant him the authority
to put up religious displays, since that's contrary to the
constitution.
There are no federal or state laws that prevent Judge Moore from doing
what he is trying to do.
The constitution prevents him; any law giving him the authority to
decorate the Talibama supreme court cannot include "decorations"
that establish a religion, so Moore was acting outside his
authority.
The Constitution doesn't say any such thing. Moore is only violating
what people are wrongly reading into the 1st Amendment out of ignorance.
Me and the supreme court. Sucks for you, eh?
Thank you for you patience with this discussion.
M. Clark
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: The Alabama federal court is in violation of the Establishment Clause |
31 Aug 2003 08:51:55 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 06:16:03 +0000, M. Clark wrote:
The People, you and I included, will decide how to address this issue.
We did. We even had a war. Your side lost.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
