Bitter Irony
-
Trollslayer wrote: He decided to link the curch and the state And what law is there that says he can't do that?
Ah, the good old "Trample all over other people as long as you can get away with it" The tigress is here :-D
-
I believe John F. Kennedy wrote an excellent book about political courage. This story sounds like JFK gave examples of in his book, Politicians making unpopular decisions, but necessary for checks and balances. I truly believe this is why the framers decided to implement the importance of God in our society. I found this interesting part of that article standing out to support this concept: ""They stole my vote. The judiciary stole my vote. I voted for Roy Moore," he said. Moore said he had no animosity toward the panel. But, he said, unless the states stand up, "public acknowledgment of God will be taken from us. `In God we trust' will be taken from our money and `one nation under God' from our pledge." " I mean, he did actually brought something religious based into a court of law, but he does have a point that "It's about whether or not you can acknowledge God as a source of our law and our liberty." Whether he is right or wrong, his actions are politically courageous. And are important ideas to be debated for this self-government nation, imo. There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Later, JoeSox One thing vampire children have to be taught early on is, don't run with wooden stakes. --Jack Handy Deep Thoughts www.joeswammi.com ↔ www.humanaiproject.org
JoeSox wrote: politically courageous Hmm... then why not debate it first ? And who paid for it ? JoeSox wrote: There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people. Justice should be objective. Now if he had similar quote from the talmud, koran etc... but it was for his group of people. The tigress is here :-D
-
I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: I see from the article that that stone was placed at night with noone around - if he was so right then why go behind peoples backs like this ? Is it so unusual to perform labor that would interfere with the workings of a government building after hours? Trollslayer wrote: Now if he had a monument which represented a range of beliefs rather then just his and was open about it in the first place it might have been different, but he was trying to impose is own views in what is supposed to be a place of objective justice. Since when was our government founded under a "range of beliefs"? Granted, the people of this nation have the right to a range of beliefs, but that doesn't change the fact that the Ten Commandments are a historical foundation of the modern justice system.
-
JoeSox wrote: politically courageous Hmm... then why not debate it first ? And who paid for it ? JoeSox wrote: There are religious people in the USA, and they need to be represented in the Federal Judiciary Branch also. Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people. Justice should be objective. Now if he had similar quote from the talmud, koran etc... but it was for his group of people. The tigress is here :-D
Trollslayer wrote: Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people How so? And if this statement is true, how on earth would the removal of a block of granite inscribed with the 10 commandments change in any way his viewpoints that shape his decisions as a judge? In order to remove 'undue judeo-christian influence' from the court systems, wouldn't you have to remove those judges that believed in judeo-christian ideals because they are Jewish/Christian? My biggest problem with the whole mess - asside from the fact that this guy is a total shoe-in for Alabama governor now - is that once again a symbol was attacked in an ineffective attempt to undermine what the symbol stood for. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
Eco Jones wrote: It's a tablet with some words on it. Who cares? A tablet with "Fuck you. my wife didn't let me last night" right at the judges desk would likely make an impression... Point being the "It's just words who cares?" is very MTV Generation (if a bit long for their attention span), but utterly inappropriate.
"Vierteile den, der sie Hure schimpft mit einem türkischen Säbel."
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Ah, the good old "Trample all over other people as long as you can get away with it" The tigress is here :-D
People get trampled in the name of political correctness every day. It's the standard operating procedure the left uses to destroy the lives of people that say things they don't like...for excercising free speech, for beaking no law. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Stan Shannon wrote: The actual law of this country, clearly stated in the federal constituion, says that the legislative branch of the federal government, the Congress, shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religoin or the free excercise thereof. By definition there is no law giving the federal government the power to tell the state of Alabama whether or not it can but the 10 commandments anywhere it damned well pleases. Thanks for the explanation. I, too, was a bit puzzled as to what you were unhappy about. I suspect that a lot of non-Americans, including myself, are a bit perplexed by the huge separation of state and federal government although I understand a bit of the historical reasons for it. Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. Would the federal government be able to do anything about it?
"Sucks less" isn't progress - Kent Beck [^] Awasu 1.1.3 [^]: A free RSS reader with support for Code Project.
Taka Muraoka wrote: Let's say the state of Utah decides that is going to be a religious state and government shall be done according to Mormon principles. A state may not exceed what the constitution allows the US congress rights to be limited at. So this would be making a law with regard to an establishment of religion and not be legal. How ever if you wording was modified to just be principles it would not. Many of the colonies were Royal Colonies and did have a required religion. The founding fathers definitely did not want a repeat of that environment. My personal opinion here is you can not "Not have a religion". Denial of religion is equal to atheism so the recent interpretation of Separation of Church and state to be a denial of religion is also making a law of religion that is not constitutionally valid. Prior to the 60's separation meant that a persons religions expression could not be impeded by the government or laws. I.E. Religious expression was open rather than forbidden. "For as long as I can remember, I have had memories. Colin Mochrie."
-
But he wasn't acting in the role of an individual. No-one told him he couldn't put his sculpture on his front yard; while acting in his official role, he attempted to place it on public property, in as visible and controversial a location as possible. That sort of behavior has been repeatedly found to be unconstitutional. This isn't a product of recent xenophobia - this debate has been going on for decades. And Alabama is one of the most thoroughly conservative Christian states in the country. In local terms, it was the majority position that he represented.
LunaticFringe wrote: he attempted to place it on public property, in as visible and controversial a location as possible. Not only that, but in the dead of night. This suggests to me that Moore knew his actions were not acceptable, nor legal. A judge who does not follow the laws he's sworn to protect should rightfully be tossed out. 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
It seems to me that this current government wants a smorgasborg-style approach to States' rights. It a good thing when Alabama wants to be a religious state, but it's a bad thing when California wants clean air[^] [edit] oops; you people can't get that article without a login, so here's part of it: By Elizabeth Shogren and Gary Polakovic Times Staff Writers November 13, 2003 WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a measure Wednesday that would block efforts by California and other states to reduce the pollution spewed by small gasoline engines in machines such as lawn mowers, tractors, forklifts and chain saws. The amendment, approved on a voice vote, represents a major setback for the state's strategy for fighting the smog that continues to plague Southern California despite half a century of pollution-control efforts, state officials say. It would mark only the second congressional decision since 1974 to preempt California's special authority under the Clean Air Act to set tougher pollution regulations than federal standards. [/edit] 'til next we type... HAVE FUN!! -- Jesse
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
-
Trollslayer wrote: Except he seems to plan on turning it into a system biased towards one group of religous people How so? And if this statement is true, how on earth would the removal of a block of granite inscribed with the 10 commandments change in any way his viewpoints that shape his decisions as a judge? In order to remove 'undue judeo-christian influence' from the court systems, wouldn't you have to remove those judges that believed in judeo-christian ideals because they are Jewish/Christian? My biggest problem with the whole mess - asside from the fact that this guy is a total shoe-in for Alabama governor now - is that once again a symbol was attacked in an ineffective attempt to undermine what the symbol stood for. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
Russell Morris wrote: How so? And if this statement is true, how on earth would the removal of a block of granite inscribed with the 10 commandments change in any way his viewpoints that shape his decisions as a judge? In order to remove 'undue judeo-christian influence' from the court systems, wouldn't you have to remove those judges that believed in judeo-christian ideals because they are Jewish/Christian? All judges come with their own particular set of beliefs. But we expect them to struggle mightily to act impartially toward those who come before them. At a minimum, this means avoiding any outward signs of bias. When judges go out of their way to promote the religious beliefs of one section of the community (albeit the majority), then people without those religious beliefs may reasonably apprehend that the court is biased against them. This is exactly the opposite of the way courts should behave. In the US it may be different, but in Britain and Australia it would be considered highly improper for a judge to endorse a political party since it would give supporters of opposing parties grounds for believing that the court would be biased against them. But nobody imagines that judges don't support one party or another. It is a question of whether a judge is going to be actively and overtly partisan or is going to display a willingness to act in a non-partisan way. John Carson
-
Bitter Irony?? How about a Judge who disobeys a court order? If they don't have to obey them when they disagree with them why should anyone else? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: How about a Judge who disobeys a court order? If they don't have to obey them when they disagree with them why should anyone else? Good question. Why should we? Maybe if, as a people, we followed Moore's lead, the court could be forced back into its proper constitutional role.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031113/ap_on_re_us/ten_commandments_25&cid=519[^] Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges who have placed them selves above the law. He was thrown off the court for having the audacity to stand up to a legal system which no longer recognizes any legal or constitutional restraint of any kind. It now has the power to do what ever it please and has perverted this nation into the very thing its founders were most fearful it would become. And there are those who a fearful of Bush and Ashcroft! God bless Judge Moore, I wish him the best. I also hope Ashcroft has his way with this nation - it deserves him.
Stan Shannon wrote: Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges Doesn't deliberately disobeying a federal judiciary ruling sort of count as placing yourself above the law?!?!?!?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Moore is thrown off the court for placing himself above the law? No, Moore took a stand against judges Doesn't deliberately disobeying a federal judiciary ruling sort of count as placing yourself above the law?!?!?!?
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Doesn't deliberately disobeying a federal judiciary ruling sort of count as placing yourself above the law?!?!?!? Above what law? Please cite any law enacted by the legislative branch of our government that Moore was placeing himself above.
-
Ah, the good old "Trample all over other people as long as you can get away with it" The tigress is here :-D
And it was up to those people being trampled, not some federal judge, to deal with Moore in the state of Alabama. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the throughly un-American notion that people are helpless children who are to be protected at all costs by big daddy government.